Mel Gibson Screens Crucifixion Film

[Pale Blue Dot]

NEW YORK - Those who have seen Mel Gibson's film about the final hours of Jesus Christ have called it beautiful, magical, a great and important work.

Those who think "The Passion" could fuel anti-Semitism, however, haven't been allowed to see the film. Seven months before its release, this extraordinary vanity project is stirring passions over Gibson's exclusionary screenings and the potential for a negative depiction of Jews.

Not just Jews are concerned - the film was first questioned by a nine-member panel that included Christians. Gibson is a member of an ultraconservative Catholic movement which rejects the Vatican's authority over the Catholic church.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6489830.htm

[NJCher]

1. saw this on Today Show

In one of my rare, very rare, forays to corporate TV. The very idea of this movie makes me sick. In watching the bloody scenes that they so liberally sprinkled through the segment, I asked myself who on earth would want to watch such a thing?

On edit: Mel, stick to crop circles, will ya'?


Cher

[kskiska]

5. Agreed

From what I've seen on TV, I can't imagine paying money to see this, or even watching it for free.

[Stanchetalarooni]

8. Eewwwww! Bloody and ugly!!!!

So, it is bloody and ugly and you don't want to see that kind of stuff. You don't even want to hear about it.
Seems to me that what transpired over 2000 years ago appears to have no relevancy with what goes on in the world today for most people.
I don't like to hear about those things either and I don't usually have to worry about seeing those things because here in Amerika we export our bloody murders and horrid violence.
What the Romans did throughout the Mediteranean and in the Holy Land speciffically is no different than what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and a host of other countries around the world.
The Jews weren't responsible for the death of Jesus.
Imperial Rome was.
The Imperialist governor at the time ordered the death of this man and it was carried out by The Roman soldiers.
Jesus was a revolutionary.
He tried to help the masses of people that were disaffected by the established ORDER.
He tried to show people that couldn't buy into the brutal, hierarchichal, paternal, top down pecking order that the Roman that there was another way.
He tried to teach that they need not harm their lessers and kow-tow to their superiors.
The Romans would crucify hundreds of innocents at a time in order to quell the militant revlutionarys of that era.
How many innocents will it take to quell the militant Iraquis?
Not in my name!
I say we must become vividly aware of the methods of Imperial control used throughout the ages. To see and hear, with eyes wide and ears pricked, how will we recognize it in our own time?

[rook1]

32. You are incorrect

"Seems to me that what transpired over 2000 years ago appears to have no relevancy with what goes on in the world today for most people."





The biggest mistake we make is not learning from the past....

[absolutezero]

48. the problem

with lessons from history is that they're best read after falling flat on your face


History will always repeat itself, and we will always figure it out after the fact.

[Wonder]

39. imperial intruders

This seems the most obvious barbarism at play here, and has all to do with many of the casual factors that has created both the victimology and demonology of the Arab world, as well as the heinous anti-arab propaganda agendas possible in the imperalists attempt to exploit land and resources. It is evident in the whole region, including in Israeli policies, its methodology, its military strategies, as well as in its occupation.

Not to say this will get me out to see the movie, but your rant is very well taken.

[JoFerret]

21. Blessed are the peacemakers

.

[Wonder]

40. for theirs will be the kingdom of heaven...

to which I always have to add, heaven on earth... because I am anti-rapteur.

[IndianaGreen]

63. VP of Focus on the Family: Jews threatened Pilate to kill Jesus

"I don't know that I've seen a movie that so deeply affected me as this one did," said Del Tackett, executive vice president of the conservative Focus on the Family. Tackett was one of 30 Focus on the Family staffers who in June saw a rough cut of the film.

This is precisely what groups such as ADL are concerned about! A film based on the literal text of the Gospels, and without any historical context or biblical textual criticism, will once again fan the flames of anti-Semitism by spreading the blood libel that Jews killed Jesus.

Posted on Sat, Aug. 09, 2003

Jesus film ignites passions months before it opens
By ROBERT W. BUTLER
The Kansas City Star

"I don't know that I've seen a movie that so deeply affected me as this one did," said Del Tackett, executive vice president of the conservative Focus on the Family. Tackett was one of 30 Focus on the Family staffers who in June saw a rough cut of the film.

"I tried to describe some of the scenes to my wife," Tackett said in a phone conversation, "and just broke down crying."

Although those attending were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement pledging that they would not reveal details of "The Passion," Tackett said that in general the film faithfully followed the scriptural narrative that has the Jewish high priests plotting to eliminate Jesus and even threatening Pilate with a general uprising if he fails to order Jesus' execution.

"This movie's about as close as you can get to Scripture," Tackett said. But he added that he saw nothing that went beyond the Bible narrative to suggest any attempt to inflame hatred of Jews.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/6492789.htm

[genius]

2. Jesus was a Jew

He was also the first Christian.

[LynneSin]

16. technically he wasn't the first Christian

He never came to earth and said let's start a religion and we'll name it after me. Jesus was too humble of a person to do anything of the sort.!

To be honest, I don't think Christianity official came to be until after his death when a core group of people (including the remaining disiciples) decided to continue his mission here on earth. They were the first Christians.

[genius]

54. Being a Christian doesn't mean founding a church

It means following the teachings of Christ. That he did.

[IndianaGreen]

29. The Romans made Jesus (Greek for Son of Zeus) divine

The first Christian would have been the Hellenized Jew from Turkey, Paul of Tarsus, who was also a Roman citizen.

