Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I DETEST THIS FILM ..WITH A PASSION [Christopher Hitchens on the Passion of the Christ]
The Mirror ^ | February 27, 2004 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 02/27/2004 3:40:31 AM PST by ejdrapes

I DETEST THIS FILM ..WITH A PASSION

A FEW years ago, Mel Gibson got himself into an argument after uttering a series of crude remarks that were hostile to homosexuals.

Now he has made a film that principally appeals to the gay Christian sado-masochistic community: a niche market that hasn't been sufficiently exploited.

If you like seeing handsome young men stripped and tied up and flayed with whips, The Passion Of The Christ is the movie for you.

Some people used to go to Ben-Hur deliberately late, and just watch the chariot race while skipping the boring quasi-Biblical stuff. Alas, that isn't possible with this film.

Along with the protracted torture comes a simple-minded but nonetheless bigoted version of the more questionable bits of the Gospels. It's boring all right - much of the film is excruciatingly tedious - but it also manages to be extraordinarily nasty.

Gibson claims that the Holy Ghost spoke through him in the directing of this movie, and that everything in it is from the Bible. I very much doubt the first claim, and I can safely say that the second one is false.

The Bible does not have an encounter between Jesus and a sort of Satanic succubus figure in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Bible does not have a raven pecking out the eye of one of the crucified thieves. The Bible does not have Judas pursued to his suicide by a horde of supernatural and sinister devil-children.

Moreover, whatever the Bible may say, the Roman authorities in Jerusalem were not minor officials in a Jewish empire, compelled to obey the orders of a gang of bloodthirsty rabbis.

It was Rome that was boss. Indeed, Pontius Pilate was later recalled by the Emperor Tiberius for the extreme brutality with which he treated the Jewish inhabitants (and you had to be quite cruel to get Tiberius to raise his eyebrows).

YET Gibson is evidently obsessed with the Jewish question, and it shows in his film.

It also shows when he's off-screen. Invited by Peggy Noonan - a sympathetic conservative interviewer - in Reader's Digest to say what he thought of the Holocaust, Gibson replied with extreme cold-ness that a lot of people were killed in the Second World War and no doubt some of them were Jews. Shit happens, in other words. He doesn't seem to grasp the point that the war was started by a political party which believed in a Jewish world conspiracy.

He doesn't go as far as his father, who says that the Holocaust story is "mostly fiction" and that there were more Jews at the end of the war than there were at the beginning, but he does say that his old man has "never told me a lie".

And he does say that he bases his film on the visions of the Crucifixion experienced by a 19th-century German nun, Anne-Catherine Emmerich, who believed that the Jews used the blood of Christian children in their Passover rituals. (In case you have forgotten, the setting of the film is the Jewish Passover.)

Yesterday, as the movie opened, a Pentecostal church in Denver, Colorado, put up a big sign on its marquee saying: "Jews Killed The Lord Jesus." Nice going.

In order to keep up this relentless propaganda pressure, Gibson employs the cheap technique of the horror movie director.

Just as you think things can't get any worse, he shoves in a gruesome surprise.

The flogging scene stops, and you think: "Well, that's over." And then the sadistic guards pick up a new kind of flagellating instrument, and start again.

The nails go through the limbs, one by one, and then, for an extra touch, the cross is raised, turned over and dropped face-down with its victim attached, so that the nails can be flattened down on the other side.

The vulg-arity and sensationalism of this would be bad enough if there wasn't a continual accompaniment of jeering, taunting Jews who want more of the same.

The same cynical tactic has been applied to the marketing of the movie.

Gibson is well known to be a member of a Catholic extremist group that rejects the Pope's teachings and denounces the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, dropped the charge that all Jews were Christ-killers).

He went to some trouble to spread alarm in the Jewish community, which rightly suspected that the film might revive the old religious paranoia.

HE showed the film at the Vatican, and then claimed that the Pope had endorsed it - a claim that the Vatican has flatly denied, but then every little helps.

Then he ran a series of screenings for right-wing fundamentalists only, and refused to show any tapes to anyone who wasn't a religious nut. (It took me ages to get around the ban and get hold of a pirated copy, and I was writing for the Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair.)

