Gibson knuckles under and "softens" Jesus movie

[Loonman]

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13109_1.html

Jewish groups, however, remain unconvinced. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Gibson has been unwilling to preview his film for anyone but "pre-screened audiences." "The fact that Mel Gibson says this is a work in progress is something we welcome. I don't make light of it," Foxman said. "We respect his creative rights, but we also believe that creative rights come with a certain responsibility."

Invited Christian leaders who have seen the film offer near-universal praise. The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, told The New York Times that Gibson was "the Michelangelo of this generation."

Lauer agreed that screenings were for "people closer to our circle of contacts," but told the Times that "there is no way on God's green earth" that critics like Foxman will be invited to previews. Foxman and others, he said, have been "dishonorable." The ADL first raised concerns in June after a group of nine Christian and Jewish scholars reviewed a draft script and concluded the film portrayed Jews as "bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pathetic and sad.

You can't cough in an empty room without being accused of "anti-Semitism".

[foxglove1]

1. I agree that "anti-semitism" is highly overused

in today's society, just as "racist" is overused ... but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Mel Gibson seems to have some issues. Maybe he got knocked around one too many times filming the Lethal Weapon movies. Or maybe he carries the beliefs of his parents, who are holocaust deniers

Sue

[Judson39]

3. Why is the truth so terrible

No one but Zionists and radical Jews objected to this film ... No Christian or Moslem religious people made any objections.

[BurtWorm]

4. I object to it as an atheist

and a person who has reason to believe Jesus never existed except in mythology. Gibson is trying to pass this shit off as the "most realistic." Well, then, he should make a move about the Christian forgers who tried to shoehorn a myth into history. Virgin birth? Son of God? Miracle man? Raiser of the dead? Oh, yeah... that's real historical. :eyes:

[papau]

12. Christians objected - Pope objected - not true to history

Bible PR - that Jews put him on the cross - is a "spin" needed at the time - but history shows no Jewish use of a Cross for death - just our Friends the Romans.

Spin against Jews is not needed now, so why ?

To be faithful to the exact wording in the Bible?

If so it seems honest to note that the Bible's Jesus death scene was a PR spin to get Jews to become Christians - and "anti-semitism" then seems to apply to both that Bible scene - and as interpreted by Gibson - the Movie.

I agree the "most realistic" claim is conditional - and of course "Virgin birth - Son of God - Miracle man - Raiser of the dead" is historical in my worlds, but not that of an atheist.

[CBGLuthier]

7. I object to it

And I am neither of your qualifiers so i guess you are wrong.

What I find hilarious about the whole "jews killed jesus" thing is it was the romans who did it. But I guess since the church kind of took off in Rome they decided to find someone else to blame for it all.

[BurtWorm]

8. No one did it--except the Christian mythologizers

They needed Jesus dead so he could be "reborn," so they killed him off in the myth, blamed it on the Jews so they could steal their monogod, and voila! A New World Order is born.

[Nazgul35]

11. No no....

Don't you realize that the jews manipulated the Romans into doing it...the same way they've been doing it for the last 2000 years!!!!

Kill the killers of Christ!!!! (very very high level of sarcasim in my typing)...

It was the rampant anti-semitism of the Catholic church that gave Hitler one of his main issues that allowed his rise to power....look where the Nazi power base was located....in pridominately Catholic Bavaria....

It's possible that the same crap is happening in this movie.....

[MiltonLeBerle]

24. the way the story goes-

The roman governor (Pontius P.) didn't want to kill J. the C., and wanted to give him amnesty under the early release program, but the jewish town folk wanted J. the C. to die, and chose to give B.Rabus, a 3-time loser, the only early release slot left instead.

that's how we learned it back in Lutheran School- where the only thing they teach you about jews is that they killed Jesus, and they eat babies...and that if it weren't for the Jews, there wouldn't have been a holocaust.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. That's Sad That You Were Taught That

And that Martin Luther was an anti semite and that as a Lutheran country the environment was right for Hitler.

As a born again Christian I really don't get too hung up about the crucifixion.

Without the crucificixion and resurrection there would be no Christianity.

[indigo32]

45. It depends on the Lutherans your talking about

the ELCA church here in America, is extremely tolerant and accepting, and hardly gets caught up some Jews are Christ-Killers nonsense.

[DemLikr]

46. Milton, your statement about Luth. schools is just a TAD broad...

...I went to eight years of parochial Lutheran school, church and sunday school nearly every week. I must have missed the lessons on killing Jesus and baby eating. What a crock of shit. You're now arguing against one form of prejudice and ignorance by utilizing another...hmmm.

I left the Lutheran church more than twenty years ago, but I will say that I somehow never aborbed this allegedly Christian teaching that "the Jews" killed Jesus.

I learned that all of humanity lives under the pain of sin, that Jesus the son of god was sent as a redeemer to die, making restitution in our (all humans') place. Ergo, ALL of us are equally responsible. So if god's plan was for his son to die, SOMEONE, or more specifically, some group of individual SOMEONES, had to do the killing. I always figured what the hell difference does it make WHO the individuals were that did the killing as long as it got done, no?

For similar reasons I always felt somewhat empathetic toward Judas'...situation. SOMEONE had to do it.

Jew-haters are going to hate Jews regardless...the vast majority of these nuts would be unable to articulate their obsession anyway. And if they got around hating Jews then it would be on to some other group....Mel's film , which I for one am anxious to see, is not going to change any one's minds.