[Character Assassin]

31. What? Where did get that?

The etymology of the name 'Jesus' in no way stems from Greek, or any other language, for that matter, where it means 'son of Zeus'.

[Lurking Dem]

33. You may find this interesting.

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/JesusZeus.htm#Conclus

Jesus is not a form of Zeus.

[IndianaGreen]

58. The Son of God among Greeks and Romans. (Harvard Theological Rev.)

To cloud the issue even more, Leo Beck, the late Jewish scholar, pointed out that the title "Son of God" never indicated divinity, and was one of the titles bestowed on the kings of Israel.

Here is a long article on the meaning of Ie Zeus:

Harvard Theological Review
April, 2000

Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans.

Author/s: Adela Yarbro Collins

(Excerpts from page 4 of a very long scholarly article)

In Mark 5: 7 the demon-possessed man addresses Jesus, "What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the most high God?" In Greek, "Son of the Most High God" is (GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII). In the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, (GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII) ("Elyon") is always translated by (GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII), but in non-Jewish, non-Christian Greek texts, the expression occurs as a divine name for Zeus. Zeus Hypsistos was revered from Athens, through Asia Minor, Syria, and on into Egypt.(26) Thus, for members of Mark's audience familiar with this cult, the demon's address of Jesus is equivalent to "son of Zeus."

The account of the transfiguration of Jesus in Mark 9 must have had quite a different impact on members of the audience more familiar with or inclined toward Greek religious traditions than Jewish. Such listeners would be familiar with the idea that gods sometimes walked the earth in human form. This notion finds expression in the passage from the Odyssey that describes Odysseus's return to Ithaca. He arrives home disguised as a beggar and, when he is mistreated by Antinoos, one of the suitors, another suitor rebukes him saying:


A poor show, that--hitting this famished tramp--bad business, if he
happened to be a god. You know they go in foreign guise, the gods do,
looking like strangers, turning up in towns and settlements to keep an eye
on manners, good or bad.(27)


More strikingly and concretely, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter tells how Demeter, because of her grief and anger over the abduction of her daughter, "went to the towns and rich fields of men, disfiguring her form a long while."(28) The queen among goddesses disguised herself as an old woman, a stranger, exchanging her divine name, Demeter, for a human one, Doso.(29) When she reveals her identity to her human employer, she is once again transformed to the divine state of being:


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2399/2_93/63128277/p1/article.jhtml

[Lurking Dem]

59. The Kings of Israel thing

falls right into the theoretic background used in The DaVinci Code.

That said, I think the Zeus/Jesus thing is so much twisting to support a contention and I vastly prefer a less convoluted approach.

Still - I love the stuff you dredge up. Reading your posts is sometimes like a foray into the encyclopedia. I end up on tangential information searches having nothing to do with what I started to look up and I always learn something. Thanks!

[meegbear]

3. Explain to me ....

how would not allowing people who think it's anti-semetic to see the film going to settle the debate about it being anti-semetic?

[ramapo]

4. Religion can be so unhealthy

The other day there was a rabbi and some minister or priest discussing the film.

It quickly became a heated discussion on who had the correct story on who killed who, who Jesus was, and various other parts of the story.

It struck me as to how foolish this discussion was. It was just another example of people arguing, almost fighting, about "something" that happened 2,000 years ago. There are many interpretations of what this "something" was. All are equally correct because nobody knows nor will anyone ever know.

Yet so much energy, even hate, is generated by this "something".

Religion is used so often as an excuse to hate and even kill.

What a waste.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[Mari333]

7. Gibson could care less about bad publicity

He probably considers it $$$$ in the bank.
Lets see a movie about the MYTH of the sumerian fertility gods like jesus, tammuz, attis, and mithra...
The absurd thing about his movie is that its a myth.
as a former catholic, believe me, they can get pretty goryin their imagery. Ugh.

[lightbulb]

13. I heard that Gibson was originally funding M. Moore's new film

...about Bush and 9/11. Still trying to get my head around the fact that he's apparently a Christian fundamentalist (of a sort). I don't get it.

[zekeson]

28. He is a Traditionalist Catholic

http://www.illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=7307
(on edit)
Not sure I agree with the Radical tag, as it seems to be inserted only for flamboyancy’s sake

snip--
What distinguishes an orthodox Catholic from a radical traditionalist? The answer is somewhat subjective, but I would assert that an orthodox Catholic assents to the Church's doctrinal and moral teachings - which, of course, are largely rejected by Catholic liberals - but also accepts as legitimate the doctrinal developments and liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Radical traditionalists, however, do not accept the legitimacy of Vatican II. They are, in effect, pre-Vatican II Catholics, attending only the traditional Latin (also known as the Tridentine) Mass and ridiculing the teachings and actions of the postconciliar popes, including the saintly John Paul II. Some even assert that there has been no authentic pope since the time of the Council, due to their belief that the Council broke with Catholic tradition, is basically heretical, and needs to be repudiated in order to bring back authentic Catholicism. (Mel Gibson's father is in the latter category.)

[graelent]

36. Nope

Icon Pictures (Mel's Production Company) was finding Moore's film, but they ince pulled out due to the content. Miramax is now producing the film.

