I haven't seen any threads about Mel Gibson's new film, except for this one -- which is actually more about Catholic doctrine than the movie.
I just ran across http://www.supportmelgibson.com/ -- I'm actually quite shocked by the amount of support this film is getting from the Protestant arena considering the amount of violence present (there was actually some talk of it recieving an NC-17 rating which, as far as I know, would have made it the first film to ever recieve that rating for violence). I read a report from some pastor who had seen the film and said that in this case the "R-rating" doesn't stand for "restricted" but "redemption" and "realism."
And then there's all the criticisms claiming that the movie is anti-semitic...
My friend, and movie critic from another board and several e-mail lists, Peter T. Chattaway, has done an incredible amount of research on the film and is quick to point out that the movie isn't exactly as "realistic" as the hype makes it out to be. You can find some of his thoughts about the subject here, along with plenty of links to other reviews and insights about the film. Also, another friend and critic for Christianity Today summarizes many of the controversies and reviews of the film here.
I can't say that I'm looking forward to seeing this film, but I can't say that I'm not, either. Anyone here have any thoughts?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
There was a Newsweek article on the movie this week. I just skimed it, I don't get Newsweek, but it seemed that Gibson was putting "anti-semetic" scenes in the movie which aren't in the Bible. This was news to me, I had heard previously that the contested scenes were in the Bible.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I am very much looking forward to this film (tickets are already sold out to the first few days it shows here). However, I plan to see it first BY MYSELF before I recommend it to my friends or invite guests to see it with me.
The churches that are buying out thousands of tickets and giving them away in hopes it will teach others about Christ -- I really think they should preview it first before they do that.
FWIW Farmgirl
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Well, frankly the story of the murder of the christ is anti-semetic, did not the Hebrew leaders say something along the lines of "Lay upon us the blame for this deed" I dont know the quote from the bible, but whather the movie is or not, I think it is about time someone made afilm about the Christ that was not some Hollywood film with swordplay and cleverwitty dialogue but just agood look at the word of the woman who had the visions and the word of the bible. I who am not christian still think that this is a film that needs to be made and seen.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
And THIS is a link someone sent me today that quotes an interview with the actor that portrayed Christ in the movie.
Farmgirl
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Jim Caviezel right?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I read that one of the more anti-sematic scenes has the Jewish leader screaming at the crowd that they and their children are doomed for this crime.
This section of the bible has been used for centuries to explain anti-sematic behavior. After all, the Jews killed our God. We should be able to kill them.
This specific scene has been cut from the picture, not because of all the complaints, but because at test showings, including those of religious leaders, the scene was considered vulgar, overplayed, and disgusting.
In other words, it wouldn't sell.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
What scenes is he "inserting" in the movie? I have not heard that charge.
If you read the book, well yeah the Jews were the ones that wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate didn't have any real beef with him. But the crowd wanted him dead so Pilate gave them Barabbas and had Jesus killed. That's it, in an oversimplified nutshell.
That's the way it happened. I'm sorry if the jews think this is making them look bad, but I don't really get it. (allowing of course, that I'm not Jewish)
I mean, if someone portrays the Spanish Inquisition and says "Christians killed people!" should I then cry out that the movie should be banned because it's anti-Christian?
Look, Mel Gibson isn't taking anyone's tax dollars to fund this movie. He's a private citizen (not even of the United States) and he can make any darn movie he wants to. Not everybody is going to like it but they don't have to see it.
Playboy puts out a lot of film material I find offensive and objectionable but I will not dispute they have a right to do so. I voice my displeasure by not buying or watching it.
I think it's fine and great for people to voice their opinion and say reasons why they don't like the movie, it's all the call for banning it and not allowing it to be shown in theaters that gets me riled up.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Well put Belle, well put indeed.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Id also like to note that I've read many reviews by Athiests as well as Christians who have seen the film (due in part to a special screening at Harry Knowles' AICN BUTT-NUMB-A-THON) who state that it's possibly the most powerful, most important film they've ever seen. Athiests and Agnostics that are probably still athiests and agnostics, but couldn't deny the power of the story, and the artistic quality in which it was told.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This movie looks like it could be ridiculously good… or ridiculously over done. I plan on seeing it because I don’t think I would trust anyone else’s opinion on the matter, and if it’s the former I wasn’t to go!
Hobbes Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hmm, in Newsweek they pointed out that sources other than the Bible cited Pilate as a cruel, stubborn, and vicious man, and the reason the Jews turned Jesus over to the Romans was because Jesus might inadvertently stir up a riot and they were afraid Pilate would come down hard on them. They said it was likely that whoever wrote the Bible probably did so while he himself and the Christians were under Roman rule, and it's a foolish man who wakes a sleeping bear. Don't know how true that is. Passion (according to Newsweek) depicts Pilate as being a fairly all right kinda guy, maybe a little bit of a wimp, and the Jews were pretty ornery for the slaughter.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Yesterday I saw somebody had a "LiveJournal Comment Chain Letter" advertising for this movie. Essentially you were expected to pass it on to five more people when you got it, so that everybody could be enlightened and go see this movie.
I had never really seen that sort of advertising before. Interesting.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Yeah, the marketing strategy has apparently been very strange. I quote another friend, "The marketing efforts for the film are pretty unique/strange. There's a heavy emphasis on grassroots marketing (to churches, schools, etc.), and very limited access to media outlets, even Christian media."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The only thing I have to say about the marketing efforts is: I want a bigger trailer!
Hobbes Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Even though it is rated "R" I would love to hear an LDS member's opinion on the movie.
[ February 12, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: unicornwhisperer ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, how many people do you know who claim that the Inquisition justifies harming Christians?
I have not seen the film. However, someone I know has, and he is very concerned. Not so much about American reaction, but other countries -- specifically many South American ones.
I actually think he's being a bit naive. I think there is a fair likelihood the movie will stir up anti-semitic violence in small-town America as well. I pray I am wrong.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote:Gibson has insisted that "The Passion of the Christ," set to be released Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, does not malign Jews.
However, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, whose representatives saw a version the movie two weeks ago, said it contained destructive stereotypes about the Jewish role in Christ's death.
Critics of the film hope to explain how dramatizations of the crucifixion, called Passion plays, were used in the Middle Ages to incite anti-Jewish violence, and emphasize that many Christian denominations now reject the idea of collective Jewish responsibility in the slaying of Jesus.
Personally, I like this argument best.
Debate Over Gibson's Depiction Of Christ's Passion Misses The Point
quote:
Who is responsible for Christ’s death? Whose shoulders bear the guilt of such a dark deed? The Jews who demanded the death of a righteous man? The Romans who carried out the execution despite the fact they considered Him innocent? The finger-pointing misses the whole point of Christ. All are guilty of His death, but none are responsible for it. Jesus claimed that no man could take His life. That He laid it down of His own accord.
So, neither the Jews, not the Romans killed Christ. He basically committed suicide, no?
There are two interesting articles here. I find this paragraph disturbing, though.
by Paula Fredriksen
quote:
Will The Passion of Christ, once released, have a negative effect on society? Might it promote anti-Jewish violence? I hope not, but I think it well might, for the reasons I sketch above. Long cultural habits die hard. The debate around the film, made public and promoted by Icon, has already occasioned ugly anti-Semitic slurs. My colleagues and I, via email, have received them. Both I and my university have received ominous threats from a furious Christian Passion-fan ('I am telling you now that if this woman continues to be employed as a professor, you will be putting your university at risk, with major problems to come . . . . I speak with a powerful voice and with strength that comes from our Heavenly Father,' from an email of November 10.) If the contrived, publicity-oriented 'debate' stirs such feelings, will the movie stir fewer, once true public debate can ensue? I do not know, but I doubt it.
I think that my biggest concern about the movie isn't it's historical accuracy, which is questionable in my mind, but the timing of the film. In a time when the US is seems to be locked is a bizarre Holy War with the Middle East, is it really all that intelligent to release a film that could fuel more Israel hatred?
I've heard that Mel both cut the scene about the blood being on them and that he put it back in. I guess it remains to be seen.
I'm now trying to figure out if he is Catholic. I've seen various opinions about this. One side believes that building his own church pretty much negates the ability to be in the Catholic Church, but the other side says that he'd have to be unless "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Though, one has to wonder how he has communion with members of the Church if he built his own Church which isn't sanctioned by the Pope and doesn't have a priest.
[ February 12, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
And to go along with [edit: my statement that that my concern wasn't that it was historically accurate, because I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was historically accurate. I believe many of the writings were written in a way that made the best of what was available. I also believe that many of Jesus' teachings were political in nature, though) Anyway, about that link with the "two interesting article.s" One of them mentions the arguments that John, which was used heavily as a reference, was influenced by the political era in which it was written.
quote:
Michael Medved:
Many Jews understand that the canonized accounts came into existence at a time when early Christians had begun to despair concerning conversion of the Jews, and instead focused their attention on proselytizing Romans – hence, orthodox Jews come out looking very bad, while Pilate and other Roman authorities receive reduced blame.
Both those articles were really interesting.
[ February 12, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The difficult scene is from the bible, Matthew 27:25.
Here is a nice article on the verse, how its been misread, and good arguments on how it should be understood.
The problem many groups have with the movie is that while most churches do not believe in the eternal curse of all Jewish peoples because of this belief, the sect that Gibson belongs to does, and he emphasises this verse as the culmination of the movie.
The strange marketing practices of this movie are more due to the fact that no major distribution channel wanted to buy it originally. They saw no profit in a biblical epic done in the original languages. Gibson went to great lengths to market his movie. It is not his fault that those marketing ideas fell into the hands of over-eager evangelicals.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
I don't think they "fell" into their hands. "Gibson's team has fueled the fervor by teaming up with evangelical marketing firms that have been providing free promotional kits, movie-related sermons and tips on how pastors can buy out an entire theater. The personal publicist for the Rev. Billy Graham has been hired to help."
He sent them DVD to discuss how to promote the movie, for heaven's sake.
[ February 12, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'm looking for the link to the official site where it says that the woman who played Mary (Jesus's mother) is herself Jewish, and has no problem with the way Jews are portrayed in this film.
Found it. Her name's Mia Morgenstern. And Satan is being played by a woman!
I'm wondering if there will be any cameos of Peter, John the Beloved, James, etc etc et all, because if there are, accusations of anti-semitism would be completely unfounded. The men closest to Jesus were themselves Jews...heck, Jesus himself was Jewish.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
From what I've read of the reviews, even though Satan is being played by a female actress, in the movie the personification of satan appears to be very asexual. It's not a man, it's not a woman, it's a being. A personification.
A snake is also used as a Satanic personification in the film along with the humanoid representation.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
John is featured prominently in the trailers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
muppet, having Jews in a movie hardly stops it from being anti-semitic! Some of the worst anti-semitism came from Jews.
And with all respect to Ms. Morgenstern, the article you linked to shows an amazing degree of denial on her part.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Gibson is set to appear on ABC's Primetime Monday night. So, maybe he will address some of the questions there.
Has anyone been to his site to read comments by people who've seen it, including Jewish members of the media?
quote:David Klinghoffer Author, Historian Jewish officialdom — that small, cozy world of community leaders and other machers — is already getting agitated by Mel Gibson's still-in-production Jesus movie. "The Passion" depicts the last 12 hours in the life of Christianity's founder, and press reports suggest that it places blame for the man's death firmly on Jewish shoulders. …One such orthodox belief insists that, despite what the Christian Gospels say, it wasn't Jews who killed Jesus: it was Romans acting on their own. You've heard this a million times, from Hebrew school onward. The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Marvin Hier, referring to Gibson's making of "The Passion," recently told Reuters that he's concerned "that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by Vatican II," which absolved the Jews of collective responsibility for Jesus' death. That "would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people."
Yet authoritative Jewish sources teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews. That fact used to be covered up by our communal leaders lest antisemites discover and publicize it. But the discovery has already happened, as a quick Internet search will reveal. So why keep fooling ourselves? Maimonides says it unapologetically in his "Letter to Yemen": "Jesus of Nazareth... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." In this passage, Maimonides draws on the Talmud and the Tosefta, another ancient rabbinic text. One key talmudic passage, from tractate Sanhedrin (43a), was expunged by censors but preserved in manuscripts and is well known today: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. The herald had gone forth forty days before [his death], (crying): 'Jesus of Nazareth goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and deceived and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor should come and declare concerning him.' But they found nothing in his favor." Stoning would have been followed by briefly hanging the body on a tree. As one modern scholar notes, "the Talmudic story of the execution of Jesus does not implicate the civil [Roman] government at all." …What's clear beyond doubt is that the Jewish community has a strong interest in fostering positive, warm relations with Catholics and other Christians. Surely, though, the cause of friendship with our non-Jewish fellow citizens is unlikely to be advanced by critiquing religious beliefs which closely mirror our own tradition. Our loyalty should be to Judaism and to truth, not to an officially sanctioned, sanitized version of Judaism or the truth — which may be neither Jewish nor true. (The Forward, May 3, 2003) David Klinghoffer is the author of "The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism," published this month by Doubleday.
The trouble with the sources he is citing, Belle, is that they refer to "Yeshu haNotzri," who lived about 100+ years after Christians believe Jesus did. And the details of his death are completely incompatible with the NT. So there is a LOT of debate as to whether they refer to Jesus.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
More comments from members of the Jewish and Christian community:
quote:Finally I believe the attacks on Mel Gibson are a mistake because while they may be in the interests of Jewish organizations who raise money with the specter of anti-Semitism, and while they may be in the interests of Jewish journalists at the New York Times and elsewhere who are trying to boost their careers, they are most decidedly not in the interests of most American Jews who go about their daily lives in comfortable harmony with their Christian fellow citizens. You see, many Christians see all this as attacks not just on Mel Gibson alone or as mere critiques of a movie, but with some justification in my view, they see them as attacks against all Christians. This is not so different from the way most people react to attack. We Jews usually feel that we have all been attacked even when only a few of us suffer assault on account of our faith. Right now, the most serious peril threatening Jews, and indeed perhaps all of western civilization, is Islamic fundamentalism. In this titanic twenty-first century struggle that links Washington DC with Jerusalem, our only steadfast allies have been Christians. In particular, those Christians that most ardently defend Israel and most reliably denounce anti-Semitism, happen to be those Christians most fervently committed to their faith. Rabbi Daniel Lapin
quote:Your treatment of the high priest and temple officials is sensitively done. It is clear that the small group of religious leaders were acting in an extra legal fashion without the full body of the Sanhedrin being present. The terrible suffering inflicted on Jesus Christ by the Romans was at the urging of a small band of power-hungry religious leaders, not by the Jewish nation. Pat Robertson
quote:As a Jew, while I see why some Jewish leaders might be offended, I must say that the only reason they would be is because of how close to the Scriptures you stayed in the telling of the story. There are a whole host of reasons why we, as Jewish people, can feel a keen sense of rejection, offense or other things by what some Christians have done “in the name of Christ” during the last 2,000 years. But, let me assure you that Mel Gibson is not to be named in that number. Mel has chosen the narrow road of staying true to the Scriptures. Stan Kellner, International Bible Society
quote:Even without seeing the film, some Jewish and Catholic leaders have accused Gibson’s film of fomenting “religious animosity” and even anti-Semitism. They worried that the film might blame “the Jews” for the death of Jesus. And they requested that a panel of scholars be allowed to review the script before the film’s release. Gibson’s defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found I “puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released.” He reminded Gibson’s liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ – and attack on the historic Jesus – came out, “movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone. Chuck Colson, Break Point
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If you read the entire page I linked, Rivka, you'll see that several Jews refer to the same passages. So, while there may be debate, these Jewish leaders felt confident enough that those passages referred to Jesus to not even mention that there was debate.
I'm not trying to come down hard on you, Rivka, but I must say I am angered that so many people are pre-judging something they have not even seen simply because it's Christian. There are many, many movies made that are offensive to Christians, The Last Temptation, Dogma, etc. And yet, we are told to shut up and respect creative freedom.
When a Christian tries to make something he is labelled anti-Semitic and villified in a lot of circles.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I am not claiming, necessarily, that Gibson is anti-semitic, or that the film is.
I think the REACTION to it from many is likely to be. And it worries me greatly.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: The Last Temptation, Dogma
I'm a Christian, and I find those movies to be actually quite faith-promoting, in their own twisted ways. But I'm strange that way.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Because I think some of these comments are important, and most people are not likely to read through everything on that page...here are some more.
quote: It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged. Two illustrative details: Jesus is referred to in the film as "rabbi," and there is never any distancing of Jesus or his disciples from their Jewishness. (One point missed by ignorant bigots like Fredericksen whose only familiarity with The Passion is with a stolen script) is that while the film is in Aramaic -- a brilliant effect that enhances the symbolic resonance of the story -- it has subtitles. Second detail: A Jew carries Jesus' cross along the terrible route to Golgotha and shares his miseries. David Horowitz
More from Rabbi David Lapin
quote:Jewish groups that fracture friendship between Christians and Jews are performing no valuable service to American Jews. Jewish organizations protesting Passion are remarkably selective in their ire. It is so bizarre that the new movie Luther, which champions someone who was surely one of history’s most eloquent anti-Semites, gets a free pass from our self-appointed Jewish guardians. Only Gibson is evil, is that right? Again, why would the soon to be released new movie, The Gospel of John, be utterly immune to the censoring tactics of certain Jewish organizations? After all, the soundtrack includes virtually every word of the Gospel including the most unflattering descriptions of Jewish priests and Pharisees of Jesus’ time, along with implications of their complicity in the Crucifixion, yet not a peep of Jewish organizational protest. Could their conspicuous silence possibly have anything to do with the ethnicity of the producers of The Gospel of John? These include Garth Drabinsky, Sandy Pearl, Joel Michaels, Myron Gottleib, and Martin Katz. So if Jews quote the Gospel it is art but if Mel Gibson does the same, it is anti-Semitism? The Talmudic distinction eludes me. It probably eludes most Christians too.
Again Rabbi Lapin
quote:Do we really want to open up the Pandora’s Box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about ten seconds. I think it far better that in the name of genuine Jewish-Christian friendship in America, we allow all faiths their own beliefs even if we find those beliefs troubling or at odds with our own beliefs. This way we can all prosper safely under the constitutional protection of the United States of America.
Done.
Rabbi Lapin just brought out so many points I wanted to make, but he was much more eloquent than I.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
hey, hobbes, need a date?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no opinion yet -- I said that. I agree that judging a movie I have not yet seen is unreasonable.
But the person whose opinion on the movie I am going by HAS seen it, and HAS spoken to many other Jewish AND Christian people (leaders and others) who are concerned about the potential ripples from this movie.
And Belle, with the exception of Rabbi Lapin, I don't consider any of the "Jewish Community" sources to represent MY community. As for R' Lapin, I have disagreed with his stance on many other issues, too.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Do you know what Christian teaching is about who is responsible for putting Jesus on that cross?
Me. I am. And every other sinner. And that is what Gibson said he tried to portray, and it's also why he made a cameo appearance - it's his hand that pounds in the nails.
You are anticipating anti-semitism and it has you concerned - well guess what concerns me?
The backlash IF that happens - big IF, nothing has yet, against Christians. I guarantee there will be threads on Hatrack and people in the media saying "See! We told you all Christians hate Jews! We told you they was all ignorant, most of them are probably southern too."
Christian teaching is not the least bit anti-semitic. Do you deny what Rabbi Lapin says about Israel's most ardent supporters being Christians? I certainly have been taught to respect the Jewish people. Never, in all my years of attending church in the Bible belt, was any blame ever been ascribed to the Jewish nation for the death of Christ. Not once.
We are taught about the Jewish leaders, the small number of power-hungry people who Jesus had his share of run-ins with, but not the people. In fact, do you really think most Christians are ignorant to the fact that Jesus was a Jew? That Peter, John and James were Jews?
Why do you think there is some huge population of jew-haters waiting to attack you at the first provocation?
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Good point Belle, although we all have to admit that SOMEONE will be offended by this movie. It might even be a Christan, for all we know. Everyone's just so worried about offending people nowadays that we get paranoid whenever something that is (or might be) controversial comes up.
