Why Jewish Groups Passionately Hate Mel Gibson

Surely it is now time to analyze the vitriolic loathing demonstrated by various Jewish groups and their leaders toward Mel Gibson over the past six months. This analysis might help forestall some similar ill-conceived and ill-fated future misadventure on the part of self-anointed Jewish leadership. At the very least it might advance human understanding of destructive group pathologies.

As the whole world knows by now, Mel Gibson, his movie, his father, his church and anything else even remotely associated with Mr. Gibson have been smeared as anti-Semitic. From the immoderate assaults, you might have thought that the target was a thug with a lengthy rap sheet for murdering Jews while yelling "Heil Hitler." From the intensity of the rhetoric you would have thought that from his youth, Gibson had been hurling bricks through synagogue windows. Yet until The Passion, he was a highly regarded and successful entertainer who went about his business largely ignored by the Jewish community, so why now do they hate him so?

Even assuming for the moment that Jewish organizations had a legitimate beef with The Passion, which assumption I have refuted in earlier columns, they should have hated the movie rather than its creator. After all, Judaism originated the calming idea of hating the sin rather than the sinner. Yet from the pages of The New York Times to Jewish organizational press releases and from rabbinic rantings to synagogue sermons the personal hatred for Mel has been palpable.

The key insight, vital to understanding their hatred, is this: just because an organization has either the word "Jewish" or else some Hebrew word in its title does not mean that its guiding principles emanate from the document that has been the constitution of the Jewish people for 3,500 years-the Torah. Every organization has a set of guiding principles which defines its purpose and unifies its membership. However the guiding principles are often not what they appear to be. This departure from founding principles is not unique to Jewish organizations but is found throughout our culture. For instance, almost none of the eighteen hundred chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court in spite of the undeniable fact that Justice Thomas was, and remains a "colored person."

Were the NAACP truly to be guided by the principle of advancing the interests of colored people, it would always do so even if it occasionally disagreed with the positions of the colored people it supported. For instance, back in 2000, when the NAACP filed an Amicus brief on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, it surely was not endorsing the killing of law enforcement officers as a form of political expression. The NAACP was simply doing what it claims it was formed to do, support people of color. In reality of course, as their failure to defend Clarence Thomas reveals, the causes adopted by the NAACP share something far more profound than the skin color of their protagonists. They share a uniform commitment to the doctrines of secularism. In non-political terms one could say that the NAACP seems to be guided by the principles of secular fundamentalism. Secular fundamentalism is the belief system which buttresses the creed of political and economic liberalism just as the Biblically-based beliefs of Judaism and Christianity buttress the creed of political and economic conservatism. It was its adherence to the guiding principles of secular fundamentalism which compelled the NAACP to obstruct the rise to greatness of a religious conservative, even if he did happen to be a colored person.

Again, almost nobody in NOW, the National Organization of Women, supported radio personality Laura Schlessinger while her media career was being destroyed by homosexual activists. Now Schlessinger is undeniably a woman, so clearly NOW's guiding principles are not to support all women but to support only certain women. Had NOW been about all women, it would have supported Schlessinger, pointing out perhaps that although they do not endorse all her views, since she is a woman under attack the organization supports her just as it was formed to do. After all, in 2001, NOW had no compunction supporting Houston child murderer, Andrea Yates, who cold bloodedly drowned her five tiny children. As Deborah Bell, president of the Texas chapter of NOW put it, "One of our feminist beliefs is to be there for other women." "Other women" obviously doesn't include Laura Schlessinger. Not only couldn't NOW bring itself to support Schlessginger, it named Andrea Yates Mother of the Year. An honest explanation is that NOW seeks to advance secular fundamentalism, and since Dr. Laura preaches religious conservatism NOW, in remaining true to its guiding principles, had no option but to oppose her.

Similarly, many Jewish organizations and even many individuals of Jewish ethnicity who possess the title "rabbi" are not guided by the principles Judaism found in the Torah. Instead, like the NAACP and NOW, they are guided chiefly by the principles of secular fundamentalism. Nothing else can explain their dogmatic and ideological commitment to causes such as homosexuality and abortion, both of which are unequivocally opposed by the Torah-based guiding principles of Judaism. How revealing it was last November, when one such Jewish organization saw fit to publicly applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court on their ruling in favor of homosexual marriage. In choosing between courageously defending Judaism's unequivocal opposition to homosexual marriage and obsequious obeisance to the doctrines of secular fundamentalism, this "Jewish" organization made its choice and in so doing, proved my point. Paradoxically, these so-called Jewish organizations are virulent secularists because of belief-the belief that religion poisons the world and that we would all be better off living in an eternal utopia of secular democracy.