Having secured a huge amount of free publicity in this way, and some very lucrative advance block bookings from Christian fundamentalist groups, Gibson now talks self-pityingly about how he has risked his fortune and his career, but doesn't care if he "never works again" because he's done it all for Jesus.

The clear message I get from that is that he'll be boycotted by sinister Hollywood Jews. So it's a win-win for him: big box office or celebrity martyrdom. With any luck, a bit of both. How perfectly nauseating.

In a widely publicised concession, Gibson said that he'd removed the scene where the Jewish mob cries out that it wants the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children's children.

This very questionable episode - it is mentioned in only one of the four gospels - has in fact not been cut. Only the English subtitle has gone. (The film is spoken in Aramaic and Latin, though Roman soldiers actually spoke a dialect of Greek.)

So when the film is later shown, in Russia and Poland, say, or Egypt and Syria, there will be a ready-made propaganda vehicle for those who fancy a bit of torture and murder, with a heavy dose of Jew-baiting thrown in.

Gibson knows very well that this will happen, and he'll be raking it in from exactly those foreign rights to the film.

So my advice is this. Do not go.

Leave it to the sickoes who like this sort of thing, and don't fill the pockets of the sicko who made it.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: christopherhitchens; closethomo; hehatesmotherteresa; homotendencies; morfordlover; moviereview; thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 451-470 next last
To: jonno
Those are all good points, but doesn't that totally preclude the possibility of free will?
301 posted on 02/27/2004 7:17:21 AM PST by Future Snake Eater ("Oh boy, I can't wait to eat that monkey!"--Abe Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I asked you that question because I wanted to know on what basis you say that the Jewish roots were purged.

On the basis of history.

They were NOT.

You and I will have to disagree about this.

How did the Jewish people become the enemy of God?

Your answer: Xenophobia...

My answer: It's a little more involved and complicated than that... but if you believe it is nothing more than Xenophobia...then more power to you.

302 posted on 02/27/2004 7:18:37 AM PST by carton253 (I have no genius at seeming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: carton253
The inquisition was started during the Spanish fight against the MuslimMoors. The Spanish were persecuted by the Moors and wanted to remove all trace of these invders, so they went overboard -- it happens when excessive cruelty has been perpetrated to a group of people.

The Church during the middle ages purged itself of pagans and witches who still abounded in the year 800 (the Norse were just in the process of being Christianised as were the GErmanics)
303 posted on 02/27/2004 7:19:38 AM PST by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: ThatsAllFolks2
I like Coetzee, too. Not sure about his politics but I love his style. My favorite modern writer is William Maxwell. I like Eco, too (again, very bad politics, but what a knowledge powerhouse). I don't like Updike at all, I think he strains the English language, but I won't deny he is good. I absolutely abhor Joyce Carol Oates (I know, as a woman I'm supposed to love her - but I never get her, maybe it's just me). Modern poets, Frost, Dunbar, sometimes Billy Collins (our poet Laureate), but not often. I absolute can't stand Maya Angelou - her poetry is like a child's. Rita Dove is much better. Some of my favorites political writers are on-line, James Lileks, A.M. Siriano, Andrew Sullivan, Bryan Preston (what a resource!), and many others. Lileks is always a great read - great style. Sometimes I like Andrew Sullivan but his pro-gay stuff gets to be too much. Siriano I think is the most promising poet and all purpose writer I have read in years, truly a deep thinker, very colorful and often hilarious. I could go on and on (my favorite subject!).
304 posted on 02/27/2004 7:20:32 AM PST by Americathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
What really bothers me, though, is putting myself in the shoes of a Christian, and watching people say things like "You have to denounce anti-Semitism because there's been so much of it from Christians in the past".

And the OT is a history of the Jews winning and losing wars

So called promised land actually was inhabited by other people and the Jews took it from them
305 posted on 02/27/2004 7:22:33 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: carton253
WEll, if you can't back up your off-hand statements....
306 posted on 02/27/2004 7:23:09 AM PST by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes; All
While I can appreciate Hitchens's secular prose when it comes to the minutiae of politics, I REALLY have my doubts of the veracity of his atheistic opinions when it comes to matters of Religion.
307 posted on 02/27/2004 7:23:36 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
He is an Atheist, par for the course.
308 posted on 02/27/2004 7:23:37 AM PST by FFIGHTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
"While I can appreciate Hitchens's secular prose when it comes to the minutiae of politics, I REALLY have my doubts of the veracity of his atheistic opinions when it comes to matters of Religion."

