[Tempest]

1.) There's a HUGE differance between violence and gratuitous violence. If the author doesn't understnad that he's lost.

2.) If Mel Gibson is persecuted for his faith and convictions than I'm sure God has already set a place for him in his kingdom.

3.) Jewish conservatives or jewish people in general should not be put out by this film. It is a testament to the sacrafice of Jesus that a condemnation of Jews.

It's sad the author seems so misguided.

[LouD]

The thing that nobody gets about this whole issue is that WE, contemporary Christians, ARE the Jews. How can we hold them responsible, since we are equally culpable.

Not everyone gets to be a disciple. It's easy to sit here 2000 years after the fact with perfect knowledge, and claim you would have been by Christ's side - But the fact is that most, if not all of us, would have stood among the Jews. What incredible hubris to think otherwise; Even Peter denied Jesus at the end. Why should we think we would have done any better.

[Restorer]

But I predict that Hollywood directors famous for gratuitous violence, such as Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone, will now find convincing arguments that violence in their films also serves an important social purpose.

That would make for a very interesting discussion. Seems to me that much movie violence in recent years has had a pornographic tendency to invite viewers to identify with the perpetrators and share their delight in treating other humans as objects to be tormented for personal pleasure.

I'd like to see someone justify this.

Haven't seem Mel's movie yet, but I understand this is absolutely not the way the violence in it is handled.

[Feiny]

Has there been even one attack on a jewish person by someone seeing this movie? This author also seems to dispute that the jews did kill Jesus....as did the romans....as did all of us.

Jesus was a jew & he is worshipped by these same jew hating christians???? Doesn't make sense to me. How about some jew loving credit???

[RaceBannon]

Is that really Christianity's central message - not that Jesus lived an inspirational life by which the faithful should be roused but that he died a horrible death for which the sinners should feel responsible?

Yes, entirely!!

[nutmeg]

read later

[Jorge]

I disagree with every single point SHMULEY BOTEACH makes.
They sound contrived and manufactured, and betray his resentment of the enormous success of the Passion and Mel Gibson.

[HighWheeler]

"Christian conservatives whose ability to protest violence in Hollywood films has now been severely compromised."

This guy is a "writer" of 14 books, but he doesn't understand the meaning of words.

Conservatives "ability to protest" has not been compromised at all, especially severely. The point he may be trying to make, wrong as it is, is that their credibility to protest that has been compromised.

Schumley's writing skills have been severely compromised.

[SpookBrat]

Mark for later read

[Map Kernow]

Boteach forgot to include the biggest loser: people like himself. He, Foxman, Rich were hungering desperately for some kind of outbreak of anti-Semitism, especially anti-Semitic violence, following release of "The Passion."

Nothing bad has happened, despite the hysterically hyperbolic predictions of Foxman and crew. Nothing bad will happen, notwithstanding hypocritically pious sanctimony like Boteach's. Nobody's going to pay any more attention to any of these bunch of losers.

[Miss Marple]

It is time for all of us, both Christian and Jew, to confront our differences in an honest and responsible way.

Jews, who do not subscribe to the divinity of Christ, and who have a long history of being the victims of pogroms and persecutions, view this movie differently from those of us who understand Jesus as a blood scarifice for all mankind. It is not out of malice, but simply from their different view of history.

Christians viewing this movie cannot understand why Jews don't understand that we view the people in Jerusalem as an emblem for all mankind, and that Christ took our place in order to save us from our sins.

Both sides need to make an honest attempt to understand the other side. When Mona Charen and Charles Krauthammer, who have been loyal allies in the cultural and political wars, are trashed because of their opinions on this movie, those of us who are Christians need to stop and ask WHY they have that opinion.

And people like Charen and Krauthammer need to ask themselves why many of their loyal readers love this movie.

It is obvious to me that the Jewish community carries fears handed down from generations of persecution. It is also obvious that those of us in the Christian community don't understand Jewish thinking on this.

Rather than getting into a full-blown war with our friends, I think we should each make an effort to explain our differences and our similarities, and also attempt to maintain respect and civility. Calm discussion will do more to assuage fears of the Jewish community than attacks. And calm discussion from the Jewish community will do more to make friendship with Christians than attacks on the movie.

[McGavin999]

Has it opened yet in Israel? I hope it does soon so they can see for themselves just how destructive this liberal pap is. I'm sure that's exactly why they are doing it. They are hoping to put a wedge between the Christian community and the Jewish community. Can't lose those sure fire democrat votes, so what if they endanger Israel.

[William McKinley]

What a pantload. Let me take a stab at each, and then offer my own list of losers.

1. Christian conservatives whose ability to protest violence in Hollywood films has now been severely compromised.

No, for any number of reasons. I will give one practical (and not particularly worthy), and one logical.