And the more I here the ADL and others argue against Mel's film, the more I hope it does well. I'm sick and tired of anti-intellectuals from left and right telling everyone they disagree with to SHUT UP.

[MiltonLeBerle]

93. Ummmmm...It was a joke about Martin's anti-semitism.

Some people take this religion thing waaay too seriously.

BTW-just for the record, I'm not anti-semitic...I dislike all god-centric organized religions and their proponents equally, but I have nothing in particular against speakers of any branch of the Afroasiatic language family.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Didn't Know Zionists Killed Christ

There were no Zionists when Jesus was around because the Jews were already in Zion.

And, The Passion, was reviewed by a group of Catholic scholars who found the depiction of Jews in the movie disturbing.

[w4rma]

68. IMHO, it appears that Gibson has allowed Roman propaganda

to taint his film. He needs to account for the political situtation during the time. The Romans ruled and had the military and police power to force folks to toe their PR line.

I also understand that Gibson has the Romans speaking the wrong language among themselves, in the movie.

[NashVegas]

92. LOL - Mel Grew Up on Roman Propaganda

If his wife's uterus hasn't already fallen out, it'd be a miracle.

[Brian Sweat]

6. I disagree. Especially one the idea that "racist" is overused.

This is just an attempt by the right to render the word useless. It has gotten to the point were someone has to were a clan outfit and burn crosses on people lawn before we can call them a racist.

[foxglove1]

28. LOL please

I didn't say that racism and anti-semitism don't exist. As a matter of fact, if you'll re-read my post, I said they DO exist. I simply said the terms were overused. Being married to a black man, we have endured the occasional *dirty looks* for 18 years, and no one in my extended family has really interacted with me deeply since I married. So I know it does exist. I'm simply saying the term is overused to a certain extent .... and it is.

Sue

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. It seems that anti-semitism is the last acceptable bigotry

even among educated people.

I have heard four of my college professors make anti-semitic remarks in private conversations.

Professor 1 called The New Republic The Jew Republic.

Professor 2 called a student a "professional Jew" cuz he was pro Israel.

Professor 3 called American University (AU) (AJew) and lamented the fact that Jewish kids arrived in limosuines.

Profersor 4 called another professor a "smelley" Jew.

No wonder they're paranoid.

[foxglove1]

30. Actually, fat-bashing is the last acceptable bigotry

Overweight people are funny, stupid, lazy and slow ... but it's ok to make fun of us because we're just lovable rotund vessels filled with good humor who realize how ridiculous we are and we love to laugh along as the rest of the world makes fun of us ... har de har har

Sue

[Scout]

38. my thoughts exactly....

heaven forbid you're fat, poor and live in a trailer park!

[roughsatori]

44. Sue I have been wanting to start a topic about that

I read many posts at DU such as "Fat slob Rush," "That fat pig (fill in the blank." Every time I read that kind of remark I wonder how many heavy or obese members of DU are reading that, and my heart goes out to them.

Particularly as I find out how issues of self-esteem lead to more over-eating in some people.

My own pet-peeve is "white-trailer-trash." Though I have noticed a few other members have joined me in attacking that as classist. I grew a dilapidated trailer parks and even in school people who came from my home area were called "Trailer Trash." And it angers me to read that at a progressive site.

[Kamika]

58. Well i dont think they mean it like that

When they say fat, it generally means fat = rich

They dont exactly go knocking rush because hes overweight its more that he has alot of money and still talks about unions etc

[roughsatori]

2. Just show the movie

I am sick of hearing about it. But the Gibson publicity machine likes it that way.

When Gibson filled his first screening with invited right-wing hacks I knew the theological and "accurate depiction" concerns he has voiced where bunk.

That said, I do plan on seeing the movie. I have read that the film (written by someone who saw it) has major historical inaccuracies. The reason that is interesting is Gibson kept babbling about how historically accurate his film would be. I hope he does not mistake showing Jesus being nailed to the Cross through the wrist, instead of the hand, and showing lots of blood for accuracy.

[DemLikr]

55. There is no consensus on the "historical" details.

NO matter which side is bleating, it is all conjecture and educated guessing at best...you are mistaken if you believe there is ONE universally accepted version of the "historically accurate" details.

Without a time machine, such a version is impossible to assemble.

What these anti-Gibson hysterics really mean is that he is not presenting THEIR currently favored version of historical accuracy.

[charlie]

66. Well, Mel brought that on himself

He claimed historical accuracy many times. He promised not an interpretation, but, ala Limbaugh, the truth.

Q: So many movies about the life of Christ have already been made. Why make another one?

Gibson: I don’t think other films have tapped into the real force of this story. I mean, have you seen any of the others? They are either inaccurate in their history, or they suffer from bad music or bad hair. This film will show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it happened. It’s like traveling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred.

Q: How can you be sure that your version is so accurate?

Gibson: We’ve done the research. I’m telling the story as the Bible tells it. I think the story, as it really happened, speaks for itself. The Gospel is a complete script, and that’s what we’re filming.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion.htm

Now, considering that a good portion of his depiction is based on the visions of a pair of 17th century mystics, it kinda nullifies his claims of fidelity to biblical narrative.

And that comedy with the leaked script was rotten. He didn't sic his lawyers on the scholars until after he'd opened liason with them through his script translator and received an unfavorable historical assessment from them.

I'm as harsh as anybody on busybodies who would try to preempt a work in progress, but Mel's not entirely blameless in this affair.