I think the same about O'Reilly's opinions on religion.
309 posted on 02/27/2004 7:24:40 AM PST by Americathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Some of us don't appreciate it very much in either religion or politics.
310 posted on 02/27/2004 7:24:41 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Hey Chris. Let God forgive you..I won't. BTW: EAT ME you sorry sack of journalistic pablum.

[Go ahead Indie, tell 'em how you really feel!]

311 posted on 02/27/2004 7:25:26 AM PST by Indie (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"...Some of us don't appreciate it very much in either religion or politics..."

Touche!

LOL

312 posted on 02/27/2004 7:25:57 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
You and I are just going to have disagree....
313 posted on 02/27/2004 7:28:56 AM PST by carton253 (I have no genius at seeming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I'd say they're guilty of murder, sure. Let's forget for a moment that Jesus was, in fact, God-incarnate. Let's say He was a radical spokesman for a new kind of religious thought. His teachings didn't call for the utter abolishment of Judaism (as others have correctly pointed out, He Himself was a Jew), nor did He call for the uprising against and overthrow of the Roman Empire.

He merely said that God loves us more than we can imagine, and that we should love him like that in turn. There's no grand earthly penalty for not loving Him, it's totally up to you if you do so.

Now is any of that worth the utter hell they put him through? Sure, it was Romans who passed his final sentence and it was Romans who drove the nails into his hands and feet, but they probably wouldn't have lifted a finger if some of the Jewish leadership hadn't wanted him dead.

Now let's say that He is the Son of God (which Christians including myself believe). Then what does that change? He obviously allowed them to do it. He even points this out to those judging Him. The Jewish leaders could still have chosen to recognize His miracles and His teachings for what they were--i.e. miraculous signs and lessons from God Himself. They did not, however. They were too obsessed with their power. Thankfully, God is much smarter than any human and the whole ordeal had a purpose. Going by the dictionary definition, yeah, I'd say they committed deicide.

In my book, that's all tantamount to murder. However, my views on speaking your mind stem from my rearing in America and exposure since birth to the 1st Amendment, something that obviously did not exist then.

But this notion of "anti-Semitism" when recognizing historical fact is just insane. That's like saying slavery never occurred in America because no one alive today has ever owned slaves or been a slave. It did happen, it was terrible, but we move on with life and learn from our mistakes.

314 posted on 02/27/2004 7:29:30 AM PST by Future Snake Eater ("Oh boy, I can't wait to eat that monkey!"--Abe Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Why did I know that you were going to say that...

Typical and predictable...

If only I didn't have anything better to do than school you in a history that you can learn from any Church History book... LOL!

But, do have a nice day.

BTW, have you seen The Passion yet?

315 posted on 02/27/2004 7:31:17 AM PST by carton253 (I have no genius at seeming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I saw the movie last night with 4 relatives, two of whom are not Christian. We were all very moved; you can be moved by Gibson's vision and exact depiction of his faith even if you are not Christian. It is powerful.

As a Democrat leaning Independent, I am again stunned by the Democratic Party almost seeming to take a party position on this movie. Insane. If you're against this movie, if you believe this movie should not have been made and people shouldn't see it, then you believe people shouldn't be allowed to be Christians. Its really that simple.
316 posted on 02/27/2004 7:36:51 AM PST by OneCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
See the movie. This is all very clear in the movie. Jesus knows what will happen and always knew it and Mary knew it. The Jews are instruments of God's will, as is Pontius Pilate, as are the Romans who do the actual scourging of Jesus.
317 posted on 02/27/2004 7:39:30 AM PST by OneCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Comparing present day Muslims and the crucifixion of Jesus in the first century is just comparing apples and oranges. Its a ridiculous comparison you're making.