[robbedvoter]

47. As long as they spell his name right. Exactly.

I hope people smell the stinky ploy and stay away in droves.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. many things are used as an excuse to hate and kill

including atheism...not offended just bored with all the bigotry

[Wonder]

43. Here is where the confusion lies

and I do mean lies: the christians seem to think Jesus is Saxon. I know I make a joke... but I do not believe this can be taken lightly... really.. in that region considering Jesus was Jewish... how is it that he would be so fair of face blonde of hair and blue of eyes... is it possible? In my mind the fact that even the visual of Jesus has been manipulated speaks for itself.

[Julien Sorel]

55. You mean, white folk would have a problem worshipping this image?

http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/12/real_face_jesus/

It's a good thing we live in a color blind society.


...


People should just wait til the movie is released, then decide. You can hardly blame Gibson, who invested his own money and passion in this project, for trying to protect it from being killed before it's even released.

[Wonder]

77. Yes billy bunter Jesus is a SAXON

IF THE DROVES OF white christians had this man on the cross this BULLSHIT misnomer that the JEWS KILLED JESUS would not be as problematic... because the sad fact of the matter would instead be ... OH LOOK JESUS IS NOT A SAXON HE IS SEPHARDIC PERHAPS EVEN MULLATTO...

In this context these hateful WHITE religious FANATICS would have cared less about what he was preaching and they might have thought instead he was an UNDESIREABLE and one less UNDESIRABLE would not have been missed.

THE WHOLE THING IS BULLSHIT TO ME....

When we consider spins... that Jesus is SAXON or looks ANGLO SAXON as far as spins go has got to be the WINNER TAKES ALL.

THAT MEL WAS SO SO SO SO SO CONCERNED WITH AUTHENTICITY....????

In this oh so so so so authentic movie of his TELL ME what race visually is the actor MEL CAST to play JESUS THE SAXON....

IT IS RIGHT HERE IN THIS LITTLE CRANNY... if the Jewish Groups want to protest this film.... DO NOT BAN IT.... but expose this bit of propaganda....

JESUS WAS A JEW AND NOT A SAXON!! PLEASE this whole thing stems from WHITE ANGLO SAXON BIGOTRY... and it is this BIGOTRY that has enabled all these many centuries what is called the "imperialist intrusions" and or colonialism.

KISS MY ASS!! NOT YOU BILLY BUNTER NOT YOU... BUT THIS WHOLE SAXON SPIN ON THIS.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

56. Couldn't agree more...religion has brought nothing but pain to the world

Faith, on the other hand, is the true redemption of our species.

JB

[okieinpain]

60. actually I'm working on a time machine, and this is one of the many things

I intend to check out. I'll also be checking in on kennedy, hoffa, and various other mysterys. I would invite some of you, but sadly there is only room for one.

:~)

[Emboldened Chimp]

79. Don't feel sorry

Your assessment is right on. I feel the same way, not only about Jesus, but religion in general. Who's to say whether or not God exists? Nobody can actually prove it. All you can do is believe, no more. If you want to believe that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, by all means do. If not, then don't. But to bicker and argue over this as if you're right and they're wrong is not only ridiculous, but a massive waste of time and energy.

[Wonder]

42. hmmm

good question.

[caribmon]

6. Semites are Arabs.

Semitic culture dovetails to both the Jewish people of Mid-East origin (as opposed to African, Sephardic and Khazar) and Arabs stretching from Morocco to Iraq. The word 'Semite' refers more to a linguistic relationship rather than a religious group.

Please analyse language. To use Anti-Semitism in the modern vernacular, means you are casting more shadow on the Arabs not the people of the Jewish faith if one looks at it statistically.

I think we need to change it to anti-Jewish if you want to use it in the correct context. Much as I am Jewish by birth, I chose to use anti-Zionism as a word better reflecting any critical views towards Israel.

It works better.

[Cassandra]

11. That's not really a solution

as anti-Zionism means something else.

"Semitic culture dovetails to both the Jewish people of Mid-East origin (as opposed to African, Sephardic and Khazar) and Arabs stretching from Morocco to Iraq. The word 'Semite' refers more to a linguistic relionship than a religious group."

Semite can also refer to DNA related peoples, which include, Arabs, including Palestinians, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazic Jews and those remnants of the tribes in Africa whose DNA proves their Middle Eastern descent. The Khazars story is one pushed by anti-semites to try to deny the origins of the Jews. Jews who claim to have an unbroken connection to Israel really do (as opposed to recent converts, who may or may not). So Semites are Arabs and Jews. I have a link, which is currently not loading for me, to www.cohen-levi.org They have information on DNA tests.

[seventhson]

24. Semites means descendants of Shem (son of Noah) -

In general.

But I am happy that the dna tests have proven the Khazar promoters wrong. That was a very interesting story and I have even read Jewish writers who have mentioned it because it was a major conversion -- but the fact is that those who converted must either have been semitic already or intermarried with semites.

In any event, the antizionist movement cannot no longer claim with any credibility that the Jews of Europe are actually not Jews at all (which was the poiint of claiming that they were not Jewish but were eastern Europeans who converted and therefore have no right to return to Israel).

I am doing research on this stuff for my book about (non Jewish) Americans working with the Jewish underground in WWII and antisemitism in general. Interesting subject.

[Cassandra]

27. They compared the DNA to numerous...

Turkish groups and found no relation at all. Apparently the Khazars were a major conversion, but since they no longer exist, there is no DNA to compare with. If they had descendents who are Jews, they are not related to Turks or others from that area.

