[churchillbuff]

More anti-christian garbage from somebody who's revealing his true colors. He's all for christians when they're dying on the battlefields of Iraq -- in a war he supported loudly - - - but they have their faith depicted on film (unless Jewish authorities are allowed to approve and censor the depiction) without being denounced with slimy smears. What a lowlife creep.

[DentsRun]

Krauthammer: "The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent."

Krauthammer wants to de-Christianize America because he thinks it will make it a safer place for the Jews. He's got it exactly backwards. It's the fact that America is overwhelming Christian that has made it the safest haven Jews have ever known.

Krauthammer also charges Gibsion with repeating the "blood libel" that the Jews killed Christ, a foul and vicious slander which, he says, led to Hitler's systematic massacre of six million Jews "in the heart of a Christian continent."

If Krauthammer is going to blame the Holocaust on Christians he ought to be aware that hurling such charges is a two way street. And it's not only Christians who don't have clean hands. In the 20th century, Solzhenitsyn has written, Jewish Bolsheviks with the help of Jewish-staffed bureaucracies and clerks, killed something like 20 million Russian Christians, after first burning the Christian churches, murdering the priests and raping the nuns. And from there communism ultimately spread around the world, ultimately killing 200 million people, nearly half of whom were Christians.

Krauthammer has undoubtedly forgotten this, but there was a time immediately after WWII when Jewish leaders thanked the Vatican for its help during the war and blessed those tens of thousands of Christian Americans who lost their lives fighting the people who carried out the Holocaust. But 60 years later, everything has been reversed and now its Christianity, not Hitler, that prepared the soil for the seeds of hate which ultimately killed six million Jews.

Well, I say phooey to that.

Krauthammer has often been regarded as a brilliant writer in some circles. All he's done here is make sure that when it comes to spouting bigotry, he's right up there in the pantheon of world class haters, with Himmler, Goebbels and the Klu Klux Klan.

[ZULU]

I think you are judging Krauthamer too harshly.

Most of his comments, if not all of them are accurate. He;s not Christian, he's Jewsih and those are his observations. They seem to be valid ones to me. And I doubt if any one out there can seriously refute them.

A lot is in the perspective.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Frum and Krauthammer. Who else (next)? They sure have a weird way of showing their gratitude.

[Unicorn]

Sounds like Krauthammer has been in the scotch.

[Mamzelle]

bookmark--

1) Cannot avoid this stunning disconnect, or the very curious fact of how even conservative Jews are reacting here to what is a very personal religious statement, based on an individual interpretation of Gospel scripture.

2) I cannot avoid the conclusion that the likes of Charen, Kraut--and Foxman and Heir (Weisenthal) are arrogant--they are assuming an authority here to tell people how they can worship in public in America. This is truly breathtaking.

2a) Christians are supposed to be reduced to trembling intimidation by the implied threat of being called "antisemite." Hah, and once you've blown that ammo, what's left?

3) These neocon Jews are all warhawks--and I'll bet few to none of these urbanites actually know soldiers. Soldiering is something for those icky rural Southern Baptists (who aren't allowed to write for the National Review.) More arrogance. Die for Israel, but don't talk about why Israel is important for Christians. Don't risk offending me, bubulah, but tote that gun.

What an eye-opener.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Well I like the movie. It reminds me of what Christ did for me. But I must say that Mel Gibson relied on two things the Bible "for the words spoken by Christ". And for the Details of the scourging, he relied solely on the writings of Ann Catherine Emmerich a know Mystic and Stigmatist.

Here is a website.

http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

Her take on the passion of Christ is very Catholic and so is the movie. With Peter basically apologizing to mary for denying Jesus among other things.

Here is a website with some details.

http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html

I found it interesting because I had not realized that Mel Gibson's movied relied so heavily on this womans visions.

[philosofy123]

Actually, Mel gave in to Jewish pressures, and allowed them to censor a major statement from the bible: His blood is on us and our children after us. Mel did not include this statement due to Abe Foxman pressure.

On the other hand, we have "some” Jews two thousands years ago killing a Jew. How is it that depicting this is related to Jews of today? The reality of this movie, the Passion is Gibson showed the "Romans" beating Jesus! Have you heard any bitching from your Italian friends as far as that is going to cause violence against Italians? Oh, oh, but the Italians that killed Jesus are not related to the current Italians! However the Jewish mob of two thousand years ago all related to Foxman, Krauthammer, Safire, and Spielberg. Guys, you sound sooo stupid, give it a rest. This is one more stupid columnist that I will stop reading.

[montag813]

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film

I am forced to agree with Krauthammer here. It greatly irritates me that Gibson chose to depart from the Gospels in so many places and use in their place the lurid fantasies of some stupid German nun. Who gives a crap what she wrote? The Gospels are more than sufficient to tell the story. Anne Catherine Emmerich should have been left out.

[Sloth]

I am appalled. SCREW Krauthammer.

[Publius6961]

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.

Speaking of badly... this should serve as a classic example of faulty (or fraudulent) reasoning in high school and university education.

This propagandist misses his own postulate: This particular story involves other people. And even a second grader will deduce that all of the people at the beginning of Christianity were Jews!

D'OH!

It is like arguing that discussing the intricate details of the Oklahoma City bombing is anti-American!

What an educated moron!

[aruanan]

Krauthammer is usually so good. This is one place where objectivity fails him.

[pointsal]

Charlie K. Bud, you missed the message. You are way off base.

[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.

[man of Yosemite]

When it comes time to kill Christians, this man will join the happy throng. How did this country become so stupid?

[JWinNC]

Wow, it's hard to believe this comes from Krauthammer. I have to concur with Congressman BillyBob in post #15.

JWinNC

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

Satan appears four times. .... Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. ...

Silly Gibson. He should have had evil moving among the crowd of Norwegians!!!

[PISANO]

What is so difficult to understand?? The WHOLE idea was for CHRIST to DIE for the SINS OF ALL MANKIND (past, present and future) and because it was at the hands of HIS OWN CHOSEN people does NOT MASK the REASON for HIS DEATH and RESURRECTION. CHRIST WAS A JEW and IMHO no matter who directly killed him WE ALL BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY for it is OUR SIN that he died for.

Any Christian, who BLAMES the JEWS for the DEATH of CHRIST, doesn't understand WHY CHRIST was sent on earth in the first place. It amazes me how something so simple is so difficult for people on both sides to accept.

[junta]

Well reading this settles the controversey for me. I now hate Jesus and Mel Gibson and instead will come to worship liberalism instead as the savior of mankind.

[1Old Pro]

He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching

Along with millions of others I might add. Also, Krauthammer's argument is weak when he feels it necessary to mention the Devil being in the mivie 4 times when the devil is only mentioned once in the bible. Gibson admits this but says he wants the "vision" of Satan to reflect that evil is around us all the time, not just once. Perfectly acceptable literary license IMHO.

Then to go on to say that the devil walked behind the Jews in one scene to equate Jews with the devil is hillarious. Krauthammer when down 6 notches in my eyes. He doesn't have a leg to stand on with these ridiculous allegations.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list