[roughsatori]

95. I was discussing Gibson's concerns--not mine

I am not a Christian. That is why I used quotation marks around "accurate depiction," that is done to show irony. I was writing that in his movie which he claims is faithful to "history' (For many Christians, that means the Bible)but he is not.

To put it simply I don't believe the Bible is an "accurate historical" document. Gibson claims he followed the New Testament accounts very closely. He did not according to a scholar who saw the film.

I would recommend that when you talk to Christians you don't put words in their mouths, as you just did with to me. And I have no belief in God.

[sangha]

5. There's nothing anti-semitic

about saying "the Jews killed Christ!"

Yeah, right

[Kamika]

9. I will see this movie and i dont get how its anti semitic

I think its great a non commercial movie has finally been done about Jesus and i am really eager to see it.

It will suck if Gibson have changed stuff that is actually depicted in the bible just to make pppl happy

Id also like to know just in what way it is anti semitic.


The only shame is that Gibson doesnt star in it he could have had a cameo or something

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Maybe Mel Could Have Played Nicodemus

[roughsatori]

39. I have read that he does NOT follow scripture

I know to many Christians that is history. However a Christian Theologian who saw the film wrote that there are major inaccuracies including where the trail of Jesus was held.

Will it bother you if he changes his movie to make happy the people who believe the Word of God and Truth is contained in the Bible? Or is it okay when a movie star you like mangles the Gospels?

We will have to wait and see. The problem with the Christian friends of mine who are pro-this movie is they don't even seem to be more than cursorily familiar with Scripture--so I can not really take them seriously. I think they consider attending Church on Sunday to be the equivalent of spending real time studying the Bible.

[Kamika]

48. well im christian AND like gibson

But i dont want him to change it in any way from the bible, i dont want him to to change the movie to make jews / popcorn audience / christians happy. I want it just like the bible

and i still think he could make a fine roman centurion or something :)

Oh yeah i havent "STUDIED" the bible either but im sure ill recognize or read about parts that wont follow the bible. And in that case he sucks

[Susang]

54. Which bible?

There are many versions, you know. And which gospel, for that matter? They often contradict each other and were written many years after the events they are supposed to portray.

[robbedvoter]

71. The only shame really, is that Arnuld doesn't star in it

it would have been the only way to make this thread sillier. Michelangelo indeed!

[Kamika]

78. rofl i can just imagine a really rightwing christ movie

Arnold would be jesus, chuck norris would be pontius and all the jews would be like woody allen

[Loonman]

10. You know....I think that 97% of religion is dangerous

I am at the midpoint between atheism and agnosticism, but pure atheists have to stop thinking they are better than everyone else.

[BurtWorm]

13. Are you talking to me?

I'm in a horrible, horrible mood...

[Loonman]

14. I'm not talking to anybody

I'm just sayin'.

[BurtWorm]

15. It just seemed like a nonsequitur

Unless you consider I was the only respondent above who identified himself as an atheist.

[Kamika]

27. true, atheism has killed tons more

Atheistic countries like ussr, kambodia with pol pot, vietnam, north korea, china has killed way more then religion

[Trajan]

42. False ....

Though Communism included elements of an atheistic worldview: ... atheism was NOT the defining characteristic of these regimes: .. brutal subjugation of whole populations through force, including fear, torture, mayhem and death have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with atheism .....

One might ask: ... IF milk drinkers in russia were also communists who helped slaughter millions of innocents, could we say that MILK DRINKERS are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents ? ...

Hardly: ....

Atheism does NOT promote murder, nor has it ever done so ...

Atheism promotes NOTHING .....

Christian theology, on the other hand, promotes the denigration of non christians explicitly within its own dogma .... in some books, non christians are cast as possessed of devils or demons and unworthy of humane consideration ...

To attempt to associate atheism with the crimes of Pol Pot and Mao is fallacious ..... the fact that SOME of those involved with these brutalities were atheists doesnt imply that atheism was the de facto cause of those crimes .... atheism itself doesnt promote a dogma .... period ....

[Kamika]

50. They have still killed more

Those atheistic countries has still killed WAY more then countries with free religion.

communism focuses alot on atheism how God doesnt exist and how priests should be shot or forced into workcamps etc

[alaine]

60. National religions and communism are identical

in having the attibutes that you describe. Atheism stands outside of this paradigm.

I am by no means an atheist but your assertions are so outrageously false and offensive that I could not let them go by.

Whether the ruling deity is a god or a government philosophy, if there is no room for dissent whether religious or agnostic, then dissenting people of all stripes are rounded up and exploited and/or executed. Christianity had a field day during the middle ages with the inquisition and the so called "witch-burnings" which was really the eradication of remnants of "pagan" (read: not Christian) religion from Europe, and some have put the numbers of people murdered at nine million, although these numbers are deemed high by some. Cut nine million in half and that is still one whale of a lot of murders.

In fact, I don't really differentiate at all between governmental systems that don't allow religion, and state religions that pronounce the existence of one god since the beginning of time. They are actually the exact same thing, and expression of the same kind of insanity and inability to handle complexity and change. And when either one is in power in a nation, it's either their way or the highway, and woe be unto you if you dissent.

In short they are way more alike than they are different, two sides of the same coin. And atheism ( the truth, not the right-wing propaganda, that is) has little to do with either.

[TLM]

64. How about manifest destiny?

That one single example of religious stupidity resulted in the wholesale genocide of the native people of two fucking continents...