I really honestly want to see this movie (I'm also hoping that they put subtitles in like they did in the previews). The preview for it looks really great, and at first I wasn't so gung-ho about it as I am now.
And on a side-note: Correlle and I absolutely LOVE Dogma. We're both Catholic (there's a line in the movie where an actor says, "Trust Catholics to bring about the end of the world" or something to that effect), and we die every time we see it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
How can watching the story of Christ's suffering and death incite people to do more of the very thing he suffered and died for? (hatred, murder, etc.) It's the same bizarre thing that happened with the anti-muslim violence after 9/11. Because it infuriated them that some twisted people murdered a lot of innocent people, they wanted to go out and murder more innocent people? See, I just don't get that.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Even though it is rated 'R' I would love to hear an LDS member's opinion on the movie."
I don't know of any that have seen it, but the majority of Mormons I have heard discuss it are completely on the side of its release -- although ambivalant about the rating. They are working off the momentum of other Christians, and see the whole anti-semitism arguments as a straw man. The real issue, for those I have heard who support the film, is allowing Christians to have their own voices determine what they say and believe. If it turns out sounding anti-semitic; so be it. Those I have heard see it as a slap on Hollywood's face against the very offensive "Last Temptation of Christ" and other percieved desecrations against Christian faith.
This support will remain so long as the film actually supports the Biblical narrative. Most Mormons I have heard reject the criticism of unhistorical as irrelavant (Mormons are more Biblical inneranist, at least not "Higher Critical," than outsiders realize). They want to see a film based on the Scriptures. So long as "The Passion" takes most of its script from the New Testament, than there will be support. Of course, the "R" rating will keep a lot away from going as a matter of principle.
Edit: the official position of the LDS Church on the movie is, so far and with my projected expectations, silence.
[ February 12, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: the very offensive "Last Temptation of Christ"
I took the whole point of that movie to be that even though He could have lived an ordinary life withot going through with the sacrifice, He chose to anyway, for the greater good. Whereas I don't feel the film was that historically accurate, and wasn't a big fan of the portrayal of John the Baptist's followers, I personally wasn't all that offended with the film after I had seen the entire thing.
But as I said before - I'm strange.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:In fact, do you really think most Christians are ignorant to the fact that Jesus was a Jew? That Peter, John and James were Jews?
Well, there used to be some, anyway. I had two great aunts on my mother's side. One day she apparently showed up her sister's house while my mother was there. According to my mom, she looked a little shell-shocked. Mom asked if she was OK.
"I just found out that Christ was a Jew."
My parents kept us shielded us from the fact as kids, but those aunts were both passively anti-semitic. (My parents were very good at keeping things like that from us - I didn't have any kind of clue about much of any kind of stereotype until I started hearing some of them being voiced in high school.)
The big exception to that was racism. Rochester had race riots. So they really had some long talks with us to make sure we didn't pick up some of the garbage that was flying around a white suburban community.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Taalcon, I remember very specific statements about that movie from LDS pulpits. The very idea that Jesus the Christ would have even considered the alternative and live a normal mortal life (and one in sin for that matter) was offensive. The second most offensive part was the "sexed-up" modern Hollywoodization; such as Mary with tatoos and Jesus googling whores.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I can understand the point of view. But I can also understand that the portrayal of Christ's normal post-stepping-down-from-the-Cross life was a vision, and a temptation from the Devil - and in the end that Christ resisted that temptation, as he did all of the others in the Biblical acounts.
That's my view. When it comes to storytelling (this was based on a novel, not an interpretation of the Gospels), I tend to view the intent and message of the piece over its details, conceding that the piece has at east some sort of intrinsic artistic value - which I believe it does.
But I agree that it's not for everybody, and may be a 'stumbling block' for people. In which case I don't impose it on others that are uncomfortable by it, but just explain why I feel the way I do
[ February 12, 2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lemme get this straight: the idea of the Son of Man being tempted by having a normal life of a wife, family, and friends is bad; while depicting Him as being tempted by a kingdom of power, wealth, and concubines is acceptable.
Certainly explains why those same folk think viewing Gibson's snuff porn is just good clean family entertainment.
[ February 12, 2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
On 'The Last Temptation of Christ' I haven't seen the movie but the book was a very important book for me. (The book was very controversial too, when it was published, and is deeply reviled by some Christians.)
It was the first time I'd seen Christ depicted as a real person. I'd been shown a picture of a divine Christ, but never one who was also human. It affected me profoundly. At the time I was leaning toward eastern religions and against the idea of a personal god. Probably I would not be Christian today were it not for that book.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Certainly explains why those same folk think viewing Gibson's snuff porn is just good clean family entertainment.
Okay, even though you appear to be agreeing with my view on the prior subject, very much DISAGREE with this description of THE PASSION, based on all the reviews I've read.
"Snuff" films are films - generally - of real people getting killed or brutally injured, and are generally watched for a perverse emotional high. they are not art. They are exploitative.
All the reviews I've read of this film in regards to its violent content are that it IS Brutal, but necessary and effective in displaying the SACRIFICE that was made. It's done for the audience to sympathize, and yes, even be shocked.
But not to revel in it.
It's a wakeup call for those who talk about the beatings without even thinking of what it MEANS. A person was tortured in the name of Love for Mankind.
None of the reviews called the violence 'exhillerating' 'exciting' or done in a way that got them 'pumped up'. It is not a GLORIFICATION of the violence.
So unless you were just being snarky and I missed the point, I think you have VASTLY oversimplified and miscategorized the intentions of the film.
[ February 12, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Do you know what Christian teaching is about who is responsible for putting Jesus on that cross?
Me. I am. And every other sinner. And that is what Gibson said he tried to portray, and it's also why he made a cameo appearance - it's his hand that pounds in the nails.
Yes, Belle, I am quite aware of that. Do you know why the rabbi I mentioned before is not mentioned on any of the web sites talking about the film (as far as I know)? Because he has (at least, this is my understanding) been working with other concerned people -- Jews and Christians -- to request that THAT is the message that comes from pulpits when this film is discussed or promoted. I don't believe that the public outcry against the movie is at all helpful; actually, I think it's terribly counterproductive.
However. There are hundreds of years of history and conditioning at work here. Do you know what it meant to a Polish Jew (for example) in the 1600s (as well as earlier, and more recently too -- as recently as the 1800s) to find out that there was going to be a Passion Play?
It meant pray. And hide. And pray some more. Because while far from EVERY staging was used to incite a pogrom, all too many were.
So yes, I am afraid. Not for myself -- the odds of anything happening in the US is small, and in largely secular cities like L.A., even smaller. But I am afraid -- and I am not alone. And the outcry comes from that fear, I think.
Does that mean I think that all, or even most, Christians hate Jews? Emphatically NOT! I cannot emphasize that enough! (And as it happens, I have nothing against Southerners either. )
But is there a small minority who do? Sadly, yes. I have had the 'pleasure' of meeting some of them. I have been called Christ-killer -- when I was too young to even understand what it meant! There doesn't need to be a "huge population of jew-haters waiting to attack." It only takes a small handful. Especially if they are violent.
Do I absolutely believe that most devout Christians are friends to Israel and the Jews? YES!!! A thousand times yes! I know many IRL, I have been happy to meet many more online -- both on Hatrack and elsewhere.
You are right about the potential backlash, and that is PART of why many Christians are concerned about the potential reaction to the movie as well. Mostly, though, it is because they are GOOD PEOPLE!
quote: I certainly have been taught to respect the Jewish people. Never, in all my years of attending church in the Bible belt, was any blame ever been ascribed to the Jewish nation for the death of Christ. Not once.
I know that in the US, this is true in many, many more places than it is not. In other countries it is also more common than not, but (from my conversations with some people who live or have lived there) not as overwhelmingly.
*deep breath*
You keep comparing this to movies that offend you -- I'm not afraid of being offended. I'm afraid of Jews being attacked, or even killed.
And I think the ONLY way to prevent that possibility is if Jews and Christians work together.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote: In fact, do you really think most Christians are ignorant to the fact that Jesus was a Jew? That Peter, John and James were Jews?
So, there were a lot of Blue-eyed, light hair/skinned Jews back then?
quote: Christian teaching is not the least bit anti-semitic.
I certainly have been taught to respect the Jewish people.
Other than the fact that they chose the wrong religion?
quote:Why do you think there is some huge population of jew-haters waiting to attack you at the first provocation?
Hmm. . . could it have been WWII? Conspiracy talk of the Jews taking over the banks and Hollywood? Threats, bombs in synagogs, and guys like this, who make their living spreading hate and intolerance in newspapers, magazines and on the internet. http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6474 Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I think I'm actually more fascinated by all of the uproar surrounding this movie than the actual film itself. Up until this point I had assumed that the Jewish leaders who were getting tied up in knots were being a bit over-the-top, but I understand what rivka's been saying.
Now, there have been a few recent movies (all made-for TV, I believe) that told the story of Jesus' life and death and none of them seemed to cause any commotion. Now, obviously, not being theatrical releases, they wouldn't have garnered as much attention, but I think the point that makes this film so hotly debated is because of Gibson's remarks about how historically acurate it is. If this film is as it was, well, I can understand how some people (already of an anti-semitic frame of mind) might find in themselves more of a reason to hate Jews.
I think this brings up some good questions about art and movies. If the movie isn't anti-semitic in and of itself, is Gibson still responsible if any violence occurs? And even if it does include scenes or dialog that put at least some of the blame for Jesus' death upon Jewish hands, should he, as an artist be censured?
Of course, I am also interested in the amount of violence in the film.
Taalcon:
quote:All the reviews I've read of this film in regards to its violent content are that it IS Brutal, but necessary and effective in displaying the SACRIFICE that was made. It's done for the audience to sympathize, and yes, even be shocked.
But not to revel in it.
I don't know. It seems to me that Gibson-the-filmmaker seems to revel in violence, at least a little bit. I'll quote Peter T. Chattaway here in order to expound:
quote:And of course, Gibson puts a lot of violence in his film that is nowhere to be found in the gospels, or even in the visions of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the stigmatic nun whose Dolorous Passion partly inspired this film -- so much so that you can't help wondering whether Gibson, who won Oscars for producing and directing the gory medieval revenge epic Braveheart (1995), is indulging his more sadistic side.
...
First, recent war movies Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and the Gibson-starring We Were Soldiers have gone out of their way to be more violent than the movies that came before them -- but why? Is a film more truthful just because it is bloodier than the others? Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ and the Visual Bible's adaptation of Matthew were also once hailed for their grisly crucifixion scenes; does the law of diminishing returns apply to the violence of Jesus films, too?
Second, just as Braveheart was about nothing if not the definition of masculinity, Gibson seems to want his Jesus to be more manly than the others -- that is, to be more tough. Jesus commits the film's first violent act, as he crushes a snake underfoot, and he practically invites a second round of flogging by standing up straight and showing the soldiers he can take their abuse. Has Gibson perhaps reinvented Jesus in his own masochistic image?
Finally, about the marketing of the film and Gibson's upcoming appearence on ABC there's this from critic Barbara Nicolosi.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Celia: hey, hobbes, need a date?
I'm going to pretend that what you said was
quote:Celia: Hey Hobbes, want to go see The Passion of the Christ with me in a completely platonic and non-Annie offending way?
And then answer yes, I'd be thrilled!
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So, there were a lot of Blue-eyed, light hair/skinned Jews back then?
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Where is it said Jesus had blue eyes or light skin? Certainly nowhere in the Bible.
quote:Other than the fact that they chose the wrong religion?
So now I can't respect Jews because they aren't the same religion as me? So automatically because I"m Christian I hate everyone who isn't?
What is your problem?
quote:Hmm. . . could it have been WWII? Conspiracy talk of the Jews taking over the banks and Hollywood? Threats, bombs in synagogs, and guys like this, who make their living spreading hate and intolerance in newspapers, magazines and on the internet.
No one denies there are people who are radical and hate mongerers, but they are by no means limited to Christians. I do deny that most mainstream American Christians who've never had a beef with Judaism before will suddenly turn violent toward people over a movie.
Rivka, yes I agree Christians and Jews should work together. The problem I have here, is that I don't see these members of the Jewish community leading the outcry against the movie willing to do that! They've denounced it, called for Gibson to change it (before it's released and before most of them have even seen it) and begun all this talk about violence toward Jews even though there's been no incidents as of yet. In fact, the only people I see talking about violence toward Jews are Jews
The hate mongers are there, yes - but that's nothing new. We know they're there. The movie isn't going to suddenly make them hate Jews if they do already. It changes nothing. But all this talk about it, all this outcry - it only calls attention to something that shouldn't be such a big issue. The vast majority of Christians have no animosity toward Jews.
The way this has been going, it's got Christians like me feeling defensive because it does feel like an attack. There are people calling for us to denounce and deny the Biblical accounts of Jewish involvement in the crucifixion. Well, I can't do that! I don't pick and choose what parts of the Gospels I believe. It's unfair to expect me to do so.
Not a personal attack at you Rivka, really, but more frustration at the whole issue.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree that you shouldn't be asked to, Belle. As I said, I do NOT agree with the loud tumult -- at best, it is useless; at worst, more destructive than most of the scenarios they anticipate.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
AICN just posted another long support by Lapin - he seems to be quite vocal about this. Interesting.
Oh, and don't go into the Talkbacks at AICN looking for rational thought. You'll come away with a headache, and fearing for the intelligence of the nation.
[ February 13, 2004, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh* I love how he managed to include a plug for his radio show . . . Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you know what Christian teaching is about who is responsible for putting Jesus on that cross?
Me. I am. And every other sinner. And that is what Gibson said he tried to portray, and it's also why he made a cameo appearance - it's his hand that pounds in the nails.
Wow. This really hit home, Belle.
I hope Gibson does make this point in the film.
UW-- I'm going to go see this film, despite the R rating.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Even though I'm not LDS, I'd still love to hear what Gordon B. Hinkley thinks of it. I wonder if he was presented a chance to view it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Taalcon: he probably won't say anything about it at all.
He's the most media-friendly president we've had in a while, but he's not THAT friendly.
If he does say something, it will probably be along the lines of, "We should get to know Christ through the scriptures and through prayer. This is how to experience the reality of Christ's death and resurrection, in a way that media cannot reproduce."
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Which would probably indeed be the smartest thing for him to say.
He did 'obliquely' bash Chicago, though. Which I was somewhat surprised at (not that he bashed it - based on a review from someone else, he hadn't seen it himself, he made clear to point out-, but rather that he publicly admonished that it was an immoral film).
Although if he WERE to come out in support of PASSION, I guarantee the Box Office would increase tremendously.
The Pope's "It is as it was" (which, even with alegations that it wasn't said - the evidence seems to point that he did in fact say it) I'm sure helped score a few extra Million.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:...Jesus googling whores.
--Occasional
See, it's that kind of anachronistic stuff that really bothers me about Hollywood! I mean, the Internet hadn't even been invented yet, for Pete's sake! And yet there Jesus is, using a search engine to find sites about whores.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I admit laughing at that when I wrote it -- recognizing a possible "funny." However, that is what he does in the film.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Perhaps you meant "ogled" or "goggled at"? (I don't think google was a word before Google, which itself was a play on the numeric term googol.)
PS: I have to thank you, Occasional, for finally giving me a chance to remember how to spell "occasion." It's been my downfall!
[ February 13, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If the Jews don't speak up for themselves, Belle, even if they are mistaken, who else will?
Personally, I think rivka's plan is the way to go.
-Bok
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Hey all you SLC-area Jatraqueros. Century 16 is showing a sneak-preview of the movie on Wednesday, February 25th. Fandango is already selling tickets. I think I'm going to go to the 7:00 show. Who's with me?
[ February 13, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
How is it a Sneak Peek on the 26th if it opens on the 25th?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I think the 25th is just for NY/LA. For us backwoods Utahns, this may be the best we can do.
[edit: I understood that the 25th was limited, I saw showtimes on Fandango and Hollywood for the 25th, and none for the 26th, so I'm assuming it's a sneak preview. We'll see if I'm right or wrong.]
[ February 13, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
It opens on the 25th here in the Phoenix area too.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'm pretty sure that due to their whole grassroots strategy, it's not gonna be a rollout - I think it's Nationwide on the 25. It's coming to the three main theaters here in Savannah.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Okay, I went to the official site. Looks like you're right. I may still see it on the 25th, though. Darn misleading advertising.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Here in Wichita, Kansas, it opens on the 25th. However, at least the first two days are already sold out. A co-worker of mine bought tickets the day they first offered them for sale here, and had to get tickets for the 27th, not the 25th, because there were no more left.
FG
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Interesting.
There are a lot of interesting things going on here.
And I personally find them much more interesting than the movie (but less so than the story the movie is about.)
We have Mel Gibson, who produces a movie about Christ's life, in Aramic and other accurate dialects.
It has trouble getting a distribution deal.
Suddenly copies of the script are stolen and sent to the Anti-Defamation League.
From reading the scripts the Anti-Defamation League fears that some scenes may harken back to old bigoted views of the death of Christ.
These scripts, not thin air, is where the charges of bad depictions of Jews came from.
It was wrong of these leaders to accuse Mel Gibson and this movie of anti-semiticism until they see it. The problem is that Mel Gibson won't let them see it early. They send him letters stating their concerns. He does not reply. They want a nice calm discussion of their concerns. He refuses.
Then the truth of his religion comes out. Mel Gibson is part of a ultr-conservative Catholic cult. How conservative? They disagree with anything the church has done since Copernicus. They believe that the Pope is not always right, as he claimed, but that only God and Jesus are perfect, and that they come closer to it than even the Pope. Yes, they claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.
An interview with Mel Gibson's parents, members of this cult, reveal definate Anti-Semitism. They do blame the Jews for Christ's death.
The parents do not control the child. Mel Gibson denies any anti-semitism. Again, Jewish groups ask to see the film so they can lay their fears to rest. They are denied.
The controversy allows him to sell his movie.
I personally did not think the movie would be terrible. However, the more I learn about Mel Gibson's Church (all you Non-Catholics, he said this week, will unfortunately burn in hell together.) the more I dread this movie.
I do not think less of Mel Gibson for making a Christian movie.
I do not think less of Christians for wanting this movie made.
I do think less of the movie for having been made by a "Christian" of Mel Gibson's beliefs. I fear those beliefs are extreme and border on un-christian. I fear they may have contaminated the movie, and may, for some people, contaminate the important story the movie tells.
Now some Jews have rallied together to ask, not that the movie be burned, but that some people have a chance to see it first who are not ultra-conservative Christians.
Instead, Mr. Gibson has berated his detractors as attacking Christianity.
A few people, behind the pulpit and in the press, point to the story this movie is about and are argueing that if you attack this movie, you are attacking that story, you are attacking Christianity.
More argue that if you attack the controversial part of the movie, the chorus of Jews accepting blame for the execution, then you are attacking the bible, for it derives from the bible.
Included in this attack on Christianity is the request that some Jewish groups can preview the movie, to see if there is anything dangerous in it or not.
Instead they are told, no. They are told that there is nothing to worry about.
Imagine a man walks up to you and puts a gun to your head. He tells you that the gun is unloaded, but he is going to press the trigger anyway. You ask if you can check the gun to make sure its unloaded. He says, "No. It is my gun and I know what loaded and unloaded is. I am going to pull this trigger. If you try to stop me, that is assault. If you assault me, it proves that you deserve to be shot."
My favorite turn in this saga is the fearful reactionary responce some have taken. Several Jewish groups are reacting in fear that this will lead to an attack on them and their property. Several Christian groups are reacting in fear that the Jewish reaction is an attack on them.
Meanwhile, some Jewish leaders and some Christian leaders are playing off all of this fear and crusading, gathering their own religious/political strength.
I must say, it is quite interesting to watch.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dan, you had me until you used the word cult.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, surely you can ignore a poor word choice. If you prefer you can replace the one instance of it with the word sect. It doesn't change the end of the post, I promise!
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a loaded word, though. It's not a matter of choosing between sect and branch. Cult carries heavy connotations with it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, but not everyone uses it in that way. I think it isn't very conducive to discussion if you view one-offs like this as attacks/defamation.
