← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Dan Dare
Thread ID: 8778 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2003-08-05
2003-08-05 04:30 | User Profile
Just caught the O'Reilley show here on the left coast, and was astounded to to see a third of the show devoted to to a defence of Gibson's movie.
Guests included Cal Thomas and Michael Medved (who was introduced as a senior figure in his local synagogue!?!), both of whom have apparently seen the film and denounced in no uncertain terms the Secularists including the NYT who have accused Gibson of anti-semitism sight unseen.
The term 'Secularist' came up at least 20 times during the segment, who on earth could they have been referring to?
2003-08-05 04:48 | User Profile
O'Reilly quote: The term "Secularist" came up at least 20 times during the segment, who on earth could they have been refering to?
Waiting for these neo-con,dispensational types to mention the word JEW, is like watching a dog trying to lick peanut butter from the roof of it's mouth. :lol:
2003-08-05 09:31 | User Profile
I hate Bill O'Reilly.
2003-08-05 15:03 | User Profile
I'm convinced that O'Reilly is a half-decent man under all his wail and bluster. (But no more than half.)
2003-08-05 18:27 | User Profile
**'Passion' elicits unfair conflict Tue Jul 22, 6:06 AM ET Op/Ed - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!
Michael Medved
Any piece of pop culture that touches on serious religious themes inspires its share of controversy, but the noisy assaults on Mel Gibson's unfinished film The Passion, which describes the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, seem unfair and painfully premature. Indignant denunciations of a movie that its critics haven't even seen, coming nearly a year before that picture's scheduled release, suggest an agenda beyond honest evaluation of the film's aesthetic or theological substance. The explosive charges of anti-Semitism being directed at this project may even threaten the emerging alliance between devout Christians and committed Jews.
ââ¬Â¢ See what the pros make in the new football salaries database ââ¬Â¢ Travel Tools: Check fares, book a ticket, and more! ââ¬Â¢ Today in the Sky: Real-time airport weather, delays, and travel news ââ¬Â¢ Travel deals, news, and features straight to your inbox. Click here to sign up!
Snapshots
USA TODAY Snapshot Have shark populations increased or decreased? More USA TODAY Snapshots
In March, The New York Times Magazine launched the controversy with a hostile story mentioning the movie and featuring an interview with Gibson's 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson. According to the magazine, the old man questioned the commonly accepted figure of 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and entertained conspiracy theories about 9/11. While employing guilt by association and attempting (without evidence) to connect the views of an obscure father to his world-famous son, the Times piece raised alarms about a possibly slanderous portrayal of Jews in the film's graphic depiction of the crucifixion.
Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other groups devoted to combating anti-Semitism issued critical statements about The Passion based on an early draft of the screenplay that the Gibson camp called a ''stolen'' script. Gibson insists he has altered the screenplay substantially since that early draft, but this didn't stop the ADL from issuing an angry statement on June 24, asking: ''Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus? . . . Will it portray Jews and the temple as the locus of evil? . . . ADL stands ready to advise (Gibson's) Icon Productions constructively regarding The Passion to ensure that the final production is devoid of anti-Semitic slander.''
Of course, the ADL might have advised the producers more ''constructively'' with a private phone call, memo or meeting rather than with a thermonuclear press release. As it is, assaults on his unseen film leave Gibson in a painful predicament. If he ignores the ADL and other critics, he faces accusations of ''insensitivity,'' but if he responds to their condemnations by allowing activists to shape his picture's content, then he undermines his announced intention of sparing no expense (including $25 million from his own production firm) to create a film of fearless, uncompromising Gospel authenticity.
