Photo from "The Passion"

CNN ^ | 2/24/04 | Icon Productions

[Robert Teesdale]

I can't wait to see the film. Anyone who thinks that being put to death by the Romans was a clean, well-groomed exercise in peaceful passing to the next world, is an absolute idiot.

I suspect that people who complain that the movie is too violent, are somewhat ignorant of the facts of life. I want to ask them, what do you think you'd look like after a few hours of scourging and crucifixion?

[Ichneumon]

But lots of effort and time and money has been put into attempting to prevent Mr. Gibson from even making the movie, let alone showing it.

Could you provide some information on these efforts?

[VRWC_minion]

It certainly eliminates the objection he survived and was up and about 3 days later.

[Ichneumon]

"I suspect that people who complain that the movie is too violent," ...have never heard of Quentin Tarantino, or they only approve of violence when it's gratuitous and totally pointless.

Please provide support for your belief that the same people who don't complain about the violence in Tarantino movies, etc., are the same people saying that the Passion is too violent.

[Ichneumon]

I suspect that people who complain that the movie is too violent, are somewhat ignorant of the facts of life. I want to ask them, what do you think you'd look like after a few hours of scourging and crucifixion? Oversensitive dilettantes.

I'm perfectly aware that open-heart surgery is a bloody, disgusting mess too, but that doesn't mean that I'd want to watch such a procedure for a couple of hours.

[Robert Teesdale]

The difficulty Mel Gibson had - as the man who made "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" - in finding a distributor, is a good example. How'd you like to be Mel Gibson's distributor?

The efforts of the ADL and other organizations to slander the film are another.

What's your point?

[Robert Teesdale]

Then don't watch open-heart surgery. No one is compelling you to either watch that, or the Passion.

But complaining that a realistic depiction of Roman execution is "too bloody" makes about as much sense as complaining that a realistic depiction of open-heart surgery is "too bloody".

[mlmr]

I'm perfectly aware that open-heart surgery is a bloody, disgusting mess too, but that doesn't mean that I'd want to watch such a procedure for a couple of hours.


And you have a choice not to watch. But why would you critique something that you wouldn't watch.

[omega4412]

...the inspiration came that compelled the Founding Fathers to prohibit "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"...

I assume their inspiration was English drawing and quartering.

For a description see Coke's speech in the Gunpowder Plot trial in 1606: http://www.shakespeare.com/Today/0127.html

A traitor...shall...be drawn to the place of execution from his prison, as being not worthy any more to tread upon the face of the earth whereof he was made: also for that he hath been retrograde to nature, therefore is he drawn backward at a horse-tail. And whereas God hath made the head of man the highest and most supreme part, as being his chief grace and ornament, he must be drawn with his head declining downward, and lying so near the ground as may be, being thought unfit to take benefit of the common air...

Or read Catherine Drinker Bowen's excellent biography of Coke, The Lion and the Throne.

Or see Braveheart. Mel Gibson playing William Wallace as a Christ figure.

[Mr. Lucky]

Nice try, but you're asking him to prove a negative.

Why don't you try a Google search for any of the negative reviewers of the Passion and refer us to reviews where they objected to the gratuitous violence in pop culture movies.

[Robert Teesdale]

I've read The Lion and the Throne. An excellent look at Coke, and the life and laws of his time. What a story!

[frithguild]

Gnaeus Julius Agricola
In 75 AD II Augusta was transferred to Isca Silurum (Caerleon) in Southern Wales. Between 78 and 84 AD, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the Governor of Britain, undertook invasions of the Celtic controlled regions in the north to stop raids on farms and towns. Legio II Augusta was involved in several of these campaigns including the defeat of the Ordivice tribe in north Wales and the destruction of the Druid stronghold of Mona (Anglesey). In 84 AD at the battle of Mons Graupius, (believed to be near Inverurie, Scotland) he defeated the last large Celtic Army. Tacitus, (biased in the favor of Agricola as he was his son-in-law) provided the only known literary evidence of the battle:

He [Agricola] sent his fleet ahead to plunder at various points and thus spread uncertainty and terror, and, with an army marching light, which he had reinforced with the bravest of the Britons and those whose loyalty had been proved during a long peace, reached the Graupian Mountain, which he found occupied by the enemy. The Britons were, in fact, undaunted by the loss of the previous battle, and welcomed the choice between revenge and enslavement. They had realized at last that common action was needed to meet the common danger, and had sent round embassies and drawn up treaties to rally the full force of all their states. Already more than 30,000 men made a gallant show....