At least ask Dan to clarify. He may even have evidence for calling it a cult.
-Bok
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Personally, I don't care what Mel Gibson believes when I go to see this movie. I don't care if he didn't let people see it before hand. I just don't care because to me it doesn't change the movie. Either it's good or it's bad (or maybe even in between ) but the person who made it no longer has anything to do with my enjoyment of it. Only his final product will do that.
Now if you want to judge Mel Gibson as a person take all that into account. If you want to figure out if it's anti-semitic, then these things can be clues. But once again, I don't know if it is, and all though something like that can ruin the film, it wont necessarily. I think JFK is a great film even though I think that most of the "information" in it is laughable at best.
I'm not really disagreeing with Dan here, just saying that all this contreversy will not change my enjoyment (or lack thereof) of this film.
Hobbes Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
heh, you'll leave that up to me.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
If anybody'sinterested, the sect, cult, or whatever you want to call it is The Society of Saint Pius X There are some Catholics who belive that the Society is a cult.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hobbes, I agree with you.
First, some clarification on the "cult" word. Everything that I've read or heard about this sect rubbed me the wrong way. When I couldn't think of the word Sect, cult came to mind way to easilly.
Hey, its my bias.
But Hobbes, I agree that none of this will help determine if the movie is good or bad as art, or good or bad as far as filmaking, or even story telling.
What I was trying to point out is that this is a movie about a story.
Whether that story is true or not is a debate I don't want to get into here.
But the story, or stories, about the movie are more interesting than the Movie itself.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Belle, why would people think that Jesus was Jewish? I know where you come from, religion is an actual, well, faith, where I come from, church is something you do on Sunday. It is more for networking, to create family friendships and to fake piety. I don't know what religion you are, but growing up in UCC/Presbyterian/Catholic type Churches (though not as much in the Catholic Churches), we learned the major stories of the Bible and that was about it. Yeah, theoretically, Jesus was a Jew. So was everyone else. The thing is, unless you actually read the Bible (which, no one I know did, because the preacher always read a couple of paragraphs out of it and then spent the next half hour telling you how it applied to your life today) there is really no mention of things that sound at all Jewish. Did you ever notice that he went into the temple of God. Not "He went to Temple." I don't think I've ever heard anyone I know who is Jewish say they were going to the temple of God. "And the Jews' passover was at hand. . ." When you talk about Christmas, do you describe it as "the time of the Christians Christmas was at hand?" It makes it sound like Jesus wasn't one of the Jews himself. And I don't know if you've ever noticed, but most of the depictions of Jesus hardly make him look like he was a Jew.
quote:I don't pick and choose what parts of the Gospels I believe.
No, but it's also unfair to expect everyone else to take them as the "Gospel Truth." Not only is the Bible versions of the story impossible to prove true, the docudrama isn't the "Truth" either. It can depict what might have happened. I can depict what the film maker believes happened. It can even resonate with a lot of people as being what happened. It still doesn't make it the truth. And besides, Gibson didn't use just the Gospels as a reference. Some of his beliefs are anti-Semitic. Like the scene we already discussed where a Jewish high priest declares a blood curse on Jews for the death of Christ. Whether or not he leaves that in there, whether or not it is the "truth," it isn't right. That particular line from Matthew help fuel centuries of anti-semitism in the Middle Ages, and it wasn't until 1965 that Catholics repudiated that reading of it and began stressing that his death was part of a divine mission. So, just because you've only been alive during the time where is wasn't politically correct to blame the Jews, it doesn't mean that all of have only been around that long. Also, there is still some question as to whether or not this movie is taken entirely from the Bible. There are those who say that the violence present in this movie isn't depicted in the Bible, but in the work of a nineteenth century nun. And, I must have forgotten it, if I ever knew it, but where in the Bible does Satan Pilate show up in place of Pilate alongside the Jewish leaders? I suppose the film could be edited again, but this time, people already know it what was there.
Also, I don't think any of the Jewish leaders who've spoken out about this movie have ever said anything about Christians suddenly turning on Jews. They are concerned about fringe groups using this movie as an excuse. Do you not believe their fears are justified? I wonder what people would think if there were an "accurate" movie about Isaac and Ishmael. The fact that Ishmael is portrayed like the demon child from hell, I'm sure, wouldn't fuel any anti-Muslim hatred, or piss off the Muslims. Besides the historical differences between the cultures, the "truth" also seem to be in dispute from who was almost sacrificed to even who their Grandfather was. (I have so say, in goggling that, I found a surprising number of "Christian" site commenting on the inherent untruths of the Koran, one even saying "Currently they are in bondage to a false religion called Islam. However, God is in control and the day will come when they will be delivered and enter into a period of blessing.") I just believe a "true" depiction of that would leave a lot of people nervous. But the Jews shouldn't be worried. I mean, here in the US and all, they are pretty far removed from large segments of Muslims. Of course, Israel may have some problems, but whatever.
quote: The problem I have here, is that I don't see these members of the Jewish community leading the outcry against the movie willing to do that!
I mentioned this yesterday. Please read this. It is exactly what you are asking for. He writes so well about his opinions of what some in the Jewish faith are doing, the problems they created, and his own personal experience and emotions as he watched the movie. He explains the fears, talks about some of the Jews overreaction and why some of it is justified.
There are a few interesting articles there, though not related to the topic of the link above.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sorry if this has already been said.
I think the most anti-semitic thing in the movie is a blue-eyed Jesus.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I would like to add that my UCC-upbringing was a bit different than jack's.
Dan: I kinda figured that's what happened.
-Bok
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I do plan to see the film. I also plan to make up my own mind about it, rather than just depending on partisan statements from all sides of the issue.
quote:Look, Mel Gibson isn't taking anyone's tax dollars to fund this movie. He's a private citizen (not even of the United States) and he can make any darn movie he wants to. Not everybody is going to like it but they don't have to see it.
Just as a side issue: I believe that Mel Gibson is, indeed, a citizen of the United States. At any rate, he was born here - his family immigrated to Australia when he was a child.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:I think the most anti-semitic thing in the movie is a blue-eyed Jesus.
Actually, they've CGI'd his eyes green in the actual flick. Serious.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's not very Jewish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*rolls eyes* PSI, my mom has blue eyes, as do three of my sibs. I have Jewish friends who are blue-eyed blondes and green-eyed redheads, as well as the (more common) dark hair and dark eyes.
And the only convert among them has dark hair and dark eyes . . . Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
I would think that over 2,000 years, there was probably a bit more ethnic blending than back in Jesus' day.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Belle, why would people think that Jesus was Jewish? "
Coming strictly from a Mormon point of view, the consideration that Jesus wasn't a Jew would be incomprehensible. I could never understand why it was such a new idea.
This discussion has reminded me of some concerns, already mentioned, about the movie that could be problematic.
The first problem is violence. The Gospels do not portray a very "pg" rated experience for Jesus. He is scorged, mocked, has thorns placed on his head, gets nailed to the cross and pierced once he is dead. At least one account says that he was bleading at every pour. It really depends on exactly how much more gruesome and violent than that is shown.
Mel Gibson is courting a crowed that makes me nervous. Protestant Evangilicals are taking it under their wings, even though Mel Gibson is a Catholic. Most Protestant Evengilical Christians don't take a liking to Catholics any more than Jews and Muslims. Either they don't realize this, or they have alterior motives keeping them from the usual anti-Catholic rhetoric. Frankly, I find this dynamic more interesting than any "Christian vs. Jew" interplay. As someone eles said, apparently Mel Gibson himself has been rather anti-Protestant in views (but I am not sure exacty of that for it is second hand information and therefore can't hold up in court). And, of course, its interesting that no one has caught a hold of this paradox.
[ February 14, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Mel Gibson is not a Catholic: he belongs to a cult mimicking RomanCatholic Latin rituals.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
But, does Mel Gibson consider himself a Catholic? And, I disagree with the word "cult" as well. I don't care what scientific meaning it might have; its rude and uncalled for.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Don't matter what MelGibson considers himself. If he considered a tail a leg, a dog would would still have four legs.
[ February 14, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Temper, temper.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The reason it's so easy for people of all Christian beliefs (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, and anything else that may fall beneath the cracks) to support the film equally is that none of the contentious doctrine comes into play win the Gospel Narrative. It's more behind the scenes stuff. There is not much of a chance that any one's group's portrayal of the event would differ in a way to be found offensive. This is the last 12 hours of Christ's life with flashbacks. With all the points of contention in these faiths, the events contained there are pretty much indisputable.
[ February 14, 2004, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
I am Jewish. Lets just make that point first. I have a VERY limited background in the new testament and even more so for the Gospels. But, even with my slim knowledge of the story that is played out here, I still have qualms about this movie. i have not seen it. I cannot say that there are definite anti-semetic features to the movie. BUT, as has been said before, Mel Gibson comes from a known anti-semetic background and participates in a "different" practice of christianity that may be called a 'cult' by some. Can anyone spell bias? It seems impossible to make a story about the death of Jesus without anti-semetic emotions being stirred, even if the movie does not make such allusions.
Please, I beg forgiveness from anyone that may take offense to this, but it is my understanding that it was the followers of Jesus that wrote the new testament and the Gospels. How can we count on even these to be historially accurate. I have no grudge against any faith accept that I feel it is hard for me to believe ANYTHING that was written so long ago WORD FOR WORD. Even within the Torah I find some figures hard to believe. Are we to say that whomever was the author(s) of these texts wrote them in such a way that the material is not edited and/or tampered with by the beliefs and feelings of the author or people around him/her. Come on. People will be people, in every meaning of the word. thus, it is my belief that all of these texts from soo long ago are flawed to a certain degree. It is the degree to which they are flawed that should be the main point of argument.
My point is "historical accuracy" within any context alluding the writings of so long ago is an oxy-moron to me. In religion you believe; it is the foundation to any faith. I might believe that 2000 years ago pigs could fly, but does this make my movie about it today "historically accurate" (I do not intentionally compare the death of Jesus to pigs flying, it is merely used to depict my point.)
So, were the Jews involved with Jesus's death? Probably. Did the Jews kill him? WHO KNOWS. If we can believe what is said in the writings about this time, it does make the Jews out as the antagonist. (we must take into account the multitude of inconsistances in the practices of modern Christianty and the what is "true." It has been shown that it is much more probable that Jesus was born within the months of June-August. He would have been Middle-Eastern, not as depicted in the copious amount of pictures that show otherwise, etc and the list goes on)
If the movie is "historically accurate" how could Mel Gibson put it otherwise? Also, the point has been made before and i will reiterate. If a group of Christians kills a Jewish leader, does this mean ALL Christians should be blamed for the the death? That is laughable.
***Also the movie is in Aramaic and Latin-it is a common belief by many historians that greek was the lingua franca at the time, even spoken by the Romans. NOT Latin. Hows that for "historically accurate?"
A quick point in defense of my Jewish brethren: If we should not speak up now against the possibility of an anti-semetic backlash, then when is it appropriate? After there is evidence of a backlash? That is too late.
Belle: can you support the statement "The vast majority of Christians have no animosity toward Jews." And what you must know is that the Jews are not worried about the vast majority--it is any group of christians that have any amount of animosity, no matter how large or small, that can be swayed by this film into violence. "Even the few can speak as if with the voice of the whole."
Again, no hard feelings toward anyone's beliefs.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I would just like to comment really quickly on one thing.
quote:the followers of Jesus that wrote the new testament and the Gospels
Those same followers were Jewish. In the book of Acts (again written by Jesus-followers) it is emphasized again and again and again that the early Jesus-followers saw themselves as Jewish and as faithful to the Law and the Prophets. They saw themselves to be faithful to G-d, to have seen the fulfillment of Jewish scripture. It isn't for at least 20 or 30 years after Jesus' death that provision get made for Gentile followers, and it took about 300 years for the Christians to become mostly separate from the Jews.
(Sorry if I'm coming across a little forceful, but I had to write an essay on this last week and it's still in my mind. )
Greek was indeed the lingua franca, but for official hearings and Roman business, I can easily imagine that they would have used the official language.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm copy and pasting almost wholesale an email I just got from my pastor. I thought it was interesting in the different issues it raised about the movie. Keep in mind that this was intended for Christians, and is asking its question of Christians.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Here are links to two pieces written on opposing sides of the question whether the film depiction of Jesus Christ which Mel Gibson has produced in his new film, "The Passion of the Christ," is or is not a violation of the Second of the Ten Commandments:
My leaning is in the direction of thinking that we ought not to attempt to depict Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), except in very incidental ways for teaching purposes. One example of this would be Sunday school materials in which Jesus is pictured with his disciples as he heals or teaches.
I do not believe it is proper to produce visual images of Christ for the sake of veneration or meditation or adoration, since such worship and devotion is focused on an image of God, rather than the representation of God that He Himself chose to give us--namely, the words of His Word, the Bible.
Further, I believe that many, if not most, Christians who see Gibson's movie depiction of Christ are using it for devotional, not common instructional, purposes--and this is precisely what our Protestant Reformers stood against at the time of the Reformation.
It is at least worthy of note that the producer of this film, Mel Gibson, is a committed Roman Catholic, and thus that he has no problem with venerating images of the Godhead.
All of us should conscientiously examine this matter to see what Scripture teaches--not what famous Christian leaders say or the majority of our Christian friends do. The question is not how weird it would be for us not to see this film that the whole world is viewing, but whether viewing a film depiction of the Second Member of the Trinity is a violation of the Second Commandment? And then we each need to act according to our understanding of God's Word.
Warmly in Christ,
Tim Bayly
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
quote: It is at least worthy of note that the producer of this film, Mel Gibson, is a committed Roman Catholic, and thus that he has no problem with venerating images of the Godhead
Interesting. I am not sure it would be worth it to go see this movie. I would rather that all the churches that are going to promote and use this movie as an evangelical tool had just left it alone.
I am curious about something that has been alternatively praised as the harbinger of the next "Great spiritual awakening" and a vessel of hatred directed at Jews and nonbelievers alike.
As things stand now I fear that I would scarce be able to come near the theater without a well meaning evangelical attempting to bring me into "Christ's Fold"
Rarely have I heard or seen such fervor aroused. Regardless of whether or not I see it, I shall be very interested in the general reaction of the American Public. I wonder what Bush thinks?
I bet I'll remember Ash Wednesday for years to come.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Reading the second commandment, it appears that the Graven Image refers to ALL things - not just Deity. In effect, if he is referring to film as a plausible form of 'graven images', then every movie or photograph every made is in violation of the Second Commandment.
I have no intention of worshipping the film or using it as a substitute for Prayer or Scripture study. I appreciae and respect Jim Caviezel's work as an actor, and Gibson's work as a director.
But a graven image? Not for me it isn't.
10 more days 'till it's released. Bring it on!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that Muslims use exactly that interpretation of the 2nd, Taal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, well, traditional misinformation spread by protestant churches about Catholic practices. I'm not surprised in the least at that article.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Further, I believe that many, if not most, Christians who see Gibson's movie depiction of Christ are using it for devotional, not common instructional, purposes
Really?? I would find that very strange. I plan to see it for entertainment purposes. That’s what movies are for, no?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, silly.
Movies are to lure you into a false sense of safety/humor/delight/lust.
The better to crush your silliness beneath the power of my Implaccable Engine of Ultimate Destruction. . . (tm)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Out of interest, why do so many people insist that we continually acknowledge that the Holocaust was the worst thing that happened, ever? That reporter seems upset because Gibson, while admitting that Jews were systematically killed, didn't seem to consider that an event which has no other historical analogue.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tom- She wasn't insisting it was the worst thing that ever happened, but rather, since Mel's father denies the holocaust actually happened, and since Mel belongs to a group that splintered over Vatican II, which among other things clears jews of deicide, and the question was posed, why did Mel hedge on it? "Yes, jews were killed but it wasn't so bad..." is... not the answer you want to give when defending against charges of anti-semitism.
No one insists it was the worst thing that ever happened, but to deny that Hitler was trying to exterminate all the Jews in europe tends to be something that people who want to exterminate all the Jews in the world will do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, Mel didn't say "Jews died, but it wasn't so bad." Mel said, "Jews died, along with a lot of other people, and it was horrible."
I think people are reading anti-Semitism into things again.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Let me rip the whole relevant chunk here...
"Holocaust denial is relevant here because of Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson. A prominent member of the "traditionalist" Catholic movement which split off from the Catholic Church over the 1965 reforms of the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, rejected the doctrine that the Jews were guilty of "deicide") is also known as a Holocaust denier. Of course Gibson shouldn't be blamed for the sins of his father; but in an interview with Peggy Noonan, forthcoming in the March issue of Reader's Digest, he says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
It was in the same interview that Noonan, who has defended Gibson in the controversy over "The Passion," offered him a chance to end any speculation about his views on the Holocaust: "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?"
Gibson's reply: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
Does this answer exonerate Gibson, or does he damn himself with his own words? Obviously, he doesn't deny that the concentration camps existed or that Jews were killed in them. But George Mason University law professor David Bernstein points out on the Volokh Conspiracy weblog that Holocaust "revisionists" typically do not deny that Jews were killed; they simply minimize the killing, portraying it as another part of the overall death toll of World War II rather than the systematic extermination campaign that it was. In Bernstein's opinion, "Gibson is skirting pretty close" to this kind of minimization."
That last bit is kinda important.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I read the RD interview the other day, and had the same reaction as the writer of the article Paul linked to.
Gibson can paint himself as "victimized" as he likes. But the fact remains: he has made and continues to make statements that cause many people to doubt his claims of not having an anti-semitic bias.
I think if this film were being made by someone WITHOUT that issue, there would be far less of a concerned outcry.
In other words, IMO, it's not the Biblical accounts that are getting many groups fired up -- it's the messenger.
Tom, his reply implies that something like the Holocaust is simply something goes along with war. That is nonsense. The millions of people -- Jews, gypsies, and all the other 'undesirables' -- were non-combatants, and grouping their systematic torture and murder with "war is bad" is not only fallacious but offensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet, the Holocaust IS just another example of people doing systematically horrible things to each other. Is it "revisionism" to acknowledge this?
I consider "revisionism" to be trying to argue that the Holocaust has never happened, and is just part of some Jewish conspiracy to gain the sympathy of the world; it's not "revisionism" to point out that Jews were systematically killed, like a LOT of people. I'm sure that some Jews are skeptical of this motive, but I'm frankly skeptical of Jewish motives, here; they benefit a lot, both internally and externally, by insisting that they're the most oppressed race in history.
It's not anti-Semitic to point out that genocide isn't unique to the Holocaust, nor that the people who supposedly demanded the killing of Jesus were, according to the Bible, predominantly Jewish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, read Gibson's response again. "The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Tell me it's NOT dismissive of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.
If I didn't know the actual numbers, his statement would imply that the Jews were a tiny fraction of the deaths. Moreover, he is including the deaths of combatants and non- in one group.
If you're trying to get people to believe you are not attempting to minimize the historical facts about the Holocaust, this does not seem to be the way to go. Is it anti-semitic? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it really stupid to do this in an interview where he is trying to be seen sympathetically? You betcha!
[Edit: punctuation!]
[ February 16, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think we're all agreed here that OSC is not homophobic. And yet, in an interview where he expected to be called on "homophobia," and specifically argued that he was not homophobic, he made some statements that the reporter believed were blatantly bigoted. Later, he basically admitted on this site that this was because he wasn't willing to compromise his own beliefs in order to sell out, but that he felt it was important to explain those beliefs -- whatever the cost -- to those who might read the interview and see past the biases of the author.
Perhaps Gibson believes it's important that Jews not be permitted to use the Holocaust as a philosophical bludgeon -- as, let's face it, they often do -- and therefore acknowledged the Holocaust as much as he was willing to do in an interview that had nothing to do with the subject.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ignoring the silly assertion that there is a more oppressed group of people in the last 2000 years... (ok, thats probably out of line... editing to admit that).
TOm, do you acknowledge that context matters? Let me give a hypothetical...
"Sir, you've recently passed legislation that makes it easier to stop muslims at our borders. Given your past assertions that non-christians are damned to hell, and the war on terrorism that is focusing on arabic nations, would you like to comment on your beliefs about Islam?"