The movie is not "just a movie." It is a depiction of Christian belief.
318 posted on 02/27/2004 7:43:23 AM PST by OneCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Hitchens point was spot on and you got it right. Those subtitles will be there in all the other countries, particularly in those societies that just want verification for their anti-Semitism and Jew hating.
319 posted on 02/27/2004 7:44:52 AM PST by Naomi4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"I am quite well aware that Christianity's track record in respecting human rights is downright spectacular compared to what arises in atheistic systems (such as Communism)."

You cannot legitimately claim to be an agnostic and speak of "human rights" in the same breath.

In other words, the rights granted to you by other men cannot be rights that are granted to you merely because you're a "human".

Holding opposite beliefs simultaneously results in the mental confusion called 'cognitive dissonance'.

Want to try again --- leaving out the cognitive dissonance?

You do realize that you didn't answer my last question, don't you?

320 posted on 02/27/2004 7:45:25 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
I doubt most Jews in Jerusalem at that time had any idea who or what Jesus was about. The "crowd" was probably mostly religious leaders.
321 posted on 02/27/2004 7:45:26 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I hear silence coming from mainstream Christianity, and it's every bit as deafening as the silence of Islam in the wake of terrorist attacks.

Then you're deaf. Where are the burning Synagogues? Where are the mobs of Christians screaming for the blood of the Jews? Where is the seething hatred spilling from the pulpits of churches? Where are the anti-Jew protests?

You insult all Christians with your hateful ignorant remarks. By unjustly comparing all Christians with Islamists you degrade your stature, not ours. What kind of anti-Christian pathology do you suffer from? How dare you inflict or transpose your bias on us. Just because you are unable to see the true meaning of the passion, weather in scripture or on the silver screen doesn't mean we aren't able to.

We know who killed Christ and we know why He died. If you need to be afraid of something, fear you own inadequacies.

322 posted on 02/27/2004 7:47:39 AM PST by conservonator (To be Catholic is to enjoy the fullness of Christian faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"I am quite well aware that Christianity's track record in respecting human rights is downright spectacular compared to what arises in atheistic systems (such as Communism)."

You cannot legitimately claim to be an agnostic and speak of "human rights" in the same breath.

In other words, the rights granted to you by other men cannot be rights that are granted to you merely because you're a "human".

Holding opposite beliefs simultaneously results in the mental confusion called 'cognitive dissonance'.

Want to try again --- leaving out the cognitive dissonance?

You do realize that you didn't answer my last question, don't you?

323 posted on 02/27/2004 7:48:09 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
"I am quite well aware that Christianity's track record in respecting human rights is downright spectacular compared to what arises in atheistic systems (such as Communism)."

You cannot legitimately claim to be an agnostic and speak of "human rights" in the same breath.

In other words, the rights granted to you by other men cannot be rights that are granted to you merely because you're a "human".

Holding opposite beliefs simultaneously results in the mental confusion called 'cognitive dissonance'.

Want to try again --- leaving out the cognitive dissonance?

You do realize that you didn't answer my question, don't you?

324 posted on 02/27/2004 7:54:20 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Damned atheists have their panties in as bad a know as the Jews. Bedfellows, huh? Hmmmmmm ...
325 posted on 02/27/2004 7:56:34 AM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
So Hitchens...."Have you ever seen a grown man nekid?.....Do you like to watch Gladiator movies?"
326 posted on 02/27/2004 7:57:47 AM PST by nobody_knows (<a href="http://tomdelay.house.gov/" target="_blank">moral coward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry for the triplicate post. I lost my dial-up connection just as I clicked on 'post'. When I got the connection back, I guess I made two too many 'clicks' :)
327 posted on 02/27/2004 7:59:37 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Hitchens hated Mother Theresa, and ran hateful hit pieces about her in the early nineties. He's an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigot. He has had some worthy things to say about the Clinton impeachment and after 9/11, but this piece just goes to show he hasn't really changed his stripes.

Not liking the movie is one thing. Calling Gibson and the millions of people-mostly Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals-hateful names is another thing entirely.

This is probably Hitchens way of trying to get back in a little bit with the crowd who has dissed him since his Clinton and 9/11 opinions.

