Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Mamzelle]

Post bump...but you forgot the smirky little emoticon.

;-)

[sinkspur]

You're SSPX, right? You're hardly objective.

[SJackson]

Lots of options.

Kerry’s one, he won’t be friendly to Israel, a plus, but I’m sure he’ll allow Jews (aka neo cons) in his administration. Better options out there.

The Constitution Party, "Bush Slaps Face of Believers, Conservatives, might be a better choice. I doubt they’ll run Joe “Jew obcessed” Sobran again, but I’m sure they know how to handle these problems.

Lyndon LaRouche will be running.

And there’s even the Socialist Party.

Plenty of options. I admit though, if the key issue is a “No Jews, Just Right” administration, GWB probably isn’t the candidate to support.

[ultima ratio]

If you haven't seen the movie, then you have no right to judge it. You keep saying, "It's just a movie." It's not--it's far more--it is a cultural phenomenon that will create huge factions everywhere it's shown.

[Taliesan]

You attacked Gibson on a personal level. I called you on it.

You are normally quite rational. Here, you entered a discussion of the movie's content by commenting on Gibson's motive. Which motive, of course, is only discernible from (by now) widely known facts.

It was an irrational comment, which always says more about the subject than the object.

You attacked him, I called you on it. You're wrong.

In subsequent comments, we learn the following:

1. You think he is schismatic

2. You think his father is a nutty anti-semite

3. You think the movie is probably too gory,and

4. erroneously based on the visions of a nun, though

5. you HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE.

I don't dispute 1 and 2. I just think your opinion of Gibson's motives is colored by your obvious dislike of his religious views, his father, his taste in devotional literature, and your own conclusions about a movie YOU HAVE NOT SEEN.

My acuity as an amateur psychologist I would, at this point in our discussion, submit to any jury in the land. I will only add that I analyzed your motive with far more personal interaction and evidence available to me than you had to perform a similar but more snap analysis on Gibson.

If I've been unfair to you, then BY YOUR ARGUMENT you owe him apologies and reparations.

I rest.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

Sabertooth said "Name them, and their universities.

Post the offending line from the Aramaic that is as you characterized it, with the translation, and the source of the translation.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you, or these "professors."

I can understand your suspicion, as I, too, wonder about the veracity of a lot of so-called first hand accounts I read on the Internet. Believe it or not, however, what I recounted about the professors and their talk was absolutely true. I'm hesitant to name them because I fear you will start to flame them, too. They are female professors of religion at a large public university and they are articulate and well-versed (biblical echo unintended)and they said they were sharing what they said is main stream reaction to the movie in their field of Christian scholarship. They said they are writing a book together that should be ready in about 6 months, so you will be able to read all about their views and them. The line itself they said is well known in Christian tradition and is said in Aramaic in the film, presumably translated correctly - I don't read Aramaic. The two women did make a big point of their deep fear of what it can set loose directly and indirectly even today throughout the world, since they know how much hate has been wrought over the centuries by the line.

[rbmillerjr]

I've lost much respect for Krauthammer with this sophmoric prose.

His speech was so brilliant and this so lacking of logic.

But hey, thanks Kraut for more free publicity so that many 10s of thousands will see Jesus' love.

[NeoCaveman]

You're SSPX, right? You're hardly objective.

Guilt by association. Number 4 in sinskpurs tool kit of propoganda as a debating style.

[Just mythoughts]

Wonder where you were. Nice change of subject.

[absalom01]

Folks here forget he's pro-gun control too.

Not all of us.

The guy has been right on foreign policy since 9/11, but that's about it.

Anyhow, he's goofed up in two ways on this review. First, if he saw anti-semitism in this picture, he went looking for it, either that or he saw a different cut than played in my local theater. Tells us more about Krauthammer than the film. Second, there is REAL, live, dangerous anti-semitism in the world today, and it's not coming from Chritians. (Krauthammer may not have noticed, but Baptist suicide bombers are rather thin on the ground these days.)

But, regardless, I'll never take him seriously until he repudiates his support for the Clinton AWB.

[Sabertooth]

Jews don't proselytize Christians and in turn wish Christians not proselytize them. Christians far outnumber Jews so you think you are right to proselytize. If tables were turned and Jews were 90% of the population you would squawk as Jews tried to poach from a 5% Christian minority.

You need to check yourself, dennis.

Evangelization is "poaching?"

We Christians, by our understanding, would be practicing anti-Semitism by omission if we evangleized everyone else but Jews. We think we are right to evanglize because it is a tenet of our faith to do so.

