"I thought Paul was speaking primarily to the Gentiles (specifically a Gentile church) about hair length and head coverings for women during worship."
Paul's subject was hair length according to the greek useage. Paul spoke to a Corinthian audience that was mixed with Jew and gentile. Paul says the edict concerning short hair was an edict throughout all the churches of God, not just to this particular church. Finally, Old Testament history and archeological data prove people of Israel and Judah had short hair. I think the subject seems fairly clear.
All of this "controversy" over the Passion of the Christ is really a storm in a fishbowl. I find that the majority of folks who are raising a fuss over it are ignoring the most important, and the most critical, facts of the entire matter:
1. Mel Gibson is making this movie with his own money. That pretty much removes anyone else's standing to complain about what he makes. Repeat: it's
his money and he can make a movie about Jesus and Mohammed getting married in San Francisco if he wants.
2. It's clear that Mel Gibson is a superb director with a sensitivity and vision that is hard to equal. "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" instill in me a trust in his ability to handle a powerfully emotional topic with grace, clarity and moving passion. In other words: he's good at what he does, and he won't make a bad film.
3. There are lots of folks who make enormous amounts of money by institutionally spreading paranoia. Abe Foxman is one of them. That he is using Mel Gibson's movie as a vehicle for this shouldn't surprise anyone. When a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, he's not committing vandalism. He's just being a dog.
4. The "controversy" over the film has guaranteed a huge audience for it, which in the end rather makes the whole issue moot....
Personally speaking, I have little patience for the ADL ot their type of manipulator. They wrap guilt, fear, paranoia and wild accusations of bigotry in a practiced package with money as their first objective.
Where the defense of their lives and loved ones from pogrom or persecution is concerned, I would far more trust a Jew with a loaded rifle in his hand. The best example, I find, is
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
As some have noted it's a common defamation used by many: accuse someone of being remotely connected, in some way, to something that can be used as "evidence" of "suspected" anti-Semitism. And that serves, therefore, as unalterable "proof" that the accused secretly hangs Fuehrer pictures in his basement and lusts after human soap.
It's a pathetic approach to social discourse.
As for supporting Israel... personally, I'd like to see a bilateral nuclear defense treaty between the United States and Israel. Attack one nation with WMD, and the other will incinerate your land. Perhaps that would put a brake on some of the proliferation in the region.
Ultimately the only way of "proving" your friendship and faith with another people, is over time and with actions, not words. If the majority of Jews in America really think that Mel Gibson's movie will incite anti-Semitism, all I can do is shrug and disagree. I don't think your average American Christian secretly nurtures the desire to engage in pogromic bloodbaths.
Personally, if I ever witness someone cutting the beard off an elderly Hasidim, or spraying a swastika on a synagogue, or beating a Jew in the street - I'm going to be extremely decisive, and promptly immediate, in my response. That's about all I can offer anyone. I'd do the same for a black woman, or a gay teenager.
It's called standing up for the rights of your fellow citizens. Ain't that what this country's all about in the first place?