[seventhson]

20. Is antizionism antisemitic?

in your opinion.

I want to see what Mel did and judge for myself.

[Wonder]

44. I do not believe it is

but I know some would disagree.

[Cassandra]

61. Not necessarily

which is why I don't think they can be used interchangably if you think anti-Semitic no longers conveys what it used to.

[Lurking Dem]

66. It CAN be.

It is often used as cover for anti-Semites to make themselves sound more reasonable.

The word "Zionism" has been bastardized to now include "Israeli expansionism". When one uses the term anti-Zionist to mean they are against Israeli expansionism, one is not being anti-Semitic.

If one uses the term anti-Zionism to mean the Jews have no right to a homeland, then one may be an anti-Semite depending on context.

Confusion stems from people not articulating what they mean. It's like using safe words in S&m. I've always wondered why say "purple alligator" when "you have reached my limit" would do or "the suspension cuff is cutting off my circulation" would provide more crucial information.

[robbedvoter]

46. Wow! So many ways to hate, so few words! nt

[BlueState]

9. Any Catholic theologians amongst us

I have a question? The article says that Gibson is part of a movement that "rejects the Vatican's authority over the Catholic Church." My understanding, and I was raised Catholic but not from a "strict" Catholic family, is that the absolute authority of the Vatican is a fundamental tenet of the church. Isn't this rejection tantamount to leaving the church?

[4_Legs_Good]

10. Not a theologian

But there is a group who is very opposed to the reforms of Vatican II.

In order to give their sect (?) "legitimacy" they claim that Pope John XXIII (who conviened the Second Vatican Council) was a Mason and therefore a Satan worshiper and a heretic. Hence his election to the papacy was invalid, and he was never a legitmate Pope, hence everything the Church has done since has been illegitmate. They claim to be the actual Roman Catholic Church and a couple years ago elected "the *real* Pope".

This is as I understand it from having perused their website a few years ago.

They oppose things like Mass in the vernacular, Vatican II (and PJPII's) teachings that there are paths to Salvation other than the Church, etc.

I don't know if Mel is a part of this sect or another.

david

Kucinich 2004

Recall No
Arianna YES

[Giverney]

12. insults, insults, insults.

I absolutely LOVE all the insults and the hatred of this man (Mel) who's so far come out with some decent movies. Can you do better? ok, then let's see it, if not dont criticize before you see the movie.

So many people accuse the repukes of criticizing without knowing the facts... sad to see that there are many Democrats (if you read this site) you can't seem to get past that either.

Do you REALLY know wether he's a right-wing-fanatical-anti-jewish?
or do you just read the 'web' and think that gives you 'knowledge'?

*sigh*
get a grip. so far, 'mad-physhco-far-right-wing-fanatical-jewish-hater-psycho-version-of-the-catholic-church' Mel Gibson was nothing of the sort till he made a movie about Jesus. Go see it or dont, but cool off on the slander unless:

1. you've actually MET him and actually had experience with his above accusations. or
2. realize you're no better than a freeper yelling and screaming becuase someone is making a movie about a subject you just dont like.

But i'm sure YOU (those of you who hate so much) are much more intellictual and cultural than I am.

Dems in '04, and from the hatred i'm seeing here, it's a long road.

[JoFerret]

22. I don't hate him

Did see one of his films and thought it was OK. But what I don't like are the reports of his comments about women and homosexuals. This film sounds downright creepy though with it's dwelling on scourging and blood and cinematised violence.

[robbedvoter]

45. Don't hate Mel, or Arnie or Ventura not even bush.

They are all barely cogent men who, undeservedly were elevated to a position where somehow they were able to hurt others. I dislike it profoundly. I despise them. I definitely don't hate them, rest assured. (but don't expect my money to go on any of their exploits - be they "artistical" or political. (More to the point: I am about as likely to see Gibson's tripe as I am to contribute to bush's reselection campaign) Wrong venue for PR.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

53. yeah, OK, but,...

Mel's a turd...and his parents are bigger turds...

[IndianaGreen]

62. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans

This has to do with a film that, according to Mel Gibson's own statements, is based on the literal text of the Gospels and on visions that a couple of French nuns had eons ago.

Here is today's article on this film:

"I don't know that I've seen a movie that so deeply affected me as this one did," said Del Tackett, executive vice president of the conservative Focus on the Family. Tackett was one of 30 Focus on the Family staffers who in June saw a rough cut of the film.

"I tried to describe some of the scenes to my wife," Tackett said in a phone conversation, "and just broke down crying."

Although those attending were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement pledging that they would not reveal details of "The Passion," Tackett said that in general the film faithfully followed the scriptural narrative that has the Jewish high priests plotting to eliminate Jesus and even threatening Pilate with a general uprising if he fails to order Jesus' execution.

"This movie's about as close as you can get to Scripture," Tackett said. But he added that he saw nothing that went beyond the Bible narrative to suggest any attempt to inflame hatred of Jews.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/6492789.htm

[Sideways]

67. Yes Of Course We Haters Are Intellictual(sic)

Are you are student at the Dumb Dumb Dumb W Bush School Of Linguistics? Also known as DDDWBSOL.

This sentence and I use that term with trepidation (as this disjointed mess of words is more like a verbal abortion) is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read on DU:

"Do you REALLY know wether he's a right-wing-fanatical-anti-jewish?"