[BigMcLargehuge]

65. I agree with you. About the Inquisition though...

It began in Spain when Ferdinand and Isabella wanted to consolidate their power and protect themselves from the "sinister forces" of the recently converted Jews, or "Conversi" and it was on this group that the full force of the Inquision was first turned.

As the inquisition moved into Northern Europe the Inquisition targetted Jews, Protestants, Pagans and others, and like in some many later examples of too much power in the hands of too few, the populace used the Inquisition as a way to settle personal vendettas rather than as a machine to root out paganism. Quite a large number of otherwise normal everyday Catholics were also put to the flames based on the acusations of their neighbors.

More often then not, it was the Northern European Jews who were first targetted by the flames and irons of the Inquisition.

Once the practice arrived in England it was used to round up and wipe out Cromwells supporters.

[alaine]

73. For some reason your post made me think of Ann

Coulter. I bet she hates the fact that she missed that, it sounds like her kind of time period.

Sounds like tribalism and anarchy all mixed together with constantly changing alliances and power continually shifting.

I have done more reading about the "witch trials", although the numbers are questionable because there is so little record; part of one religion taking over is wiping out any evidence of it's predecessor. Most of the numbers come from people pouring over remnants of censuses (censi?) from that time, they have found several German towns where only one or two women were left alive, leading some scholars to suggest that european pagans have suffered more religious persecution than jews. But with the Judeo-Christian influences on archaeology and anthopology much of the evidence of the importance of these religions have been discounted and alot of the work published is by writers interested in the history of religion instead of archaeology scholars.

[BigMcLargehuge]

75. yeah, she would have been right at home...

Until one of her neighbors accused her of consorting with the devil, then she too would have suffered the wrath of Inquisition.

As I understand it the Inquisition, at least in Spain and Portugal, kept meticulous records. I would assume that as the process moved north those records became less accurate.

If my memory of history is correct Portugal suffered under the Inquision longest, from the very beginning until long after the rest of contintal Europe stopped.

Have you ever seen "Haxan" A Dutch ducumentary, I think, from 1920 (or thereabouts) about witchcraft in Europe. Very, very well done.

[alaine]

80. She will suffer the wrath of the...return of sanity (?)

That is my hope for her, that the tide will move more to the left and people will come back to their senses and see her as the Ernest Aingsley type that she is.

Thanks for the tip on the film, I have not seen that, "Haxan" must be derived from 'hex' or something.

Eerily enough, I studied modern wicca about ten years ago, and I have every once in a while in rural NC and SC heard comments from elderly women that resemble things I read in modern wicca. Makes your hair stand on end thinking about how many generations this stuff has been through and survived their ancestors indoctrination into Christianity, because the few women I've heard say such things were raised Christian, doubtless having no idea about the origin of the phrase they just uttered, but they sure weren't from the bible. Creepy, and yet, refreshing

[BigMcLargehuge]

81. At risk of hijacking the thread and incurring Sangha's wrath...

I agree. That longevity of concept is known as viral memetics (if I remember correctly), i.e. the ability of some concept of linguistic trait to evolve along with the society in which its used.

I'd love to continue the discussion. Is there an appropriate place where we won't get whacked by the thread police? The Lounge perhaps?

[TLM]

61. Hardly comes close to the many religious deaths....

inquisition, crusades, holocaust, dark ages, pretty much every war in the mid-east, terrorism, etc. All backed with religious ignorance.

Hell even the black death that killed half of Europe was directly due to religious superstition and stupidity of the church. The disease was spread by the explosion of rodent populations that came as a direct result of the Christians killing cats because the church said cats were servants of the devil.

And if you buy into the religious BS, then you also believe that God himself slaughtered every man woman and child on the planet with a flood, save for six people, because they did not worship the right god or did not worship appropriately.


The death toll that is directly attributable to acts justified by religious dogma dwarfs the total number of deaths as a result of actions justified by lack of religious beleife.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. You forgot to mention

the numerous, and murderous, religious wars between competing Christian ideologies. And, the religious reasons used by the churches to justifify the slave trade which cost millions of lives. The religion based conflicts in Ireland, Africa, the Balkans, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, etc, etc.

"The Bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a blood stained history, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of 10,000 lies." - Mark Twain

[ikojo]

17. Deicide has been used

for the last 2,000 years as Christian justification for the wholesale slaughter and murder of Jews.

This is why Jews object so vehemently to this movie. It is also why Jews are perhaps a bit more sensitive to this issue than a Christian or even an athiest of Christian ancestry might be.

Just as whites really cannot understand why blacks are so sensitive to race issues, so, too, is it difficult for Christians or even those who do not call themselves Christians to understand why this issue above most others so concerns Jews.

I have been called a Christ killer before and let me tell you it is NO FUN.

[DemLikr]

57. I am of German ancestory and have many times been called a "Kraut"

so what? I was born in Kansas in 1957. I no more killed the Jews of Buchenwald than you killed Jesus Christ.

All this overwrought attention to the fevered, anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-anyone other than themselves (not that they have any idea WHO they are either) ravings of a few skinhead idiots. They will hate no matter what, fuck em.

[WilliamPitt]

19. You can't cough in an empty room without being accused of "anti-Semitism".

I take it you have seen the film, then, and can judge both it and the criticisms on the merits?

[Loonman]

20. No

But people criticizing stuff months before release is getting a little tired, remember the crap Kevin Smith had to put up with for "Dogma"?

[markses]

26. You missed the part in the article

about the nine theologians who reviewed the script and came to that conclusion?

