Skip to comments.Where was Foxman when Eisner and Weinstein (Miramax) were mocking Lent in "40 days and 40 nights"?
Posted on 02/21/2004 7:52:54 PM PST by churchillbuff
As this letter from Bill Donohoe of the Catholic League, two years ago, noted, the Disney/Miramax sex movie, "40 days and 40 nights" not only mocked Lent (and, hence, Christianity), it heaped insult on injury by opening during Lent. Wasn't this an example of Christian bashing by Hollywood (and by two Jewish executives)? But WHERE WAS ABE FOXMAN TO DENOUNCE THIS SACRILIGE? Apparently he can only denounce Christian movies, like Mel's. I for one am tired of the Passion being labeled "controversial," when anti-christian crap is put out incessently by the Hollywood trash and hate merchants -- without a peep from Foxman.
February 5, 2002
APPEAL TO MICHAEL EISNER AND HARVEY WEINSTEIN: RESCHEDULE 40 DAYS AND 40 NIGHTS
Catholic League president William Donohue has asked Disney chairman Michael Eisner and Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein to reschedule the opening of 40 Days and 40 Nights (the movie is a Miramax production and Disney is the parent company of Miramax). The film portrays actor Josh Hartnett as a Catholic who pledges to give up sex for Lent but has his will tested by his ex-girlfriend. It is scheduled to open March 1. Lent begins February 13 and runs through Easter, March 31. Donohue is requesting that the movie open sometime after Easter. He explained his reasoning as follows:
In my letter to Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein, I asked each of them to intercede on behalf of Catholics by doing whatever they could to reschedule the movie. To show a film that parodies Lent in a most vulgar way is bad enough, I said, but to show it during Lent is outrageous. It is no wonder the Fort Worth Star Telegram commented, Pretty sensitive of Miramax to schedule a film mocking Lent during Lent, eh? Indeed, the movie is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language and is noted for its vulgar sex gags. Now if this is Weinsteins Lenten gift to Catholics, he can keep it.
On the Miramax website, it says the movie is based on the real-life experience of the films writer, Rob Perez. Yet the movies publicist tells us that Lent was used merely as a vehicle for the character to give up sexso as to make the story cute. But wouldnt it have been just as cute to portray the character as a Muslim who gives up sex from sundown to sunset during Ramadan and is tempted during the day? That, however, would have cast Weinstein as being insensitive to Muslims and that is not a sin he wants to commit. Indeed, Weinstein postponed the film Gangs of New York after 9-11 saying, in light of the ever-changing current events, we have chosen to err on the side of sensitivity and postpone the wide release of the film until 2002. Wonderful. Now if only he treats Catholics the way he does Muslims and New York thugs, Catholics will be delighted.
From the Catholic League:
Release Date: Sept 20, 2002
Miramax is at it again.
For Immediate Release: Miramax, a film distribution arm of Disney, has a history of antagonizing Catholic audiences with the distribution of movies like "Butcher Boy" and "40 Days and 40 Nights," as well as the notoriously anti-Catholic films: "Priest" and "Dogma."
Now Miramax is at it again. They have chosen to distribute "The Magdalene Sisters." A film by director Peter Mullan that has been described as a "scathing attack" on the Catholic Church, and more specifically, one order of Irish nuns.
The subject of this film is 19th and 20th century religious institutions, derisively know as "Magdalene Laundries." These institutions worked with homeless women and prostitutes, long before modern social programs were developed. Exploiting the fact that by today's standards the conditions of such institution were harsh, the film depicts the Catholic nuns as particularly cruel, heartless women. We wonder what purpose is served by maligning the nuns who selflessly cared for troubled women at a time when society dismissed them as outcasts. The reality that such institutions were run by a variety of denominations, also leads one to question why the ire of the director, and the distributor, is aimed solely at Catholics
Catholic Civil Rights League president Thomas Langan stated:
"Until such time as a film is made depicting the egotistical brothers who co-own a Disney affiliated, anti-Catholic film house, we will join the US Catholic League's boycott of Miramax. We too are petitioning Disney's CEO Michael Eisner to act responsibly and dump this house of film disrepute. Let Miramax distribute what it wants, but not with the backing of the family friendly Disney.
"Disney sees fit to post on its website a 'Code of Conduct' to which its partners must comply. The code clearly offers a 'nondiscrimination' clause and also declares a "respect for the right of all individuals." Miramax however, has seen fit to consistently target Catholics in its films, which is an egregious violation of the Disney Code of Conduct. It is time for Disney to extend and enforce this code over its entire company. Dumping Miramax would fulfill this promise to shareholders."
Not that it matters, but I thought I read somewhere that Ann is also catholic.
The spokespersons from CAIR and AIM would go ape over that one. Disney would be forced to put it on the shelf and give a generous donation to a Islamic charity outfit whose funds would be funneled to a terrorist, er, freedom-fighter organization.
Thanks for pointing this out. There have been some scary posts here recently about the Jewish people.
Really? Nothing at all?
That's becoming harder and harder to believe.....
So the fact that Foxman is Jewish has nothing to do with his anti-christian mania? That naive claim is contradicted by Foxman's repeated assertions that he doesn't like Gibson's movie because, in essence, he thinks it's "bad for the Jews."
I don't think that's true. While there are certainly a lot of gentile bigots in the U.S., they're at the lower rungs of society. I challenge you to name PROMINENT christian leaders in politics, society or business - - people comparable in status to eisner or weinstein - - who would dare mock Judaism the way eisner and weinstein (and much of the rest of Hollywood) routinely mock Christianity.
Again, not true - - Foxman, Weinstein and Eisner mock Christianity, but not Judaism. Same with Hollywood in general. You don't see Judaism reviled in the movies the way Christianity is regularly reviled and ridiculed.
And as I suspected, you weren't able to cite any name of a prominent christian business, political or social person, to back up your claim that there are gentiles who mock Judaism the way Foxman, Weinstein and Eisner (and Hollywood) mock Christianity.
I'd say they're being true to an orthodox, conservative understanding of Judaism. The Foxmans, Eisners and Weinsteins are reflecting a strain of Judaism that is liberal and hateful towards christianity and traditional morality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.