Posted on 03/04/2004 10:24:16 PM PST by churchillbuff
Edited on 03/05/2004 10:48:45 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Exactly.
What hit me hardest was not Safire, Kraut, Charen--certainly not Weisenthal Center or ADL--but Jackie Mason. I expected sense from Mason. Funny what gets to you, and what doesn't--
The disgust that came from him--the general distaste I've sensed--quite a revelation.
Yes, you are correct. I was surprised to read this link from the What's Up With the Ugly Baby? thread.
If the quotes are accurate, they show a tension between the Evangelical(s) who screened the movie and Mel Gibson that was not reported. Christianity Today goes right to the source to get to the bottom of the creepy baby moment in POTC. "Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place." At the roughcut screening I attended back in June, THIS was the scene that threw the Evangelical minister also in attendance into a hissy fit. (I went home that night and wrote the conversation down, but some of what follows is paraphrasing.) The minister kept pressing Mel to delete from the film, "Anything in the movie that isn't in the Bible." Mel said, "Like what? What in my movie isn't in the Bible?" Mel's confusion here comes from the fact that he, like any devout artist, doesn't see artistic license which is consonant with the spirit of the Scriptures to be "not in the Bible." I think he would say, "What I made is in the Bible - between the lines." Anyway, the pastor guy said, "It isn't in the Bible that Satan talked to Jesus in the Garden." Mel responded, "Don't you think Satan was there?" Minister retorted, to the effect of, "It doesn't matter what I THINK. It matters what is written in the Word of God." At this point, I burst in to the exchange. "Where in the Bible do God and Adam touch index fingers?" The pastor didn't say anything. I think Mel laughed. I stomped all over my point as usual, "The fact is, that image is one of the most enduring and powerful sacred images in human history." I turned to Mel. "Don't change your movie to please the sensibilities of any particular sect in Christendom. Change the movie if you think you are being somehow untrue to the Scriptures." The minister was not happy with me. He waited a few cold seconds of silence and then talked past me to Mel. "And that scene with the ugly baby. What was that?" Mel said, "I dunno. I just thought it was really creepy. Didn't you think it was creepy?" Minister guy: "But what is it supposed to mean?" Me: 'Satan brought a friend. He wanted to share it with a friend." Mel laughed. "Yeah, he brought a friend!" Minister guy persisted with exasperation, "But WHERE did you get that from?" In other words, "You DIDN'T get it in the Bible, because I KNOW the Bible." Mel, at this point was getting just as exasperated, "I dunno. I guess I just pulled it out of my ass." FABULOUS! It still makes me laugh! The minister was appropriately horrified. I just thought it was perfectly appropriate. Is there a better synthesis of the experience of the devout artist who stands back and looks at the work of thier hands, very aware that what they have wrought has come from they don't know where. The Pope speaks about artists as being conduits of Divine revelation. I have experienced every so often getting into a zone with my writing - especially fiction writing - in which the words all of a sudden pour out of me, and I only know "afterwords" that I didn't start writing with anywhere close to the ideas/formulations that suddenly appeared on the page.
Smirk. That's what the Democrats say Bush does. They just don't get it, and they never will. Some people are just hopelessly dim.
There must be a solid majority of Jewish viewers and critics of Christianity on this thread.
The good fruit and message of Christ only has to be taken, accepted and eaten.
I think that message has been lost in the hatred.
I would hope so. I said it has probably been good for private piety. And that is a good thing. But it is also being used as a political bludgeon by the far left and the far right. And I stand by what I said. It seemss the political right is mad because the political left did not view this movie then fall on their faces and give up the fight. Actually the liberals are being true to form, no worse than usual. And they have a right to opine. It is not a sacriledge to be critical of a movie. They did not criticise Jesus himself. And I still wonder if had the movie been less violent would it have attracted so much attention.
I'm trying to sow tolerance and sanity in an otherwise dismal thread. Have you produced any good fruit on this thread ?
Wasn't that a Roman ear? Lend me your ear.... What hit me hardest was not Safire, Kraut, Charen--certainly not Weisenthal Center or ADL--but Jackie Mason. I expected sense from Mason. Funny what gets to you, and what doesn't-- The disgust that came from him--the general distaste I've sensed--quite a revelation.
|
Here's another unvarished truth. There's no way getting around the fact that Jewish Bolsheviks in the 20th century helped kill far more Christians than Christians killed Jews.
As a Jew, I'm disgusted by the kind of analysis presented here by Krauthammer. It's as if he can't understand that this movie presents the fundamental event in the history of Christianity in the most basic and human (yes, human) way that could ever be done. Anti-semitic? Rubbish, rubbish and rubbish again. Shame on you Mr. Krauthammer.
|
They were not born pagans. I bet most of them were FORMER Christians because Germany was a Christian nation in the tradition of Martin Luther, who was himself an antisemite. Read his screeds against the Jews. For that matter, read the screeds against the Jews of the Christian Fathers of the Early Church. They will curl your hair. Christians as Christians have been Jew haters. We don't want that to happen again.
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.