:wtf: Spelling aside did your verb text go wondering off as well?

I guess we intellictuals who are much more cultural :wtf: have much to learn.

Hey Giverney give us a break and go home.

[BlackRhino]

73. The idiot's fallback: "Let's see YOU do better!"

Stuff it, jerkwad.

[shamgar50]

80. Loony Mel

You may have a hard-on for Mel but if you "investigated" him, you might not. He and his dad have been waging a hate campaign against the Catholic church and the Pope for years. His dad has made a career out of it. He has published numerous books and pamphlets on the subject. They think the Pope is really the anti pope. Mel is totally against choice and birth control. In fact he treats his wife like a breeder sow.
He thinks the catholic church is so screwed up he's having his own church built. Do some searches on the net. You'll see the Gibson boys are loonies.:crazy:

[0007]

15. No!

This is just another buzz word -ultraconservative Catholic movement -

The Russian Orthodox church left the Vatican to Rome as did the Greeks - These churchs have not changed tradition in hundred of years. The Vatican has changes every time a Pope farts.

[Catt03]

64. Good question

as I have been wondering about this also.

I was raised in a traditional Catholic home, Catholic schools, First Satudays, Cardinal Newman, Holy Days.....everything Catholic that was.

I too, thought that the Vatican had absolute authority and the Pope was representative of Peter and leader of the Church. To not follow this faith based tenet is to be excomunicated.

Aren't Anthony Scalia, Bill Bennet and others in this movement? Does this tie in with Opus Dei?

Anyone know?

[TSElliott]

14. I can not wait to see this movie...

I have been looking forward to this movie for months now and I hope that it's as good as people have been saying. I have always thought that Jesus was a true philosopher and an enlightened being and it should be interesting to see Mel's interpretation of his last moments in that life.

For the people who dislike Mel or Christians I suggest you protest the movie with your wallets or see the movie and give it legitimate criticism instead of slandering something you have never seen.

[robbedvoter]

57. Ok, I'll protest the movie with my wallet - I'll go to dinner instead

I am glad that peggy Noonan & comp make you so giddy to check it out, but leave my wallet out of it. Until bushco maked it mabdatory watching, you don't catch me wasting time on that.

[FARAFIELD]

17. IM A BIG TIME DEMOCRAT

BUT! Unlike conservatives I'm for filmakers making the types of films they want to make. The paying audience will decide how it depicts jews. And the audience will decide if it is any good at all. I majored in Film in College and the history of Film is filled with Vanity Projects, FROM BIRTH OF A NATION, to CITIZEN KANE to DANCES WITH WOLVES. There are plenty of bad films for sure in the Vanity category as well. But we should just let them be seen. We should also let them be shown. I remember about 13 years ago the CHRISTIANS (FYI i'm a Roman Catholic ergo a christian), all up in arms about Martin Scorcese's own Vanity project "Last Temptation of Christ", they hadnt even seen it or had it ever been screened, but the Zealots were boycotting it anyhow. I say lets seperate art from politics and let the movie be seen. ANd just for the sake of arguement a faithful depiction of the last twelve hours of Christs life is important. Long story short. lets not be like the loser conservatives and be close minded lets be free and open.

[PATRICK]

18. schismatic

Specifically a divider nmot a uniter, therefore someone against the very notion of a united Christian Church based on personal convictions.

A nut group usually. But the Gospel source material itself has an interesting political history quickly lost after the early centuries.

Rome is given a whitewash in order to placate the Imperial authorities who, after all, had sentenced the founder to death for treason. There was a ban against new religions too. To avoid this Christians had to fall back on being "Jews" and good Roman citizens(though most were slaves and foreigners)but were excommunicated early on, which resentful Jews pointed out when things got rowdy in the cities of the Imperium.

So Mark is intent on bitterly complaining about the Jewish Christian apostles, Matthew against the Pharisees retreating into the Talmudic Torah after the Temple was destroyed, Luke- universalizing the mnessage and having a "good" centurion absolve Jesus on the cross. "Truly this was a just man." John even has Pilate looking conflicted and coerced, the Kingdom removed beyond a threat to the Empire. The whole warp and woof of blame and argumentation was political before you even get to "the real story" or "theology". In my view it is the same as today. The established people of pride and influence who tyrannized the rest of humanity put Jesus to death because he was a direct and deep confrontation of truth to power. He would have been stoned for heresy any number of times but going to Jerusalem put him under the kindly providence of the pragmatic Empire. The same kind of people we have today betrayed him, incited and plotted and used state power to kill him, and every lie and dirty trick in the book.

Empire, Judaism(a legal, protected "old" faith)and Christianity werelocked in a life and death struggle ever since. Politically the worm turned kind of nasty when Christianity briefly became the Empire and returned the favor to the Jews ever after, like any other multi-generational social conflict nurturing resentful power and violence.

So much is typical. Jesus' own strong, strict and clear teachings against this cycle are ignored as much by many vocal followers as by Pilate or the Sanhedrin. Hatred and blame is not "Christian" and never will be. Those who do are the same kind of people that crucified Christ, or allowed it to happen, in the first place. They only affirm death.

The sheeple directly get their name from their consistent behavior then as now. Most people were good Jews, Christians or citizens. Most got screwed and shrugged it off.

[Giverney]

19. nice

great post man, well put, very well put!