The troops were made for action and ready to rush into it, but Agricola marshalled them with care. The auxiliary infantry, 8,000 in number, made a strong centre, while 3,000 cavalry were thrown out on the flanks. The legions were stationed in front of the camp wall; victory would be vastly more glorious if it cost no Roman blood, whilst, in case of repulse, the legions could restore the day. The British army was stationed on higher ground in a manner calculated to impress and intimidate its enemy. Its van was on the level ground, but the other ranks rose, as it were in tiers, up the gentle slope. The space between the two armies was taken up by the charioteers, clattering on in their wild career. At this point, Agricola, fearing that the enemy with their great superiority in numbers might fall simultaneously on his front and flanks, opened out his ranks. The line now looked dangerously thin, and many urged him to bring up the legions....

The spectacle that followed over the open country was awe-inspiring and grim. Our men followed hard, took prisoners and then killed them, as new enemies appeared. On the enemy's side each man now followed his bent, Some bands, though armed, fled before inferior numbers, some men, though unarmed, insisted on charging to their deaths. Arms, bodies, severed limbs lay all around and the earth reeked of blood; and the vanquished now and then found their fury and their courage again. Indeed, when they reached the woods, they rallied and profited by their local knowledge to ambush the first rash pursuers....Only night and exhaustion ended the pursuit. Of the enemy some 10,000 fell, on our side 360.

Despite this victory, Roman subjugation of the highland tribes of Scotland was never complete and occupation was near impossible. The Emperor Domitian, jealous of Agricola’s success, recalled him to Rome and forced him into retirement, ending the farthest reaching northern campaigns of the Legions.

The Hadrian and Antonine Walls
In 120 AD, Emperor Hadrian, understanding both the inability to conquer the northern tribes and the need to protect Roman territory from them, ordered that a 73 mile long wall be built from modern day Wallsend-on-Tyne in the east to Bowness on the Solway Firth in the west. For this unprecedented task of building a wall spanning the entire length of northern Britain, at 13 to 15 high and with interspaced forts; detachments of Legio II Augusta, XX Valeria and VI Victrix were given the job. The construction started in 122 AD and took 6 years to complete.

A further attempt to subdue southern 'Scotland' was made between 139 and 142 AD on the orders of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Across the narrowest neck of land between the Forth and the Clyde a second wall was built - this time of turf, stone and wood. The Antonine Wall was thirty-seven miles long, four meters wide and fronted by a ditch approximately twelve meters in width. It had forts on the same pattern as Hadrian's Wall but was occupied only for a short time. The years between 155 and 158 AD, brought a widespread revolt in northern Britain which involved heavy fighting by the British legions. They suffered severely, and reinforcements had to be brought in from the two Germanic provinces. By 160 AD, these losses and continued pressure by the northern tribes forced the Roman to abandon their gains north of Hadrian's Wall as too difficult to maintain and so returned to the first wall.

Clodius Albinus and Septimius Severus
In 196 AD, Clodius Albinus, Governor of Britannia, rebelled and claimed the Imperial throne for himself. The British legions were ferried to the continent, but were defeated in 197 AD by Emperor Septimius Severus. Several indecisive and destructive battles leading up to it would have serious consequences in Britain. When the British legions were returned, they found the province overrun by northern tribes. Punitive actions did not deter the northern tribesmen, and in 208 AD, Septimius came to Britain in an attempt to conquer Scotland. II Augusta moved to the north, where it shared a large fortress with VI Victrix, at Carpow on the river Tay. Severus’ campaigns were not to last and ended with the eventual abandonment of any gains and the re-fortification of Hadrian’s Wall.