"Sure, its a religion that a lot of people follow and I have nothing against Islam, but its not the true religion like a lot of other religions and people who follow it are damned, just like jews and hindus and buddhists, and it makes our country safer if we keep muslims from having easy access to our territory."
Would you say that the respondee probably is going to have problems with the islamic community?
[ February 16, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that your hypothetical example is considerably worse than Gibson's quote.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The honest historical truth is that Hitler was NOT the worst person ever to live on this earth as a tyrant. He did NOT kill more people as a tyrant than anyone else in history.
And, finally, as horrible as the Holocaust was, there were wars where far more non-combatants died than in WWII. In fact, the idea of "non-combatants" is a relatively new consideration. Up until the "genteel" wars of the Romantic era, and even past them, anyone who was not on your side was your enemy and worthy of death.
In a rarity, I have to agree with TomD on this one. Too many Jews act as if Hitler is alive and well and the camps are ready to go again.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think American Indians have far worse complaining to do than modern Jews. They never even got what they consider their homeland back.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: In fact, the idea of "non-combatants" is a relatively new consideration. Up until the "genteel" wars of the Romantic era, and even past them, anyone who was not on your side was your enemy and worthy of death.
Including people who were citizens of YOUR country? Who had fought ON YOUR SIDE in earlier wars?
Calling the Holocaust and the camps part of the battles of WWII is simply ridiculous. So is counting the deaths thereof.
quote: Too many Jews act as if Hitler is alive and well and the camps are ready to go again.
He doesn't need to be. Too many are too willing to take his place.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess we won't know until we see the movie. I understand how it could be construed anti-semitically.
But the fact is, in all the gospels, the Roman Soldiers supervised the crucifixion. The Romans were as intimately involved in the mess as the Jews. If he messes with that point I'll have major issues.
AJ
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
9 days.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Including people who were citizens of YOUR country? Who had fought ON YOUR SIDE in earlier wars?"
Yep, even them. Happened all the time in Greece and Rome, and especially Greece. People really must study World History more.
I do want to say that I respect the serious feelings Jews have about anti-semitism. It is a real problem. However, I think that this particuar "fight" is only doing more damage than leaving it alone would do. What might have been a blip has (no matter if it is or isn't anti-semitic) become a rallying cry.
[ February 16, 2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I admit that it's been a while since I last studied Greek and Roman history. But I think you are equating shifting alliances with turning on a specific segment of the population.
If that is not the case, I would enjoy having my memory refreshed regarding the historical precedent(s) you were referring to. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The Spartans fought with the Greeks, and then went against them. There was constant civil war between them and everyone else. Eventually they wiped out all of their rivals (who were fellow Greeks) and took over, but by that time they were weakened and another group came in and took over -- later to form the Roman Empire.
They weren't the only ones. It really depended on the nations. I guess you could call it "switching alegences," but I think that simplifies the situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, I call that shifting alliances, which is rather different.
The Spartans and the Greeks may have fought on the same side, but (as far as I know) never became one cohesive nation.
It's not the same as the Nazis rooting out people who were Germans based on race, religion, etc.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While there was a concept of "Greek" at the time, I think you're misunderstanding history a little bit; the city-states of greece were all out for themselves, though they regularly formed alliances together in addition to fighting against each other. None of them fought for Greece, though some of them allied to fight those they considered culturally inferior, culturally destructive, or both.
I think in your first sentence you mean the Athenians, possibly, because Sparta was most definitely allied with a good chunk of greece from a certain point onward (the Pelopponesian city-states).
Also, while Sparta conquered Athens, that certainly didn't last until the Romans came in. Athens got its power back when it allied with Thebes. That relatively quickly led to the return to individual city states, which led to the conquest of Greece by Macedon. The split up of that empire was what eventually gave way to the Romans. Not the spartans at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sigh, I hate to intrude on this one, and I can't speak to the Greek/Roman theory, but the Cultural Revolution was committed by Chinese against Chinese; the Khmer Ruge atrocities were committed by Cambodians against Cambodians; Stalin's purges were committed at least ostensibly within the same country.
As sad as it may be, Hitler was not unique. Saying so does not minimize the enormity of his crimes.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dagonee, I agree. And if Gibson had compared the Holocaust to other genocides (such as the ones you just mentioned), I would object a whole lot less.
But to class it under the heading "war is bad" is just absurd to the point of offensiveness.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Rivka and I talked by AIM and I wanted her to know I wasn't blatantly attacking her, or didn't intend that to come across. I can't imagine what it's like being Jewish since I'm not, so I realize she is taking some of this a lot more personally than we all can.
That said, I have to jump back in to the discussion and say that I also *gasp* agree with Tom. I think Gibson is being villified a bit for a statement that was in fact entirely true. Tens of millions of people did die in World War II and some of them were indeed Jews in concentration camps.
You may not like the exact wording, but did he say anything that wasn't true? You know, what if I were a descendant of someone who lost their life in WWII (my grandfather fought,but survived) and it upset me and hurt me that the suffering of the jews was emphasized more than the soldiers who laid their lives down?
Does it make me anti-semitic to say "Yes, Jews died in concentration camps and it was a horrific event. However, the deaths of tens of thousands of young boys who fought, died and were buried in a foreign land hits home and hurts me more, because coming from a military family I can really relate to that."
Am I anti-semitic? Does it mean I hate jews to say such a thing? I sure hope not.
Gibson is not jewish, the realities of the Holocaust don't stare him in the face everyday as it does to someone who survived it or who had relatives that didn't survive it. It's unfair to expect he will feel the exact same way about it as you did, because he does not have your perspective.
He did not deny the HOlocaust happened.
quote:I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union
I read this as "I don't deny the Holocaust happened, how could I? I know people who were in concentration camps. It was an atrocity. However, I am equally moved by the suffereing of the millions who starved and were killed or persecuted under communism."
That's not denying jews suffered. That is saying that Jews suffered but they aren't the only ones that ever have.
And I absolutely agree with that. What happened in concentration camps was despicable. The thought of it turns my stomach. Footage from them, sites of bodies stacked like cordwood moves me to tears.
So do the pictures of babies starving in Africa, or abandoned because their parents died of AIDS and no one can care for them. So does the Vietnam Wall. So does the pictures of the firefighters who died in the World Trade Center.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm watching an ABC primetime special on this movie, featuring an interview with Mel Gibson. I've never seen him like this. Wow. He's lucid, charismatic, funny, open and very intelligent. He'd make an amazing politician, if ever he set his mind to it. I wish our president could handle an interview like he could.
One thing of substance that struck me in listening to him: right or wrong, he's really doing what he believes. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good or bad thing, but it's very rare that a big-budget movie gets made that is such a focused and unadulterated expression of conviction. This isn't a film that was made because the market was ready for it, or focus groups showed that it would profit. It's a pure statement of the passion (pardon the pun) of a single human being. So, whether it's good or bad, it should be a unique and interesting experiment. He sold me a ticket, at least.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was impressed as well.
I think he put the denial of the holocaust thing to bed, I think made it quite clear that he believed it happened, and when Diane Sawyer said "six million" he said "Sure".
That's a pretty clear statement that he believes not only did the holocaust occur, but that millions of Jews lost their lives.
As for his father's views, I didn't hear Mel once say he agreed with all of his father's beliefs, I just heard him say over and over that he loves his father.
I was very, very impressed. I don't think he said many things tonight that I would disagree with, as far as his explanation of his beliefs.
The comment and impression of Jack Nicholson was hilarious. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I meant to set the VCR so I could see that. Got distracted.
Do they repeat those?
[Edit: My mistake -- it's on now, in my time zone.]
[ February 17, 2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I posted quickly last time so that I could get back into the room before the commercials ended. I would like to add a couple of things.
I firmly agree with Mel's right to make this movie, and I find it refreshing that something like this is getting made. I believe that religion has the potential to be the most powerful force in existance, for good and evil, in the shaping of the human soul. In our PC world, so much gets made of the evils carried out in the name of religion-- the Crusades, North Irish terrorism, 9/11 and so forth-- that we often forget that Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the ordinary person whose belief in God gives him the strengh to stop drinking and abusing his family could never have happened without some form of religious catalyst. It's nice to see a public figure who does more for his beliefs than give a shout-out to God for his Oscar.
As for the charges of antisemitism, I'm not too concerned about them. My faith treats racism as a sin, and when he said that his does too, I believed him. I do believe that there were Jews (and people of every other race) who, historically, did things that they shouldn't have. As Mel said, someone killed Jesus, and there were no Norwegians in ancient Jerusalem. The only difference I see in this story is that Jesus was there personally to forgive them for their actions. I'll be surprised if that part doesn't make it into the movie. In any case, I don't see how the simple statement that that there were once Jews who did something bad has any effect on how we feel we should treat their 80th generation descendants. I realize that Passion Plays have stirred up anti-Jewish sentiment in the past, but so far all this one seems to be doing is opening the discussion of the problem, which is a good thing. I'll have to see the movie-- and I will-- before I comment more definitively. But from what I've seen so far, I don't have a big problem with it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:As for the charges of antisemitism, I'm not too concerned about them.
I am assuming, from this comment, that you are not Jewish. So why should you be worried? I have to admit, I am with rivka in being a bit worried about this.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Is it important for a Christian to think about who was responsible for Christ's crucifixion? I think that it is, but not for the reasons that are often given.
Christ was killed by a combination of (1) representatives of the Romans, the most secularly advanced civilization of the time, and (2) leaders of the Jews, God's people, the people to whom the Lord had given His revelations.
In other words, Christ was killed by a group of the best and most advanced peoples in the world. The best that humanity had to offer at the time -- and they still screwed up, which to me speaks to the sinful nature of humankind in general.
If you want to translate it into your own personal context, imagine that Christ came today and was executed by a combination of the United States government and [whichever religion you believe holds the truth].
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I also thought the interview he had with Diane Sawyer was great. He was much more animated than I expected -- almost hyper. But he had an answer for every question.
I simply rolled on the floor laughing when, at one point, when Diane was kind of beating a dead horse with a repetitious question, he said, "Read the gospels, Diane!" In other words -- know what they say before you ask me what they say! I thought that was chutzpah, and I loved it.
Farmgirl
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
"In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
See, this is where he ticks me off. Yeah, several million in the Ukraine starved. However, the Ukrainians weren't targeted for extermination. They, unlike the Jews, were actually unfortunate "casualties of war." In the category of "the crappy things that happen when there is a world war." You know, supply lines get cut, people starve. "We made a mistake in the co-ordinates and hit a civilian building instead of a munitions plant." That kind of "casualty of war." The Jews, were not "casualties of war." They were systematically targeted and exterminated. To say anything less than that is to minimize what happened.
Yes, it is horrible that, what, 50 million people died in WWII. However, 6 million of them were not casualties of war. They were exterminated.
Unless of course you agree that the 9/11 victims were just casualties of war. A number to be added to the total number of dead in whatever we end up calling this war in the history books. And if we do that, then hey, the US, in freeing the middle east of a brutal dictator really hasn't sustained all that many casualties. Less than 5,000. Pretty good for war. Too bad about those people, but war is hell and all. (Could we also stop with all the 9/11 memorials? Their deaths were just part of war, and their deaths no different than anyone elses.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have to say I agree with Tom. With all due respect to my Jewish friends, other groups have been victims of Genocide, even non-combatant citizens of the country in question. Like, say, the Armenians-- nearly wiped out by the Turks. They don't get as much press, because, frankly, the Turks were more successful in killing them. Very few survivors to tell the tales.
Similar situations with the hutus and atrocities in eastern europe. Those stories have given me sleepless nights. It's awful, the horrible things people do to others because they are different. We hear more about the Jewish Holocaust because it happened at a time when there was a greater capacity for World News and evidence of what was happeneing wasn't restricted to eyewitness accounts. Also, it was stopped before they managed to actually succeed in killing a whole group of people, so there were survivors who could testify about the killings.
I had a friend in Chicago who lost family members in the former Yugoslavia. They were killed for no other reason than being ethnically Albanian (blonde, fair skinned Muslims). I felt for them, as I do for my Jewish friends whose families were decimated by the Holocaust. The ugly truth is, though, that it is not unusual for a country at war to eliminate groups within itself that it has decided is a threat. The US did it to Japanese and German Americans in WWII. Of course, that only consisted of making them live in camps and seizing their property, though some did die there, possibly due to less than ideal medical care. All in all, not the nicest place in American History.
I have a smidge of Native American in me, and I do feel much more sensitive to atrocities committed on them than maybe I would be otherwise. I mean, some of the ethnic Cherokee living in Rome, Georgia had farms and owned stores and were forced to give it up and go West on the trail of tears. Property seized and sent away to live or die where the White Man wouldn't have to watch them do it.
Anyway, my point is that other groups have suffered, too, and that we tend to relate most to those groups that we are somehow a part of.
And, has anyone considered that Mr. Gibson may be unwilling to say that he does not agree with his father because he doesn't want to hurt the man who raised him? Maybe he just doesn't want the headline to read, "Mel says, 'Dad's a kook'".
I mean, there are close members of my family who are kooky, but I would never admit that in the press, for crissakes.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: quote:As for the charges of anti-Semitism, I'm not too concerned about them.
I am assuming, from this comment, that you are not Jewish. So why should you be worried? I have to admit, I am with rivka in being a bit worried about this.
Saying that I'm not concerned about anti-Semitism is not the same as saying that I'm not concerned with the charges of anti-Semitism in a movie that looks to me to be innocent of said charges. I had a Black person once tell me he thought Toy Story was racist. I can't remember the reasoning he used, but I wasn't concerned about that either. Does that mean that I hate Black people?
I appreciate the fact that Jewish people have the same rights as I do, and that they were viciously persecuted in the past. But that doesn't mean that I have to fly into a fury every time a film depicts a Jewish person (or even a group of them) in any way other than kind, heroic, brilliant and sinless. Keep in mind, all the protagonists in this film are also Jewish. I don't remember Jesus being born in The Netherlands, and recruiting his apostles from Sweden and Germany.
One other point: I'm a Mormon, and can trace my ancestry back to the time when my forefathers were murdered for their religion. My wife is an Albanian, a race which has already been mentioned in this thread as having a rich history of suffering as noncombatants. I appreciate the suffering of my family's ancestors. But I don't demand that my ancestors' suffering never be compared with anyone else’s, and I don't freak out every time I hear a story about a Mormon or an Albanian doing something I'm not proud of. People are people, and every race in the world has been persecuting and being persecuted, doing heroic and abominable things to other humans since time began. We all need to lighten up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's interesting that I and others keep saying, "I don't think the movie is anti-semitic; I worry about the REACTION to it" and keep getting responses along the lines of, "But the movie's not anti-semitic just because it bothers you!"
*sigh* Straw men everywhere . . .
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Does it make me anti-semitic to say "Yes, Jews died in concentration camps and it was a horrific event. However, the deaths of tens of thousands of young boys who fought, died and were buried in a foreign land hits home and hurts me more, because coming from a military family I can really relate to that."
I don't think this makes you anti-semitic, but it does turn my stomach. On one hand, you have full-grown men who are sent off to defend their country, given every weapon and tool and every chance of success. On the other hand, you have entire families dragged from their homes and butchered. And yet you feel the need to say that the deaths of the American Soldiers hit closer to home because, well, you don't share the same religion as the other people who were killed? You share a heck of a lot more with the mothers who watched their babies get killed than you do with the 19 year old boys who drove tanks and dropped bombs out of planes.
The casualties of WWII were atrocious, absolutely. But the Holocaust victims were NOT casualties of war. Saying that the deaths of innocent families naked in gas chambers were no different than the deaths of the men with guns in their hands is terrible.
[ February 18, 2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We see a similar reaction in Mormons when, for example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is brought up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ayelar, that's basically human nature; tragedy is always more keenly felt when it's closer to you. I don't cry when strangers die in car accidents, but I DO cry when my family dies in one.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yes, but in this case, they're all strangers. Saying that the deaths of strangers who were really very different from you, except that you have family members currently in the military, hit closer to home than the deaths of people who were really very much like you, except that they practiced a different religion, seems rather odd.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
jack,
What freakin' world war were these deaths in 1932-33 a "crappy thing" that happened during? The one that ended in 1918 or the one that began in 1939? Is there a WW 1.5 I didn't learn about in school.
Why in hell does it "tick you off" that someone points out 20 million (or whatever the actual number is) deaths caused by a totalitarian regime?
quote:This was a peacetime famine that could have been averted.
quote:Though the harvest of 1932 was slightly better, it was not enough to avert a full-scale famine, one that was clearly avoidable by the simple processes of reducing state quotas and providing grain to needy villages.
quote:Stalin was well-informed about the critical situation in Ukraine, the Kuban region and the North Caucasus. He resolved not to alleviate the desperate plight of these villages. People were permitted to starve to death in a country that was exporting grain. This was a far cry from famines in war-torn areas like the Sudan (though here also the famine was artificial).
quote:Historians today do not know how many died in the Ukrainian Famine. The leading demographer on the subject has verified that the minimum figure is 4 million, but the maximum is not known. During wartime discussions, Stalin informed Churchill almost casually that 10 million peasants had died during the upheavals of the 1930s.
Note that the famine numbers do not include the purges that happened soon after.
I’m not saying the Famine was better or worse than what the Nazis did, because I think it’s ridiculous to compare such things. There’s a point where wrongs are so great that anything above that point can just be called evil.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think Belle chooses to be more affected by the deaths of soldiers than by the Jewish families. She is because the idea resonates stronger with her, calling her terrible seems a little strong considering all she said was that she is hit harder by things she feels are closer to her.
Hobbes Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:And if Gibson had compared the Holocaust to other genocides (such as the ones you just mentioned), I would object a whole lot less.
But to class it under the heading "war is bad" is just absurd to the point of offensiveness.
This is what I'm talking about. It's terrible that so many people died during WWII, and every other war that's ever been fought. But you cannot compare casualties of war with victims of mass genocide. They are completely different situations, and trying to lump them together is absurd. In Gibson's case, it also points to a modern-day form of denial which is very troubling. You can't just excuse it away.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did you miss the point in Gibson's statement where he talked about his personal interaction with Holocaust survivors?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: It's interesting that I and others keep saying, "I don't think the movie is anti-semitic; I worry about the REACTION to it" and keep getting responses along the lines of, "But the movie's not anti-semitic just because it bothers you!"
*sigh* Straw men everywhere . . .
'Tis a good point. But I think that one reason your point is getting lost is that, so far, there hasn't been any bad reaction to it. Perhaps when the movie opens, crazy Christians will start stoning Jews and burning their houses down (as has been done in the wake of passion plays before--I'm not trying to be sarcastic). But so far the only effect I've seen the movie have is the catalysis of discussion between Jews and Christians about their relative histories and feelings for one another. I would hate it if this movie was provocative enough to inspire anti-Semitic violence. I would love it if this movie were provocative enough to inspire Jews to learn more about Christian beliefs and history, and Christians to learn more about Jewish beliefs and history, so that we could all understand each other's feelings better and be a little more empathetic. Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world. I guess we'll see on the 25th.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
By the way, I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm going with a bunch of friends to the Feb. 25th 9:55 p.m. showing at the Century 16 theatres in Salt Lake City. If anyone in the area is interested, we'd all be pleased to have some cantankerous Jatraqueros in our midst. Get some tickets at Fandango and tell me to look out for you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ALR, do you consider the near-extermination of the Jews to be worse than the basically-successful extermination of the Armenians?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
In support of Dagonee and in rebuttal to Jack:
(I wrote this last night, but was unable to post because the forum broke.)
quote:Yeah, several million in the Ukraine starved. However, the Ukrainians weren't targeted for extermination. They, unlike the Jews, were actually unfortunate "casualties of war."
As a Slavic studies major, I must respond to this statement in the interest of accuracy.
The Ukrainian famine victims were NOT casualties of war. (The famine in Ukraine was deliberately engineered by Stalin in order to destroy Ukrainian resistance to collectivization (and nationalism), and took place several years before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.) Here is a link from the Library of Congress.
Most figures that I have seen say that one in four Ukrainians died in the famine. And of the children, one in three.