[Wonder]

49. placate the Imperial authorities

this is also problematic... way too too much genuflection to the imperial authorities... of course I understand it ... but it must stop. And BTW... I am responding only to this placation of the imperial authorities comment. I have no opinion about the movie, accept certainly it should be viewed.. unless it really is not america anymore...

while I can see there exist christian sect that seem to still have this bone to pick with the Jews. I think it is a ridiculous topic... of course I am anti-religion... not an atheist... I believe in god... and the metaphyisical laws of the universe as well as love thy neighbor as thy self (however IMPOSSIBILE thy neighbor might make this for you to do) which I believe embodies the ten commandments.

But this indulgence of this Jews killed Jesus mantra I never understood, I still don't understand it and you know what who the FUCK is innocent anymore anyway? And that is another one of my little rants on "the Jews killed Jesus"

Shit! Mel really wanted to play the contraversy card he should have named the movie...THE JEWS KILLED JESUS and for its premiere he should hire tom waits to underscore allen ginsburg while he does some spoken word harkening back to the labor party and immemorializes ema goldman...and at the wrap party, instead of cavior he serves garbanzo beans because that about sums up how ridiculous I think this whole JEWS KILLED JESUS riff or rift really is...

-------

rant officially over, and hopefully this is the last one I will do.

[robbedvoter]

25. To quote Frank Rich: "In these unsettled times, why would Gibson

need to make a movie that would stir up more hatred? it's enough to wish for for the second coming of Charlton Heston"

[Giverney]

26. frank rich

phdt.. whatever. Nice quote.
Here's an idea Frank... try SEEING the movie, and THEN criticize..
If he's seen it my bad.. but I doubt it. I just LOVE all the criticism before the movie is released.

bah. I'm saddend by all the "programmed by the media" crap.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Why did Gibson block the ADL from viewing the film?

The only Jews allowed to preview the film were two of the most Fascist Republicans: David Horowitz and Michael Medvek.

Why did Gibson block the ADL from viewing the film?

Gibson's Passion
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

Note: This op-ed originally appeared in the New York Sun on August 4, 2003.

Discussions about Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie "The Passion" have taken a disturbing turn. Rather than focusing on an effort to find out whether Mr. Gibson is making a movie on the death of Jesus that is consistent with church teachings and free of the anti-Semitism that haunted passion dramas for centuries, the very raising of questions is now being depicted as a part of the culture wars that have overwhelmed American society in recent years.

Movie critic Michael Medved put the issue in the context of "liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." And Kathie Lee Gifford writes that Mr. Gibson "is being so tormented for something that he has every right to do - as an artist in a free country where he is supposed to have the freedom to express and practice his own faith."

This is a strange and unfortunate reaction to the legitimate questions that have been raised. Let us remember that the Catholic church itself and Pope John Paul II, hardly a liberal, revolutionized centuries-old teachings about Jews and Judaism related to the death of Jesus. Recognition by the Vatican of the devastating effects of church teachings about Jews - blaming Jews for the crucifixion, delegitimizing Judaism as a religion, not speaking clearly against anti-Semitism - created new Church doctrine which has transformed Catholic-Jewish relations.

Whether one is conservative or liberal, indeed whatever ones views concerning which is best for American society, the issue of portraying the death of Jesus as a Jewish crime has long been rejected.

http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_oped.asp

Related Articles:

Mel Gibson’s Martyrdom Complex
(The New York Times, 8/3/03)
Frank Rich cites ADL's concerns about Mel Gibson’s "The Passion."

Months Before Debut, Movie on Death of Jesus Causes Stir
(The New York Times, 8/2/03)
Abraham H. Foxman asks, "If you say this is not anti-Semitic, why are you afraid to show it to us?"

http://www.adl.org/adl.asp

[Wonder]

50. I did not read yet the articles Indiana Green but based on the content

I guess he felt the ADL just wouldn't like it and he couldn't afford the bad publicity... i joke... not that I mean to trivialize the issue... I don't I just find the whole thing maddening especially considering all the parallels at play here which makes this movie just another bit of ironic synchronicity which few of us can do a damn thing about but bitch and hopefully vote in an adequte democratic because what else is there to do really, besides stay in formed and do a fucked up rant every now and then... in the hopes that even if it pisses everyone off that reads it at the very least the ranter amused him or herself.

but thanks for the articles. this contraversy it at least beats the pants off Kobe Bryant so see there is a silver lining in every crownd... god's sense of humor? or his blessing? which it is I haven't a clue.

[robbedvoter]

34. It was not a movie review. It was an account of the whole sad

story - the way the movie was peddled to right wing pundits and such. I hope he doesn't go - I hope any decent people do not go - for the mere reason that wingnut Gibson has used such ugly ways to hype up his flick. We have enough BS to deal with; hate the gay, hate the French, hate the blacks 9or at least refuse them affirmative action) to have to deal with peggy noonad as arbiter of the socially acceptable. So you can jump up and down until tomorrow trying to get people to buy tickets to that pathetic a*hole's ugly deeds -after that you may say that we hate catholics, mebbe?

[Voltaire99]

35. Faith-based filmmaking--let the mischief begin!

It's getting harder and harder to be a filmmaker if you have to submit your finished product to suburban focus groups and the ADL.

However, to be fair, if you invite a select crowd among whom is the medieval fool Cal Thomas to your private screenings, while excluding others likely to be less well disposed to the work, then you deserve all the trouble you get.