Here's a bit more, from a Salon article today:

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/08/14/gibson/index.html

The Guardian newspaper this week quoted a panel of three Jewish and six Catholic scholars who translated and studied a draft script, and concluded that the film is indeed anti-Semitic and theologically inaccurate, portraying "The Jews" as bloodthirsty and vengeful. "All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty," said Sister Mary C. Boys, one of the panelists and a professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. As for stirring up anti-Semitic passions, Sister Mary told the New Republic that she has already begun receiving "vicious letters filled with personal attacks and anti-Semitic drivel." Confronted with these accusations, Gibson, a fundamentalist Catholic who has bankrolled an obscure Los Angeles sect that refuses to accept the Second Vatican reforms, including the Vatican's apology for Jewish persecution, readily admits the film may ruffle a few Jewish feathers, though it is not meant to. "It's meant just to tell the truth." Besides, he says, the Holy Spirit was dictating what really went into the film.

---snip---

The article goes on to talk about the general mythology in Christian (and - I would say - especially Catholic) circles that blame the Jews for "Jesus'" death. While the article assumes - without warrant - the actual existence of a historical Jesus (we have no reason to do so), and the events surrounding his death, it does give a nice replay of the way the myth has its own historical conditions.

As a personal note, growing up Catholic I was always taught - unofficially, of course - that it wasn't really the Romans who wanted to do this thing, but the Jews. Pontius Pilate desperately wanted to execute Barabbas, who had "killed a soldier in the insurrection" rather than this Jesus fella, who he took for a sad sack loony toon (probably correctly). Once you say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," Pontius Pilate has little concern about you. It was the Jews who refused it. That's the way we were taught it, always on the hush, of course, after Vatican Two. Anti-semitic? You betcha.

There is, of course, a larger point to the allegory: Barabbas represents all that is temporal - resistance here below, including violent struggle. Jesus represents ending temporal resistance for the sake of otherworldly salvation. The Barabbas - Jesus choice is the key scene in that whole silly book, quite frankly - it is where we see the emergence of what Nietzsche calls the slave revolt in morality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. That's A Interesting Take

so Christianity becomes a religion of submission in return for a heavenly reward.

It's also a justification for the status quo if you're poor in that the meek will inherit the Earth.

That's one reason the church is so prominent among the disposessed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Shouldn't We Be Vigilant For All Forms Of Bigotry

[DemLikr]

49. Will, I think he just might have been exaggerating for effect.

just maybe :D

[BigMcLargehuge]

21. Gibson should flip the critics the bird

He's paying, he's directing, he's producing...

To me it's like someone (a stranger even) telling me one of my short stories is unfit for publication because they don't like the content. And doing so before I've even finished typing it out.

Screw them, it's art. Let Gibson make his movie, then to protest, don't see it. Simple.

People take this shit waaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously.

Remember "Piss Christ"? I watched Bill Moyers interview a popular art historian Nun (whose name escapes me at the moment) about that piece of "offensive" art. She defended both the piece and the artists right to create and display it. Why? Because all art evokes emotion, that's what it is supposed to do and "Piss Christ" did that.

Did she like the piece? Not really. Did she appreciate the piece as art? Yes.

[a_random_joel]

25. Loonman

I find your remark inappropriate.

1. Judaism is much more than a religion. I consider myself an agnostic, borderline atheist, but my bloodline, last name, and heritage betray me. If I had been alive in Hitler's Germany, I would have been a target, even if I were not a practicing Jew. And supposing a neo-nazi movement becomes viable at some point in the next 50 or so years I hope to be on this planet, I would still be a target. As would my child, and my wife(a non-Jew), and my family and many of my friends.

2. Gibson's father is a holocaust denier. Enough said.

3. The Jews were not directly responsible for killing Christ. It seems there is only one Jew some people are intent to stick up for.

I understand much of the anti-"whatever" rhetoric on the Left stems from the I/P conflict. There is enough anger and division over that issue. Why would you choose to stir it up on a completely unrelated issue?

Imagine for a moment that any other ethnic/racial group were portrayed as the murderers of another group's savior. Think about how each side would react. This is particularly insightful if said group had a history of oppression forced upon them. Then think about the insensitivity of your comment.

[BurtWorm]

29. Well said, joel!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Anti-semitism is the last acceptable bigotry of so called educated people

Look at my examples.

And btw, I'm not even Jewish but some of my best friends are.

[northzax]

32. and I'm willing to bet

that 90% of the people who approve of this movie are strongly in favour of the Death Penalty in modern society.

interesting, no?

actually, I find the people who have been allowed to preview this movie to be telling of who Mel Gibson thinks will approve of it. And since he's doing things like showing it in DC to a select audience, why not bring in a few of the people who have been critical? maybe they'll like it and it'll go away? oh, and then there won't be any buzz, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Among Those Who Saw The Movie Were Renowned

Biblical scholars Matt Drudge and David Horowitz.

[Lurking Dem]

35. His not casting a Semite

as Jesus is also telling. So much for historical accuracy. Maybe I'll send him one of my t-shirts(link): http://www.cafeshops.com/tokin

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Mel Doesn't Use The Nordic Jesus

He uses the historical Jesus who has the features of his community.


I was in a the office of a predominately white Southern Baptist Church in Central Florida and the picture of the Last Supper hanging there was of a dark Jesus and dark desciples not the Nordic Jesus so progress is being made.

[Lurking Dem]

47. Not Nordic is a step up.

Yet hardly enough. Guy looks Italian to me.

