We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Just the facts, Mel

Sticking with the religious theme, I am puzzled by the furore regarding Mel Gibson’s acclaimed flick, The Passion of The Christ

An American Jewish leader met with Vatican officials to ask them to publicly restate church teachings on Jesus’ crucifixion. Anti-Defamation League Chair Abraham Foxman says that Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” contradicts the Vatican’s repudiation of the charge that the Jews killed Jesus. A top Vatican official who met with Foxman said no such statement is planned. Archbishop John Foley, who heads the Vatican’s social-communications office, instead praised the film and said he found nothing anti-Semitic in it.

The way I see it, a couple thousand years ago a Jewish man called Jesus, most of whose followers were Jews, was executed on the basis of trumped up charges. This was done with the grudging sufferance of the Imperial Roman authorities at the behest of certain powerful Jewish political and community leaders. Thus it would be fair to say he was killed by Jews.

This is of course not at all the same thing as saying he was killed by the Jews: that makes about as much sense as saying “John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the Caucasians”.

This is just history, guys! What is the big deal?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

97 comments to Just the facts, Mel

  • D Anghelone

    The big deal is that the notion of Jews killing Christ has in the past been used as excuse for pogromic(sic) activities.

  • But how does that explain the current furore? The most recent mega-horror visited on the Jews (and rather a lot of others) in the 1940’s was the product of an altogether different bunch of barking moonbats: the quasi-pagan Nazis. The idea that anywhere outside the Islamic world (i.e. anywhere that really matters) is laying the intellectual ground work for stomping on the poor ol’ Jews again is a bit of a reach for me.

  • lucklucky

    Well we´ll only know seeing the film and even then…i am holding my opinion.

    But i disagree with your last view

    1- While you said that Nazis where a sort of “quasi-pagans” that dont means that whom supported Nazis turned into quasi-pagans . I bet that most of those that supported/tolerated Hitler behaviour would say they were Christians and they had plenty of confort for that vision in a limited part of the church.

    2-The bed for ethnic cleansing was already on because of – Race superiority visions looselly linked with eugenics of begin of century. Already refered church vision in some sectors, strange mix of anti-capitalist/communist/conspiracy (which plays better at time) toward jews. Simple invious towards a people that were school educated. Nazis didnt build a castle in the air.

    3- Present time (i am exepting Arab world)
    The anti-capitalist/conspiracy mantra.
    Added by anti-americanism (anyone that America supports is bad by nature).
    Pacifism/anti-militarism , nothing irritates more that of citizens with rifles in a city with military, and nothing bad happens…
    Hollywood vision “weak(always have reason) Vs strong (always bad )”
    Beaurocrats/diplomacy – Israel is the antitheses of a beaurocrat world for outsiders.
    Some hardcore pro-europeans have Israel has a bad dream.
    Oil.
    This concour to let it happen.
    Most of the time it isnt what we support or not but what we tolerate. It’s the weakest ring that breaks when things go bad. I am sure if you made a poll and asked germans in 39 that they think they’ll had ovens to burns jews, roma and others soon, they will had called you crazy…

    back to the movie, my question is: in dificult times the movie can be used for someone in is home to think that dont deserve to defend another human being in a new “Kristallnacht”? if so it must be challenged but not censored.

  • ernest young

    D. Anghlone,

    Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. That has never been the cause any anti-Jewish pogrom. There are lots of other reasons for disliking the Jewish religion, some valid and some utter rubbish.

    There has always been a lot of discussion on this very point, (for some two thousand years), but too much protestation, is quite likely to do the Jewish community more harm than good, and certainly arouses little sympathy in general.

    Trying to re-write the Bible over a disputed incident does not reflect well on the Jewish religion in particular, and the Jewish people in general.

    Most people who have seen the film seem very moved by it, and that includes representatives from all the major religions. Of course there are always some who will criticise for the political effect, and I feel that is the case here.

    This film is one man’s interpretation of a passage in the Bible, it is recognised as not being factual, and that it is based on hearsay. The whole thing should be viewed as a whole, and not taken apart to satisfy someone’s version of political correctness.

    The so-called scholarly Rabbis, who are protesting so strongly should hang their heads in collective shame at their mean, narrow minded and miserable behaviour.

  • ernest young

    lucklucky,

    Just what are you talking about? as written your comment makes little sense….. sorry but…..

  • This seems like a prime example of something that’s been bugging me lately: people seem very eager to throw around the term “anti-semitic” recently (or maybe I’m only just noticing it now). Antisemitism is a very ugly thing, and calling something/someone antisemetic is therefore a very ugly charge not to be made lightly. Stating that “Jews killed Christ” is as neutral as saying “Christ was a Jew” — so why does one get people all up in arms while the other does not? My only guess is that it’s because the former typically has a negative connotation to it. But Jewish history, like American history or British history or Australian history or German history, cannot expected to be totally spotless.

    Everyone’s shit stinks, and pointing out the odour should not cause accusations of bigotry to be thrown about. Those are serious charges, and tossing them around like that does nobody any good. Jews have had some awful things done to them, just like blacks or aboriginals or countless other peoples have — but where does the line go between being sensitive to those injustices and just perpetuating a sense of victimhood?

  • Another odd aspect of this is that the Jewish groups in the USA which are so upset at Mel Gibson, tend to be in the more part of the spectrum. The same people who don’t like Sharon and want to get the “Peace Process” going again. In other words, the same people who willfully ignore the threat posed by people who actually do murder Jews, and who have come out and said they are going to continue to murder Jews, are terribly worried about a completely phantasmal danger, that their Christian neighbors in the American suburbs are going to be whipped into a murderous frenzy against them, and drive over in their SUVs and minivans, and have a pogrom. Since no one sane can believe that, what is this really about. Rather, it is a more inchoate worry, which is driiving much of this. At some level there is a belief among American Jews that Christianity is per se a bad thing, and its mere existence is categorically an ongong threat. There is a certain amount of historical evidence for this view. Therefore, any evidence that it Christianity is dying out or turning into a relatively God-free do-goodism is greeted with relief and any evidence that it is continuing or waxing strong as a God-believing religion is greeted with alarm.

    It seems to me that a further aspect of this is simply American politics. American Jews tend to be liberal democrats, of an activist and aware sort at that. American church-going Christians tend to be conservative Republicans, though often not very activist, often being more interested in other things than politics. So, anything which is seen as tending toward the solidarity and self-awareness of the population of church-going Christians is seen as a threat to liberal democratic politics, particularly the current law regarding abortion which is the hinge issue of all American politics. So, the opponents of this movie want to discredit it to prevent it from having a galvanizing effect on the primary audience which will watch it. So far, those efforts to attack the film have manifestly been entirely counterproductive. It is poised to have a massive viewership and make a mountain of money. And it has rallied many people to feel that attending the movie is an act of religious solidarity, almost an obligation to stand by a beleaguered fellow Christian.

    What the eventual religious, social or political effects of the movie will be are pure speculation at this point. I would guess that the three categories will come out as “minor”, “nil” and “nil”. Staying tuned … .

  • markove

    I watched Jesus Christ Superstar and it looked to me like Jesus wanted to be killed, well at least until he got on the cross and knew he was going to die. Maybe Christians should be thankful that some Jews helped Jesus fulfill his death pact.

  • Verity

    Although Luckylucky’s post is totally incoherent and I have absolutely no idea what s/he is trying to say, one thing comes through loud and clear: s/he is a total bigot, viz “Well we´ll only know seeing the film and even then…i am holding my opinion.” In other words, even if the film is deeply moving, as most who have viewed it say it is, Luckylucky is not going to be swayed away from what I assume, from his meaningless string of words and non-words, is a negative opinion.

    The people railing against this film have a political agenda to push. What is so amazing is, as someone said above, they don’t tackle the people who have been perfectly frank in stating their intention of eliminating the Jews: the Islamists. Instead, they tackle people like Mel Gibson.

  • Dave F

    Well done, Perry, your disingenuous little troll has got em crawling out of the woodwork. Ernest Young is already rattling his chains. But I wonder if it is a good idea to chum the water like this.

    I don’t think Mel,Gibson’s motives are at all pure. He comes from background of extreme conservative Catholic bigotry, which has always been a steady feeder of Jew hatred; viz the poisonous outpourings of his own father this very week about the “lie” of the Holocaust.

    Mel is not on record as disagreeing with these views, and has not commented on them this time despite the extraordinary timing, which is clearly deliberate.

    As to the notion that Jews killed Christ, no, Roman politics killed Christ. When you call this “history” are you iimplying the Bible is a reliiable historical document? Or that the Gospels are objective historical analysis?

    Even the theological view (I’m an atheist) is that Christ died for all of us and our sins and we are all culpable.

    The point Jew haters are trying to make is that the Jews are Christkillers. Removing the definite article does not establish purity of intent and will certainly be lost on the audience, if they be so inclined.

    As for the tone of joculariy “mega-horror” is pretty relative, really. What would you call the continuing massacre of innocents by Palestinian “suicide” bombers?

    Antisemitism is thriving in Europe, as even the Eurocrats are now having to concede. Pity if it finds its way into Samizdata.

    As for the artistic merits of Gibson’s movie, I am not in a position to pronounce on them, but gee, even Hitler used good film makers.

  • Dale Amon

    I suspect this is a storm in a teacup even in the midst of the jewish community in America. I lived in a largely jewish neighborhood for 20 years; a large part of my network of friends was there; and so was quite a percentage of girlfriends. The majority will just yawn at it.