I couldn't be less interested in the saccharine Gibson or his creepy sectarianism, but the political-cultural context is intriguing and may prove useful. The Christian right and Jewish right have been in bed together of late, and this could be just the thing to show the latter that the former's help with Israeli colonization efforts will come at a high cultural price: do you really want allies who vote, lobby, and donate in your behalf, then turn around and portray you as Christ-killers? Concurrently, the reactionary religious right is already circling its wagons, keen to sound its usual note of aggrieved martyrdom.

Good! If the film drives a wedge between the two, the real winner in this Passion Play may turn out to be the Palestinians...

[Character Assassin]

37. My, my, haven't you just the most fertile imagination

It's getting harder and harder to be a filmmaker if you have to submit your finished product to suburban focus groups and the ADL.

However, to be fair, if you invite a select crowd among whom is the medieval fool Cal Thomas to your private screenings, while excluding others likely to be less well disposed to the work, then you deserve all the trouble you get.

I see you are utterly, totally unaquainted with how screenings are initially done in the business.

Don't let that stop you from talking about it, though.

I couldn't be less interested in the saccharine Gibson or his creepy sectarianism, but the political-cultural context is intriguing and may prove useful.

It's funny. Someone who holds Gibson as 'saccharine' is someone I find completely unqualified to judge the man as 'useful'. I'm not suprised. I am, nevertheless, bored.

Good! If the film drives a wedge between the two, the real winner in this Passion Play may turn out to be the Palestinians...

Oh, lookey there! Partisan boredom. What an interesting change from what ususally goes on in the minds of weekend philosophers.

Good luck with the choice of champions, genius.

(Hint: there are none).

[Cheswick2.0]

51. yeah, because in the last 100 years..........

no one has ever made a movie about a religious topic. Just think if they had made a movie about Gandhi, Moses, King David or Jesus, what a mess the world would be.....

[Wonder]

38. something is wrong with the link

it brings me to a page that says article not found. Let me see if I can find it somewhere else.

[Pale Blue Dot]

41. That's odd.

You're right, but it worked earlier.

[Wonder]

52. this kind of thing

seems to happen often these days...

[IndianaGreen]

65. Try this article

The mention of one of those nuns, St. Anne Catherine Emmerich, raised a red flag. Emmerich's writings carry a strong anti-Jewish bias, Fredriksen wrote. One of Emmerich's visions had Jerusalem's high priest ordering that Jesus' cross be made in the courtyard of the temple (crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one); in another, Pilate criticizes the high priests for physically abusing Jesus.

Once they were given a copy of the screenplay -- Sister Mary Boys said it was supplied by a representative of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops -- the nine scholars put together an 18-page report. Six pages were devoted to laying out for Gibson "those places where he not only misreads but actually contravenes material given in the Gospels," according to Fredrickson.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/6492789.htm

[Wonder]

68. Okay I have some thoughts.

mostly the problem is that in general there exists an ignorance in populace as a whole. Again, when one understands that the romans were the authority, that this "Jews Killed Jesus" mantra would not have lost ferver all these many centuries is proof not so much of anti-semitism as much as it is proof of ignorance with, in this case anti-semitism the symptom.

It seems there are two issues being argued here:

1- is mel's script based on fact
2- will this film incite anti-semitism, not so much that the film IS anti-semitic but more specifically that hatred of the Jews is prevalent within society and therefore might it be incited by the content of this film.

From this article Indiana Green places here, I tend to think #2 is the bigger issue, mostly because of the ignorance that abounds within society in terms of prejudices as they apply to race or creed. So this IMHO is more so the heart of this debate, rather than whether Mel is anti-semitic or whether the content of the film is factual.

As to the latter... since when has it been easy to nail historic fact. Look at the falsity imbedded in so much history. Look at the myths purported by orthodoxies and propaganda. This is why I say whether the film is factual or not is moot. Completely irrelevant. I am not surprised that there would exist a debate wherein discrepancies are revealed in historic context between one christian sect vs a the catholic sects vs various Judaic sects. This doesn't surprise me at all.

snip from article:

"Although those attending were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement pledging that they would not reveal details of "The Passion," Tackett said that in general the film faithfully followed the scriptural narrative that has the Jewish high priests plotting to eliminate Jesus and even threatening Pilate with a general uprising if he fails to order Jesus' execution."

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

Now even if this is true, a few Jewish high priests plotting to eliminate Jesus DOES NOT translate to this misnomer that THE JEWS KILLED JESUS.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it IS TRUE. Jesus could have been considered a tear away from Judaism as these High priests were disseminating the religion and they may have seen Jesus's preachings as a threat to their power which was power under Roman Authoritiy. STILL DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO THE JEWS KILLED JESUS. A Few Jewish Priests does not translate to ALL JEWS. It especially does not translate to ALL THE JEWS in the world today so many centuries since roman times.

Therefore it seems to me the heart of the contravercy is not whether the film is factual, it is not whether Mel is an anti-Semite, but instead it is whether this film because it highlights in specific terms perhpas the various heirarchies (that of the Jewish people living under Roman rule), will incite an anti-semitic backlash MOST SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the acute IGNORANCE intrinsic within our society.

So the question really is should this film be banned from showing because 1- it might insult the sensibilities of a number of religious groups in America and 2- because it threatens to incite anti-semitic sentiment. Are these two points enough reason to have a film barred from view in America? That is the question here.