Also, from what I have read, both the Ukrainian and Armenian genocides were part of the inspiration for Hitler's "Final Solution."
Also, Gibson stated, in the quote under discussion:
quote:During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
Posters on this thread have assumed that he was talking about the deaths in WWII in the Soviet Union. In fact, he may be referring to the deaths caused not by the war but by Stalin's reign of terror. The figures are nearly identical. About 20 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in the war; another 20 million on top of that were purged during Stalin's rule.
[ February 18, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
kat, I'm not going to compare the relative worthiness of mass genocides. I think they're all about equally horrendous.
What I do have a problem with is the lumping together of mass genocides with war casualties, two completely different situations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:This is what I'm talking about. It's terrible that so many people died during WWII, and every other war that's ever been fought. But you cannot compare casualties of war with victims of mass genocide. They are completely different situations, and trying to lump them together is absurd. In Gibson's case, it also points to a modern-day form of denial which is very troubling. You can't just excuse it away.
They're still deaths aren't they? I don't think I'm following you, what is it about death through war that makes it better than death in a concentration camp? It seems to me that if someone dies it is a very bad thing, I don't care if it was on the battelfield, in their homes due to starvation, or in a concentration camp. I suppose if you were trying to judge the culprits of the death then it matters... but to me death is death no matter where it is.
Hobbes Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: We see a similar reaction in Mormons when, for example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is brought up.
Funny you should mention this. I considered bringing it up in the post I'd made just prior to yours. Thing is, I'm from Southen Utah. My family had a cabin in Mountain Meadows when I was a kid. I understand the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was a terrible thing, and I have no problem being reminded of that fact. Mormons are human beings, and we've done some horrible things in the past, quite contrary to the way we're taught to behave ourselves. I've never flown into a fury at having the story brought up, nor accused anyone of anti-Mormon feelings for doing so. The way I see it, as long as I'm not personally blamed, remembering my own mistakes and those of my ancestors helps keep me humble and, ideally, keeps me from participating in anything like that again.
I'm not trying to draw any analogy, though, between bringing up the MMM and putting on a Passion Play. As far as I know, no Mormons have ever been killed in the wake of the mention of MMM, and I realize that the two situations are not historically analagous. But since you brought it up, I just wanted to throw in my two bits about the reaction of myself and other Mormons I know to the mention of the incident.
[edit: for more details on the official Mormon position on the mention of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, look here. A couple photos I found interesting in the website's gallery:
It doesn't erase the tragedy, but at least we're trying to learn from it, instead of forgetting about it.]
[ February 18, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:They're still deaths aren't they? I don't think I'm following you, what is it about death through war that makes it better than death in a concentration camp? It seems to me that if someone dies it is a very bad thing, I don't care if it was on the battelfield, in their homes due to starvation, or in a concentration camp. I suppose if you were trying to judge the culprits of the death then it matters... but to me death is death no matter where it is.
Wow, really? You don't see any difference in these different ways of dying?
How about this: Would you rather die peacefully in your sleep, or would you rather be gang-raped and beaten to death in a prison shower stall by a group of pissed-off inmates?
And, given that you'd probably choose the former over the latter, how can you say that "a death is a death no matter where it is"? Everyone has to die. Many deaths are tragic. Some are more tragic than others.
And, in my opinion, it would be far worse to be stripped naked and forced to watch my children and husband die trapped in a room full of poison gas than it would be to die surrounded by my friends, fully armed, with a helmet on my head, defending my country. Both ways would lead to an early and tragic death, yes, but one would leave me with my dignity, my hope for my cause, and my family alive and safe.
[ February 18, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Of course if given a choice you would choose the least painful death, but its still a very discrete amount of time. The fact that your dying, in my mind, far outweighs any considerations of how.
Hobbes Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I talked to my mother last night. She brought the subject of this movie up. She was trying to get the conversation to turn to certian directions I'm sure, because she brought up a specific Bible study group later, and mentioned a family where they all go to a Bible study that covers the same topics even though they are in different parts of the country "so they have things to talk about on the phone."
Anyway I said yes, I know some Jewish people who are very concerned about the movie. Anyway she sputtered and quoted Dobson, saying how the previewers say it is true to the Biblical accounts etc. and that some Jewish leaders said it was ok. I said well, not all rabbis approved it, and many of the ordinary Jewish people are concerned about the history of Passion plays sparking Pogroms etc. like it used to. And she sputtered and said, we're in the 21st century! (Aren't we in the 22nd now?..I didn't bother bringing it up) But I said yes and look at all the bad things that have happened to Jews in the past 100 years.
Anyway, if my mother, who really should know better, is in denial that Bad Things Can Happen Today. Then I am scared, very scared, for the world in general. Because while she is anything but anti-semitic, it is EXACTLY attitudes like that which allow anti-semitism and a whole bunch of other nasty things to creep into a community unawares.
AJ
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
It's not just physical pain. I think everyone wants to die in a way that is honorable, that preserves their dignity, that gives them a feeling that their death is not meaningless. War heroes get that in spades. Victims of genocide do not. Their deaths are, by definition, meaningless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
AJ,
2001 to 2100 is the 21st century. 1901-2000 was the 20th century. It goes by the last year of the century.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dear, your mother is correct, we are in the 21st century. We won't reach the 22nd for another 96 years.
I know you're frustrated with your Mom, but I'm also one of these people who believe that this is much ado about nothing that's happened yet. Gibson and many prominent Christian leaders have said they don't want blame to fall on the Jewish people as a whole, and I live in the heart of the Bible belt and the only reaction I see around me is Christians becoming angry and upset - because of the assumption that they would ever be violent toward their Jewish neighbors!
Quite frankly, it's getting to me. I find a little insulting that people would think that, after seeing a movie, I and the people who share my beliefs would look at each other and say "So, you ready to go beat up some Jews?"
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Except that it's happened. Over and over again.
It's not like Jews are starting to rally together to round up Christians before they start anything. They're just expressing concern. They're worried, and judging by several thousand years of recorded history, I think they have every right to be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar, I think you are trying to frame the debate in a manner that makes everyone you are arguing against the insensitive bad guy, but to do that, you have to ignore all the rational arguments and the other genocides that have occurred.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how "the other genocides" fit in here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Historically such concerns are valid. But I can see why seeking the right to grant pre-approval to a film that is designed to be a representation of the central events of someone's faith would trigger a defensive reaction.
My thoughts are wait and see...if nothing happens because of the film, good. If something does happen, then it is imperative that such actions be condemned vocally and loudly by all Christians.
Something to the effect that "Using an accurate portrayal of the sacrifice of our Lord as justification for violating every commandment He gave us is blasphemy."
Dagonee
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Look, I don't think anyone here is saying that Christians are inevitably going to be so overcome by their hatred that they'll start lighting torches and amassing a mob. Especially not anyone here. Of course not.
However, there do seem to be a lot of people who are implying that Jews are wrong to be worried about this, or that they're worrying over nothing. And history has clearly and repeatedly shown that this is not the case. Even if this turns out to be nothing, they have every right to be concerned, and what's silly is telling them they don't.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok, if you wish to call the US a "Christian nation" that is fine. I don't think pogroms will be happening here either and I truly hope we don't see a spike in the low-level anti-semitic violence that does exist here.
But, what happens when the movie is shown in Europe and the former USSR to lesser educated people who are looking for something to blame their economic recession on?
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not saying concerns aren't valid.
I'm saying the way I've seen them expressed by a lot of people has been way too intrusive. If people aren't concerned about the film being anti-semetic, why did some people want the right to pre-approve it and suggest changes?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, who called the U.S. a "Christian nation?"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Yes, but in this case, they're all strangers. Saying that the deaths of strangers who were really very different from you, except that you have family members currently in the military, hit closer to home than the deaths of people who were really very much like you, except that they practiced a different religion, seems rather odd.
This was directed to me on the previous page,and I just want to say that my post was a hypothetical, it does not represent my personal belief. I simply posed it to point out that just because someone feels differently about a tragedy like the Holocaust does not mean they hate Jews. It just means their perspective is different.
Personally, I do see the extermination of non-combatants to be more disturbing than the deaths of trained soldiers, so you have no argument with me on that.
However, I would not think someone who did feel the loss of American soldiers more keenly was anti-Semitic. That's my only point.
I dislike the inference that in order to keep from being labeled a bigot I have to agree that the Holocaust was the worst thing that has ever befallen any group of people. To some people, it is. But it's not the only incident of genocide in the world's history, as other people on this thread have pointed out.
The attitude I see being presented is "You must agree with what I say, or I'll call you a bigot and an anti-semite." I don't like that.
You want to know my personal opinion? Not that it's relevant, but yes, the Holocaust was one of the most terrible things I can imagine. The idea of families separated, mothers being torn away from their children and sent to a gas chamber, twins experimented on, - those have to represent the worst events any humans can do to another human.
I do recognize that. What has my ire up is the attitude that because I'm a Christian I must hate Jews after I see this movie. What has me upset is people like Ela and Rivka telling me they are afraid of their Christian neighbors.
We are not the Nazis. Christians have supported and loved the Jewish people in America for a long time. We are, as pointed out by members of the Jewish community, among the most ardent supporters of Israel. We have done nothing, nothing to earn the fear and loathing with which we're being spoken about.
It's all well and good to say "Oh, but we're not talking about YOU Belle, we're just talking about other Christians." Those other Christians are my brothers and sisters. And I think you are insulting them.
For the love of all that's good in this world, can you not see that nothing has happened yet! You have no reason to believe anything will, except for your knowledge of "those things happened in the past." In the past a lot of things happened that never will again. Despite our great fears and trepidations after the twin towers were destroyed we did not bring back the internment camps of WWII and round up all the muslims. No, we had the President visiting a mosque and urging the country not to lash out against their muslim neighbors.
Before this movie has even been released we have Christian leaders urging people not to blame the Jews, and you know what? Most Christians are confused. We don't know why we're being warned not to do something we never even considered in the first place!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't understand how "the other genocides" fit in here?
Because Paul Goldner brought up Gibson's mention of them as giving credence to perceptions of Gibson as an anti-Semite.
Because jack posted some ludicrous stuff about the Ukrainian Famine.
That's why they fit here.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar,
So, "No one is saying Christians are going to rise up and violate their religion, but don't you dare say people are wrong for being worried that they will."?
You don't get to pander to everyone.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Thanks, kat. I'll keep you in mind the next time I need to know what I can or cannot do.
No, I don't think anyone here is saying "The Christians" definitely are going to rise up against Jews. However, history within our own lifetimes tells us that there is a possibility that there might be a negative reaction from some misguided people under the guise of Christianity. Such things are not unthinkable. And yes, the group of people that has repeatedly borne the brunt of hatred by groups under the guise of Christianity has every right to be worried. That's all they are: worried. They aren't actually doing anything. What's wrong with being cautious?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: "No one is saying Christians are going to rise up and violate their religion, but don't you dare say people are wrong for being worried that they will."
I'd say that sums it up in a nutshell Kat. I don't think it is "having it both ways" at all. Look at history for the proof. Of course the people that violate their religion are behaving in an "un-Christian" manner but throughout history, numerous religions [Islam anyone?] have been twisted used to validate horrible causes that the actual writings of the religion strongly opposed.
I would say that the Christians who don't understand why Jewish people would be concerned (not Belle!!!) don't have the understanding of many of the years of Church history, before the Protestant Reformation, when there was only one "Christian" church in name, and lots and lots of nasty things took place!
AJ
(I'm not saying that Protestant History is pure as the driven snow compared to Catholicism. Calvin drowned the Anabaptists right and left. I'm just making the point that most US Christians are generally unaware of a large section of the joined "church history" that the catholics and protestants share.)
[ February 18, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:It's all well and good to say "Oh, but we're not talking about YOU Belle, we're just talking about other Christians." Those other Christians are my brothers and sisters. And I think you are insulting them.
But, Belle, not everyone who calls themselves Christian shares your understanding of the faith. Some twist it to mean terrible things, and some act on those misguided beliefs, all the while calling themselves Christian. For example, I think that the people who vilify Mormons and desecrate religious items in the Temple Square during weddings and peaceful gatherings are doing a terrible thing. And they're doing it in the name of Christianity. Would you also claim them as your brothers and sisters?
Not all "Christians" are going to go into this film with an open mind and an open heart. Some of them are going in already distrustful or even hateful towards Jews. How will they come out?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honestly, it is completely inconcievable that this movie would convince anyone to do anything that wasn't already in their head. It's laughable that a good Christian would happily go along their loving-everyone-way, see this movie, and decide to join the genocide.
If you are that convinced of the power of media, does this mean those clamouring for censorship are also clamoring for the censorship of sex and violence in the media? Where's the enthusiasm for eliminating all mentions of adultery, because some people might think it was then okay to cheat on their spouses?
quote:That's all they are: worried. They aren't actually doing anything.
Not true. There have been requests for changes, and requests for boycotts. In other words, non-authoritative censorship.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Belle, I understand your point of view, and I agree with most of what you say. The only thing that has me a bit worried is a jump in association which, I believe, is similar in nature to the jump the worst of the Passion-haters are making.
Several Jewish leaders are afraid that this movie will focus the violence of borderline individuals against members of the Jewish faith, or percieved members of the Jewish faith.
No one has said or accused all of Christianity of such acts. Indeed, the fear they feel does not come from your brothers and sisters in faith, but from those who claim to be Christian, but know nothing of the beliefs behind that name.
Yet you see this as an attack on Christianity and on your beliefs. Why? Because its a (the) Christian story that this movie is about? Because the movie is a declaration of faith, which are rare and fragile these days?
I fear that your fear based on their fears, no matter how meaningless their fears are, will cause a greater split between Jews and true Christians than anything in this movie could.
Those who would manipulate renewed hatred between Christians and Jews have had the Deicide card taken from their hand. Instead, they are playing the "Their Fear is an attack on Christians. How can we tolerate people who do not tolerate us" card.
I am hoping that the Christians around the world will live up to their names and Turn the Other Cheek to such rabble rousing.
Just as I hope that the Jews around the world will refrain from blaming all the Christians in the world for whatever actions some who claim to be Christian may or may not make. After all, that is what they want from the Christians, not to be blamed for the actions some Jews did 2000 years ago.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would like to agree with Belle that people are worked up over nothing. I’d really, really like that, but I can’t.
I live in a very rural area, where there isn’t a lot of diversity. I think bigotry is a lot more open here than it is in places where people have neighbors of different ethnicities and religions. We don’t, and the level of ignorance about modern Judaism is scary. I have had people brag to me about the stupid and offensive things they’ve said when meeting Jews.
One that immediately comes to mind is someone who told me that he met a man in Des Moines “who said he was Jewish, and I said to him, ‘then where’s your altar for animal sacrifice? You can’t be a Jew unless you sacrifice animals.’” The Jewish man apparently excused himself from the conversation at that point, but the guy telling the story was looking to me for approval of how he’d gotten the better of the man in their religious debate. He was quite put out when I told him that being Jewish does NOT in fact, require a home altar for animal sacrifice.
I have heard several people say, when the topic of inter-faith dialogue comes up “well, I just don’t see why Jews don’t believe in Jesus. Don’t they understand their own scriptures?” I don’t even want to get into some of the answers I’ve heard to that question.
And only last year two middle schoolers came to me to settle a debate – one of them spends summers with his dad in a larger city and had a Jewish friend there, he was trying to defend his friend from the other student’s accusation that “the Jews killed Jesus.”
There are a lot of people around here (and in other areas of the country, I’m sure) who have never met an actual, live, Jewish person. Their only referent for the word “Jew” is the bad guys in the Biblical narrative. And no, it doesn’t work to point out that Jesus and the disciples were also Jewish, because to them once a person started following Christ he or she was automatically no longer Jewish. “The Jews” equates to “the ones who rejected Christ and killed him.” And by continuing to reject Christ (by not becoming Christian) some people DO see modern Jews as culpable.
To sum up – I think Christianity has a shameful history of anti-semitism, and we need to be aware of that and watch out for its legacy. I’m going to see the movie. I will probably go with church groups and arrange discussion times afterwards. But I will be very aware of the potential for anti-Semitism and make sure that the post-movie discussion deals with it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Honestly, it is completely inconcievable that this movie would convince anyone to do anything that wasn't already in their head. It's laughable that a good Christian would happily go along their loving-everyone-way, see this movie, and decide to join the genocide.
True, but how do you know what is truly in other people's heads? I don't. Think about your darkest most awful thoughts (of course we don't like to think about them.) What if someone's worst thoughts just happen to be anti-semitic? We would hope they struggle against them, but we don't know for sure.
Many fundamentalist Christians that still believe the Jews have a direct part in future prophecy, also believe that many of the calamaties that have befallen the Jewish people have been caused or strongly influenced by agents of Satan trying to thwart God's plan. Therefore in many ways they should be the most concerned about anti-Semitism, because even something meant for good like this, can be twisted by evil to cause a fire to start where only a spark was before.
---- I don't understand what you mean by this kat.
quote:non-authoritative censorship
If it isn't authoritative (as in from the government), it isn't censorship. There is nothing wrong with convincing people to boycott something on intellectual arguments. That is an American tradition.
As far as "authoritative" goes in speaking for the Jewish people, while there are various rabbinnical councils, like non-LDS Protestants you don't really have an over-arching "authority" that can speak with one voice for the entire people, especially with such widely diverging branches and the convolution and convergence of race vs. religion as in Jews.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, Banna, in that theme, do you condemn all portrayals of anti-social activity in media, on the chance it would nourish and encourage a cancer in someone's heart?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, no one has condemned the movie. We’re expressing concern and trying to be aware of potential problems so as not to be hit unprepared.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, I wasn't saying it for myself or for my personal beliefs. I was saying that that is a commonly taught fundamentalist Christian belief.
The logic is: If Satan takes specific joy in tormenting the Jewish people, then he's going to take every possible opportunity to cause trouble for them and thwart the work of Christianity in general.
You could look at all the hoopla now as that "trouble" (the perspective which most fundamentalists are currently taking) I was simply taking that logic, and applying it slightly differently but within the same parameters.
Personally, if I had 1000+ years history of persecution of my race behind me, I'd be a little nervous too. I can't say that the wariness is invalid. In fact from a historical view, the wariness seems prudent to me.
I look at it from the same way I look at it when Steve (who is multi-racial) has a job in a either a really ethnically white, or really ethnically black area of Chicago. Either could be dangerous for him if someone percieves him to be something he isn't. So I worry just a smidgen. Not enough to take over my life, but enough to keep me aware of him throughout the day more than normal.
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was thinking of the proposed disclaimer at the beginning.
How about a disclaimer at the beginning of Unfaithful: "This is not an endorsement of adultery; committing adultery will be harmful to your marriage, your self-esteem, possibly your health, and can lose you the respect of your children and yourself."
----
I think...there are several different conversations going on here. I have to admit dkw's post was an eye-opener - I was in college before I knew that anti-semitism existed as a widespread phenomon. I certainly knew all about the Holocaust, but figured Hitler was freaking crazy. In my Christian culture, there's more of an attitude of a kid hanging out at the edges of the dinner table hoping for someone to notice us. I've still never seen it, except for news reports and second-hand.
I also take issue with blaming any one religion for the anti-social and evil acts of its members. People will do them anyway - religion just occasionally provides a convenient excuse. Few people actually revel in evil - most anti-social acts are committed by people who have justified them to themselves. But I suspect that justification will be found anyway.
[ February 18, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
sounds like a good idea. Though I would change "will" to "could"
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The thing is, from the info we have in front of us, it doesn't sound like Gibson is willing to add said disclaimer.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why pick this movie to pick on?
Why pick a religious movie to suddenly get huffy about alleged portrayals that might encourage anti-social behavior?
Why is Unfaithful praised - and adultery destroys trust and marriages - and this movie selected out?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
<--- has never seen Unfaithful and doesn't really plan to.
Maybe because many filmmakers and entertainers are Jewish and you are hitting them in a personal area?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and WHY isn't Gibson willing to put a disclaimer at the front of his movie (or at the end)? There isn't any harm in the disclaimer, so why not? It pops up before the movie ever starts so it isn't like it is ruining its "artistic" merit.
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you?