    Anyone who looks at the history of particular peoples who have history spanning thousands of years will find good and bad; terrible and wonderful. The jewish people have committed atrocities (real ones, not just running a troublesome religious nut through a kangaroo court) and had atrocities committed upon them. So have the Chinese. So have others. If there is an ethnic group called Americans out amongst the stars in 2000 years, the same will be true of them. Time passes. Shit happens. People make movies about it.

  • Verity

    Dale, thanks for a breath of sanity. Jeeeze!

    There is a whole Holocaust industry that has to keep itself alive and in the news and they jump like a fish at every single tiny breadcrumb. I agree with Dale. The American Jews I know will either raise an eyebrow and shrug or, more probably, go take a look for themselves.

    Dave F – Could we have some example of anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe, please? One or two, even? This is a new piece of received wisdom to keep everyone on the boil. There is a rise of anti-semitism in France, and it is perpetrated, in the main, by resentful, vicious Muslim youths. The French government feared to admit this for quite a while, frightened that it would stir the French up against the Muslims, but now they’re admitting it. If there’s any vague anti-semitism left among French indigenes (and I’m not saying there’s not) it is not of the urgent, active type. They’ve got a real threat in their presence: eight percent of the French population is now Muslim. One percent is Jewish. The Jews are assimilated and are seen to be contributors.

    I hate this repetition of scary received wisdom.

  • Eamon Brennan

    A question for Perry.

    Is it actually possible to Troll on your own blog?

    Eamon

  • The troublng issue for me that has come out in all this is that Mel Gibson’s father (to whom he is apparently close) has been quoted denying the Holocaust. He has made no attempts that I have seen to deny that he did so. While I agree that anti-semitism is a very serious charge to lay on someone, I would have no difficulty laying it on Hutton Gibson, assuiming the things that were quoted in the New York Times Magazine article that gave the background of the film production are things that he did in fact say.

    Of course, Mel Gibson is not his father. But it appears there may be some anti-semitism in the family as it were, and this does leave me slightly concerned about Gibson’s motives for making the film. But we shall see. When it comes down to it I suspect that Gibson’s main desire is to tell the story of Christ. And this is fine. In the end, I also tend to think that this controversy is a storm in a teacup, too.

    And of course it wasn’t the Caucasians alone who killed Kennedy. It was a conspiracy in which the Asiatics, the Hotentots, the Aztecs and the Etruscans were all involved. The Jews were innocent, however.

  • D Anghelone

    Perry:

    “But how does that explain the current furore? The most recent mega-horror visited on the Jews (and rather a lot of others) in the 1940’s was the product of an altogether different bunch of barking moonbats: the quasi-pagan Nazis. The idea that anywhere outside the Islamic world (i.e. anywhere that really matters) is laying the intellectual ground work for stomping on the poor ol’ Jews again is a bit of a reach for me.”

    No one needed to lay the groundwork for the inferior treatment of American blacks in the twentieth century. It was there. It was how things were.

    ernest young:

    “That has never been the cause any anti-Jewish pogrom. There are lots of other reasons for disliking the Jewish religion, some valid and some utter rubbish.”

    The “cause” lies deeper than we can divine. Justification is the issue.

    Dale Amon:

    “I lived in a largely jewish neighborhood for 20 years; a large part of my network of friends was there; and so was quite a percentage of girlfriends. The majority will just yawn at it.”

    I am now 58 and grew up (nominally) in a predominantly Jewish area in NYC. American Jews have, like others, mainstreamed but those old insecurities are, IMO, there to be awakened.

  • Pete

    What?! The Aztecs killed Kennedy! I always knew those damned Aztecs were up to no good, worshiping the sun all day….

    I would suggest that there is a real danger of us all becoming de-sensitized to the constant cries of ‘wolf’ from those members of the Jewish community who could perhaps best be decribed as being too highly strung. This inures us to identifying real and pernicious anti-semitism. It devalues the charge and allows real anti-semites more opportunities and scope to attack Jews.

  • I suspect that many American jews are going to go see this film or rent it on DVD. I agree, as well, that some of the political furore over this movie is politically motivated.
    It is after all an election year. There are activist Jewish Dems who are worried that the Dems attitude towards Israel and Jews, which seems to range from the wobbly to downright hostily, might just be driving more observant Jews to the Republicans. To a certain type of leftie Jewish activist being in a party with the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and his ilk is preferable to being in a party with Christian Conservatives.

    Gibson Sr’s views are distastful, but no less so that those of some of the celebrated Arab speakers so admired by the left.

    There may be a troll in this discussion, but it certainly isn’t Perry.

  • Emo

    Why no challenge to Perry’s ridiculous and groundless claim that “this is just history”?

    According to whom, assuming Perry isn’t asking us to accept the Bible as a credible historical source? There’s no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed beyond hearsay and rumour.

    e.g.
    Did Jesus really live?

    I can understand why there’s great concern about this film. Firstly, Gibson has a record of producing historically inaccurate, racist films in which a particular group of people are demonised, e.g. Braveheart. Secondly, he has either denied or spoken very dismissively about the holocaust in the past. Thirdly, his father recently went on record with a viciously anti-semitic rant that included the claim that the holocaust was a myth, and all the Jews who were “supposed to have died” emigrated to the US.

  • It was touched on above, but the point of concern here is that Mel Gibson is a member of, and indeed founded and funded a church under, a traditionalist sect of Catholicism which explicitly denies several of the reforms the Church has undergone in recent decades: one of which is the absolution of the Jews for Jesus’ crucifiction. When this is coupled with Mr. Gibson’s father’s outrageous statements that the Holocaust never happened (and the colourful way he goes about that) it raises eyebrows about Mel’s real motives.

    Another thing that has stirred this up: Gibson, reportedly, refused to show the film in advance to Jewish groups but did show it to numerous Christian groups, many of which are touting this as a way to preach the “good word” and renew the faith. Some have even gone so far as to call Gibson a modern day Apostle.

    If the underlying message is anti-Jewish, then I can see what the trouble is. Oddly, in spite of the 2,000 years separating the events, anti-Jewish hate crimes continue to be perpetrated by so-called Christians to this very day and for the very reason that “the Jews killed Christ”.

  • jay

    I may have missed something here but does it matter who killed JC as if nobody had he would not have risen on the third day etc etc and we would’nt have had Christianity for the past 2k years. Just a thought.

  • limberwulf

    Ok, here goes my two cents.

    1) its just a movie, lighten up.

    2) Mel’s dad is like 80-something. My grandfather is a racist, so is my grandmother. My dad is “close” to both of them, but he is by no stretch a racist in any way shape or form, nor am I. I have friends that I am close to whose opinions I totally disagree with. Im even friends with, and even related to, a few liberals. Oh the horror.

    3) Whether the Bible is history or not, what is being portrayed is said to be fairly accurate to the text. Obviously there is some interpretation involved, it is a movie afterall, but I am sick and tired of things being changed for PC reasons.

    4) I dont see hollywood shying away from showing movies about the cruelty of our forefathers towards the native americans, isnt that “anti-american”? No, its not, it happened, and thats not going to change.

    5) Mel used his own money to do this movie, and he had a cast that were made fully aware of the blacklisting they might get in hollywood for being on this project. As far as I am concerned he can make any movie any way he wants to, because my tax dollars didnt pay for a bit of it.

    6) those that would use a movie, or even the Bible itself to support their actions against another race or religion are criminals. They are evil people looking for an excuse to hate, and they should be dealt with accordingly. You dont take away their excuse, you dont take away their weapons, you take THEM away. Censoring this movie because people might think it’s anti-semitic is like taking away all guns because people might use them to shoot each other. It doesnt fix a damn thing. You have to deal with the evil people, not the tools they use.

  • Emo: I am an agnostic with no axe to grind here, unlike the author of the article you link to. I really do not care over much to be honest, but yes, I do believe there was a guy called Jesus who came to a sticky end a couple thousand years ago. I was rather under the impression non-Christian Roman accounts make those basic raw facts pretty much certain. “Was this Jesus the son of God?” however is a rather different question and as an agnostic, not one I indend to ponder for all too long.

  • Jaume

    Sirs,

    Two facts:

    1.- Jesus Christ was himself a Jew.
    2.- During the invasion of Judea, the Romans crucifixed about 250,000 Jews.

  • button

    Mr. Foxman lived through WWII as a child in Poland. He is a Nazi Holocaust survivor. As such, he is quite sensitive to Holocaust issues. Some consider him hyper-sensitive. You should try to be polite and considerate of this factor when dealing with him.

    I suggest that you simply keep it in mind that he had a very, very bad experience during his early life.

    I have not seen the Gibson movie.

  • Susan

    Saw clips of the film on Ebert and Roper’s show (the most influential movie critics in the US) a couple of days ago. It looked good but some of the scenes were rather stomach-churning (lots of blood). Not exactly a fun family night out for the kiddoes.

    Ebert and Roper both passionately defended the film and said it was not anti-Semitic. Neither of them are known for being particularly religious.

    They say the negative portrayals of the Pharisees are offset by positive portrayals of ordinary Jews. The actress who plays Mary is Jewish and has nothing but good to say about Gibson. The Romans are portrayed as brutish thugs.

    That said, Gibson’s creepy Dad and weird religious beliefs creep me out too. The fact that he hasn’t distanced himself from his Dad’s nasty ramblings is kind of telling. However, the man apparently does have some kind of artistic merit as a director (who’dda thunk it?) as Ebert said the film is a masterpiece.