[qanda]

40. As an African American I must say

that a good portion of movies made over the years would never have been done if the criteria was that you couldn't portray black people in a negative light.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Yes

Have You ever heard Burn Hollywood Burn by Public Enemy which is a kind of a chronicle of movie that put down blacks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

41. if anyone cares about my semi-educated opinion on this matter

The facts are that many Jewish people consider the entire religion of Christianity to be anti-semetic, and not without reason. I bet that the main controversy is a scene where the "Jewish mob" chants in union "his blood be on our heads and our children's heads" - the so-called "blood libel".

I don't think that scene is Matthew is the cause of anti-semetism, I think it's a product of it. Two reasons - it was obvious to everyone that the Romans did the actual killing, and the pro-Roman, collaborationist priestly establishment in Jerusalem (the Sadducees) were in agreement with the Romans about getting rid of Jesus, he was as much a threat to them as he was to the Romans.

The other faction that got blamed - the Pharisees - got blamed because they wouldn't join the revolutionary forces to overthrow the Romans and refused to allow non-Jews to enter the temple or help build a compromise religion the rebels could all fight under - there were plenty of ethnic groups in the general area at the time, and plenty of people wanted them gone.

Seriously, read Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian that was a major player in the revolt against Rome. I can promise you'll never look at Judaism, Christianity, or Islam the same ever again.

Josephus wrote "Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews" - in fact, he even states that he wrote "Jewish War" because the histories being written unfairly blamed the Jews and whitewashed the Roman's role - I bet he was referring to early versions of the Gospels.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. The powerful killed a revolutionary

The "powers that be" of that time were frightened of a disruptive revolutionary who advocated for the poor and oppressed. He was duly captured, tortured and executed to "protect" society from a dangerous "terrorist" who dared to challenge the bosses. Both the Sanhedrin and the Romans.

If you want to see a fine historical film about Jesus, try Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Matthew". Note: Pasolini was an Atheist and Communist assasinated by fascists.

"The Jews" (Jesus and his followers were Jews) and the "The Romans" (Constantine, who was a Roman Emperor, probably contributed more to the spread of Christianity than the Church did) are no more responsible for the death of Jesus than "The Christians" are responsible for Hitler or "The Americans" are responsible for the doings of Dubya and his minions.

BTW I'm an agnostic ex-Catholic.

[roguevalley]

91. Its unfortunate that the social agenda of Jesus

has taken a backseat to the political agenda of the
religious edifice that has grown up over the top of
him. He is lost in the strobe lights to me.

[StandWatie]

51. the problem is..

the New Testament is fundamentally anti-semetic

Matthew 8:10 (Jesus, to a Roman centurion, comparing the Roman's faith to the unbelief of the Jews): " the subjects of the kingdom will be turned out into the dark, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."

John 8:42-44 (Jesus, addressing Jews): "If God were your father, you would love me The devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants."

1 Thessalonians 2:14 (Paul, to the Christian congregation): " suffering the same treatment from your own countrymen as have suffered from the Jews, the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemy of the whole human racebut retribution is overtaking them at last."

Revelation 2:9 (Jesus, to the Christians in Smyrna): "I know the slanderous accusations that have been made against you by the people who profess to be Jews but are really members of the synagogue of Satan."

All the big three of Abrahamic monotheism have nasty things to say about everyone else, it's just part of all the great things religion has brought to the world :eyes:

[DemLikr]

53. Christ was a JEW. Hello...if he was the son of god, then what higher

compliment could the deity pay to the Jewish people?

And if the Romans and Jews and whomever the hell else happened to be in Jerusalem that weekend and stopped to enjoy the show had a hand in putting Jesus to death, then so fucking what?

If Jesus had not been put to death, then god's entire plan of salvation and redemption would have been screwed. So I always figured the folks who took care of this business were actually acting out god's plan and that we should be thankful to them, if anything.

What's the alternative? Jesus is saved by the mob, lives happily ever after, and we all burn in hell for eternity, unsaved from the consequences of our many sins?

People who want to do things like "hate jews" probably also hate gays and blacks and anyone who shines a little light on their own feelings of inadequacy. The ADL, in overreacting and overreaching in cases like Mel's film, do more than most to feed the fires.

Again I ask, why does the ADL and like-minded groups not fund a film of the same events based on THEIR own interpretations. Isn't this what art and religious and historical and theological debate and discourse is all about?

But then what wouldn't get as many egomaniacs interviewed and published, venting their faux outrage.

[TLM]

56. All this whining and moaning over a f-ing ghost story...

Seriously people need to grow up and stop having this piss fight over who has the better imaginary friend.


All organized religion is horseshit used to control and manipulate people, always has been... pay attention and you might notice THAT was Jesus' message. That you do not need any earth bound middleman between you and your relationship with your god. Jesus was anti-organized religion. The modern Christian church is a Paulian church, not a church of Christ. Jesus wanted to break the system and dethrone the powerful religious leaders... Paul wanted to take over the system and become the powerful religious leaders.


Jesus challenged the religious authority at the time, and they killed him for it. Jews, Christians, Muslims... all the same bullshit. It is all about control, and any religious group that is in control will kill to keep their power.

[DemLikr]

59. Must have been quite a ghost story...here we are 2,000 years later.

Listen, I don't claim to know what the truth is...Jesus could have been just a man, or he could have been god, or some combo of the two. But I also don't believe it is possible to KNOW what he was NOT. To guess, to investigate, to research, to study yes...but to KNOW...anyone who tells you they know for sure the absolute truth about jesus christ is full of shit.