I didn't hear the same outrage over, oh crumb, Mystic River where a father commits vigilante murder. That's not even obliquely and allegedly encouraging anti-social behavior - it's trumpeting it.
---
So, you're saying this movie is singled out because people don't like Mel Gibson's religion? If a Jew had made the movie, it would be fine?
[ February 18, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Yes, it is horrible that, what, 50 million people died in WWII. However, 6 million of them were not casualties of war. They were exterminated.
They were MURDERED.
Extermination is what you do to termites...or rats.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How many pogroms (ignoring Helen of Troy for the moment ) were started by infidelity?
Let alone movies about same? Don't get me wrong, I won't see and object to movies like that -- I think the critical acclaim for The Bridges of Madison County is nauseating.
I keep hearing "it can't happen here" and "it can't happen now"!
That's what the German Jews who didn't heed the signs in the mid-1930s said too . . . I just PRAY that this time it is true.
I would be THRILLED to have it proven that my concerns are unfounded. Looking at some of the vitriol posted on other sites, I don't think they are. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Partially, his "fringe" Catholicism is what has been covered in depth the previous four pages. I sat and read through pages of history from the web page of that religous order, and they seem to have a fair bit of meglomania going on if nothing else.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you're attacking the movie because you don't like his religion.
And you're accusing other people of religious intolerance?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I assure you I haven’t been praising Unfaithful. (Actually, I’ve never heard of it. Is it out now?) But I’m not particularly concerned that anyone I know is going to think adultery is justifiable because they see it in a movie. I am concerned that some people I know will think contempt toward Jewish people is acceptable, and that this movie could encourage that belief.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I’m not particularly concerned that anyone I know is going to think adultery is justifiable because they see it in a movie.
Why not? People cheat all the time, and that horrible, selfish act breaks the hearts and lives of innocent people all the time. Isn't that worrisome?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Let me re-phrase that. I don’t think anyone in my congregation is going to believe that God sanctions adultery because they saw it in a movie.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
kat you are not reading what I post. I'm answering your question in the general and then you keep extrapolating to the specific that isn't there.
Kat:
quote: So, you're saying this movie is singled out because people don't like Mel Gibson's religion?
I am NOT singling out this movie, other "people" have. I didn't even really think about it until this thread started.
My response:
quote:Partially, his "fringe" Catholicism ...
I'm not singling out his "fringe" Catholicism. Others brought it up as a concern. I read their own website and it is a bit megalomaniacal IMO.
So to answer the original question in a single complete sentence:
I believe people are singling out this movie and its relation to anti-semitism partially because of the Catholic sect he belongs to and its anti-semetic leanings and partially because of the 1000 years of connection of passion plays and pogroms.
No where in there do I say anything condemming ANYONE else individually or am accusing ANYONE individually of religious intolerance.
Kat:
quote: So you're attacking the movie because you don't like his religion.
And you're accusing other people of religious intolerance?
How the heck did we get from that to this statment? This is a PERFECT example of how people misconstrue the intent of the written word. Anti-semetics do the exact same thing.
*hugs kat, you know I love you, I'm just frustrated!*
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
dkw: I suspect you'd be surprised.
I find the fallacy - the terrible, false, damaging fallacy - that a lover can ease your stressed-out heart, that if your spouse is truly not making you happy, you need to find someone who can, that a younger lover is proof of virility and/or attractiveness, that everyone needs some spice in life, that some people are just meant to flirt with everything in a skirt, and that vows should end when they aren't working for you anymore to be incredibly widespread, and it's a terrible evil. It's everywhere, and it's in people you'd never suspect. If we are going to start demanding disclaimers at the beginning of movies, it should be universal. That I'd listen to.
----
*hugs Banna* I know. I love that we can argue in circles and still understand each other. Fencing with you clarifies my thinking, at least on the days I'm paying attention.
[ February 18, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So since there are other movies that are of concern, this one shouldn't be?
Come on kat, REALLY?
And I ask you again, what movie about infidelity has ever caused so much as a riot?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
kat, you're equating infidelity with widespread, systematic murder.
I don't think I really need to say more.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The way I feel is that, whether or not there will be anti-semitic acts instigated by this movie, I think we all should be trying head off a lot of this through discussions with our fellow Christians. To say, "Well, I just don't see it happening," is fine if you are right, and feel comfortable speaking for your fellow Christians. However, if something does happen, then it's really too late isn't it? Yes, we can decry the act, and educate folks. Yet, if we had done the same education beforehand, the whole incident could have been avoided.
I think this is a straightforward application of Pascal's wager, at very minimal cost to all involved.
And I DON'T think that only people who are looking for an excuse will commit these acts. The ignorant, but otherwise benign, folks could easily get emotionally charged, and look to discharge their emotion. If the first person they talk to IS one who is anti-semitic, then I think that person will act out in a that way.
We, particularly here at Hatrack, OVERestimate the rationality of our fellow man. I've seen it all too often, in various places where people have rationalized a certain opinion, and they will outright reject contradiction, for no other reason than they feel like they've done sufficient research on the topic already. The reality is, they DON'T want to discuss things liek we do on Hatrack; they just want to either convince, or label someone as wrong without even holding the opposing viewpoint in their head a moment.
And this behavior is not universal, even with a single person. They might be able to see POV on topics A,B, and C, but not at all on topic E.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
About Mel Gibson's Religion:
Any comment about Mel Gibson's religion instead of the content of the movie is, in my opinion, an anti-religious stance and ad hominem attack.
About adultery:
It's not murder of the body, but it's the murder of many sacred things, including marriage and trust, and it's wildly more prevelant than murder of the body. I would LOVE to see a diclaimer at the beginning of Unfaithful.
About murder:
What about Mystic River, then? That's vigilante murder one by one, instead of en mass.
The problem is that this is a powerful story about a martyr, and if there's a martyr, someone gets painted as the bad guy. No one likes being accused of being the bad guy, even by association. There are also apparently some idiots out there that lack the spiritual understanding and sense of time that would prevent that association. *scowl*
[ February 18, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:kat, you're equating infidelity with widespread, systematic murder.
That sounds like you think that this movie will cause widespread, systematic murder. Is this really what you think?
Hobbes Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Hobbes: No. You misread me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then what?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Okay kat, I’ll try again – the Christian church does not have a long history of condoning adultery. Thus I don’t feel a great need to clarify our position on it. The Christian church does have a long history of condoning anti-semitism. Thus I do think that those of us who don’t condone it, as Christians, have a responsibility to make it very clear that we DON’T condone it. If it is even remotely possible that this movie will be used as a tool by anti-semetic people we have a responsibility to be proactive in countering that use of it.
Of course I’ve heard all those justifications for adultery that you list. What I’ve never heard is someone suggest that church teachings support or encourage them. I’ve heard people say that Christian teachings on adultery are outdated or irrelevant, but never that they encourage it.
Note again, I am not condemning the movie. I’ve been anticipating it since I first heard about it (although I’m bummed about the subtitles) and I hope to enjoy it very much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*tugs on kat's sleeve*
*pouts*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*hugs rivka*
So, are you saying that stopping the potential evil influence of widespread media has to start somewhere, and if so, why not here, where we stand?
[ February 18, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*hugs kat right back*
Not really, but that'll work.
[ February 18, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Then I'm confused Ayelar. Kat said that one movie would cause adultery and you said she was comparing adultery to widespread, systematic murder.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<answer moved to preserve thread logic>
*thinks* Because I think Mel Gibson IS being attacked for his religion. Now, that's almost inevitable - he made the movie because of it, and he's very open about it. It's like the answer to why the irritating increase of bad taste and blasphemous Mormon jokes - because visibility brings vulnerability.
But it doesn't mean that attacking him or his products because of his religion is okay, and I suspect that there will be a great outcry against this one particular movie, and then business will go back to usual for everything else, and that isn't fair.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Thus I don’t feel a great need to clarify our position on it. The Christian church does have a long history of condoning anti-semitism. Thus I do think that those of us who don’t condone it, as Christians, have a responsibility to make it very clear that we DON’T condone it. If it is even remotely possible that this movie will be used as a tool by anti-semetic people we have a responsibility to be proactive in countering that use of it.
I wonder...I wonder where this came from? Because it really, really is completely against the teachings of Christ. Somehow it got wrapped up in tradition, and while I appreciate that some serious corruption crept in when the Christian church held secular power as well as religious, I wonder how that became so entwined.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*hugs OSC-fan* ahh my naieve newbie...
You will find that even though we all like OSC we have widely different views on marriage or the sanctity thereof.
There are lots of other multi page past threads on the topic as well.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(kat, your editing is killin' me here! )
[Moved to follow kat's move. ]
As far as Gibson's religion and/or beliefs (about the Holocaust or anything else) go, they concern me only in as much as they indicate a possible bias. And they don't concern me much. I repeat, I don't think he or the movie is anti-semitic. I am not asking for the movie to be changed.
I am asking for Christians to say something along the lines of, "I hear your concerns, and this is what I think should be done to ensure that they are NOT actualized."
I have heard this from many IRL, I'm hearing it from dkw, Bok, AJ, Dan and others.
Am I really asking so much?
[ February 18, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC Fan, that link was already provided by saracastic muppet on the first page.
If you don't read the entire thread to catch up, we will have to call mack with her thumping stick!
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OSC fan, that is your opinion, even if you view it as fact. Many of us do not operate from the same facts or worldview as you.
Telling an agnostic that they are wrong because God says so, isn't going to change their mind or stimluate discussion.
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
(Heh. Sorry about the musical edits. *sheepish*)
Okay. I think... my incredulity comes from a slight disbelief still that anyone COULD actually think to justify widespread violence based on this. That's probably coming from the same place in my head that concluded that Hitler was simply crazy and the people who supported him were deathly afraid of him and mostly ignorant, because anything else is inconcievable.
<edited out>
[ February 18, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh kat. Now you're making it so I have to revive my "in defense of original sin" essay.
[ February 18, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I am asking for Christians to say something along the lines of, "I hear your concerns, and this is what I think should be done to ensure that they are NOT actualized."
I have heard this from many IRL, I'm hearing it from dkw, Bok, AJ, Dan and others.
Am I really asking so much?
What you said here really sums it up, rivka. We are concerned about possible repercussions. For some reason, some on this forum see these concerns as an attack on the Christian religion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As far as the disclaimer goes, I can see how putting one in would dilute the movie.
If you add a disclaimer at the beginning, everything in the movie is interpreted a little differently because that disclaimer was there.
In most movies, that wouldn't matter. This movie is focusing on the suffering of Christ and its meaning in Christianity. The moview has subtitles and has been crafted to create a particular emotional response.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you're pushing disclaimers on someone else's work, it means what them to deny it, even just a little. I can understand not wanting to do that. I actually think disclaimers at the beginning denying the following message are a cop out. It's a way of saying something controversial without being willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
See my above post.
Added: Which is unfair. I'll take it down if you want me to, dkw.
[ February 18, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It's probably worth pointing out that many Scots site Braveheart in reference to recent Scottish independance, and statues of William Wallace erected by their self-governing body since then have strongly resembled Mel Gibson.
These things DO affect people.
Nobody HERE is going to go all glassy-eyed and start spewing hate. But not everyone is as stable as we might assume.
I mean, you've probably heard the story about the black kids who saw Mississippi Burning and then went out and beat the first white kid they say to death. There are similar stories where people killed people in ways shown in movies, etc. These movies that deal with huge injustices can cause backlash.
I just don't think this is one of them, really. I hope I'm right. It just seems so stupid to think that people would use the story of the death of Christ as an excuse to attack Jews. It blows my mind that so much of Christian history proves that people DID. I mean, HELLO-- Jesus was also a Jew. We worship one Jew and then persecute all the others? It's crazy.
But it happened, which is why I sympathize with Jewish concerns.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well why not the End then? Nobody stays to watch the credits but at least it is there.
They already have a bunch of disclaimers flashed up about duplication etc anyway.
I mean considering you get a packet of disclaimers on a $10 pocket calculator, why not put disclaimers on a movie?
They also have the one at the end about "All events places and names used are ficticious any resemblance to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental." I guess they can't put that one on this movie though!
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is media the loaded gun in the house, then?
I mean, is it safe to let people tell stories like that? Without holding them responsible for the consequences?
----
Actually, at the end would be fine. It doesn't distract from the movie.
Heh. Although I doubt the "The people and events in this movie are fictional. Any resembles to real people is coincidental." diclaimer is going to be there.
[ February 18, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What would you propose for a disclaimer?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Actually, I've seen that "fictional" disclaimer on 'true stories' too. I think it may very well be there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... how about if it isn't there, I get one of your drawings. If it is... do you want anything? What do you want?
[ February 18, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think because so many of us are stubborn and opinionated here on hatrack we forget how easily influenced and gullible people are.
My little brother convinced other college students that magnets don't work underwater. And these people are supposed to be among the educated elite.
Of course, the person that actually performs the action should be held responsible for their crime. However many people are easily influenced by things that we, here at hatrack wouldn't dream of being influenced by.
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OSC-Fan, I am surprised you got away with this:
quote: 1) Those people who claim they don't believe in Jesus know, in their hearts, that the story of Jesus is true and they are bothered by it....
That sense of self-righteousness can lead to anti-semitic behavior.
You are claiming that, because Jesus rings in your heart as true, then it must in everyones.
It doesn't.
Your entire argument is centered on that belief, a deep committed heartfelt belief that totally denies the beliefs and heart felt convictions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, Aethists, and even Agnostics. Basically you are right and the majority of the world is wrong.
Others who feel likewise may take it a step forward. Jews know that the story of Jesus is true, yet they do not convert? They must be evil. Generations of children are being brought up under this evil. We must force them to convert now!
Kat:
There are very few churches who have gathered groups of believers to attend Mystic River or Unfaithful. When family groups complain about Unfaithful, large numbers of Church leaders, the people who hope to encourage our morality, did not show up to defend it. When police and law & order groups protested Mystic River, no church leadership stood behind the director and defended it.
One of the most powerful words in the English language is All.
In this debate, when one Jewish organization or leader questioned the movie, they feared some fanatics will revert to their anti-semitic roots.
The accusation was put out that "All the Jews hate this movie. They ALL fear that ALL Christians will start anti-semetic pogroms."
When one Christian organization or leader brought up that accusation, the report read "ALL the Jews are attacking ALL of our Christian story. All Christians must see this movie to stop ALL of the Jews from doing this."
Hey, Folks. Drop the ALL.
Some people have a problem with the movie and the director. Some don't. SOme on each side are Jewish. Some on each side are Christian. Some on each side are neither.
The only way that anti-semiticism can really take hold for long, not counting the fringe lunatics, is if we keep polarizing this movie.
[ February 18, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
<--- had never heard of "Mystic River" until today. Haven't seen Bridges of Madison County either, for what its worth.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:There are very few churches who have gathered groups of believers to attend Mystic River or Unfaithful.
But Dan, I don't consider churches to be the source of evil or the only source of...societal sanction. The concern seems to be not only that people will get dumb ideas, but that the micro-society they belong to will say it's okay. But people gather to watch movies together by definition, and societal sanction comes from many places. We shouldn't worry about their actions?
---
I have to admit, you're one of the people who blasted the movie by calling Mel Gibson's religion a cult. Why on earth is that relevant? How is that not intolerant?
[ February 18, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Dan_Raven Dan_Raven Dan_Raven
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My two cents.
I don't think the movie is antisemetic as far as I can tell.
I am worried, however, that it may illicit that behavior in many "Christians" out there.
That's because my personal belief is that the Jews get it from everyone. I think the whole world is getting more antisemetic now, and it's just getting worse.
So if people out there want to hurt Jews, what better thing to use than an apparently "impassioned" moment caused by the movie? A moment of insanity, if you will?
I think it may cause people to do something that they really wanted to do anyway.
I think it's terrible, but if I were Jewish, I think I'd be worried for my family.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Dan Raven, you totally rock.
You, too, AJ.
I thank both of you for your well-thought out responses in this thread, as well as in others.
[ February 18, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Banna: Dang it, no one does that when I post. Am I really never eloquent? Rabble-rousing? Convincing? *sniff* Sometimes even funny?
Maybe I just seem like I don't need it. That's what my brother told me once. *scowl*
[ February 18, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Uh...dumb question, but why do we have 5 pages of debate over a movie none of us have even seen yet?
I got really mad at an acquaintance who stated during a Bible study that Harry Potter was evil and she wouldn't have anything to do with the movies or the books. I argued that she was going on hearsay, and biased hearsay at that -- and that she was an adult and could probably survive finding out for herself before making blanket statements about the evilness of something.
This is striking me as the same thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because if we wait until it hits theaters to discuss it, potential problems might already be REAL problems?
[Edit: unnecessary hyperbole, sorry]
[ February 18, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I laughed when I saw your response, rivka, and then realized that you probably weren't joking.
I'd be happy to bet you a nice lunch out that there will be less violent fallout from The Passion of The Christ than there was from Jackass the Movie. Speaking of lunch out, rivka, what part of CA are you in? I have to work in the Bay Area for several weeks over the next couple of months. It would be wonderful to get to meet you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sad* I'm not joking. The rabbi whose class I'm about to be late for HAS seen it, and is quite concerned.
He does not tend to be someone (IMO and experience) who overreacts -- quite the contrary. As I mentioned, he is working with a group of other concerned individuals to prevent problems.
I would LOVE to meet you, jeniwren. But I'm allll the way down in Los Angeles. A bit of a drive from the Bay Area. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
rivka, if I may ask...
What, specifically, is there fear of?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd like to echo dkw here. I'd like to believe with Belle's statement that the vast majority of Christians aren't anti-semitic. However, I can't. The facts don't agree with that statement. That's not even true for American, let alone for all the other parts of the world.
I'll go on record again as saying that I think the world would be a much better place if even a quarter of the people who call themselves Christians were actually followers of Jesus' message. However, history and social science disagree with this. Christian has never been synomous with "good guy" and in the past (especially if you were Jewish) often was a pretty good idicator of the opposite.
I'm bothered by many of the attitudes displayed here. For example, people putting their fellowship with other people who call themselves Christians over her fellowship with all people. Definitely un-Christian. People have been very quick to say that the main reason people are concerned about the effects of this movie is because they want to attack the religion of the movie. I can't tell you how often in history attacks on the relatively helpless Jews were justified as defense against all the evil things that Jews did or were going to do. I'm also concerned by people's view of Christians in history (such as the Christian majority population of Nazi Germany) as being either evil or following twisted doctrine without any genuine interest in why they did so or any concern that they or their co-religionists might be having the same problems now. Also, as always, I'm concerned by how ignorant even the population of Hatrack is about their religion and it's history.
Many of the people who criticize Christianity aren't evil hedonists bent on destroying the religion. Quite of few of them are Christians themselves. Criticism of Christianity has been instrumental in forming the world we live in now, where, for example, burning down a Jewish village while killing and raping it's inhabitants is frowned upon. The principles and the people who fought for them were almost always at least outside the mainstream of Christianity and in many cases directly opposed to the current interpretation of Christianity.
I think that it's important to acknowldge that people's worldview is probably the most important determiner of how they act. I completely disagree with the people who seek to absolve a worldview, such as Christianity, from it's determining effects on it's adherents behavior. There are reasons why people act the way they do, and many times these reasons can be directly related to how they see the world. They don't just do things becuse they want to. Their very wants and the way they go about fulfilling them is largley determined by what they believe. Much of the current criticisms about religion comes from teasing out the effects of different aspects of worldviews (often initially studied without reference to religion) and then applying these finding to religious beliefs. I put a bit of effort into trying to show this in a thread about Religion and Prejudice.
Of course, if you see me as just a Christianity hater as opposed to someone who is genuinely concerned with both integrity and about making the world a better place, nothing I say is going to have any effect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:People have been very quick to say that the main reason people are concerned about the effects of this movie is because they want to attack the religion of the movie. I can't tell you how often in history attacks on the relatively helpless Jews were justified as defense against all the evil things that Jews did or were going to do.