    I agree with Verity that the tranzis probably don’t want anyone to see this film. For that reason alone I will probably see it. 🙂

  • jlb

    It’s not history at all, it’s MYTHOLOGY! So why don’t y’all unwad your panties.

  • Susan,

    I do not think we have any business delegitimising Mel Gibson’s father. That is a classic tranzi strategy. Mr Gibson senior has reasoned views with which one may argue. So do so. Prove him wrong to everyone’s satisfaction (where’s the fearsome Lilith???).

    But don’t be repelled, don’t suggest that his own son should “distance himself” … this is doing the tranzis work for them.

    As to Gibson senior’s actual views, I don’t think they’re just generational as Limberwolf suggests. The man doubts the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and the six million total death total. He regards the Holocaust as a cash cow. Well, why not? Anyone should be able to question it as they think fit and without being thrown into prison – an EU law coming to you soon, folks. Subject matter shouldn’t redefine free speech.

    In that sense Samizdatistas should have more sympathy for Gibson senior who claims the right of free speech than for Abe Foxman who would limit it. If not – and if, perhaps, if you are not German or jewish – maybe you should question your own beliefs on the issue.

  • lucklucky

    Right. What a mess sorry have to stop writing at 4 am…

    Ernest Young my point was to Perry original text, not the answer he made here. You can see that i made my points based in points of Perry initial text. Sadly i put there “But i disagree with your last view” that can lead to confusion.

    About the phrase that Verity pointed that also indeed makes confusion: what i wanted to mean is
    “Well we´ll only know seeing the film and even then people will disagreeright now i am holding my opinion.”

    in italics what was missing.

    Resuming for readability:

    point one/two: Nazis didnt made is hate policy from a completely new vision/ideology. To pave the way they had to bring old preconceptions.

    point three:discription of present situation.

  • ed

    Hmm. What we need is the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

    1. Pogroms.
    Pogroms were used by the ruling classes as a means of controlling the peasants. By demonizing the local jews it was possible to redirect the buildup of hate and despair to a more accessible, visible and, for the nobility, preferred victim class. Other reasons for jews being the victims of pogroms had to do with the fact that Christians were largely forbidden to charge interest. Thus most, if not all, banking was done by Jews. Additionally many nobles used Jews as their taxcollectors. Since these nobles could define and restrict what professions and careers were open to Jews, these people often had no real choice about the matter.

    If there’s anyone in the world you would be predisposed to dislike more would it not be the banker and the taxcollector?

    That said it should be noted by all that pogroms were extremely horrific events. Anything sort of atrocity and madness that you could imagine did in fact happen. Modern examples of pogroms happen still in Indonesia. Only in that case the victims are immigrant Chinese who are as demonized there as the Jews were in Europe and Russia.

    2. Holocaust deniers.
    The primary problem that a lot of people have is that the whole concept of the Holocaust doesn’t leave room for anyone else. I personally believe that millions of Jews did in fact suffer and die horribly in concentration camps. I also believe emphatically that millions of other people died in exactly the same manner. An example of this would be to ask the simple question “Millions of Russian soldiers were captured during the early stages of Operation Barbarossa, where did they go?”.

    Fact is that ANYONE considered undesirable was grist for the concentration camp mill. Captured Russian soldiers, captured in numbers far too inconvenient to control and feed. Captured American and Allied soldiers also ended up there. Gypsies, malcontents and other “enemies of the state” also ended up there.

    Frankly I’m of the opinion that more Christians died in those camps than Jews did. *shrug* but that’s an opinion.

    3. Mel’s father.
    Oh give me a BREAK! You’re going to judge Mel Gibson and his life’s work on the basis of his FATHER? WTF? What is wrong with you?

    Frankly some people need to be slapped really hard.

    4. “Mr. Foxman lived through WWII as a child in Poland. He is a Nazi Holocaust survivor. As such, he is quite sensitive to Holocaust issues. Some consider him hyper-sensitive. You should try to be polite and considerate of this factor when dealing with him.”

    Supposedly the actress who plays Mary Magdelene has both parents who are survivors of the Holocaust. Personally I couldn’t care less if Mr. Foxman is a Holocaust survivor himself. It is not relevant to this discussion nor to this film.

    5. If you don’t like it, don’t watch.

    Personally I’m going to go see the film. Spiritually I’m an Animist with no Christian leanings. However, that said, I’m also a realist and I fully believe that Christianity is the fount of just about ALL of the good that exists on this planet. The concepts of human dignity, pre-existing and fundamental rights beyond the control of secular authorities and other such major concepts originate mostly from Christianity. While those concepts do exist in other belief systems and religions, they have never had the impact that Christianity has had.

    Let’s face it. Cruxifiction has to be one of the most agonizing ways of dying that anyone has ever invented. The normal process leads to the person dying of suffocation after a period of perhaps days. With the body stretched out and hung from the arms there is exerted on the diaphram the entire body weight of the victim. Each breath taken requires the victim to lift himself up to relieve that pressure. Time goes by the strength to relieve that pressure becomes less and less, and thus the amount of air breathed in becomes less and less.

    The suffocation process could literally take days. And in all that time the victim has not one moment of rest and cannot even sleep.

    That Jesus willingly went to that doom is amazing in itself.

  • Verity

    Ed, aka Breath of Fresh Air. Have to say, though, what happened to the Chinese in Indonesia around three years ago was spontaneous hatred of a successful commercial class of people. It was horrendous and frightening while it was happening, but it wasn’t institutionalised. It was a week or so of mass, targetted hatred. The Indonesians don’t think long term, so thankfully, no camps.

    Gibson’s 80-yr old dad holds strong opinions about Jews. And? Gibson’s in his mid-Fifties with six children of his own, for god’s sake!

    4. “Mr. Foxman lived through WWII as a child in Poland. He is a Nazi Holocaust survivor. As such, he is quite sensitive to Holocaust issues. Some consider him hyper-sensitive. You should try to be polite and considerate of this factor when dealing with him.”
    So now the crucifying of Christ is a “Holocaust issue”? Oh. OK. We won’t make any movies with Jews in them in case Mr Foxman sees it as an assault on his sensitivity. Ed is right. How Mr Foxman, whoever he is, regards his sensitivities is not relevant to this film.

    What is this shutting down of the debate that is going on on this thread?

    You either believe in free expression or you don’t. That means it’s free expression for all; not free expression for those with the “right” views and politically correct censorship for everyone else. It is a *movie* for god’s sake. Mel Gibson made a movie which you are free to go watch or not – your choice.

    I would quote the praise it’s had, including from Jews, but that is not the point. That some people are trying to shut down the debate is what is relevant.

  • Noah Yetter

    Isn’t there another older movie called Jesus Christ that depicts the same events? Was there a similar row over that film?

    At any rate, the whole “Jews killed Christ” thing smacks to me of groupthink. Assuming the biblical tale is true, INDIVIDUALS who happened to be Jews killed Christ. Why their transgression is moved off of them and onto groups they belong to is completely beyond me.

  • Foxman may be a Holocaust survivor, but he’s also hyper-sensitive — and it should be noted that it’s in his own interest to foment cries of “anti-Semitism!”, even in situations (like this one) where none exist.

    The ADL is run by private contributions — just like any other lobbying group. If their cause disappears, their raison d’etre does likewise.

    More to the point, once the major reason for the cause gets better or is rectified over time, the lobbyist is forced to go after smaller and smaller issues until it becomes a whole lot of fuss about nothing.

    Like this one.

    Yes, Gibson’s “historical” movies are good spectacle, but bad history. In this one, however, he seems to have taken pains to make it as close to recorded history (ie. the Gospels) as he could.

    Good for him.

    I look forward to seeing the movie, and I’m an atheist.

  • Susan

    Guessedworker: I was not suggesting that Mel’s dad be censored; I just said that Mel’s silence on his dad’s views made me very uncomfortable. That is not being tranzi; that is being a decent human being. Tranzis do not have a monopoly on decency although, of course, they think they do.

    Barbara Amiel is one of the prominent Jews who supports the right of Mel to make the film the way he wanted to. She wrote a rather good article about it in the Telegraph yesterday.

    I agree that no one should try to shut down the debate on the film, even the “contributions” of Mel’s creepy old Dad.

    Regarding Indonesian attacks on the Chinese minority: they are still going on, just in the guise of Christian vs. Muslm “religious strife”. Many of the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia are Christian.

    Churches are still being burned in Indonesia as we speak.

  • Sorry, Susan. I googled for the old boy before committing to print here and came up with a singularly one-sided take on him. My own father is 81, a year older than Gibson senior and still remarkably compus mentis, but … There’s no way he could comport himself knowledgeably and safely in front of a pack of agenda-laden media wolves baying for a racist angle. At the best of times trying to explain Holocaust revisionism to a hostile world is like giving out rope at your own lynching party. Nothing he could say would be handled with the slightest fairness, and it wasn’t.

    Then along comes Susan who finds him creepy and wierd, and his views nasty. So off I went. Should have known better because it was you.

    I read the Amiel article. A generous woman. Wonder what she’ll do for a platform post-Barclay brothers.

  • Doug Collins

    There is another perspective on the question of the responsibility for the death of Christ:

    The power structure of a religious State (the Sanhedrin), made up of human beings with a nature given at times to sinfulness (as all humans are-a key point of Christian doctrine), solved the problem of a potential threat to the organization by taking the easy way out and having Him executed by a cooperative civil State. They did this in spite of the fact that some of them apparently believed Him capable of miracles and possibly even of being what He claimed to be.

    They sacrificed a man to the welfare of their State. It wasn’t the first time in history that this happened, nor is it the last.