For a couple of years I attended a congregation that was made up primarily of Jewish believers in Christ. At one service, members offered testimony of what they had sacrificed for Christ. The stories of families, in some cases, disowning them and shunning them were heartbreaking. Yet these Jewish Christians (some will object to the therm, but that's how they described themselves, and the description fits) harbored no bitterness for their Jewish families, because they understood that they had been rejected for Christ's sake. In some cases, over the years, feelings had softened, and some family members were now members of the congregation.

The bottom line is that American Christians and Christians worldwide will continue to be friends to the Jews, and to Israel. If your price for friendship is non-evangelization, we will not pay it, but we will be your friends anyway.

[aruanan]

You know, I'd like to hear more people make the explicit distinction: Yes, Jews were responsible for getting Jesus crucified by the Romans, but the Jews were not. It's the same distinction as "Americans landed on the moon, but not all Americans did."

It's the ugliness of reification rearing its head. I mean, God said through Ezekiel, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." There is no greater unit in a society that is capable of committing a sin than a single individual. A society is sinful to the extent that the members of society are sinful. And though a society can be sinful, a society cannot sin. Although individual Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus, those Jews only, not their compatriots, not their children, not their descendents, bore the responsibility for it. I'm certain Krauthammer could follow all this, but I believe his thought is that not everyone can and so, to avoid the possibility of anyone holding a group of people collectively responsible for something distant ancestors did, we should just ignore the whole thing.

Hmmm, let's see if Krauthammer and others will loudly trounce the reparations partisans when they cry out that they should rake in the cash from people alive now for something that someone else, long dead, did a long time ago to someone else, long dead.

[sinkspur]

Hic-cup!!

[churchillbuff]

The release of this movie, unfortunately, has given cover to some anti-semites, who apparently have had smoldering animus toward Jews

On the contrary, it's brought to the surface a hatred, or to put the most generous spin on it - a phobia - , towards christianity and the gospels, not only on the part of a some jews but also liberal gentiles. Christians have a right to defend their faith and to cal the anti-christians on their bigotry.

[veronica]

"You people?" Watch who you libel.

I don't engage in groupthink. If an individual is an anti-semite that is his/hers to own and his/hers alone. I certainly wouldn't put you in that category.

I'm uneasy with the neocon/Jew formulation.

That's good to know. :)

I'm also uneasy with the viciousness by which some Jews, such as Krauthammer, have taken the opportunity of this film to display their anti-Christian bigotry against Christians in a Christian nation that has always been Israel's best friend.

There is nothing anti-Christian about having problems with this movie. If that was so, there appears to be quite a few anti-Christian Christians out there.

If you think our ongoing support to Israel will remain unremarked in the face of these smears, you will find you are mistaken.

Shrug. If one's support for Israel is so paper-thin that a disagreement over a movie, or Biblical interpretation, shakes it, how strong was it in the first place? And plenty of Jews have supported the film, so how will you decide to withdraw your support for Israel -- based upon the opinions of which Jews???

[Publius6961]

You are not seriously asserting that Mel Gibson made this movie to make money, are you?

Of course she is. Mel has this Ouija board you see... and his rewards were guaranteed! It's plain as day to me, as Mark Twain would say.

[NeoCaveman]

Sinkspur's tool box of propoganda as debate technique
1. Appeals to the majority (ex: most people think....)
2. Sloganeering
3. Name calling
4. Guilt by association

[veronica]

Plenty of options. I admit though, if the key issue is a “No Jews, Just Right” administration, GWB probably isn’t the candidate to support.

:)) Great post. Might go over a few heads, though.

[Mamzelle]

re: And if you think that "The Passion of the Christ" or the unnecessarily hostile reaction to it by some Jews will cause us Christians to be any less believers that we should bless the seed of Abraham in the Land where God has placed them, then you are also mistaken. )))

Dittoes to this one--but in no wise to we need to be treated as if we are some sort of barefoot, toothless evangelical bumpkins rec'ing wisdom at Krauthammer's sophisticated intellectual feet.

Have long since gotten sick of this kind of elitist condescension, and sick and tired of hints at "we might call you antisemite if you don't get back in line."

: )

We can choose the pundits we please--they are at our pleasure, anyway. They've gotten to be a bit of a bore--would like to read something new from somebody with something new to say. I'm always ready to read the latest from Ann Coulter--but I don't think I'll return to Kraut anytime soon.