Squick, I'm one of the people who said this, and I still hold it is true. Your answer doesn't refute it - it provides examples that it has happened before, just on a different side. That's evidence for the argument.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I really don't think there's going to be a sudden increase in violence in Canada (the only culture I can even claim to understand, so it's the only one I'll talk about). I just don't see people being convinced by this movie to go out and do violence and I think people willing to do violence would find another convenient excuse if this movie wasn't around. I do, however, trust the media to report on any and every act of anti-Semitism that occurs following the movie and quite happily say that it's because of the movie and spark all kinds of heated argument about the movie and, in general, accomplish nothing but provide a public forum for people to grind their respective axes and generally increase their feeling of moral superiority. Ahhh, I can hardly wait.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, it's been suggested to Mel that he put this statement at the end of the film:
"During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only one rose from the dead."
And he seems to have liked it, and may actually do it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kat I don't think churches are evil either.
Far from it.
Except in a few extreme cases, and everything I've read makes the sect that Gibson follows border on that.
Churches are supposed to guide us to being better people.
The question is, does telling Christ's story in this form make people better or worse.
If it makes them better Christians, then most people in society, even those not Christian, will agree that it makes them better people.
The hope of many evangelicals is that it will make more Christians. It will bring in a lot more people to sit in the pews and donate to the church and vote as the politico's in the church wan them to vote. How many of them will stay to listen to the message is unknown.
Yet if even a few stay, even one soul is saved, then the movie is a success, to the evangelical eyes.
However, the fear is that it will also create some worse Christians. Those who will get fired up by this movie to hurt others not of their faith.
All that the proponents to this film are asking for is some kind of assurance that steps will be taken to limit the latter. We have a situation where we are risking an unknown amount of violence to evangelize an unknown number of souls.
I have no problem with this movie. I do have problems with Mr. Gibson, based on the religious sect he adhere's to. I find it narrow-minded and self-righteous. However, that is a personal opinion.
I do have a few problems with the arguments used throughout this thread. That is whom I am posting too.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
rivka, my pastor has seen it also, and also not one to over-react or for that matter issue endorsements, he said he couldn't see how it could possibly be considered anti-semetic. I'm reserving judgement until I see it. My only speculation is that it will have less violent fallout than Jackass the Movie.
Bummer about lunch. The customer I'm going to work for has an office in LA....if they send me down to train their LA people (a possibility that hasn't come up in discussion yet, though I'll ask), I'll email you and see if we can get together. I would love to get to meet you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kat, specifically? It's hard to predict what outlet hate will take.
If I had to guess, I'd say attacks by groups of angry movie-viewers on one of their few Jewish neighbors, or their home or business.
Kids walking down the street being jumped by half-a-dozen teens.
In certain other countries, where ignorance is high, possibly worse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I have no problem with this movie. I do have problems with Mr. Gibson, based on the religious sect he adhere's to. I find it narrow-minded and self-righteous. However, that is a personal opinion.
Dan, I'd be careful about judging a person based on his religion when your knowledge comes from ... unsympathetic sources.
----
Taal, jeez, that would be perfect.
rivka, Ela: Would that work?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've said it before.
I will probably have to say it again.
I do NOT THINK THE MOVIE ITSELF IS ANTI-SEMITIC. I think it IS intended to inflame emotions. The concern is where that emotional fervor will go, if it is not carefully channeled.
We cannot do that; we can only ask that YOU do.
On page 1, Belle said:
quote: Do you know what Christian teaching is about who is responsible for putting Jesus on that cross?
Me. I am. And every other sinner. And that is what Gibson said he tried to portray, and it's also why he made a cameo appearance - it's his hand that pounds in the nails.
I respectfully ask that THAT is the message that is emphasized.
kat, it surely would (it seems to me) not hurt, and it might be very helpful. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, if you see me as just a Christianity hater as opposed to someone who is genuinely concerned with both integrity and about making the world a better place, nothing I say is going to have any effect.
Of course, if you see people who don't agree with your points or seek clarification merely as people who see you as just a Christianity hater, then nothing you say is going to have an effect either, because people will doubt your motives.
Frankly, this continual line of reasoning would be more understandable if you raised it about anyone other than Christians on the board.
Dagonee P.S., I responded in the Charming Bigots thread...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rivka:
According to my understanding, you are asking that in discussions anyone may have, the emotions this movie and subsequent discussions arouse be of the soul-searching, penitent kind and not the "Go Team, Fight!" kind?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*ponders*
Not necessarily. I merely ask that it be VERY VERY clear that no one group is being singled out for blame.
[Edit: I also ask that the errors that are glaringly obvious after I hit Post be obvious before . . .]
[ February 18, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One point that I forgot to bring up above is that violence doesn't have to be physical. I say that in our current society, social controls have made it very likely that the majority of violence is going to take a form other than blatant physical attacks.
Dagonee, I have confidence in my own integrity. I'm pretty sure that I don't dismiss people jsut because they disagree with me. As I told one Hatrack MIA that I fundamentally disagree about on religious issues but still have a healthy respect for, I don't give my respect out free in a crackerjack box, but I do give it out. You can generally tell the people that I respect, because I'm willing to spend time having a dialouge with them.
As to bringing it up with groups other than Christians, I have. Not only have I brought this issue up in regards to other topics, but every time I talk about it in regards to Christianity, I'm also targetting the critics of Christianity.
P.S. I responded to you response.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Another dumb question then...is it really that seriously in jeopardy? With ticket sales having already started?
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Been thinking about this, kat. Starting when you said questioning the movie because of his religion is an ad homenim attack.
I think it is on that grey line between public and private lives. When someone runs for office there is still the debate on what is important. Some people couldn't care less about that person's sex life, other people view it as a measure of integrity. I think the same can be said for the religion of the person. Because the perspectives and world view of one's religon (or lack of religion) does effect one's thought processes.
When you make a very public statement on a religious topic (like the life of Christ) you can expect your religious background to be scrutined as part of your personal life, even as in politicians. I mean we would want Lieberman to be able to be President on the Sabbath if a crisis broke out and stuff like that needs to be taken into account beforehand.
So I don't know think that it is irrelevant, but I do think it should be handled with sensitivity.
(Incidentally all of the information I got about Mel's sect came from their own website. There is a horribly boring history section that goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages.)
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
OSC Fan: Thank you. *laugh* I needed that.
Banna:
*thinks* It is a fine line; I'm not sure how to handle it. Putting yourself out publicly IS relinquishing your right to some of your privacy. It could be argued that Mel talks about his religion in the promotion for the movie, so it's up for grabs. For politicians, it could be argued that the moment they proclaim their character as a selling point, their character is subject to scrutiny.
It's like the pre-marital sex thread; if your personal life is used as evidence, then that life is up to the tests of evidence. Incidentally, this theory was formed about two years ago, and has been codified as Kat Rule of Life #4:Do not discuss love life on Hatrack.
I still think that attacking Mel's religion is ad hominem and beside the point, but it isn't an unfair invasion of privacy. I mean, I get buffetted a lot more here than I would if I never said anything controversial, but I'm willing to take the risk. I still don't like it, though. *thinks*
[ February 18, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
but kat if it influences his world view and how he directed the movie, even unconsciously how is questioning it ad hominem? It is based on the facts of the religion itself not in feelings at least to me.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because we are not electing Mel Gibson. We are debating the merits and effects of a movie.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
A religious movie that intends to make some sort of a religious statment, that he directed and oversaw.
I know you care a great deal about the integrity of the person in the First Presidency, because they are making statments on behalf of God for your religion.
By making a "multi-denominational" religious movie, Mel puts himself under that same microscope.
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This is the other reason I don't usually post on issue threads. People don't usually respond to anything I say, and I wonder if it's because they a). didn't read it, b). agree with me completely, or c). are so shocked and appalled that they ignore me as a troll. Though I guess "d). my statements are so wishy washy washy as to be pointless" is also a possibility.
I just want to make sure that rivka and Ela and the other Jewish Hatrackers know that I have the utmost respect for them as people of faith and, well, as people.
Oh, and kat... you weren't asking for a picture from me, were you? My snappies suck.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Olivet, I think it was because I agreed mostly with you and it didn't really trigger any further discussion in my brain <grin>
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Too subtle?
I meant one of your drawings. I saw a few; I loved them. I'd put it on the wall next to Mack's picture. *loves having artistic friends*
[ February 18, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Olivet, thanks for bringing up the William Wallace thing. I didn’t know that the statues being put up bore a resemblance to Mel Gibson, but I think that could only improve the aesthetics of public squares.
I’d suggest we get one around here, if there were any Scottish ancestry in this town. Perhaps Mel will play a Norwegian folk hero someday? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No Banna, I don't think so. He's not declaring himself a prophet; he made a movie. If people are worried about the movie, his personal life is beside the point.
And I have to tell you, I don't mean Hatrack, but the tumult from Hollywood is sickeningly hypocritical. People couldn't stop clapping for The Pianist - a movie made by the rapist of a 12-year-old girl running from accountability - but they are up in arms because Mel loves his wife, considers her an amazing person, is faithful to her, but suspects she's going to hell.
[ February 18, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why is America more afraid of anti-semitism than it is afraid of an equivalent hatred of Muslims that could have much more easily been provoked by many of the things that have been shown on TV in the past few years?
Actually, I know why - but that doesn't change the fact that we should be equally concerned about both, don't you think?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OSC-Fan I believe you are getting a bit over heated in this.
First, no one I've read here or elsewhere has suggested the movie be banned, stopped, or not distributed.
The requests those complaining about the movie have asked for warnings or subtle changes made to tone down the possible evil Jew image.
Only those stampeding for its defence have mentioned boycott or stopping its distribution, and then its their reason for opposing those who they see as opposing the movie.
(Early distribution problems were financial, not religious. Nobody thought a religous movie, in Aramaic with sub-titles, would sell).
Secondly, your labeling people--Liberals and Aetheists. I find that disturbing. I read into it a suggestion that you think there was a great Liberal club and an Aetheist church where everyone who was liberal or Aethiest went and agreed on strategy.
I read it as if you were listing Christian enemies to be overcome.
Its easy to label a bunch of nameless people. Once labeled its easy to attack them, either on this forum, or for some, with a stick in the streets. After all, they are only Atheists and Liberals.
or they are only Christians.
or they are only Jews.
Finally, the hollywood critics have not chimed in on this movie. They want to see it first.
[ February 18, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Kat, I had a bad analogy in a way. None of the leaders of other (legitimate) Protestant churches actually claim to have living prophets. Many don't have one single "leader" either. But the ones that do, have lives that are subject to constant scrutiny.
I guess to me it is because religions are statements on "ways you live your life" so it is only natural to check the life and see if it is lived accordingly.
I do see the hypocrisy in Hollywood and would not deny that one iota.
AJ
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Tresopax, I totally agree with you. I think the latent anti-muslim sentiment that is growing in this country is horrid as well.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I guess to me it is because religions are statements on "ways you live your life" so it is only natural to check the life and see if it is lived accordingly.
On this, I completely agree. Part of the reason I love my church is because of the examples of the leaders.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Why do you have a new login AJ?
<--*Perplexed*
Hobbes Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
look at the first post that I posted under this user name, and when I switched to it on this thread.
I guess it was too subtle a tribute because no one noticed. (I don't believe in doing landmarks until I get around to them, which may be never, so it isn't landmark avoidance)
AJ
[ February 18, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm a Christian....but not really a practicing one. I also grew up in the relatively secular (....and heavily Jewish) suburbs of Philadelphia.
I honestly want to see this movie, mostly because I really want to know what happened....without having to read the Bible
But the violence....the violence might deter me from seeing it. I got through Saving Private Ryan okay, but that was mostly machine violence.....I had to walk out of Cold Mountain because there was so much human violence.
Honestly...movies can be pretty powerful. I agree with Belle in that I don't think it's fair to assume all Christians are anti-Semitic. But I also agree with rivka in that we have to be very, very careful about the ones who are. One thing that springs to my mind is Pearl Harbor. When I watched the bombs falling on the ships in Pearl Harbor, and they showed American men drowning in sinking ships they couldn't escape, I looked at the red circles on the side of those planes and I understood racism. I understood where it came from, and how people could possibly feel that way. I hadn't before -- I had always universally (correctly) condemned it. But what if my grandfather had been in one of those ships? Or my son?
This whole thing terrified me. I grew up in a culture of securlarism and I was taught from a very young age that racism is wrong. And I still believe that, very strongly. But I have to keep that belief strongly in the front of my head to prevent my subconsious, emotional instincts from infringing on it.
Now I live in a big city where there is a pretty clear divide between black and white. If I'm walking on the street at night, I am inevitably more afraid of the black man than the white. That's an instance of racism that I have to force myself to be very self-consious about, because I can never let myself act in away that might hurt or discriminate against someone because of it.
My point, I guess, is that racism (or anti-Semitism) is subconsious and, above all, emotional. A scene in a movie can trigger a visceral reaction that might never have arisen under other circumstances.
What we need to do is help people approach this film in a measured, thoughtful way. Christian churches need to talk about past instances of anti-Semitism and the emotion behind it, and they need to make sure that their congregations understand how that emotion was misplaced.
When I first heard about protests against this movie, I was firmly in Belle's camp -- free speech, no one should tell Mr. Gibson what he should and should not publish. Now, though, I'm more than a little bit concerned.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
OK, here's the deal.
Why I feel like the discussion is an attack on Christians.
Because without any evidence that anything has or will happen as a result of this movie, we have people saying things like Rivka that she expects people to beat up kids on the street and attack Jewish businesses and for people to go attack their neighbors.
Now, why would anybody do that? Because they feel so passionately about the movie and their emotion turns to anger at the Jews that are portrayed as the "villains" in the story, have I got that right?
Can you honestly tell me it isn't insulting to a large group of people, namely Christians? Because only Christians would feel that way, an athiest who doesn't believe Christ was God is not going to be upset at anyone.
Before the movie has been released we've had people decrying it as anti-semitic, calling for scenes to be deleted (and Gibson did delete one, though I admire him saying it wasn't because it was anti-Semitic but rather that time didn't permit explaining the quote in context), and calling for disclaimers. Calling for Christian leaders to urge their people not to do things that no one yet has done
People are not just expressing "concern" they are calling for changes to be made and for people to take action, and attacking Gibson not only for his beliefs, but the beliefs of his father and he's never acknowledged that he believed the same things his father does!
As for a disclaimer - Gibson answered that question. Putting a disclaimer would indicate there is something wrong with his movie, and he doesn't believe there is.
Could you not see that putting a disclaimer in front of the movie could encourage people to then view the movie through eyes that are now looking for reasons to hate the Jewish people? I think it would do more harm than good, by calling attention to something that I just don't think is going to be a big issue with folks.
And I'm wondering, is anti-semitism just not prevalent in the south? Because I live in the bible belt, I am around die-hard southern baptists, presbyterians, and other denominations every day. I have never seen one incidence of violent or hateful behavior toward a jew.
In fact, I know several dyed in the wool southern baptist conservative evangelicals who take aerobics at the Jewish Community Center right alongside their Jewish neighbors, and eat lunch with them and shop with them and let their kids play together. Hardly the environment such seething hatred of all people jewish is going to crop up in, dontcha think?
I am angry about it, because everyone here keeps referring to some invisible stereotypical Christian who does nothing but sit around waiting for any excuse to come along so he can bomb an abortion clinic before noon and beat up some black people and jews before supper. Now, if that person exists, I haven't ever met them.
Yes people have blown up abortion clinics, yes people have attacked Jews with hatred in their hearts but they are hardly common. I think one is more likely to be mugged for money in America than attacked by someone solely because they're Jewish, and as Olivet tried to point out - anyone who would do such a thing after seeing this movie would have done it before seeing it too.
So yeah, I'm taking it personally. I think it's an insult aimed at the millions of people who share my beliefs who would never, never consider doing such things to constantly demand we reassure everyone we aren't going to do them.
It's the equivalent of me saying to a muslim American "Before I do business with you, I want you to reassure me that you don't intend to murder me because you think I'm an infidel." And then if he takes offense and doesn't answer I can label him a bigot who hates Christian Americans.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
quote: “In spring of 2002, just one year ago, we witnessed a striking upsurge of anti-Semitism in many European countries. These incidents included attacks on synagogues, the desecration of cemeteries, and physical assaults on people who appeared to be Jewish,” Smith said.
“Unfortunately U.S. statistics on anti-Semitism present an equally disturbing picture. The number of incidents in the U.S. increased by 8 percent in 2002 to 1,559 according to the ADL. Sadly, my own home state of New Jersey counted 171 incidents,” he added.
[ February 18, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not "expect," Belle.
Fear.
There is a difference.
Do you know what would make me really, really happy? If, after the movie comes out, there is a significant drop in anti-semitic violence -- or even no change, and a drop in violence overall. I think that would be WONDERFUL! I don't want to be RIGHT on this! Please, please, please prove me wrong! Prove my fears irrational and unfounded!
I promise to say thank you. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Then Belle what should we do?
You take offense when people show their worries that the lunatic fringe who claim to be Christian will use this movie as a rallying point to push their hate filled messages.
Should they ignore these fears?
Should they just assume that nothing bad can or will happen? Should they assume that all the bad things that happened in the past won't happen again?
They know and admit that the movie will not create mass violence. It may, unfortunately, direct the violence some are capable of, to a specific target.
What will happen to the Christian community if something should happen?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, Dan, I'd turn that around. If the movie isn't anti-semetic, then what should Gibson do with regards to this issue before the movie is released?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Is there another example in history of a Christ-centered movie coming out, followed by a barrage of attacks on Jews across America? I mean, it's not like the story has changed over the years. Is there anything that someone can point to?
I'm much more afraid of the paranoid and prejudice-filled attitudes that pervade all segments of our population, who leap instantly to their own defense, even when they are not attacked, as though all the world was an enemy. I'm not talking about Jews in particular, here, since of all people, they have good historical reasons to be skeptical. But it seems to be an increasing problem in this country, and this situation isn't exactly helping.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Movie? Not that I am aware of. But then, do many deal with the Passion? (Honest question -- I have no idea.)
Passion plays? Ohhhhh, yeah.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Here is a Study Guide for the movie put out by the National Council of Churches’ Interfaith Relations Committee. I think I will be using it as part of post-movie discussion groups.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I think you missed a large part of my point. Revenge motivation is unequivocly un-christian. You can claim that revenge is justifed, but it can never be christian. It can however be a big part of being CHRISTIAN. I'd even say it's even one of the main parts of it.
I don't think that anyone is really worried about christians becoming more violent in deed or at least thought towards jews, but we're damn sure worried about this from CHRISTIANS. And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, the revenge conversation was one of those I wasn't actually there for...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Back that up please. Just because the obnoxious people get all the press coverage does not mean there aren’t more people quietly going about their daily lives trying to live out their faith and make the world a more loving place.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The ironic thing is that objections to the movie by Jews is causing anger toward Jews far more than the movie seems to be. In some ways I believe that the Jews are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You have to understand that attacking this movie is really attacking the core beliefs of Christians of most stripes. So far of what I know of the movie, Jews are not just attacking a portrayal of Jesus; but the very Scriptures themselves as that is what the Movie is based upon. It is as if the Jews are asking for Christians to sanitize or condemn a part of their heritage and faith. THAT is what is really getting so many people riled up by the Jews insistance that something is wrong with this film -- including Mormons who typically feel they are spiritually connected to the Jewish people.
You might have a few "secularized" Christians who are on the Jews side on this, but they do not represent the mainstream view of the story of Jesus and his death or resurrection. In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
I am not willing to stipulate to that. A movie is always an adaptation. Even if all the dialogue is directly out of the scripture, there are still many directorial and interpretive choices to be made. The movie is one man’s interpretation of a part of Christian scripture. That in no way makes it synonymous with Christianity as a whole.
And I don’t think anyone who knows me would call me a “secularized” Christian, but I am on Rivka and Ela’s side in this discussion, insofar as I sympathize with their concerns and share some of their fears.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Steve and I discussed this over dinner last night. He basically took the "Well it was made with private money so if you don't like it don't watch it" stance. I pointed out that Mel G. was looking for sanction from religious leaders other than his own. And was wanting to have his cake and eat it too as it were. He didn't think Mel should really have been looking for that approval, or shouldn't have been upset when he didn't get it from everyone.