    They merely happened that time to be Jews. Christians, and others who interpret this part of scripture to say that the Jews killed Christ, are very badly missing the point of what is -among other things- an important cautionary tale for clergy and politicians.

  • Whip

    “I’ve also heard that the Jews killed Jesus (actually, there’s a whole film produced by Mel Gibson coming out about the crucifixion of which the working title is Look What Those Pesky Jews Did!). It seems strange to get angry about that, though, since Jesus came back to life a few days later; no harm, no foul. ”

    -from IMAO (blogger Frank J.), Oct 21, 2003

  • ernest young

    I say – Good Luck to Mel Gibson for not turning on his Father just to make some folk feel a little more comfortable and less creepy. I’m sure his Father would not want him to make excuses for his opinions.

    Shame on you for thinking that it would be right and proper for him to do so!. Or perhaps you believe that the ‘sins of the Father should be visited on the Son’.

    That the film was Gibson’s own idea, on a subject that is hardly ‘the flavour of the month’, with his own money, and spoken in Aramaic, with sub-titles, should give pause to those who accuse him of the profit motivation.

    He says his reason for making the film was as a sort of atonement, or penance for past transgressions, and that his intentions were, that the film should be of the highest integrity.

    I have no reason to doubt this.

    That people misconstrue his intention, both those of the Jewish faith who think it is anti-semitic, and those Christians who are trying to use the film to rekindle their belief, is entirely their problem, not Mel Gibson’s!.. That the Hollywood ‘elite’ are so ‘anti’, as to threaten a blacklist on all who took part in the making of the film, seems to show their jealousy, at not having the idea in the first place, and in not having the artistic integrity to produce a film of this calibre.

    The film is a masterpiece, (by all accounts), and will certainly be talked about long after the re-make of Lord of the Rings is forgotten. A film such as this should be judged on nothing but merit.

  • drdrake

    Who would of thought that Mel Gibson would film “The Stations of the Cross” just in time for lent.

  • ernest young

    Oh! you little cynic…..surely that increases the film’s relevance…..

  • Steve

    I see little basis for all this hoopla and rhetoric. The movie was a movie, not more and no less. There really wasn’t much of anything “new” in it and its ommisions of some important parts were somethwhat obvious but acceptable. There was a bit of a “slant” to it as often happens, with the movie serving as a vehicle for some thoughts of the director. Noething exciting there. It was a movie. No more and no less. As one of the inferior art forms it did little to strike and stir the elements of the human psyche than a less commonly known Bach oboe concerto.

  • Verity

    Susan – It is the Aceh who are Christians in Indonesia. They have been victimised and their churches burned. Most of the Chinese are in Java. The Indonesians in Java are some of the most unpleasant people I have ever met in my life. Well, you only have to look at their deeply, irretrievably corrupt government.

    Surely you are not suggesting that Mel Gibson apologise for comments made by his father? To note that he hasn’t seen fit to comment on a remark made by one of his parents makes you “uncomfortable” is absolutely ridiculous. Mel Gibson’s loyalty is to his family, not you. His father isn’t even in public life! He can say anything he damn’ well pleases! And the highly strung Mr Foxman can say anything he pleases, too. Who gives a crap?

  • Dave F

    Well, after visiting this thread again, wish I’d been wrong about bringing them out of the woodwork — even defenders of Gibson snr, who has espoused these views before and has apparently always had them. So no excuse there. A pparently the film portrays Pontius Pilate — a Sad?am-level tyrant who crucified thousands of Jews — as a decent type just bewildered by all the hate expressed by the local Hebrews towards Jesus.

    I note the defenders of Gibson. And their names. He can speak as freely as he wants, but nothing entitles him to protection from unwanted consequences. I say he has a malevolent agenda.

    And goodbye Samizdata.

  • Well, I’ve been habituating Sammie for several months now, made a nuisance of myself no doubt, made a few enemies, sort of, and a few friends, sort of. But I’ve not yet come across anyone – anyone – making the unmistakable, veiled threat that Dave F has.

    I could just shout “arsehole” at him. I could argue that Gibson senior puts the principle of free speech on trial, and if we valkue our freedom we must protect his. But Dave F so blatently cares nothing for that, there would be little point. Dave F is probably a jewish activist, probably an ADL supporter and an admirer of their most gangster-like methods. He is also a trial for free speech but I don’t find him defensible. If I was jewish I would disassociate myself from him pronto.

    I hope some readers of this blessed blog will agree with me and wish Dave F and Samizdata a happy divorce.

  • Verity

    Guessedworker – How someone could have the effrontery to threaten people who are defending freedom of expression is a bit baffling. And certainly, I read the post the same way you did. He was “taking names”.

    Dave F says he reckons Gibson has “a malevolent agenda”. The same might be said for Dave F – and with stronger evidence.

  • ernest young

    When I read Dave F’s opening comment re ‘coming out of the woodwork’ while ‘rattling my chains’, I took it as a sign that the children were taking an interest, and making comments.

    That his email address (for what it is worth), is South African may explain the distorted view of life that he shows. I did wonder if there may have been an apartheid skeleton in his cupboard, and that the hatred displayed towards Gibson Snr. may, in some way be a reflection of his own paternal hatred.

  • We’ll never know now, Ernest. Strangely enough, I have a really good friend in SA who’s a jew. I don’t know his politics or his view of Mel et pere, and wouldn’t care to ask. Apartheid hasn’t unhinged him in any way that I can divine AND he has one of these highly suspect South African e-mail addresses!

    What got me about Dave F was his stunning hypocrisy … his sweet notion that Perry’s post brought the evil Ernest’s, Verity’s and GW’s out of the woodwork when, in fact, it bought out only his lunatic desire to volunteer us for the next gentile pogrom. Ain’t apartheid a wonderful thing?

  • ernest young

    GW,

    I have come across his idiot rantings over on Harry’s Place, where he espouses on all sorts topics in the most weird way.

    My comment re his SA connections, was not meant as a generality, but having lived thru’ the apartheid years I could understand the liklihood of him being adversely affected by the experience.

    I suppose we are seen as ‘evil’ by some for having a different view of life, and not being afraid to say so. We are just plain unfashionable…..and in my case – too long in the tooth to care.

  • Verity

    I’ve noticed before that there was something hostile about Dave F. He was always trying to prove everyone else wrong, always intent on teaching everyone else a little lesson. Quite the authoritarian, our Dave F, late of this blog.

  • ed

    Hmm.

    I’m rather interested in the movie because it has the potential for revitalizing Christianity and not just Roman Catholicism. The synergy it is creating among the laypeople and clergy, of all denominations btw, is very very interesting.

    All religions are bound within a cycle of decay and renewal. Christianity has been struggling with the decay of it’s basic principles and the degredation of it’s most visible icons and rituals. There exists in America today people, organizations and government entities that do not refer to Christmas as Christmas but rather as “Winter Holiday”. Which is frankly rather insulting.

    I’m truly interested in seeing if this movie can act as the catalyst of a great Christian renewal. I think this renewal has been gestating for decades but it has remained unknown simply because popular culture and the mass media has set up a situation whereby Christians have felt largely isolated. There is a curious effect where people who, of similar dispositions and ideologies, have the fiction of isolation removed acquire a wellspring of energy and force. The simple fact that they can see and engage with other people of similar attitudes results in these people becoming more likely and ready to stand up for their own principles.

    In a way this same situation happened with Conservatives with the advent of talk radio. Previously many Conservatives felt isolated and alone. When talk radio showed that there were actually huge numbers of Conservatives, that permanetly changed the political landscape of America.

    I seriously believe that this might, just might, be an even greater movement. And I think that perhaps the ACLU might be wise to not object when towns show navitity scenes next Christmas. They might be in for a serious shock.

  • Guy Herbert

    Gosh, ed. The idea of renewed Christian dominance of the Western world is far more frightening than any narrowly and readily dismissed anti-Semitic message.

  • Verity

    Guessedworker – Any editor who dropped Barbara Amiel would not be much of an editor and certainly wouldn’t qualify to be editing a broadsheet. She’s a sharp, astute observer and an elegant wielder of prose. She, Mark Steyn and Janet Daley are the best things about The Telegraph. Sorry, Andy D, but I’ve begun to find Boris’s column tiresome. Rajiv Sayeel is the best reporter at the paper, bar none. He’s a damn good writer and his investigate work is aces.

    When oh when are they going to drop that vapid drip Andrew Marr?

  • Verity

    Guy – I don’t think Ed was predicting a “dominance” of Christianity, as you put it. Just a re-recognition that it is the foundation of Western enlightened tradition and its adherents, of whom I am not one, do not deserve to be sneered at and jeered. Except the Archhippy of Canterbury, that is.

  • Doug Collins

    Just looked back at these comments and saw Dave F’s threat:

    “I note the defenders of Gibson. And their names.”

    Dave- I don’t know if my earlier comment qualified me as a ‘defender of Gibson’ but please don’t leave me out.

    Collins. Spelled with two L’s.

  • Dan McWiggins

    Ed,

    I sincerely hope you are right. From your keyboard to God’s eyes!

  • Susan

    Verity, the Acehnese situation is only one facet of the persecutions going on in Indonesia. Churches are being burned all over that nation, and I believe that most of the congregationists are Chinese, although they may be Indonesians as well. From CompassDirect (a site devoted to tracking incidents of Christian persecution all over the world), writing in late January:

    “Muslim protestors have attacked at least four churches over the past three weeks in the regions of East Java, West Java and North Sumatra, Indonesia.”