But I envy your certainty in knowing the absolute answers to questions that have eluded man for all of history.

We need to accept that we will never KNOW for a certainty almost anything about anything given the size of the universe, and our place in it.

With that acceptance would come a world-wide lowering of the universal blood pressure reading.

[BurtWorm]

63. I would add that it's not possible to know if he even existed

historically. It's plain as day he was mythological. But the evidence is extremely weak on his historicity.

[robbedvoter]

74. Lots of people died for this ghost story. Our "Michelangelo"

just wants to make sure that he keeps the hate alive. And just look at how many cheerleaders in this unusual venue!

[slappypan]

62. "the Michelangelo of this generation" ... ?!?

oh for fuck's sake ...

[alaine]

67. Yeah, that one got me too...

Michelangelo is turning tornados in his grave over that one.

I'm from a Christian fundamentalist background and I have to say that if Christian scholars reviewed this film and found it anti-semitic then that says something.

I did not really grow up hearing the anti-semitic propaganda in church that some have talked about. All I remember is constantly hearing that the Jews are "Gods chosen people" although no one ever explained why, and I always wondered why God didn't chose the Baptists instead, but I didn't worry about it much because apparently we were still getting into heaven.

[Lurking Dem]

70. Chosen

That phrase confuses a lot of people. It's not "chosen" as in elitist, it's "chosen" for a duty.

[robbedvoter]

69. Says a lot about where we are. doesn't it?

Just like this thread. Dark ages.

[Bridget Burke]

72. Great Free Publicity

He should just release this mess & see what the critics say. Scholars from several religions say it's inaccurate & anti-Semitic? That could well be true.

My guess: It may appeal to a specialized audience. Otherwise, it'll rival "Gigli" as the most overwrought, pretentious & self-indulgent heap to stink up the theaters in the new century.

Maybe there's still time to dub in J-LO as Mary Magdalene....

[The_Golden_Child]

76. Critics of this film are either ignorant or have an agenda...

How could a film based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus' execution be anti-Semitic when everyone involved, aside from the Roman governor and the Roman soldiers, was Jewish?

Some of these Jewish people were good people and some of them were bad people. Jesus was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. Mary, Mary Magdalen, Simon of Cyrene-- all Jewish. Some of the bad Jewish people trumped up charges against Jesus, a fellow Jew, and demanded that Pontius Pilate execute him. Meanwhile, many good Jewish people stood by Jesus' side and themselves were executed in later years by the Romans.

Someone please tell me how this story, on its own merit, is anti-semetic?

If that's the case, we shouldn't make any movies about the Civil War because it makes Americans out to be bad people...

[BurtWorm]

77. Just be aware that Gibson and his parents belong to a right wing

Catholic sect that believes in the shucking of Vatican II, which jettisoned Latin among other things, and, more to the point, sought a rapprochement with Jews after centuries of an official policy of believing Jews killed Christ. And Gibson's father, at least, has said some disgusting things about the Holocaust.

He's free to make whatever kind of movie the money people let him make. But there are consequences for everything, including showing works of "art" to the public.

[alaine]

82. True. I think this is the association people are making.

My parents are right wing too, but they don't dispute the history of WW2 and the third reich.

I think people are worried that Mel is going over the same edge his father went over.

I was raised one of those southern baptist hicks and all this stuff is pretty foreign to me, as far as the assertion that the Jews killed Jesus, etc. I wasn't taught that, instead we were always taught about Pontius Pilate and his washing his hands of this, if I had a dime for every time I heard that in sunday school as a child...but again, I repeat, christian scholars saying something is anti-semitic out to be a giant red flag that it probably IS.

[a_random_joel]

79. Nice try

The merits of your argument would be valid, IF, the target audience was Jewish. But they are not. Moot point.

[The_Golden_Child]

83. I didn't realize there was a target audience...

But ever if there were, that doesn't change my basic point?

Suppose you made a movie for a target audience of white people that showed a group of bad black people harrassing a group of good black people. Would this be a "racist" film?

[a_random_joel]

87. What movie does NOT have a target audience?

You said that the movie was not anti-semitic because all the major players were Jews. I agree with you that the act itself was not anti-semitic for this reason. But we have something called history. And history has shown that several groups have used this act to inflame people's passions against Jews. If you are priveleged enough to be unfamiliar with some of these activities, I will offer you a few links.

That is where the target audience comes in. I don't know a whole lot of Jews who run out to see Jesus movies, and even those who do, would not be inflamed by a movie that portrayed Jews as the "evil doers".

As for your movies about "black people", there are a number of movies like that made today, and throughout time. While the movies themselves may (or may not)not be overtly racist, the affect on the "target audience" may impact their view of the race depicted.

Furthermore, was the good black person who was "harrassed" the messiah who has promised to save billions of people from death and eternity in hell, and in which so many have made the ultimate investment of faith in?

Just curious...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Agendas

I'm not sure about the critics' agenda but you can damn well believe that Mel's is to make buckets of money. And, the "controversy" is sure to guarantee it.

How is the story, on it's own merit, anti-semitic? Here's a quote from one guy who seemed to think so.

"In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us.... With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience."


"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham.'" (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away." "If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? ... I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"We are at fault for not slaying them ." (Martin Luther)

"...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!" Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"What shall we do with...the Jews?... I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them... I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews... I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb... set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them... their homes also should be razed and destroyed." (Martin Luther)

[The_Golden_Child]

94. EXACTLY!

Martin Luther was an ex-Catholic who lived 1500 years after the events of the Gospels. He hated Jews. He hated the Pope. He hated lots of people. He was a prideful, egotistical power-grabber.

