← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 12445 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-02-22
2004-02-22 09:46 | User Profile
February 19, 2004
[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22601&vm_id=89]Catholic League[/URL] president William Donohue commented today on the way some critics of ââ¬ÅThe Passion of the Christââ¬Â are behaving:
ââ¬ÅWith the opening of ââ¬ËThe Passion of the Christââ¬â¢ less than a week away, it is obvious that some of the filmââ¬â¢s critics are cracking up. For example, gossip maven Liz Smith today echoes ADL chief Abe Foxmanââ¬â¢s remark that Mel Gibson is a ââ¬Ëtrue believer.ââ¬â¢ Ex-priest John Dominic Crossan accuses Mel of ââ¬Ëplaying with dynamite,ââ¬â¢ offering that the film is ââ¬Ëdangerously irresponsible.ââ¬â¢ Bart Charlow, director of the National Conference for Community and Justice, says Mel is ââ¬Ëtreading on ancient and dangerous grounds,ââ¬â¢ adding that it may lead to ââ¬Ësynagogue firebombings.ââ¬â¢ Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee is upset about a scene in which Jesus is hung over a bridge by chains; Rudin says this wasnââ¬â¢t in the New Testament. Abe Foxman says the movie betrays Vatican II and that the Church has ââ¬Ëa responsibility to stand up to defend its own teaching.ââ¬â¢ And several media talk-show hosts have grilled me about the propriety of young people seeing a movie with so much violence.
ââ¬ÅThe term ââ¬Ëtrue believerââ¬â¢ was coined by philosopher Eric Hoffer to describe fanatics, both religious and secular. In other words, it accurately describes Melââ¬â¢s most extreme critics. Those who are sounding the alarms over anti-Semitic violence are historically ignorant: the last time Jews were assaulted after the production of a Passion Play was in the Middle Ages. As for fidelity to the New Testament, Mel is not obligated to tailor his interpretation of the Bible according to someone elseââ¬â¢s politically correct straightjacket. If they donââ¬â¢t like his version, they can always make their own. Moreover, it takes chutzpah for a non-Catholic to lecture the Church about defending its teachings, simply because he doesnââ¬â¢t like a movie the Church had nothing to do with. As for the violence, it is amazing to hear those who think itââ¬â¢s okay for a teenager to submit her unborn child to lethal violenceââ¬âwithout parental consentââ¬ânow worry whether she is able to endure a movie about the death of Jesus.
ââ¬ÅThese critics are cracking up. But their demagoguery is failing: they cannot stop the movie from being a blockbuster.ââ¬Â
2004-02-22 10:43 | User Profile
Walter,
If they donââ¬â¢t like his version, they can always make their own.
I'd submit to you that they have done that several times over the last few years. In those versions some of the people bitching the most about this version were defending those other ones under the grounds of "artistic freedom", ect.
Moreover, it takes chutzpah for a non-Catholic to lecture the Church about defending its teachings, simply because he doesnââ¬â¢t like a movie the Church had nothing to do with.
Nah, they can't help themselves. They do that to everyone about everything they disagree with. They won't be happy until they are allowed to script all things to their liking. One really wishes some of these so-called religious leaders would tell Foxman and company to mind their own business and go straight to hell.
2004-02-22 10:45 | User Profile
EMAIL THIS | Close
The Passion' can benefit both faiths
By DEBORAH M. LAUTER
Deborah M. Lauter is Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.
On Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, Icon Pictures will release Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." From all accounts, it is a moving, emotional, violent depiction of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus. The Anti-Defamation League is concerned that the movie could reignite latent anti-Semitism in people who hold Jews responsible for the death of Jesus.
In initial screenings, while one movie was shown, two movies were seen. Most Jews who have seen it have been troubled by the film's depiction of the Jews being blamed for Jesus' death. They see Gibson's film reinforcing the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion. The Christians who have seen the film have said they did not see any anti-Jewish aspects of the film, only Jesus' suffering for all people.
ADL has never tried to censor Gibson's movie. We have only urged him to consult with interfaith professionals and New Testament experts to ensure a historically accurate and theologically responsible film. We asked him to assume sensitivity and moral responsibility, which are obligations of all good people, and particularly artists who influence many around the world.
We are disappointed that this movie may still include divisive and hateful portrayals of Jews that run contrary to biblical scholarship and the teachings of Vatican II that repudiated the notion of Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus.
This movie may well become the "standard text" for its viewers, a shared memory of the story for years to come. It could turn back the clock in Christian-Jewish relations if that shared memory includes inaccurate and biased portrayals of Jews and their culpability in Jesus' death.
We are concerned that, through its global distribution in both movie theaters and by DVD, the movie will have an even greater impact in countries where notions of deicide are still strongly held, and where there are fewer Jews and fewer opportunities for learning and dialogue.