    On January 9th they attcked a Protestant church in East Java that was being renovated (Islamic law forbids the renovation of other faiths’ holy buildings). A bomb was found in another Christian church. The pastor received death threats. Two of the attacked churches closed their doors permanently in response.

    This has been going on for years. Expect more attacks at Easter Time as they seem to get more aggressive around other religions’ holy days — and their own as well. Muslim extremists routinely blow up Christian churches in Indonesia on Christmas Eve.

    PS regarding Mel’s dad: If were famous and my Muslim son ran around screaming bigotries about “kaffirs” to the media, I would certainly make it plain that his views are his own, not mine.

    Regarding the Torygraph’s commentators: I agree Andrew Marr is awful, but Adam Nicholson is the worst!

  • Doug Collins

    Guy-
    Before you get too upset over the idea of a renewed interest in Christianity in the West, (I won’t say dominance because I don’t think that is much of a danger), you might consider what happened the last time there was a big increase in interest outside of the existing religious power structures. We ended up with the reformation, modern science, even eventually a reform of the Catholic church where the whole thing originally started. Admittedly there was a lot of bloodletting, but that was largely a result of institutions attempting to eliminate threats to themselves. As I said in my previous comment, the proprietors of religious and civil institutions frequently confuse morality and the welfare of their institution to the cost of individuals unfortunate enough to get in their way. And this doesn’t only apply to Jews.

    The actual Christian message is not a particularly threatening one. If people read it for themselves and use their common sense, they can frequently see past the self serving interpretations of various institutions, religious and civil, which have found customized versions of it useful. The new perspective will tend to advance liberty rather than limit it.

  • Verity

    Susan, I won’t argue with you about Indonesia because it’s not one of my favourite places in the world. I have a special loathing for Jakarta, but then, who doesn’t?

    I will continue to take issue with you, however, over Mel Gibson’s dad. What his father says is not Mel’s business to avow or disavow. The opinions are clearly his father’s and, candidly, the opinions of this old man have only been made an issue of by the hostile, touchy antidefamation lobby. If the son had not been famous – and now, more juicily, controversial – the old dad’s pensées re Jews would have been no more than dust in the wind.

    There is something distasteful and opportunistic the way they have been set upon. I do not believe in curtailing anyone’s speech, and I do admire Gibson for not pandering to the crowd by distancing himself from his own father. They are two separate people. Anyone who can’t figure that out probably can’t tie their own shoelaces. Mel Gibson, who I don’t like, by the way, is not a teenager. He’s a man in his mid-fifties with six children. To try to tie him to comments made by his dad is disgraceful, as are attempts to diminish Gibson’s movie by harping on this extremely peripheral non-issue.

    On a lighter note – or no, actually, a heavier and drearier note – I agree with you about Adam Nicholson. I have yet to make it through an entire column. Actually, I’ve yet to make it through an entire paragraph. But I can’t finish Andrew Marr, either. That crap about his kids’ guinea pig or hamster or whatever it was was so … drab. Don Marquis in Archie And Mehitbel did the same thing fifty years ago, but with talent.

    Doug Collins, thank you for including yourself among those damned by David F. We are a small, frightened band, I am sure.

  • ed

    Hmmm.

    “The idea of renewed Christian dominance of the Western world … ”

    I’m not suggesting dominance at all.

    What you’re suggesting is that there will be a wave of Christian militancy equivalent of the Islamic kind. That is not my suggestion at all. Christian renewals have always been focused inward. At the core principles and underpin an individual’s faith.

    What I am suggesting is that there are a lot of people who have a more powerful faith that they’ve learned to bottle up. There’s been a lot of denigration of faithful Christians in modern popular culture for the last few decades. I believe that it is time this conduct should stop. A person’s faith shouldn’t be the cause for nods, winks or jokes. Especially if that faith is Christian.

    And, quite frankly, I think the worst thing that could possibly come from a wave of renewal would be a willingness to finance missionaries. That has always been the traditional outlet for such renewals. People find a greater faith within themselves and they wish to share it. The vehicle for that sharing is almost always “good works”, from which most of the world has benefited heavily.

    I know this from personal experience.

    My early childhood was made a lot more pleasant because the Pearl S. Buck Foundation, dedicated to helping disadvantaged children, provided for me. I know from a first-hand perspective just what “good works” actually means. And so do millions of people all over the world. That a Christian renewal could revive this application of Christian generosity does not fill me with perhaps the same dread as it does others.

  • Susan

    Verity, I’ve never been to Indonesia but I do follow the news from there off and on. There isn’t anything to argue about — there have been many attacks on churches all over those Islands, not just in Aceh. As you may realize by now, I follow the news coming from Islamic nations very closely.

    I respect your views about Mel’s Dad, let’s leave it at that. I do agree that there has been a pack mob attack attitude about the whole film which Gibson has been handling with admirable grace. I saw him last night on O’Reilly and he was the soul of charm. I’m actually beginning to like the guy. PS — when I first heard about this Jesus project a couple of years ago, I totally misunderstood it, and I thought that Gibson was planning to play Christ himself! A Braveheart Christ! At that time I really thought he had totally lost it.

    Ed: I agree with you, the constant elitist po-mo attacks on Christians and Christianity are disgusting. I’m an athiest myself but these attacks still disgust me, especially since I know they damn that religion for the faintist of sins while ignoring far heavier transgressions from certain other religions. I’m hoping this film will do big business worldwide, including in oh-so-sophisticated Europe, and wipe the smirk off the elitists’ face and that of their beloved media outlets such as the BBC big time.

  • Verity

    Susan, I hear you.

    But what pisses me off is, the militant Jews are trying to make the death of Christ all about TH-H-E-MMMM, rather than about Christ. As I’ve said, I don’t like Mel Gibson in any way, and I’m not a Christian, but could the militant Jews please stop colonising someone else’s religion? This is the story of the beginning of probably the most powerful religion for good the world has ever known through a sacrifice too horrible to contemplate, and they try to diminish it. This is what I find repulsive.

    Jesus was killed by the majority tribe (to which he belonged) of the time and on the territory where he was at the time.

    The renowned Dave F said he “understood” (not having seen the movie, but not having the facts has never stopped Dave F before) that Pontius Pilate was presented as someone who didn’t understand what everyone was so excited about.

    If Dave F weren’t such an ignorant git, he would know that colonial governors since time began often found themselves in a similar position. The “natives” under their control became incensed about an issue the occupying power didn’t relate to and thought was minor and didn’t understand. The British learned from their classical history and took care not to interfere in local issues, but the Romans didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. Pontius Pilate, like colonial governors before him and after him, was probably sincerely baffled about why “the natives” were so exercised. Which means, Gibson got this right.

    As I said, I haven’t seen the film and probably won’t see it, but I find the thuggish behaviour of Dave F and, on a grander scale, the entire Jewish industry, disturbing.

  • Doug.
    I’d like to associate myself with Verity’s remarks. I will save a proper thanks until we are all lined up against the wall, if that’s alright wirth you.

    Meanwhile, I’m wondering where the boss is (no, Ed, not that one – I kind of hoped we might hear from Perry on the subject of Dave F).

    Ed,
    I hope you are right about a Christian renewal, and I’ll explain why an atheist would hold such a view in a moment. Of course, it can’t succeed. I mean, mere celluloid doesn’t have that effect, does it? How many folks on this thread have reminded us that it’s just a movie. Well no, Mel Gibson is not merely seeking to entertain. He’s not merely seeking to express his religiosity or to offer his interpretation of the Crucifixion. I don’t even think he seeking to evangelise his faith. I think he’s after something bigger, and that has to be a general renewal.

    Consider the background. Film is not just Gibson’s natural medium. It is, in the form of the Hollywood studios’ output, a principal contributor to the relentless denigration of western social culture over the last forty years. How necessary as well as fitting, then, that Gibson’s film should be (and should have to be) independent of Hollywood finance, Hollywood commercial values, Hollywood distribution. How purifying that everyone involved has willingly agreed to sacrifice working again in Hollywood, if that’s what it takes.

    It is an inspiring effort, and that’s before we even come to consider the nature of the movie itself and its subject matter. All those who have seen the movie attest to its awful realism. It is a telling of Christ’s story in it’s most agonising hours, bereft of false sentiment or of any intentional distance or filter between the viewer and His suffering. Gibson seems to have burned the word “Purpose” with a capital P into the celluloid. This is not normal in big-screen film-making. None of this is remotely normal.

    Nor is the reaction the film has brought forward from the jewish establishment in America. It certainly feels as if the stakes are high, perhaps higher than the risk of reinvigorating the blood libel. Perhaps Christian renewal really is the issue.

    So why does an atheist hope for this change. Because forty years of sustained denigration of my native culture is offensive to me. Because it, along with many, many other factors, has wrought such a dire effect. Because change that is uplifting and noble must be valued above the rudderless cultural decline we now enjoy. And because I still remember some of the good that existed in thw rold of my fifties childhood.

    Do I think anything will come of Gibson’s great effort? No. I hope so, but no.

  • ed

    As an aside even the British were blindsided by a similar issue during the Sepoy Mutiny, or The Mutiny for some people, when the vast majority of Indian soldiers mutinied over the supposed use of animal fat to grease rifle bullets. One reason why this was important was the then current practice of holding rifle cartridges, bullet first, in the soldiers mouth. Since tasting cow fat was offensive to Hindus and pig fat was anathema to Muslims, this was a pretty serious charge. No idea if there was any truth to the matter or if it was trumped up.