In their belief system, serious Christianity, which they recognize to have founded western civilization, must be confined to the home, synagogue, and church. It must never be allowed to influence our culture or our political law-making apparatus. In their belief system, religion, when practiced by professional religionists like priests, pastors, and rabbis, is acceptable because these professionals, doing what they are expected to do, are unlikely to influence significantly the public perception of faith as a refuge for the uneducated, the unsuccessful, and the miserable. However, religion when practiced seriously by influential public figures such as presidents and movie producers is totally unacceptable because it might lead to upsetting the current religious-secular cultural balance.

Thus President Bush also merits hatred. Here is Whoopi Goldberg musing in the pages of The New York Times, "Wait a minute, is this man leading this country as an American or is he leading the country as a Christian?" Just try to imagine the outcry from the Jewish groups I describe herein were Mel Gibson to have asked during the 2000 presidential elections, "Will Joe Lieberman lead this country as an American or would he lead this country as a Jew?"

Once Mel Gibson revealed himself to be, like the President, a person of serious religious faith the gloves came off. Mel Gibson has done a major favor for serious faith, both Jewish and Christian, in America. He has made it 'cool' to be religious, but in so doing he has unleashed the hatred of secular America against himself personally, against his work, and against his family. God bless him.

Radio talk show host, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, is president of Toward Tradition, a bridge-building organization providing a voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation’s survival.

An Explanation and Honest Review of

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"

Some of you will find a most unusual, but brutally honest, appraisal of Mel Gibson's movie here. Please know that although I did find it to be horridly antisemitic, it was not of Mel Gibson's doing. Mel Gibson's intent was to tell the truth as it was written. He did, and did it so well, that its real meaning was an intense clarification of the truth. It was the New Testament written by Rome for use against Jews and Later Christians alike.

I went into the movie with a completely open mind, trusting in the goodness of the man Mel Gibson is, to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Having seen it once, it stunned me with its clarity, but to try and be as historically accurate as I could, I saw it a second time to note if I had missed anything. If there was any doubt at all as to what my eyes beheld after reading it over and over for years, the doubt is totally removed and clearly, what was on that screen was the beginning in earnest of the Jewish Holocaust.

Q. WHO Killed Christ?

A. NO ONE.

Q. How do you know?

A. Morality continues to exist. Conscience exists.

The Lord, My G-d, harshly condemned human sacrifice because we are fashioned after His own Image. He did not allow the sacrifice of Isaac at his father's hand. It does not, therefore, stand to reason that this same G-d would especially create and deliver up a human being for sacrifice when the example that was used in the Old Testament to stop this forever was the girlchild of the last Hebrew to offer up a human sacrifice. The punishment for the sin, the loss of a beloved child, was all the more painful than the death itself because G-d did NOT want to ever have such a thing done by Hebrews any more.
Why then, would He use ANY child, since we carry G-d within us everywhere all the time, to make murderers of the whole world? If that was how G-d did things, and we were never meant to endure punishment for our own sins ever again, why love, hate, fear or follow the Lord at all?
Do you not see how the Romans diminished the Glory of G-d in this atrocity? To murder His OWN SON in cold blood?

AND Rome exists to try and make sure that a Moshiach cannot possibly come by strangling our faith and precluding our worthiness for redemption by inventing original sin that is supposed to include us all.

The movie was about ROME'S antisemitism. Rome tried to recreate Jews in their own image, but only the weak and the power hungry followed the path laid out for them. It gained the corrupted followers no respect among Real Jews, or among Romans who hated them for no other reason than Jews frowned upon Rome's *enlightened* lifestyle with its multipurpose gods and goddesses and its debauchery.
Why would we ever want to be remade in a false image when we were already made in G-d's OWN image? It presented a clearer picture of the *why* such a crucifixion was ever written about, and the absolutely chilling realization that with this introduction of horror into the pesky religious Jews' daily lives, Rome made absolutely sure that this, the beginning of the genocide of the Jews, became a holocaust that would never end for all of time.
The leaders of this church made exceedingly sure that Rome's way of life, the unnatural lack of marriage, homosexuality, pedophilia, women as chattel, which religious Jews could never have accepted, would go on and they continue to rid the world of as many Jews as they could even as they were going on to usurp and devour other cultures, other religions, in very much the same way. There are whole peoples who have no history because it was stolen from them. That's YOU.

Rome's adversity to birth control and abortion isn't for humane reasons. It is to see to it that more Catholics are born to carry on their traditions which everyday Christians still do not understand even though it becomes more clear with each passing day.