Under Caracalla, Severus’ heir, II Augusta received the name Antonina, as a reward for faithful service to him and his father in Britain. Soon after the end of the Scotland campaigns the legion was moved back to Isca Silurum (Caerleon) and would remain on guard there until the eventual collapse of Roman occupation.

Withdrawal from Britannia
While Britain remained at relative comparative peace for centuries, the same could not be said of the rest of the Roman Empire. Political and religious unrest fragmented the empire into East and West in 364 AD. Rival claimants to the Imperial throne often pulled Legions out of the provinces to support their claims further weakening the borders.

[fml]

Congratulations to Mel Gibson for doing what he wanted, with his money, in his way.

So did Michael Moore...the difference being Gibson's story is based in truth, Moore's is based on lies.

Maybe that is the entire reason so many in hollywood and the liberal media etc... don't want people to see it, and had no problem with moores piece of garbage.

[Spok]

"The Romans were harsh masters, but they had to be. They were trying to hold together a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that spanned from Scotland to the Danube to the Sahara."

Sometimes cruelty is calculated, but not always...remember the Coliseum.

[NewRomeTacitus]

I was not biased. I only had the old blowhard's version of the story ;^)

[radiohead]

It wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus; it was me.

This is the point that is probably missed by many Jews who are against the movie.

I can speak from a unique perspective, as a person raised in the Catholic church w/12 years of Catholic school who is now a Reform Jew, with convert classes and maybe 20 years of reading Jewish theology and history behind me.

As a Catholic, I was always taught that it was my sins that put Jesus on the cross. I don't have to blame anyone but myself; not the Jews, and certainly not the Jews of today. I don't know why Jews seem to have such a problem w/the movie as Christians 'know' what killed Christ and why he had to die.

Someone posted earlier about the difference between gentiles here and in Europe. We certainly have had enough Jew-bashing and discrimination in this country, but not pogroms and not a hatred that seems to spring from deep inside the very culture. I don't think American gentiles are going to start taking out their feelings about Christ's death on the Jews. I don't think Jews are going to be pulled from their cars because of Gibson's movie.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me the only answer to 'who killed Christ' is 'I did.' The Jews have nothing to do with it.

I plan on seeing the movie. It won't make me a Christian again, but I am going to take a secular Christian friend (she's European; I think they have secular Christians over there. Maybe she's a CINO?) in the hopes it will bring her closer to her faith as she seems to be searching for some meaning in her life.

[luckymom]

My pastor saw it also and said said we will never take communion the same again. I believe that.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

What was it Gibbon(Fall of the Roman Empire) said about the reason Rome didn't want Scotland? I seem to forget.

"The problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots."

Oh nevermind that was Edward Longshanks in that other Mel Gibson movie.

[Ciexyz]

Thank you for posting those details of the crucifixion. It was most moving.

[Snuffington]

I want to ask them, what do you think you'd look like after a few hours of scourging and crucifixion?

Like this, of course:

[Ciexyz]

And few people understand that crucifixion was routine for the Romans.

Yes it's true that the Romans lined the Appian Way with crosses that stretched for miles, as they crucified the slaves of the Spartacus revolt. But that has nothing to do with the sacrifice of Jesus.

Jesus was horribly tortured before the actual crucifixion. And He took the weight of our sins on His shoulders. When He hung on the cross, he experienced the terrible despair of separation from the Father God. Our sins which Jesus voluntarily took unto himself, made the Father God turn away from Jesus -- this is Christian theology and someone could surely phrase it better than me. But a Holy God separated himself from Jesus, withdrew His comforting presence from His Son, because Jesus was polluted with sin, our sins, as He hung on that cross. When Jesus paid that ultimate price for our sins and defeated death and triumphed with the Resurrection, then we triumphed with Him.