    A similar outcry happened a number of years ago here in America. People thought that the USPS used pig products to make the adhesive for postage stamps and there was a remarkable push for the USPS to use vegetable based adhesives.

    Additionally I’d suggest that the Pilate was portrayed accurately in one respect. I could well imagine that a Roman Govenor, brutal enough to Jews to get a warning from the Roman Senate, would be mystified why people would be so exercised over one rather disreputable looking person.

    http://www.bible-history.com/pontius_pilate/pilateConclusion.htm

    Interesting site.

  • Susan

    Agree with you totally Verity on the behavior of Dave F. He may not even be Jewish; probably a tranzi worried that people will actually see the film and become interested again in the religion they all despise. It’s funny how tranzis can be so disgustingly anti-Semitic when it comes to the question of Israel or Muslim attacks on European Jews, then do a 360 degree turn and start attacking a film about Christ as anti-Semitic. I will note that Egyptian television recently broadcast a multi-part miniseries based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, depicting Jews making matzoh bread with gentile blood, with nary a peep about it from the tranzi crowd — who probably thought it deserved reverence as an expression of Egyptian Muslim “culture.”

    But it’s important to remember that not all Jews are jumping on the anti-Mel bandwagon. In addition to Barbara Amiel, Michael Medved, another very influential US movie critic and a practicing devout Jew, has denied the film is anti-Semtic also.

    Regarding the colonization of another’s religion, however, I will have to disagree with you there also. It works both ways. Think of how it must appear to Jews to be blamed and persecuted for 2,000 years for “deicide” of a man they do not consider to be God. I see parallels with that and Muslim demands that we all refrain from criticizing Muhammad as the greatest of all “prophets”, when we in the West consider him to be simply a historical figure and military leader like Alexander the Great or Kublai Khan.

  • ed

    “Do I think anything will come of Gibson’s great effort? No. I hope so, but no.”

    *shrug* I think it has already. To me this movie is really just that. A movie and nothing more. What’s important isn’t the movie, but the message itself. the message that the basis of faith isn’t found in sterile words, but the bloody reality.

    An avalanche is composed of thousands of tons of ice, snow and rock travelling at high speed and with tremendous velocity. It is however started by the most insignificant of sounds. The slightest of vibrations. The least perceptible of temperature changes. As a catalyst it starts the change, but does not encompass the entirety of the change itself. This movie isn’t the avalanche, it is the slightest and least perceptible of vibrations.

  • Susan

    Pilate has never been portrayed as a sympathetic person in Christian traditions. Our common phrase, “he washed his hands of the whole affair” is usually a reference to a coward or a diffident fool. He is a villian just like Judas.

    Remember he was influenced by the prophetic dream of his wife, who warned of dire consequences if Jesus was executed. Romans put a huge store on dreams, especially prophetic dreams. He was afraid of his wife’s prophecy, most likely, and was therefore reluctant to crucify Jesus.

    Guessedworker: I agree, I am an athiest but I am offended as well by the attempts to destroy my native culture and that of my ancestors for the past 1500+ years. Think of the common many marvelous phrases and scenarios that have entered our language via the Bible. “I wash my hands” is just one of them. We all know what a Good Samaritan is; we all know about the folly of “straining at gnats while swallowing camels; we all know the significance of accepting 30 pieces of silver for betraying a friend; we all know about the Good Thief and the Doubting Thomas. Shall all this be taken away from us? No thanks to that on my account.

  • Susan,

    Thank you for your response.

    I suppose one must make plain, for the sake of any “Pooh’s” in the vicinity, that the steady drizzle of negative imagery that Hollywood rains upon our social culture is plain, observable fact and not the ramblings of an anti-semite. Indeed, it is perfectly probable that the setting-off point for most of it is the inherent leftishness of the film industry, rather than its very well known jewishness.

    No doubt, there are some jews in high places in Hollywood with the sort of anti-white racial agenda that the National Alliance so insistently talks up. There have even been films made about it – I’m thinking of Stanley Kramer’s Eyes Wide Shut (Kramer is a jew, too!). But talk of that sort of deeply ingrained, intentional and programmatic jewish attitude belongs with conspiracy theory in general.

    For the most part, I think jewish writers and creative types observe gentile society with a much greater degree of separateness than we commonly suspect. This leads to a concentration on certain, often negative human qualities, exacerbated by the tendency film has anyway to amplify rather than soften or mitigate.

    Of course, the jewish input into cultural marxism is seminal, so leftishness doesn’t exclude jewishness. But it does preclude a racial motivation – unless one adopts Kevin MacDonald’s closely argued but somewhat dangerous approach, which I don’t.

  • I kind of hoped we might hear from Perry on the subject of Dave F

    My view is yeah, whatever. The article I wrote was in essence saying ‘why such a storm in a teacup over this whole thing?’. My view of Dave’s florid hissy fit, which is just another iteration of same attitude is: ‘why such a storm in a teacup over this whole thing?’.

  • shilohsharps

    Ha. And not a single mention that nearly the entirety of the Old Testament is devoted to what happens to Israel every time it strays from being devoted to God as their authority; allowing the idea of secular authority to supplant God and His Laws with civil law and kings of men. The children of Israel were captives of Rome. This only happened Biblically when first they fell away from God, and is nearly the entire point of the OT; witness 1st and 2nd Kings. Very bad things happen to Israel when it allows the secular power of The State to rule over them. The very leaders who caused the subjugation and surrender of Israel, and who were in daily collussion wwith Rome, were the same who judged Jesus and condemned Him. Their apostasy was so complete the Sanhedrin killed God Incarnate rather than admit their mortal sin of leading Israel into captivity.

  • ernest young

    Perry,

    There is no ‘storm in a teacup’ as far as this thread goes. Virtually all of the comments seem to be quite reasonable, and appear to be treating the subject with the degree of seriousness and civility that the subject requires.

    That you are an avowed agnostic is well known, you make it quite plain. Now if you feel the same way as Dave F, and believe that Gibson has an ulterior motive, well just say so, dont leave it to an offensive little shit to stir the pot.

    The fact that you may treat the subject of religion with a degree of flippancy does not imply that everyone else does, it is this figurative dismissal of religion by the trendy types, and particularly those on the ‘left’, that gives me pause for thought, maybe, just maybe, this continual mantra of ‘I’m an atheist’, is all part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy Western culture.

    I make no pretence to being a religious person, but neither am I an agnostic nor an atheist, and I do not think any the less of the devout religious types, their religion is part of who they are, and they certainly seem none the worse for it. Far be it, that it is the religious types who are prosletyzing these days, it sounds more as though it is the atheists among us doing all the prosletyzing, they seem to go to great pains to mention the fact, and like most converts, to whatever faith, they just cannot resist mentioning it.

    I certainly did not see his ‘hissy fit’ as a reiteration of your original post, but as a deliberate attempt to give offense, his juvenile attempt at flattering you seems to have worked..

  • Susan

    Guessedworker, many people of goodwill fall for the tranzi agenda because it presents itself in such glowingly humane and altruistic colors. This includes many Jews, who, because of their history of persecution, often are very susceptible to tranzi appeals to altruism and alleged concern for “the underdog.” No, I don’t agree that a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christian society exists, although I will acknowledge that there are many Jews within the tranzi ranks.

    I myself was a mild tranzi once upon a time; I only began to wake up after the painful event of my son’s conversion to Islam. I only started to question the tranzi agenda when I saw the majority of them and their institutions sucking up to Islam, of all things. The contradictions between what they said they believed in,and the company they kept, were too blatant for me to ignore. After that, I began to notice how culturallly desctructive they were in general, even when the subject had nothing to do with Islam. I realized that I liked my culture, although of course improvements are always needed, and was sick of hearing so many gratiutously negative things about it. I have grown very tired of the constant, cliched attacks on Americans, Israelis, white people, straight people, Jews, Christians, capitalism, freedom, and successful people in general. Any one who does anything positive to keep our society going or who commits an act of decency is treated in the most hateful fashion.

    I believe that many of the Jewish tranzis are also starting to wake up, shocked at the virulent anti-Semitism that has begun to affect the ranks of the non-Jewish tranzis.

  • kid charlemagne

    Guessedworker, the words “Jew” and “Jewish” are written with capital letters.

    And your rantings about the malign influence of Jewish-controlled Hollywood and its supposed “anti-white” agenda strikes me as paranoid bigotry.

  • ernest young: sheesh. my point was that Dave F’s arguments were so uncompelling to me that I really did not feel any great urge to comment on them as I think he did a good enough job of making himself look like the perfect schmuck all on his own… and why mess with perfection? I have no idea what you are talking about however. I do not think I am excessively disrespectful of people with religious views, I am an agnostic afterall, not an atheist… I am just not personally very engaged on an emotional level regarding the subject.

  • Whip

    Guessedworker: “No doubt, there are some jews in high places in Hollywood with the sort of anti-white racial agenda that the National Alliance so insistently talks up. There have even been films made about it – I’m thinking of Stanley Kramer’s Eyes Wide Shut (Kramer is a jew, too!).”

    Kramer? Am I missing out on some inside joke here?

  • Susan,
    The philosophical underpinning of transnational progressivism – or cultural marxism – is nine-tenths the product of German-Jewish intellectuals. The only influential exceptions that I am aware of are Habermas and Raymond Williams, both born into Catholic families but also both second-generation and relatively minor “perps”. Gramsci is a mystery. It’s not a Sardinian name but there seems to be no extanct information on his parental line. Perhaps some kind reader can elucidate.