On the practical level, if Christian conservatives do protest violence in Hollywood films in the future, they (we) will be accused of hypocrisy.

So what else is new? That is always what we are accused of. Dog bites man, film at 11.

And the logical reason- Christian conservatives have always spoken out about gratuitous violence. Violence depicted as cool, or fun. The glorification of abhorrent behavior. The Passion does not depict violence as cool. Or fun. Or admirable. It depicts it as man's fall.

2. Mel Gibson, who emerges as a talented fanatic at best and a full-blown loon at worst.

And the millions who have gone to see his work are fanatics and full blown loons? While part of me wants to say there is no way that so large a proportion of America are nuts, part of me remembers that a large proportion of America thinks Al Gore would have made a fine President.

3. Jewish conservatives, many of whom now feel alienated from their Christian colleagues and are wondering who are their authentic allies.

I'll admit, having read Krauthammer, Masons, Charen, Frum and a few others, that they probably do think this way. The question is, should they? They warned about the antisemitism and where it would lead. Where is the evidence? Where is the vandalism, the violence against Jews, anything? If there has been any, it hasn't been above what there normally (and tragically) is.

Jewish conservatives feared the worst of their Christian allies. They should be realizing that they underestimated us.

4. Jews for Jesus.

There was no coherent argument made for this one, and as such I can provide no defense.

5. The Christian faith. The biggest loser of all, tragically, is the Christian religion, which is now portrayed as a religion of blood, gore, and death rather than of blessing, love, and life.

I wish the writer would make up his mind. I thought the film was antisemitic because it portrayed Jews as bloodthirsty. In reality it shows the Christian religion to be bloodthirsty? Who knew?

OK, here's my list of losers.

1. Anti-Christian bigots.

End of list.

[Bommer]

Where is Christian sensitivity to an allegation that has led to the death of millions of Jews throughout the ages?

By the mear fact that a Holocost museum exists in a country where no Jewish Holocost occured and the taxes I'm bled to support Israel is all the proof of sensitivity thats needed. Without the U.S. and its overwealming Christian population, Israel would be nothing but a smudge! And yet I've heard more hatred towards Gibson and Christianity from Jews then I've heard from Christians hatred towards the Jews after they've seen the movie! Wheres the rampid Anti-Semitism this movie was to spark?

[Snuffington]

Hard to know how to reply to this. It's been done so many times. I've given up on being outraged at Jews lecturing Christians about what our faith really means. But it still bears a response in case any similar minded folks still have their brains turned on.

In this case we get: "Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily." Um.. yeah. Because the latter brought us salvation, while the former gave us our example of Christian virtue. Nothing wrong with examples of Christian virtue, but salvation ranks higher on the list of import for Christians.

This would be obvious to any self-described "PASSIONATE ADMIRER of the Christian community" who was passionate enough to educate himself about why Christians have placed such central importance on the passion of Christ for the past two millenea. In artwork, prayer, and theology there can be no denying that Christ's "bloody death" has a pretty darn important role on by itself in the Christian faith. It doesn't take personal belief in that to show a basic understanding of it, and tolerance for it among a group you claim to admire.

It takes a staggering amount of ego-centrism to ignore Christian understanding of the Christian faith, and focus solely on what it means to Jews. News-flash: American Christians don't have pogroms against the Jews. The suggestion that viewing this movie is going to lead them to it is simultaneously a stupid reading of history, and a thumb in the eye of modern Christians.

It's very insightful to see people like Mr. Boteach equating American Christians with proto-Nazis, which is essentially what this critique amounts to. In his eyes, we're a couple of propagandistic movies away from lighting the ovens of our own Auschwitz. Nice to know what your "passionate admirers" truly think about you.

[Blue Scourge]

....anyone else notice that all of the loud mouthed critics before the movie came out have suddenly vanished from sight.

Or that the huge wave of anti-semitism boiled down to one church putting up a sign that said "Jews killed Christ"...that was taken down about 2-3 hours later.

[cyncooper]

But Mel Gibson, in his wearisome, monotonous, and numbing depiction of endless blood and gore, utterly ignores things like Jesus's beautiful ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, focusing entirely on the horrors of the crucifixion.

This is flat out false. There are many flashbacks, including *the Sermon on the Mount*.

[N3WBI3]

Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily. Mel Gibson - who told interviewers that he contemplated suicide before making this film - is clearly obsessed with violence and death.

Sigh way to miss the point of the movie, the death of Jesus only means something because he did it for us. Every blow was borne of our sins..

[Old Professer]

Wouldn't it be great if Gibson just took the money and went out in the woods somewhere and burned it?

[Fledermaus]

The writer is a nationally syndicated talk radio host in the US and author of 14 books.

And a complete idiot.