We want our friends in the Christian community to understand why, and in what ways, we are concerned about this film. Over the last 2,000 years, four words have fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ." We are concerned about this message wrapped up in a popular film that's couched as gospel truth and produced by a popular entertainment figure.
We want them to know that we respect their Bible, and the faith that it represents. We would not dream of censoring their stories, or telling them what to believe, any more than we would expect them to tell us what to believe.
We ask Christian leaders to speak out to educate their communities about contemporary Christian thought that rejects any interpretation of collective Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death. We encourage those who view this film to do so with faith that all were responsible, and that anyone who uses this film to fuel the passion of hatred towards Jews and Judaism has turned from the true teachings of Jesus.
This film presents a "teachable moment." We must seize it to recommit to the progress made in interfaith relations and to foster mutual understanding and respect.
Deborah M. Lauter is Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.
[url]http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/19christ.html[/url]
2004-02-22 11:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]ADL has never tried to censor Gibson's movie. We have only urged him to consult with interfaith professionals and New Testament experts to ensure a historically accurate and theologically responsible film. We asked him to assume sensitivity and moral responsibility, which are obligations of all good people, and particularly artists who influence many around the world.[/QUOTE]
Dear ADL:
So, did the ADL take a strong stance against "Pi$$ Christ" and the picture of Our Lady made from elephant dung, especially in view of the fact that the museum directors who supported this "art" were almost all Jews?
I don't recall that, and if so (please correct me if I'm wrong) one can only assume that the ADL, along with the Jewish museum directors, consider these works "theologically responsible" and "historically accurate."
Of course, such would fit with Talmudic teachings about both Jesus and Mary, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Jews work against the New Testament version of the Jesus story and toward scatological depictions of Jesus and His Mother, because simply put that's what Jews believe. Let's be clear on this point: the Talmud teaches that Jesus was a sorcerer convicted by a Jewish tribunal for leading the nation into idolotry. It also teaches that he is being boiled in excrement in hell, and that he was conceived of a whore named Miriam the hairdresser by a Roman soldier named Pantera during her menses.
Of course, the question arises why the ADL would argue about the Jews killing Jesus when the most holy book of Judaism teaches exactly that, but of course that's just a tactical move to deflect the conversation from the real issue, which is the fact that Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally at odds with each other. Judeo-Christianity is an oxymoron. It is a lie, and those advancing it are liars by definition.
St. Paul answered the question nearly 2,000 years ago, when he wrote in his letter to the Romans that the Jews are the enemies of the Gospel. The question of course arises why any Christian society would tolerate enemies in its midsts, and the obvious answer is that only a fool would permit natural subversives to dwell among them. It follows, then, that we Christians have acted and continue play the fool.
Do aliyah, my Jewish friends. Just go home. You're bad for us. And we're bad for you. If you really care about us as you say you do, you'll leave us forever. And you'll being doing yourselves a big favour in the process.
You're really not fit for Christian society.
Walter
2004-02-22 22:01 | User Profile
"We want our friends in the Christian community to understand why, and in what ways, we are concerned about this film. Over the last 2,000 years, four words have fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ." We are concerned about this message wrapped up in a popular film that's couched as gospel truth and produced by a popular entertainment figure."
This begs the question of who was supposed, blamelessly (if not creditably) and in lieu of the Jews, to have offed Jesus in irresistible fulfillment of purported prophecy so that he could get on with the supposed sacrificial salvation of believing humanity? How can any of the actors in God's little stage production be held to some moral responsibility for merely playing their necessary parts?
2004-02-22 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] St. Paul answered the question nearly 2,000 years ago, when he wrote in his letter to the Romans that the Jews are the enemies of the Gospel. The question of course arises why any Christian society would tolerate enemies in its midst[], and the obvious answer is that only a fool would permit natural subversives to dwell among them. It follows, then, that we Christians have acted and continue [to] play the fool.[/QUOTE]
Hmmmm...Could it be that the Gospels are not reciprocally the enemy of the Jews, and in fact are in the implicit service thereof? Does it not follow, then, that the Nazis did and do not likewise foolishly permit natural subversives to dwell among them, because the antithetical Mein Kampf represents the race's recovery of its senses after the fatuous intoxication and insanity of past millenia?
2004-02-22 22:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Do aliyah, my Jewish friends. Just go home. You're bad for us. And we're bad for you. If you really care about us as you say you do, you'll leave us forever. And you'll being doing yourselves a big favour in the process.
You're really not fit for Christian society.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Silly Walter, the Jews are at home here in Greater Judea! You - Walter, my brother in dispossession - are the mis-fit hereabouts, thanks to your self-admittedly fatuous Christianity!