    What it adds up to is that the deeply threatening and successful cultural war on our way of life was invented by Jews – not THE Jews, not religeous Jews but definitely by thinkers who were Jewish. It is prosecuted by modern left intellectuals in general and, as Gramsci foresaw, “captured intellects” who fall into line without comprehending the political dynamic.

    Now, as I’ve noted above and at Mel’s blog Jews observe gentile society from a detached standpoint. As well as cultural marxism that has given us much of the feminist canon and much of the Libertarian one, too. Neo-conservatism probably falls into this category also. Unquestionably, Jews evince a strong desire to change or, in their eyes, improve our society. I think that is pretty natural, actually. But do they predominantly do so in perceived Jewish interests (ie weakening the host community so they are not the only minority, playing on Holocaust guilt, advancing the cause of zionism etc)? Well, possibly. MacDonald thinks so. But I see no clear picture here, since the general Jewish population in America and Britain is far from isolated from the effects, say, of the culture war. It is marrying out at 50% and falling short of a replacement reproductive level just as we are.

    The only means of reading it like MacDonald is if all this driving of societal change is for the glorification of the Jewish race in the form of the wealth, power and influence of the few, for the fulfillment of its Talmudic destiny perhaps. And that brings us back to the conspiracy game that I am so loathe to support.

    kc,
    I am, as you see, trying to improve my grammar. I did not rant, by the way. If you would care to oppose intellectually rather than by mere disapproval I will be pleased to respond.

    Whip,
    No joke. Watch the movie (and not just the sex). Kramer made a remarkably frank film and is to be commended for it.

    Naif,
    Hang on in there. Debate the ideas and don’t just daub them with your disapproval.

  • Verity

    Naif, if you read through the entire thread instead of just cherrypicking unrelated comments that fit your purpose, you would see that no one here is anti-Jewish or feels anything other than overwhelming sorrow and sympathy for the Jews under Hitler.

    I cannot speak for the others, but the above doesn’t mean I have to henceforth approve of every single thing Jews do or say. Sometimes they are too noisy and too censorious of others, cloaking it in special privilege because of what they endured. The noisy wing tried to get the Vatican to condemn the movie. Sorry, but this is over the top. The movie is not about them. It is about the founder of the religion that has proved the greatest power for good the world has ever known. (As has become standard on this thread, I’ll declare where I stand: not Christian, but a believer that Christianity is the rock on which the enlightened West is founded.)

    It is not a crime against humanity to criticise Jews – on a specific issue. This does not mean that those making a measured criticism in a specific instance would not come to the aid of Jews in the face of genuinely anti-Semitic deeds or words.

    I can say that I wish the Queen hadn’t said that she hoped Blair’s heart problem wasn’t serious. This doesn’t make me anti-monarchy.

  • Jacob

    Perry,
    ‘why such a storm in a teacup over this whole thing?’.

    Well, I think you underestimate religious passions and the sway they hold over large portions of humanity.

    You look at the matter through the eyes of an agnostic rationalist. You look coolly and rationally. That is a nice way, but many people have a rather emotional and passionate approach, totally distinct from yours, and you must try to understand or simulate their way of reacting to be able to appreciate the impact of this movie.

    The danger of this movie (I haven’t seen it and don’t intend to) arrising negative (and not entirely rational) passions is very real. See all the comments on this thread. The least you could say is that it is a “plug” or promotion for religion (Mel Gibson’s intention, no doubt), and I doubt that you would see this as a desirable thing.

    Ed,
    Christianity gave us the good works, but also the Inquisition.

  • Verity

    Sorry, Jacob, I usually agree with your posts, but not today. I don’t have any religious passions. I’m not a Christian. My comments are motivated by a resentment of people who arrogantly try to shut down debate by using emotive words – like anti-Semitic, or racist – rather than rational arguments. This is usually a last resort, when they realise they have no rational points to make.

  • Jacob

    Verity:
    “…shut down debate by using emotive words … rather than rational arguments. ”

    As I said, I haven’t seen the movie and am not going to see it, but this movie is anything but rational, it is totally addressed to emotions and passions.
    Here is what Andrew Sullivan (Link)had to say:
    “…it is a deeply immoral work of art.”, “pure pornography”
    And he’s no atheist tranzi, he’s a conservative Catholic.

    I didn’t try to shut down the debate. I tried to shed light on the subject of the debate.

  • Naif Mabat

    Verity and guessed,

    The reason I’m not debating the ideas is that for the most part I agree with them. It’s precisely the tone I object to, as evidenced in the quotes I selected. I think you should be alarmed that it was so easy to cherrypick such quotes, even without reading the entire thread.

    My heart goes out to Susan who can say similar things yet with a compassionate style that makes all the difference in the world.

    There is much I admire about libertarians, but posts like this original one by Perry remind of why I am not one. By making such a gospel out of rationality, they often end up with what comes over as a “more-rational-than-thou” condescension. Hasn’t a libertarian ever found himself blowing on cold soup?

  • Regarding Gibson’s father, the major problem Mel faces is the “honor your parents” commandment. What is the proper way for a christian son to disagree, while not dishonoring his father?

    Mel Gibson seems to have chosen the method of clearly (and I’ve seen transcripts) stating that yes, there was a Holocaust, yes, jews were specifically targetted, and yes it was horrible and unjustified beyond belief without saying a word about his father specifically.

    Connect the dots, people, he’s trying to do justice to the truth, to his family, and to his faith. It’s not an easy line to walk. If you have a better method, spit it out along with your criticism.

  • Jacob

    Perry,
    Have you seen the movie ?
    I assume not. That makes your comment more understandable.
    Maybe you should see the movie, and comment again afterwards.

  • Verity

    Jacob – re your message to me: I’m not going to see the movie either, but not because I disapprove of any aspect of it; it just isn’t within my realm of interest. I am just defending Gibson’s right to make it without people pouring the glue of racism all over him. BTW, I find Andrew Sullivan a posturing, irritating prat. He’s a sound political thinker, but once he gets into lifestyles, run for the hills!

    Naif – I see no reason to be “compassionate” to people who are trying to censor a movie. These are exactly the same people who were jumping up and down and screaming “censorship!” when some Italian made an obscene movie about Christ four or five years ago.

    BTW – What did your final gnomic question mean?

  • Jacob

    Here is another comment:
    “Hideous, stupid and barbaric”(Link)

    This author isn’t an atheist either.

  • ed

    Hmmm.

    1. How is this possible? I’m one of seven men in a company that also employs about 45 women. There’s one bathroom for each *gender*. Yet these other six guys occupy the men’s bathroom more than the 45 women do theirs! What the heck is going on? Hmm. Maybe we need to ditch all those sports magazines or something. Sheesh!

    Sorry. I had to vent.

    2. “You look at the matter through the eyes of an agnostic rationalist. You look coolly and rationally. …”

    I’m sorry but that is a total fiction. Being an agnostic or a rationalist, or both for that matter, has nothing to do with viewing things “coolly and rationally”. It’s a common misconception, and a popular fiction, but it’s completely untrue. Anyone can conduct themselves on any subject in a cool and rational way. That doesn’t mean that they must accept the negation of their own beliefs as the starting point of such discussion btw.

    It’s the similar to same nonsense that gets spouted about how “intelligent” liberals are and how “stupid” conservatives are. It’s ridiculous to suggest it and I won’t hesitate to respond when it’s promulgated.

    3. “Ed, Christianity gave us the good works, but also the Inquisition. … ”

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! In all seriousness the Inquisition was an institution that was designed to become an utter failure. It’s very nature was corrupted from the beginning and it only went downhill from there. Chief form of corruption was the fact that these Inquisitions were entirely self-funded. They were allowed to confiscate the property of those found guilty. Could there be a situation more prone to abuse? However I’d suggest that eternally damning Christianity for that lapse is wrong. In the history of the world there have been many other atrocities far worse that the Inquisition. In purely cold-blooded terms of good done vs. evil inflicted, Christianity would wins hands down as a postive force.

    Another modern example in America is the fact that the Chinese Exclusion Act, which specifically made immigration by Chinese workers illegal and was a vehicle that codified a massive amount of abuse of the same for a century, wasn’t rescinded until around 1943! This same act legally prevented any Chinese worker from entering America or even gaining citizenship (as codified in Section 14 of the Act). Racial profiling …. HAH!

    Should I damn America forever for this? For the Japanese-Americans unjustly imprisoned during WWII? For the fact that the Japanese-Americans had every single piece of property stolen by either the government or well connected vultures who got first pick?

    Of course not.

    The very foundations of Christianity are the imperfections of humans. The Church, along with anything derived from or created by people, had it’s own flaws of which the Inquisition was only one. There are a myriad number of stories and events in the history of Christianity that is as repugnant as the Inquisition. The murder of Hypatia and the burning of the Library of Alexandria is another.

    Regardless of these is the preeminent fact that Christianity has also been a force for a vast amount of good in the world. To concentrate on the bad, of 4+ centuries ago, seems a bit awkward. Just as any condemnation of America for what happened at various points in it’s history ignores the better aspects of that same history.

    sigh.

    Sorry about this. I tend to write very long responses for some reason. It amazes me every day that I spent every day of school hating English class. If only my teachers could see me now they’d die from laughing. :/

  • Naif,

    Thank you for responding. On your behalf I’m going to absolve Verity of linguistic rough-housing. The sins are all mine, I fear.

    In mitigation I would ask how one can communicate perceived cultural subversion by the disciples of Jewish intellectuals such as Marcuse, Adorno, Horxheimer, Althusser, Foucault, Derrida etc or by informal Jewish institutions such as Hollywood, and yet dance unnoticed across the gossamer threads of Jewish sensitivity? If you can achieve that you are a more subtle thinker and delicate wordsmith than I.