So let me see if I can sum up our argument so far:

1) 2000 years ago, Jesus, his family, and his followers were all Jews.

2) Other Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day plotted against him to have the Roman authorities execute Him.

3) 500 years ago, Martin Luther was a pompous, bigoted egomanic who spewed anti-semetic rhetoric. Other people throughout history hated the Jewish people.

4) Therefore, no one should tell the story of Jesus' execution ever again.

Is this really what some are arguing here?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. The story has been told, many, many, times

Paul told the story according to his "agenda".
Peter told it according to his.
John told it according to his.
Luke told it to his.

And even they often disagreed among themselves as to what actually happened.

The "New Testament" as a whole puts a certain spin on it.

The Catholic Church has it's own agenda.

The Protestants theirs.

Thousands of books have been written about it, usually with their own agenda. Same for films and documentaries.

What's interesting is to realize that the Roman's who actually crucified Jesus didn't think the story interesting enough to put down.
But, they littered the countryside of most nations with the crosses of rebels and saw Jesus as just another malcontent.

"Man is the only animal to have discovered the One True God...several of them." Mark Twain

[ThorsteinVeblen]

84. No One should have their First Ammendment Rights Trampled

Not the Klan.

Not Mel Gibson.

Not anyone.

[a_random_joel]

90. No one should have their commercial interests trampled on!

Mel and the clan can stand on a street corner an scream "Bloody Jews" all day for I care.

There is a difference, my friend.

[roguevalley]

86. This is incorrect:

"No one but Zionists and radical Jews objected to this film ... No Christian or Moslem religious people made any objections."

A joint panel of Christians and Jews objected and this all began
from there. Of course they did. To limit this to Jewish objections
is incorrect.

Besides, none of the gospels agree and there are questions of when
they were written. I don't believe anyone will ever know the exact
truth beyond stories and speculation.

[roguevalley]

88. This whole business is suspect.

There is no evidence anywhere that during festivals people were
able to choose as they did here to release condemned criminals.
The Romans didn't do that. So that part of the story is fun but
fanciful.

Given that, consider the possible truth here. We, as Christians,
as so given to believing that politics and other realities have
so little to do with our faith when in reality it had everything
to do with it. Without politics and 'sacrifices', we would not
have continued into the modern era. The inclusion of books in the
bible canon was completely politic and made final by Constantine.
As for the stories themselves, the Roman had the final say in
the death of Jesus. They killed him because he was a threat to the
stability and status quo of an unstable region. They had the
power and unless they wanted to, nothing and no one could change
their minds.

When the church became law, the religion of the state, there were
untidy messes to clean up. In the course of becoming a force in
the power elite and therefore the masses, unseemliness and any
aspersions upon the honor of the church had to be wiped clean. What
better way than to put the blame on the Jews? Those people who
could and would not accept the newly emergy power and dictates of
the gentile church?

Easy enough to forget that politics have always been a part of
our religion and that horrible things have been perpetrated in
the name of Jesus. Ignoring them or white washing them won't
make them go away. As a Christian, I want to know the truth.

rv

[Tinoire]

97. The objections are coming from the ADL

And someone needs to tell Rabbi Korn to either take a chill pill or re-write the New Testament. The ADL has been raising all the hoopla on this and the 4 theologians who were supposedly in on the report have distanced themselves from what the ADL is putting out. Gibson followed the script of the New Testament to a T. If that is anti-Semitic then the New Testament and Christianity itself are anti-Semitic. It's sad that there's not a peep from the ADL about biased news coverage of Muslims and Arabs, not a peep about naming a hate-mongerer like Daniel Pipes to the US Institute of Peace, not a peep about Old Testament movies portraying non-Hebrews as animals to be slaughtered per God's word but yet on this film which shows SOME people of all groups acting both bad and good, there's a HUGE ruckus before the film even comes out.

It would be nice if they would state their SPECIFIC objections rather than to just smear the whole thing as anti-Semitic because based on my understanding of the film, it follows the NT faithfully. All this hoopla about it following the visions of 17th century mystics is hoopla. The ADL's problem is not with the film, it's with the NT and I think they'd be better off focusing on dialogue between Christians and Jews if that's their concern. To do otherwise is a just causing uneccessary problems. Take a cruise on the Yahoo boards some day to see the hate being spewed now by both sides. The whold problem seems to boil down to "No Jews didn't, the Romans did" vs "Uh the New Testament is clear about this, this, and this". The real attack here is on the New Testament. Gee, no thanks. Educate people all you want because it's badly needed but don't go attacking other people's holy books. Baaaad move. Very baaaad move.

June 25, 2003 (Excerpt)

The ADL first began to raise concerns about the film in March, in both a letter to the New York Times and a letter addressed to Gibson that the organization posted on its Web site. The controversy erupted again earlier this month when a report was leaked to the media that had been prepared by scholars, associated with both the ADL and the USCCB, based on a study of an early version of the script and containing a long list of objections. The USCCB, however, quickly dissociated itself from the report, with Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, saying: "We regret the situation has occurred and offer our apologies. When the film is released, the USCCB will review it at the time." In its current statement, the ADL says it "fully stands behind" the scholars' report and raises a series of questions such as, "Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray Jews as bloodthirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?......"

http://www.suite101.com/print_message.cfm/religionandspirituality/92596/811489