Having believed within my own soul that the Christ Rome manufactured, was in truth, John the Baptist, The Passion made it more clear than I ever thought possible. You would not find this very realistic if you have no historical background to check the facts, however, I do. John was murdered for doing exactly what this Christ was to have done. He fought vehemently against the petty rules of the Great Sanhedrin (which comes from a Greek word meaning sitting together, (or council,) and against the evil High Priest Caiaphas for selling out his people to Rome, much the same way our leaders have tried to sell us out and have had us murdered via The Altadena, Oslo, Wye, Rabbi Kahane OBM, and so many more. Out of a council of 71, only 9 were portrayed as so evil they would condemn an innocent man in the dark of night in secret. Always, it has been thus. The higher G-d trying to be brought down and slain by MEN who wanted a power they could never hope to possess.

In this movie, I watched Rome brutally torture, mutilate, scourge, and ultimately slay a JEW THEY claimed was our Messiah after they realized that the process by which they had been trying to absorb the Jews into the Hellenistic culture would never work. You all know what a metaphor is. Jesus was a metaphor for JEW. What they could not change, they destroyed, stole our land and our holy Temple artifacts which are still in possession of the Vatican. It never stopped them from their quest to obliterate any culture different from theirs, and I am NOT talking about the Christianity you think you know.

As was their wont, they picked one of our most meaningful Holy Days to perpetrate this image of horror and evil on. We have never been able to celebrate our freedom from Egypt without seeing plays, ashes, tears, masses, and finally movies about the horrors that Rome passed on so excruciatingly by offering the new believers, not Jews but Gentiles...Muslims, Celts, Druids, Gauls, Norse, Spaniards, African Tribes, Island Tribes, Brits...graphic and terrifying details of the murdered Lord, King of the Jews, a man sacrificed like no other among crucifixions. And Rome began at the moment they published their first version of this to destroy The Law and cause their sins to become yours because they said, and too many believed, that the *Old* Covenant was dead.

The Vatican continues to be Rome, and the Romans continue to live with their old ways, condescendingly adapting first one and then another culture's holy days into a Roman Catholic holy day, and teach their converts to hate their brethren until they rid Rome of themselves. The remnant which remains is hardly enough for Rome to blink an eye at, so on and on they went until they murdered and destroyed every culture it came into contact with.

This slaughter did not stop with just non-Christians. In the bygone days they were far too evil to hide their cruelty. If you were the most righteous Cardinal on this earth and it was perceived by the leaders in Rome that your followers had come to care much too much about you, they put you on trial, called your followers satanists, and it wasn't long before your name became simultaneous with Satan, aka Lucifer, a Catholic Cardinal, and his followers who underwent an inquisition for worshipping the devil. The good did not understand. The moral were viciously attacked.

So Mel Gibson is not antisemitic, and it was Rome's decision to begin the Hebrew genocide. G-d will bless Mel Gibson because his is a movie of the unfathomable cruelty of Rome and its chosen collaborators, and is a prominent example of unintended consequences. The movie is changing hearts in many places. G-d exists and works in far more mysterious ways than mere humans can conceive of.

Much as I respect Rabbi Lapin, I don't think Jewish groups hate Gibson merely because he is deeply religious. They (and many liberal Christian scholars) see him as a loose cannon Christian who follows his own conscience. That really scares them to death.

The liberal Christian biblical scholars and certain Jewish groups like the ADL had reached a working agreement to rewrite the Gospels to eliminate any untoward references toward the Jews. Until Gibson came along their plan seemed to be working quite well.

The Catholic Church had more or less signed off on the plan with Vatican II (or at least that was how it was interpreted by the ADL, which helped write the section on Jewish responsibility or lack of it). In the meantime, Jewish and Christian biblical scholars pushed the increasingly accepted notion notion that no sophisticated person really believes the Gospels are literally true anyway.

The next stage was to rewrite the Gospels to pin all the blame on Pontius Pilate and none on the Jews. (Some scholars have been doing this already). Then along comes Mel Gibson with a plan to make a film directly based on the traditional Gospels, which totally upsets their apple cart.

Totally ignoring their repeated requests to vet the film by committee, Gibson rather made a powerful, successful dramatic feature film which at least puts part of the blame for the crucification of Christ on the Sanhedrin and a Jewish mob. Given that it could easily turn out to be the post popular film in history, it has taken their plan to rewrite the Jews clean out of the Gospels and flushed it down the tubes. No wonder the ADL was complaining that "Gibson set us back 40 years."

That's exactly what he did.

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.