The clincher for him changing his opinion was when I brought up the number of people going, "Well it can't happen here", when referring to pogroms and the like. He nearly choked on his soup at that point and said, "Yeah and that was what they were saying in Germany in the 1930s too. Of COURSE it can happen here!"
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've read some of the reviews from those who have seen the movie.
I feel very assured that the controversey will dissapear once people can actually see this movie. It's supposed to be amazing, and the stunned response from those who have seen it is not a riotous call to arms, but a note of respect.
I think it's going to be fine. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity.
I have a problem with every single media the Mormon Church has issued since 'The Lamb of God.'
Does that mean I have a problem with Mormonism?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the heart of the Christian complaints about how the movie is treated can be seen in this quote:
quote:I keep getting the feeling that Gibson, in his real life role as an early Christian, wants to be whipped and hung on a cross so he, too, can be a martyr like Jesus. Well Mel, first you would have to study the laws of Torah and become wholly Jewish like Jesus. Then you have to adopt the role of a charismatic Jew, preaching to his people to follow the laws of Torah as given to the Jewish people by G-d through Moses. Only then could you volunteer to be one of the Jewish crucifixion victims.
Mel, I am sure that once you became an authentic Jew, the Church of Rome would be glad to hang you on a tree trunk or - at least - go to Home Depot for a neatly trimmed Post and Post Hole Digger.
This is a rabble-rousing film by Gibson, sure to exacerbate violent anti-Semitism. When (not if) synagogues are torched and Jews assaulted due to Gibson's incitement, dust off the law books and sue Gibson, the film distributors, theaters and all connected with this Hollywood travesty.(emphasis added)
Dagonee
[ February 19, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
Occasional, becareful of placing this movie on too high a pedestal, especially before you've seen it. "If you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie, you have a problem with Christianity" places this movie alongside the bible as sacred. It aint. If I think the acting is bad or the lighting is off, that doesn't mean I think that Christianity has problems.
On the bigger picture, the scene that is causing the concern is where a pronoucement is made that the Jews attending Christ's trial accept the responsibility for his death. The responsibility falls on them and their children.
To some Christians this means that those present were legally responsible for Christ's death.
To others, this means that all Jews are now, and will forever be held responsible for Christ's death.
While every Christian church I've heard of now denounces that second opinion, it is still out there in the public, and may be picked up on by those who have little understanding about Christianity.
A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
Oh, and while there have been few Passion movies, and few Pogroms in the US after those movies (the early films of the 30's had some of each, but the records of such anti-semetic behavior were rarely kept) there is a long history of such violence occuring after Passion plays.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian
He showed it to 300 people from Ain't It Cool News.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
I agree, but we probably disagree as to what would constitute open and understanding.
quote:The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
The ADL opened the issue by asking to see the film and possibly suggest changes based on their fears of anti-Semitism. They have problems with the way the events are presented – in other words they want Gibson to make changes to his portrayal of the central story of his faith. The following quotes are from the ADL and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" FAQ:
“We have repeatedly tried to reach out to discuss this with Mr. Gibson. ADL continues to hope that Icon Productions will respond positively to our numerous requests to work constructively with Mr. Gibson to ensure a responsible and accurate film.”
“We were saddened and pained to find that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.”
“The core issues are whether the movie inaccurately and unjustly portrays Jews as evil, responsible for the crucifixion, and whether such a depiction will re-stimulate old anti-Semitic stereotypes and hatred. The division is between those who want to prevent possible anti-Semitism and prejudice from occurring and those who seem callous to the dangers that the movie may cause.”
These quotes suggest that the ADL is asking for editorial input into the film. I have a hard time faulting a director for saying, “No, I’m not going to allow an outside organization to have that kind of input in my film.” I also resent the implication that not wanting people who hold the central tenets of Christianity to be false to have input into the film are “callous to the dangers” of anti-Semitism. They may just want to make a film about their own religion without input from people not of their religion.
quote:It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
It would have been nice. But given the attitude expressed here (that the contents of the film itself is in some way objectionable), I’d be hesitant to give them more ammunition in advance.
quote:A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I don’t think most people think this, which is why I hesitated to get involved in this discussion.
quote:I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
I’m sad about it, too. It’s also a shame that some of the feeling of being threatened (not physically) is justified. On this forum alone, where tolerance is generally much greater than elsewhere, non-Christians have called for changes to some core Christian doctrine in the name of abolishing bigotry. I hear anti-Catholic diatribes weekly (some from Protestants, most from non-Christians). I don’t fear for my physical safety in most cases, so I’m better off than many. But there is a growing sense that religion is “inappropriate” somehow.
The things that “threaten” Christians in this country are those things that tend to suggest a Christian should compromise their faith somehow to be acceptable. As I’ve argued before, this sense is the heart of much Christian objection to homosexual civil unions (more accurately, objections to the arguments articulated to support homosexual civil unions). Same thing applies here, because the sense is that non-Christians want a say in how the Christian faith is presented.
Dagonee P.S., I agree with you that raising this film up to any kind of coeval status with scripture is not a good idea.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thanks Dag
I know that Belle and OSC-Fan and others have been trying to get the same point across, but I think I finally get it.
This is a Christian movie.
It tells THE Christian story.
The fact that others, non-Christians mostly, are asking to change it is a threat to your freedom to believe as you see fit, for it is a direct attack on Mel Gibson to demonstrate his religion as he sees it.
Nobody is saying that he, or anyone, could demonstrate thier beliefs in a way that will cause violence.
However, true Christians will not leap to violence because of this movie. It is argued that nobody will, or that those people who may leap to violence will have been violent anyway, and may wrongly use this movie as a justification, possibly.
Still, the question I am left with:
Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What if Mel is telling the truth? That there is no blame cast, and the movie portrays the experience with power and love?
Will you hold him responsible for what idiots think? Ender's Game casts Ender as a hero, and he manages to beat two boys to death before the age of 14. Is OSC responsible for kids who think it's cool to END the teasing?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm wondering whether Hatrack went through the same kind of debate clear back at "Y2K" time --
"what MIGHT happen, and what might NOT happen"
I wonder if there are any threads from back that far?
But I'm not a "Miss Cleo" -- I can't see the future. I don't know whether this will cause action against the Jews or not -- I certainly hope not, and as a Christian, I would be horrified at any action people take against each other.
But there are also sick people out there that do things I can't comprehend. Just looking for an excuse to do them. Would changing the movie really change those people?
So that is why there is no one that can yet say what the reaction will be -- good or bad.
I'm personally not to concerned about what Mel Gibson's personal beliefs are. I don't like the beliefs of Kirstie Alley and some others, but I watch their shows.....
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Short answer is anyone who feels the need to hide their faith due the threat of physical violence is suffering a greater threat than someone being pressured to change his faith in other ways. Hands down, no question on that one.
I'm confused on the first part of the question. If you mean having non-believers request that he edit it down, I don't see the mere request as a "threat" because Gibson is resisting the notion. My worry would be that Christians start altering their message in response to such pressure. In this sense, the threat is an internal response to external pressure, not an external threat. But the sense of feeling “threatened” and needing to stand fast is just as real.
Watered down religion seems very, very dangerous to me – in some ways more dangerous than non-violent fundamentalism. By this I mean altering or merely deemphasizing “difficult” doctrines in order to make the religion more palatable to non-believers. This can happen as a response to such pressures as I discussed earlier, which I see as resulting from lack of resolve, or from a desire to make proselytizing easier, which I see as resulting from a lack of conviction.
By this I don’t mean listening to other people’s difficulties with the religion and taking these difficulties into account when sharing your faith. For example, suppose a Protestant expressed discomfort at Mary’s role in the Catholic faith. I wouldn’t then leave that aspect of my faith out of any future discussion. Instead I would explain the difference between worship, veneration, and reverence and how these concepts interact with respect to Mary. I probably wouldn’t convince him, but I also wouldn’t be denying an aspect of my faith.
In the case of this film, I think it is imperative that Gibson, his supporters, and any priests, pastors, etc. who speak of this film provide both the correct interpretation about respective Jewish and Roman authorities’ roles in the crucifixion and the proper Christian response to such roles.
Nor do I think the ADL was out of line in its requests. I just don’t think Gibson is blameworthy for not responding to requests to change the film or even to requests to discuss changing the film. I do think Gibson should meet with the ADL to discuss effective means of communicating the ideas in the previous paragraph and to condemn anyone who commits violence in Christ’s name.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, I'll get the real reason out of the way first, so that people can go into get ignoring it over with right way. Surveys of religious people, many of them carried out by religious people themselves, in America have consistently shown significantly higher levels of prejudice and in-group/out-group thinking than in non-religious people. Now, I looked back over the stuff I've read on this and the latest date I have is from 1978. It's possible that things have changed dramatically since then, but I have no reason to believe that this is true. That's the main reason, that people (including those who were invested in finding the opposite) have used methods I trust and consistently come up results that show this.
My other reasons are inferential. First, America as a whole has a big problem with factionalism. Since a large majority of Americans are Christian, I'd expect that their values would be reflected in the American national character.
Second, the doctrine of many Christian denominations is geared towards an in-group/out-group conception of the world. I'd argue that this is compounded by the focus of many of the Protestant denominations on faith only and a neglect of works.
Third, experiences from my childhood completely surrounded by Catholics taught me how prejudiced they are and how invested many of the leaders of the religion are in propgating this prejudice. A friend of mine who is now a Cathloic priest has frequently complained of this to me in his ministry and dealings with his superiors.
Forth, as far as I can tell, there have been no recent major inter-Christian movements that haven't centered on specific issues, such as anti-homosexuality. I could be wrong about that. How have your experiences with inter-faith stuff gone?
Look, I'm tired of having this discussion. I have this other nice thread that I'm honestly much more interested in. I've really tried to talk about positive things that I'm interested in, but they don't seem to get anywhere near the attention that me challenging things does.
I'll state it plain. I have major problems with mainstream Christianity. I also have major problems with mainstream American culture. As far as I can tell - and I try to be thorough about this - I have at least partially legitimate reasons for these problems. When I talk about them, I'm not some raving Christian-hater. I an genuinely concerned about these things, not just because of their effect on society, but because of the individuals who are caught up in them. I think that Christians all over would do themselves a great service if they took a long, hard look at their frankly awful history and at their troubled present, instead of immediately falling into apologist/defensive mode*. I could be wrong about this. Also, I honestly believe that a sort of Christian renewal is one of the best hopes for increasing the health in American culture, which is one of the main reasons that it's a big issue for me. I could be wrong about that too.
I also could be wrong that my opinions deserve at least a little bit of respect. Maybe people ignore and dismiss me because I'm lacking either intelligence or intellectual integrity, instead of because I'm saying bad things about CHRISTIANS. Maybe people whose ancestors were persecuted for 1000 or so years by Christians are off base for being concerned about this happening again. Maybe, despite the fact that the vast majority of people talking about this are expressing that concern and not calling for a boycott or censorship of the movie, that's the opinion that people are constantly fighting against isn't a cause for concern because of it's defensive nature. I just really don't see this.
* I've had people who have done this (yourself included dkw) and I think that our conversations have been interesting and meaningful.
[ February 19, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian
Jeez, Squicky, your post made me want to give you a hug.
----
Did I mention I appreciated you answering my conversion question a while back? That was very a polite answer. Thank you.
[ February 19, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I have a problem with every single media the Mormon Church has issued since 'The Lamb of God.
Thank-you! So I'm not the only one, phew. *wipes sweat off brow*
Hobbes Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I really like that Denis Prager guy.
quote: Just as Jews are responding to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism (virtually all of it in Europe), many Christians are responding to decades of Christian-bashing -- films and art mocking Christian symbols, a war on virtually any public Christian expression (from the death of the Christmas party to the moral identification of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims). Moreover, many Jewish groups and media people now attacking "The Passion" have a history of irresponsibly labeling conservative Christians anti-Semitic.
Edit: I think this is what's happenning in this thread, too. Much like the Child-free restaurants and theaters thread, where people were responding more to outrageous experiences of their own (as people having nice outings ruined by rowdy kids or as parents having been sneered at for having the gall to reproduce) than to the actual question at hand.
[ February 19, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dennis is indeed a great guy. (Thanks for the link, Magson, the paper which I saw his review (reprinted?) in isn't online.) And while I don't agree with him on all issues, I respect him greatly. Important points he makes include:
quote: The increasing tension over this film has reinforced impressions I offered Mel Gibson that day. When watching "The Passion," Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films.
quote: It is essential that Christians understand this. Every Jew, secular, religious, assimilated, left-wing, right-wing, fears being killed because he is Jewish. This is the best-kept secret about Jews, who are widely perceived as inordinately secure and powerful. But it is the only universally held sentiment among Jews. After the Holocaust and with Islamic terrorists seeking to murder Jews today, this, too, is not paranoid.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Wow, I totally spaced on what he was talking about. Sorry.
Anyway, I found these two articles interesting, and in a roundabout way, I Found them pertinent to this thread.
I think that WWII could happen all over again. If you go back and look at what led up to WWII, there are striking similarities. While there are different ethnic groups being targeted, the frightening thing is that we didn't seem to remember much of the lesson from WWII.
And I'm a bit tired of people dismissing others fears. Till you've been the target, you'll never understand what they are talking about anyway, so practice that Christianity and empathize. Don't be so critical. Try to understand their concern. "Walk a mile in his shoes" and all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Don't be so critical. Try to understand their concern. "Walk a mile in his shoes" and all.
What's good for the goose...
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
I'm not pretending to be a Christian.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're not pretending to be all that civil either, jack. Is your tone really necessary?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There have been several good posts in this thread attempting to explain both (or actually, four or five) different sides of this issue, including the different fears of the different people involved.
Are you saying you don't need to try to understand others' fears?
Dagonee
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Yeah, because "what's good for the goose" was so civil?
Sorry, this was meant to go after rivka's post.
[ February 19, 2004, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was trying to make a point about practicing what you preach.
Not accusing you of pretending to be something.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Oh, trust me, I understand defensiveness. You just don't seem to understand reasonable fear.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
After all, I'm the one who posted Michael Medved's article. Did you read it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
jack,
You've continually refused to respond to substantive responses to your posts in this thread.
Then you've mischaracterized (or dismissed, you pick) other people's concerns as "defensiveness."
You've basically proven you have no desire to have a real dialog on this subject.
Dagonee
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm on a mailing list for a privately owned and state of the art theater in Abingdon, Virginia. It's a complex that has many screens, a restaurant, laser tag, bumper cars, etc. It's really cool and If I still lived close enough, I'd go see all big action flicks there. Lots of times a member of the family that owns the theater even addresses the audience before big openings, to tell them of the theater's latest improvements and plans for upgrades, etc.
If there was anything else interesting for 50 miles, I'd have had WenchCon there.
In any case, I just got this rather puzzling email that was sent to the list. I found it disturbing. I mean, this is the most interesting entertainment complex for probably a few hundred miles. They have free children's movies on Saturday mornings and show art films that the typical rural moviegoer wouldn't care to see (albeit on special "Arts Array" showings) which is more than the local chain theaters do.
But the community IS very religious, so maybe it makes sense. Anyway, here it is:
quote: SPECIAL BULLETIN:
DUE TO THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST', ABINGDON CINEMALL HAS BEEN AWARDED MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE MOVIE. PLEASE CHECK OUR MULTIPLE SHOWTIMES LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE. NO ONE WILL BE TURNED AWAY.
IN ADDITION, THE OWNERS OF THE CINEMALL HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRODUCTION COMPANY OF 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST' AND HAVE REQUESTED THAT A MEMBER OF THE CAST OR OF THE PRODUCTION TEAM MAKE A PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT THE CINEMALL. MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS SOON...
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
quote: Woman Collapses During Showing of "The Passion Of The Christ" Wichita KAKE News
A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". Peggy Law apparently suffered a heart attack. She was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center.
Peggy Law, also known to some by her married name Peggy Scott is a respected figure in the local broadcasting community. The tragedy has hit some here at KAKE especially hard. She was a former employee.
People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say Law collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown.
A few off-duty doctors and nurses who were in the audience tried to revive her. But when she was taken away in the ambulance, authorities say Law still had no pulse.
The movie has been criticized for it's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death. Religious leaders around the country and here in Wichita say people need to be prepared for the graphic brutality.
Whether Law's death and the timing in the film are related, we will never know, but religious and medical officials stress this film is not for the faint-hearted.
So how many threads are you going to post that on? I've already counted three...
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
well I figured I'd put it on all of the major related ones. some people don't read all the threads anyway. I think I stopped at three <grin>
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is it true that the film depicted the cross being made in the temple, or was that just buzz? I still don't plan to see the movie because it doesn't sound like it addresses the spiritual atonement in Gethsemane and doesn't emphasize the resurrection enough. I mean, if they really emphasized the resurrection a lot of Jews would just treat this as science fiction. Which it is, if you don't believe in the resurrection. (but I do)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why do you single out Jews in that statement, pooka? Not that I agree with it in general terms either . . .
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Not that I remember, pooka. I just seem to remember the cross somewhere in the outdoor vicinity the Roman Consul.
And the way I reconcile the small part of Gethsemene is thinking to myself "this stuff that happened right before the crucifixion was gross, bloody, and painful, but NOTHING compared to what He went through in Gethsemene." Mel Gibson wouldn't agree, but there you go.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, Gethsemane as depicted in the film was pretty intense. The way they handled the "beads of sweat" was...well done beyond my expectations. He was obviously suffering A LOT there. And you'll notice it's the only time in the film where the Satan persona makes physical contact... and that's when Jesus makes his major physical act against Satan as well. The Gethsemane opening was amazing, in my opinion. As was the rest of the film. Due to the aspectre's of the world, I actually went into the film with some reservations, wondering exactly how brutal and graphic it would be. and while it was, it was in a way more 'tame' than I had been led to believe. Oh, yes, it's brutal. Heart-breakingly brutal. But people like aspectre who would call it 'snuff porn'? It's an accusation nearly as ridiculously unfounded as the accusations of Anti-Semitism. This is not a film about hate, it's a film about deep deep love. And I was moved to tears at several instances.
[ February 26, 2004, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think I have mentioned that one of the women in my Torah study class is Catholic. She has an article on Christian reactions to Jewish reactions to the movie in the current Christianity Today.
quote: Like commentators before me, I also believe that the highly publicized nature of the charge of anti-Semitism relative to this film was brought about in error. My experience in both Protestant and Catholic circles in Texas and California has been one of witnessing the power of Christ's Passion to inspire sincere individuals toward repentance and love–certainly not hatred toward Jews. So I too have winced when I've read what sounds like over-the-top predictions of violence against Jews come Ash Wednesday.
On the other hand, through my learning and teaching within the Jewish community and being a guest at many a Shabbat table, I've heard worries honestly expressed and am therefore moved to plead with my Christian brothers and sisters to respond with compassion when Jews raise questions about the net effect The Passion will have on their welfare.
Those who defend The Passion seldom take these fears to heart. Worse yet, I've witnessed in these months leading up to the film's release a persistent tendency by writers who profess to be Christians to write off "Foxman and company" with such words as "kibitzers," "leftists," and "opportunistic fundraisers."
quote: It's not enough to say, "I saw the movie, and it's not anti-Semitic. And besides Jesus was a Jew and so were his disciples. Get over it!" Rather let us speak with assurance that anti-Semitism has no place in our churches and will not be tolerated should this sin rear its head. It is in this manner that we can guard against evil people using the film or the controversy surrounding it as reasons to target the Jewish community.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry if I singled out Jews, rivka. Muslims and professed atheists as well don't believe in the resurrection. The idea of the cross being made in the temple seemed the most far fetched anti-semitic aspect, but it seems to have been a rumour.
I don't mean to say belief in the resurrection is a default state that only Jews don't share. A lot of Christans struggle with it. Some think of Christ more as a great teacher than of the atonement.
I guess the dilemma of seeing this movie if I merely wished the resurrection were real would be much greater.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Certainly nowhere in the Bible.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I repeat, I don't think he or the movie is anti-semitic. I am not asking for the movie to be changed.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dan_Raven![[Eek!]](eek.gif)