It also may go some way towards explaining Mr Donohue’s anger and hostility at what he perceives are Jewish lapses, that they did not support his protests of assaults on Catholic/Christian beliefs and symbols. The problem, which the Lapin article demonstrates (and which I believe was in part Boteach’s point) is that the “Jews” are not monolithic nor is Hollywood.
Further one problem with Lapin’s point about Jewish artists and lack of Jewish protest of anti-Christian acts is that he identifies individuals not organizations representing an official or systemic approach. Or in the case of an organization like the ACLU it is not a Jewish organization representing any Jewish point of view though some of its members are Jewish. The ACLU point is similar to Donohue calling Hollywood Jewish. A fairer question would be - did the Jewish Anti Defamation League, a specifically Jewish organization, protest?
Rabbi Lapin points out:
Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness? Only a small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity with elephant feces.
This supports my sense that the religious are connected. The Orthodox Jews, which are the most religiously observant segment of the Jewish population, did protest in solidarity. And the reverse is true as well. The irreligious are often connected by their hostility to religion. Thus, I suspect that secular Jews hostile to religion would have no problem with defaming Moses contrary to Rabbi Lapin’s prediction. Leftist Jews have no problem attacking the State of Israel either, supporting Palestinian rights, supporting Kerry, and many other acts that undermine what one might suppose is against their interest as Jews. In their choice of causes they act just like Christian Leftists.
Rabbi Lapin has a very good chapter in his book "America's Real War" devoted to dissecting how secular/liberal Jews play the "heads I win, tails you lose" game with the charge of anti-semitism.
This point speaks to what is wrong with the morality bereft Left in general. They have adopted an ends justify the means approach. The lack of protest Rabbi Lapin laments exemplifies the perversion of the so-called liberals, in general, Jew and Christian. They are prepared to put up the banner of tolerance, multiculturalism, and the need to respect diverse values if the cause is the correct one, the one they are championing. If they like the religion or personage, they will howl bloody murder if anyone offends. Islam has been granted such status and its own new word Islamophobia. (note Lapin’s point about the Alladin film)
Take free speech for instance, liberals have no trouble supporting “hate speech” laws or rules on campuses despite claiming to support multiculturalism and to respect diverse values. Wouldn’t those art exhibits be called hate speech? They are the arbiters of which cultures and values deserve that protection and which freedoms are okay to infringe. If it is the correct one they have no problem restricting the freedom of the wrong one to “protect” the correct one. Last I looked Freedom of Speech was more a requirement of the First Amendment than absence of any hint of religion in government which at best is derivative.
Rabbi Lapin does make the point that --
Now I do have one possible explanation for why one might consider it more important to protest Passion. It is this: In Europe, anti-Semitic slander frequently resulted in Catholic mobs killing Jews. Our hypersensitivity has a long and painful background of real tragedy.
Which is a point I made earlier.
In terms of Lapin’s points about the effect of the Passion on US viewers I agree with him. Jewish organizations blew that ridiculously out of proportion. Pogroms were not unleashed. In general his points in favor of the film are fair. But there is one other point to consider, the film was also shown worldwide in Muslim countries and in Europe where anti-Semitism has had a marked increase. Which brings me to one of my objections to the focus of Jewish organizations on a mere movie -- Don’t they have better things to do? Where are these organizations when actual anti-Semitic events in Europe are happening? Where are they on the virulent Arab media? And here I am talking about mainstream organizations not the Hollywood nut fringe.
Finally, Rabbi Boteach’s reaction may have been caused by sites and opinions like this: ugh!
As to your comment:
“Judging Boteach is implicit in evaluating his comments.”
If you mean by this that in order to evaluate Boteach’s comments you need to know his background, I disagree. I suspect you do too or you would not be conversing here with a bunch of anonymous folks like me.
(sorry for the length)
While that may well be the intended point, I tend to subscribe to the dictum "Adversus solem ne loquitor" [lit. Don't speak against the sun (don't waste your time arguing the obvious)], so I tend not to assume that's what others are doing.
In the present case, I think my assumptions are justified, because in my mind, to dismiss Donohue's emphasis on secular Jews as opposed to Jews in general is to utterly miss his point. The assault against "Passion" is advanced under the rubric of Jewish fear, but its motivation is strictly secularist.
A useful analogy would be that of abortion advocacy as it relates to adoption. While the two subjects are only tangentialy related, abortion advocates have a distinct tendency to favour policies that make adoption more difficult. "I couldn't give my baby away to somebody else" wraps the advocate in the cloak of motherhood, but the prime motivation is to justify the avoidance of motherhood.
... Or in the case of an organization like the ACLU it is not a Jewish organization representing any Jewish point of view though some of its members are Jewish...
It's not alluded to in the linked essay, but in "America's Real War" Lapin outlines the particulars on how a hellish intimidation campaign was raised against one Father Marks, a pro-life advocate, when he criticized the ACLU for their involvement in reproductive issues.
It was not Father Marks, but a reviewer in a prominent journal (forgive me for fuzzy details. they are presented in the book) that raised the charge of anti-semitism, predicated on the ACLU's Jewish leadership. The next thing Fr. Marks knew, his parrish was being picketed.
But there is one other point to consider, the film was also shown worldwide in Muslim countries and in Europe where anti-Semitism has had a marked increase.
True enough, but our interest in this discussion is strictly American ramifications. Be that as it may, the Rabbi notes "Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today's American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn't it okay to blame today's Jews for things that our ancestors may have done?" And I see no reason not to extend the Rabbi's presumed goodwill for American Christians to the modern European variety. European islam is the problem, and they don't need anything Christian to help them hate.
If you mean by this that in order to evaluate Boteach’s comments you need to know his background...
I do not. Boteach told me all I needed to know about his value as a commentator by the direction he took the discussion.