IMHO, THIS IS THE HEART OF THE ISSUE

[Wonder]

74. AND as an after thought to post #68

after considering my own opinion, I say it is a no win situation. Why? because without this film anti-Semitism exists as does this ignorant mantra THE JEWS KILLED JESUS.

Therefore even the contravacy itself becomes problematic, as it all by itself can stir up anti-Semitism, and banning the film would risk stirring it up even more.

The only reason in my mind that this film might feel anti-Semitic to some is BECAUSE of this inclusion of the Jewish High Priests in the film. Look at all the bullshit AIPAC and Pro Israel Lobbies have been responsible for in terms of out and out propaganda. Does this also translate to ALL JEWS IN THE WORLD?

Quite frankly, it seems plausible that YES a small sect of Jewish High Priests did not like Jesus. That a heretic or prophet of this kind would wreak havoc on the powerful elders of any religion is endemic within christianity itself. Look at the role played by the Catholic Church within the Roman Empire. Look at all the breakaways within the history of Christianity? The point is that Jewish High priests found Jesus problematic is highly plausible. That it is plausible has little to do with the faith of the High priests but more to do with their Power under Roman Authority which they most certainly would not liked to have usurped by a rabble rouser named Jesus Christ.

I say leave the film be... trying to ban it would cause more problems rather than solutions. If banned the anti-Semites that believe the JEWS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD will just have more fodder for their hateful flames. For these type anti-Semites, a ban by Jewish organizations WOULD SURELY TRANSLATE as more PROOF that the JEWS CONTROL THE WORLD --- and more specifically that THE JEWS CONTROL OUR MEDIA AS WELL AS THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY.

That Mel has not aired this film in political Jewish circle DOES NOT make him an Anti-Semite beyond a reasonable doubt. If given the benefit of the doubt that Mel seems to be withholding the film from Jewish Groups right now (as much as I never was a fan -- the only movie he did that I liked was Gallipoli) may merely indicate that he is aware of the contravercy and at this stage in production he does not want production to be challenged anymore than production is normally challenged. He has invested money. He has made a film. The last thing Mel needs is the film to be shelved while still in editing.

Based on Mel Gibson's movies, as well as the attention span of movie goers and their comprehension skills in general terms, this film will open; it may make big money now especially due to the contravercy, as well as the VIOLENCE, which is a big draw at box office (gee are many women raped within the movie that would be sure to pull the young and misguided populace into the theater in droves) and a new movie will overtake it; as life goes on.

If Jewish groups are at odds with the facts as depicted by his script, I would advise they run a campaign, NOT to ban the film from viewing BUT to question the facts as Mel's script has depicted them. PERIOD

BANNING THIS FILM WILL CAUSE MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN THE FILM ITSELF, IMHO.

[Wonder]

75. another question this whole thing raises for me.

and this will be it. I just forgot to place the question in my last post.

These christian groups that Mel has already allowed a viewing? Might some of them be these Tom Delay fervent Christain Zionists? Think about it. Look how fucked up it is really. Not from a religious perspective but from a POWER perspective. With or without this movie things are fucked up... much is being stirred within various societies in many countries in the whole world.

It's a movie. It's a hollywood movie. From the Evangelicals to the Seventh Day Adventists, to the Roman Catholic Church, to the Jewish Lobbies to the Zionist Nationalists THERE IS A PROBLEM HOUSTON...

The problem is not the movie. One of the problems is the racism inherent in all the religions... and this fascist leaning to the right, and not just in America either...

My advice stands: the more attention that is paid to this film in terms of the Anti=Semitic question and perhaps banning the film --- the more STIRRED UP an already contravercial subject will become and for all the wrong reasons.

When has the hollywood formula ever been a responsible one?

[DeathvadeR]

69. How is it that this post gets 60 replies in 2 minutes

When this one only gets 1 in more then an hour??????

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=58751&mesg_id=58751>

or this one.........

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=58499&mesg_id=58499>



What has DU become?????? the Enquirer??????

[Wonder]

70. it didn't get 60 posts in two minutes

this thread was opened yesterday not two minutes ago. I believe there have only be several new posts since yesterday.

[DeathvadeR]

71. whew......

im trippin....

[Wonder]

72. LOL

don't feel bad... you are not alone... trippin' seems the grand equalizer... we all do it every now and again... even those drug free.

[Selwynn]

76. Let's try to be more sophisticated ....

...and avoid religion bashing.

Religion can be so unhealthy, as another poster rightly observerd. But there is a difference between institutionalized religiousity and a choice for personal piety. A personal spiritual walk can be an amazingly beautiful, life-fufilling, joyful experience. How do I know? Because it has been my story.

For my the cry of my religious heart is not for dogma, or for proselytizing, or for militancy, or for intolerance. The cry of my religious heart is for J U S T I C E. The claim of my religious heart is that the two greatest evils in the world today are ignorance and a lack of empathy, and that the greatest hope for the world to day is a deeply compassionate commitment social justice.

Let's leave room for people like me, democrat and deeply religious man.
Sel

[Wonder]

78. ignorance and lack of empathy

yes. seems like an infectious dis-ease that has befallen us all...unless one comes to find how to attract mostly compatibles... or like minds... and then learning how to amiably agree to disagree... that helps as well... compassion is an acquired virtue.