In fact, the worries about anti-Semitic messages in the upcoming epic seem overblown based on known facts about the project. Of course, members of the religious establishment in ancient Judea come across badly in New Testament accounts, but beyond these villains, the new movie boasts a Jewish hero (or Hero) -- not to mention many other sympathetic Judeans, including Christ's disciples and mother. Moreover, Gibson emphasizes the Hebraic identity of the Man from Nazareth. Production stills show actor Jim Caviezel as perhaps the most Semitic Jesus in cinema history -- a welcome change from the Nordic Messiahs in many previous films. To make certain no one ignores the Jewish identity of Christ and the Apostles, Gibson insisted that his actors speak nearly all of their lines in Aramaic, the language of ancient Judea and a close cousin of Hebrew.
Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are ''Christ killers.'' But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.
In fact, the plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that ''teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews.''
Ironically, the new debate over these issues comes at a time of unprecedented cooperation between Jews and Christians. Since 9/11 and the chilling wave of homicide bombings in Israel, Jewish Americans have increasingly abandoned their instinctive fear of Christian evangelicals to make common cause with them in defense of the Middle East's only democracy. This troubles liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life. The ADL, for instance, has been outspokenly critical of the so-called Christian right for more than 20 years, despite unstinting support for Israel by these conservatives. In this context, the dispute over The Passion draws attention from the virulent and dangerous anti-Semitism emerging from the Islamic world and instead refocuses concern on the long, tortured history of hatred of Jews by Christians. The controversy also raises pointed questions about Christian conservatives, who have conspicuously embraced many of Gibson's recent projects, including The Patriot and We Were Soldiers.
The beleaguered director hopes to discredit his critics with his movie's artistic quality. In almost plaintive tones, Gibson insists it always has been his intention that The Passion would ''unify people rather than divide them.''
Perhaps his efforts may yet achieve an uplifting ending to the story of his production, allowing the ADL to go back to doing what it does so effectively: concentrate on real dangers to Jews from real enemies who wish us real harm. Certainly, the Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers who loathe both ''Zionists'' (Jews) and ''Crusaders'' (Christians) can only smile at the utterly gratuitous divisions between the two faiths over an unfinished movie.
Film critic and former synagogue president Michael Medved hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio show on politics and pop culture. He is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=679&u=/usatoday/20030722/cm_usatoday/5341935&printer=1]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid...41935&printer=1[/url]**
2003-08-06 04:05 | User Profile
The explosive charges of anti-Semitism being directed at this project may even threaten the emerging alliance between devout Christians and committed Jews.
In that case: keep screaming, Abie baby.
2003-08-06 12:03 | User Profile
The explosive charges of anti-Semitism being directed at this project may even threaten the emerging alliance between devout Christians and committed Jews.
God willing.
2003-08-06 15:04 | User Profile
Cal Thomas whote a column saying "The film does not indict Jews for the death of Jesus. It is faithful to the New Testament account."
And "A Christian friend whispered to me during the scene in which the mob demands that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, order Jesus (who, after all, was Jewish) to be crucified: "What disturbs me is that I might have been part of that crowd. Exactly. Guilt is universal, not particular to the Jews."
And "He said He had the power to lay His life down, and the power to take it up again. That doesn't sound like a murder victim to me."
Cal Thomas either is unfamiliar with the Bible or he's lying for Jews. Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was lost. No one defended him saying "We're all guilty" nor was Judas forgiven.
Likewise, Jesus was betrayed to the Jewish leaders and it was a Jewish mob who insisted that Jesus not be released. There is a difference between being guilty of killing Jesus and being a sinner that we need Jesus. The Bible solidly places the blame of Jews. Jesus talked about God's vengeance on the Jews for killing him.
First Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly indicts the Jews for killing Jesus. "[Jews] killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men."
Cal Thomas then insists that Jesus wasn't even murdered. He reasons that you can't murder the willing. First, it wasn't a quesiton of if Jesus was willing. He said "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Second, as with Judas, just because Jesus allowed it doesn't excuse the perpetrator. If you try to rob me and I let you because I'd prefer not to shoot you, that doesn't make you less guilty of a crime.
Murder is the killing of an innocent person. If Jesus wasn't murdered then he wasn't innocent.
The sad thing is that Thomas isn't ignorant of what I have just said. He has chosen to be a liar.