    The phrase that seems to have caused offence is an interesting one for what it did NOT say – namely that there is bad among all people, including Jews. I certainly believe, for example, that there are dangerously aggressive NA types – read Combat 18 for Britain – who intend harm towards the Jews. But I also believe that there are Jewish activists in the culture war that do not intend much kindness towards us. I believe there are zealous Jews who take some of the more shocking of the Talmud’s message to heart … gentiles are cattle for righteous Jews to own, Jesus Christ suffered five deaths including being boiled in excrement and drowned in semen, a Jew is absolved of any wrongdoing towards gentiles, any deceipt, theft, even murder… you know all that.

    This is not soft-focus stuff. It is about as uncompromising as it gets. Sensibilities will be bruised by the very nature of the beast. But in my judgement, we are not best served by self-censorship or from the censoriousness of others. We must be allowed to speak freely.

    Against that I will say only this. We will not be heard if we speak even truths in such a way that the outcry dominates everything. It is a difficult line to tread. But that is in nature of this ancient relationship of Jew and gentile and isn’t going to change any time soon.

  • Whip

    Guessedworker, sorry, but I just don’t see what you are talking about in Eyes Wide Shut. I thought the film was a condemnation of the perversions common to illuminati, and also an exploration of the difference between sexual fantasy and reality. However, my powers of observation may have been dulled in the viewing from the bad editing or the abysmally minimalist score (or, admittedly, from being slightly titillated). Please explain the “anti-white racial agenda” bit. Also, I still don’t get the Kramer/Kubrick reference.

    I apologize for getting off-topic, but this thread seems to wander pretty freely anyway.

  • Whip,

    OK, Kubrick for Kramer. Mea culpa. Eyes wide shut, it seems.

    I didn’t see the film as a condemnation of the perversions and predatory behaviours of the Illuminati, if such creatures exist. It is not condemnatory. It is revelatory – less about power than acommodations with powerlessness, less about what we are allowed to see and know than what we are allowed to BE.

    The film expresses this by setting up ideas in opposition – on the one hand a comfortable illusion that we tell ourselves, on the other the reality of living along safely allotted and controlled but ultimately demeaning lines. Thus at the beginning we see Cruise’s character as a man at the apex of his profession. But his reality is, in due course, exposed as that of an isolated and endangered nonentity.

    The opposition between the cabal and Cruise’s character is the crux of the film. We have grown used to Hollywood films which end, 1984-style, in disillusion and the inevitable victory of the powerful. Kubrick is more subtle. There is never the slightest doubt about the outcome, including Kidman’s brutal concluding line. It isn’t the end – or the doctor’s fate – that we ache to discover. But Kubrick does not directly answer our aching question: who is it that wields such behind-the-scenes power? As clues he gives us the apparently Cabbalistic chants at the orgy scene, the obvious racial identity of Sydney Pollack’s character, the Hungarian who attempts seduction of the Kidman character at the utterly un-Christian Christmas Party, the Russian costumier … And then he gives us those masks. They, I think, are the clearest possible sign of an identity that must not be understood or communicated, on pain of professional ruin and, perhaps, death.

    Kubrick is not explicit. But he employs sexual explicitness as a figure for what cannot be made explicit. He wants us to understand that and figure it out.

  • Naif Mabat

    BTW – What did your final gnomic question mean?

    It should have cited the proverb:

    He who has been burned by hot soup will blow even on cold soup.

    Guessedworker, you seem to know a lot about Judaism:

    I believe there are zealous Jews who take some of the more shocking of the Talmud’s message to heart … gentiles are cattle for righteous Jews to own, Jesus Christ suffered five deaths including being boiled in excrement and drowned in semen, a Jew is absolved of any wrongdoing towards gentiles, any deceipt, theft, even murder… you know all that.

    but you forgot the part about using the blood of Christian children to bake their bread. It is perhaps time to get yourself a newer edition of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion?

  • Hi Naif,

    Please employ ideas, not condemnations, against my ideas. That’s how you may convince me – and others – of the justice and truth of your view.

    If you wish to debate the Talmud and its teachings in respect of gentiles I will be pleased to. I am at a great disadvantage, of course, since it has only been recently available in its entirety and in English on-line at a Christian site (www.come-and-hear.com). Still, I’ll give it a go if you will.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I won’t be watching the film. The idea of watching a man being flayed alive for about an hour is not, frankly, my idea of a great night out. Maybe I am getting soft in my old age but I cannot stomach a lot of bloody violence on the big screen these days.

    Reading this long thread, and certainly the saner comments, reminds me of the continuing pulling power of what happened to Christ 2000 years ago. I will put my cards on the table and say straight out that I am a lapsed Anglican Christian, who has regretfully found it impossible to accept the truths of revealed religion and is now an atheist. But unlike some atheists, I still find a great deal to value, and in fact love, in the redemptive message of Christ’s story. And if Mel Gibson is trying, however clumsily, to spread that story in these dark times, then good luck to him.

    I wish he’d make another Mad Max flick, by the way.

  • ernest young

    Jonathan,

    Exactly my position, I too found it ‘impossible to accept the truths of revealed religion’, with the caveat, ‘as espoused by the traditional religious institutions.’

    However, I feel lesser of a person for my non-acceptance, and think that maybe I am missing something, ‘in the translation’, as it were. I tend to think of a state of ‘atheism’ as being transitional, and that if I keep looking, the answer, if there is one, may be revealed.

    All very mystic, but then that is what religion is all about. Reading about the many religions and their effect on people, is not the boring excercise that one would imagine, quite the reverse.

    That there has never been a society that did not have a religion of some sort, even among primatives, convinces me that there is a mystic side to the human psyche, which cannot be dismissed without leaving a sense of ‘incompleteness’.

    It is a long thread , isn’t it – but fairly interesting, wonder if it will make the ton?

  • Naif Mabat

    gw,

    Thanks for the offer. We should really both read the Talmud, but I think I’ll be finding myself another study partner.

    I feel this thread is getting a bit lengthy and a bit stale, so this will be my last response, at least until we meet again elsewhere.

    Ideas are nice, but we agree about the ideas: about censorship, about the desirability of criticism, about the influence of Jewish intellectuals on Western civilization, etc. Hey, for all I know, there really is an inner sanctum of Jewish illuminati convening to plot our destruction at this very moment. I can’t prove there isn’t any more than you can prove there is. So ideas are not much help here either.

    No, I precisely meant to rebuke you for what I see as malicious recklessness on your part. Condemnation is the last and least that I can do. It’s like speaking out when you see someone steal. I doubt I could make a very convincing intellectual argument against stealing in the face of someone who just doesn’t see anything wrong with it. I don’t know if anyone could do that. Of course, this issue is far more subtle, so maybe I have more of a chance. Here goes:

    a) Opposing censorship doesn’t require that you attribute inhuman motives of racial and civilizational conspiracy to every would-be censor. Censorship has been successfully opposed often enough without recourse to such demonization.

    b) Your only independent confirmation of these allegations is hearsay regarding a book you haven’t read.

    If this conduct is honorable in your eyes, there are few ideas that will have much bearing.

  • Hello Naif,

    I’m glad you took the time to explain yourself. I won’t ramble on, and it’s good to end the thread on the right note. Otherwise we wind up like a couple of 17th century duellists who’ve gloved eachother’s faces so many times they can’t remember who started it or why.

    I’m sure it must have been you … no, yes …

  • ed

    RE: Exactly my position, I too found it ‘impossible to accept the truths of revealed religion’, with the caveat, ‘as espoused by the traditional religious institutions.’

    Then perhaps you should look at Animism? The belief that living spirits inhabit all things animate and inanimate. The plus side is that there aren’t any established churches. The downside is that you end up worshipping your toaster.

    :O

    Just joking. 🙂

  • ernest young

    ed,

    Sorry, prayed that the toaster wouldn’t burn the toast yet again, – it did, so that’s out……. and my pet rock is very unresponsive….. thought that the Chinese art of watching water boil might bring results, just ended up burning a good pot, and still no enlightenment…….

    Gnosticism looks to have some potential, failing that, it’s back to staring at my navel – again!….

  • ed

    Hmmm.

    1. I prefer staring at someone else’s navel. Though that usually ends up with a restraining order for some reason. 🙂

    2. I watched The Passion last night (Sunday) with a devout Roman Catholic friend.

    Unbelievably powerful.

    The movie has an enormous impact that cannot be understated. It’s truly moving. And not nearly as violent as some people have been shouting. Frankly just about any horror flick made in the last decade has buckets more blood, gore and disgusting methods of kill people than The Passion does. Nor is this movie anti-semetic in the least. Gibson takes special pains to show that nothing is universal. Some jewish priests are in favor of putting Jesus to death. Others are completely against it and demand to know why a sham trial is taking place so late at night.

    There are always dissenters from every decision so you see that it’s always individuals making decisions, not groups.

    Very much a must-see movie.

  • Tom

    Jesus did certain practices that the leaders of the Jewish faith found wrong. He cured people on the Sabbath which raised eyebrows and he proclaimed to be the Messiah. These were but a few of the reasons that the heads of the Jewish faith wanted Jesus to be eliminated. The peole who defended Jesus were also Jewish, so to say that the “Jews” killed Jesus is incorrect, but to say that the heads of the Jewish faith were instrumental in having Jesus crucified would be a more accurate statement.