328 posted on 02/27/2004 8:01:00 AM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
The Hollywood power brokers are very powerful. Hats off to Mel Gibson.
329 posted on 02/27/2004 8:05:39 AM PST by Migjagger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I'm seeing the film tonight, and I have the sinking feeling that I'm going to end up agreeing with some of what Hitchens says. A film which focuses entirely on the beating and crucifixion of Jesus, without providing any lead-up or context, might very well fail from an artistic and dramatic point of view. Another thing: the film is supposed to be historically accurate, but stills from the movie depict Jesus carrying the entire cross, not just the crosspiece, and very few scholars think that's how it was. Also, an out-take shows the nails about to be driven through the palms of his hands, whereas most scholars believe they were driven through the wrists.
330 posted on 02/27/2004 8:06:30 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #331 Removed by Moderator

To: ejdrapes
reviews tell more about the reviewer than they do the movie.
332 posted on 02/27/2004 8:11:12 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
He detests the film because, just as the atheist delights in casting doubts upon my faith, it casts doubts upon his atheism.
333 posted on 02/27/2004 8:12:07 AM PST by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Damn, I usually enjoy reading Hitchens, but this is just embarassing...

LOL! I thought it was a great read. He was foaming! Nothing’s more entertaining than a foaming angry Hitchens.

He really really really didn’t like this movie! Yowch!

334 posted on 02/27/2004 8:14:17 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
It seems the only people who are talking non-stop about antisemitism in the film are the so-called "Jewish leaders" who most certainly don't speak for this Jew.
335 posted on 02/27/2004 8:19:33 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
The Jews are condemned --- historically and by some Christians today --- for not converting

Can't agree with you there. IMO, some Christians today fault them for attacking and bashing Christians. Hollywood and the media have been bashing the basic tenets of the Ten Commandments and demonizing nuns and priest at every turn. With partial birth abortion, condoms, same sex marriage its gotten quite sickening. The 'Passion...' is clearing the air and 'checking' the NYT, Disney etc.

336 posted on 02/27/2004 8:20:48 AM PST by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Naomi4
What do you make of all this? I thought it was( and much of it probably is) knee jerkism on the part of liberals. But is Gibson's dad a holocaust denier? And is Gibson following the text of someone who held strange notions about Jews and Passover? Is there any there there? I must say, Hitchens makes me wonder. I thought it was cut and dried...a brutal but faithful to the bible depiction. I thought the left was just being hysterical. What gives?
337 posted on 02/27/2004 8:21:07 AM PST by Huck (OK. I'm over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
the very last person who would stop to render meaningful help to a low-life sinner like him, would be the very, very religious.

I suspect a Mother Teresa would be the first. She did have a good track record there. :-)

338 posted on 02/27/2004 8:22:51 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Before you start dumping on the Christians, and throw around the anti-Semitic label, you must stop and reflect on the status of Jews, Moslems, and Christians on this planet.

First, I must recognize the fact that Jews were killed by the Nazis simply because of their religion. Since that time, you can’t hardly find a case anywhere in the world where Jews were selectively killed because of their religion.

Second, there is Palestinian Moslem Arab hostility to ISRAEL, the Jewish state. This hostility has created cycle of violence and terrorism that has both political and religious roots. During the past fifty years, the Christians were solidly behind the Jewish state and the Jewish people with moral, financial, diplomatic, and military supports. For a Jew to be so arrogant to blame the Christian people for anti-Semitism in today’s world, it is simply the heights of hysteria and irresponsibility.

Third, Moslems throughout their history have targeted and killed Christians, simply for religion reason. Historically, there were cases where Christians under the crusaders leadership counter-attacked the Moslems, but that was several hundred years ago. However, in recent history (past fifty years) there has never been Christians killing Moslems or Jews, just for their religion. Granted, there was hostility in Bosnia, and Kosovo between Moslems, and Christians, but the Christians of the West sided with the Moslems.

Now back to the paranoia of some of the Jewish people regarding the Passion of the Christ; the label of anti-Semitism is dispensed so freely and undeservingly to otherwise good Christian people, who for some reason or another "some" Jewish fanatics don't like their attitude. If you can reflect on how many times you have heard the label of anti-Semitism thrown against some American or European people, and show me the number of Jews killed by these Christian people. The facts are ZERO killing. If Pat Buchanan criticized Israel policies, he is labeled Anti-Semitic. Pat, or Mel Gibson, or even Mel Gibson's father, as far as I know did not kill one single Jew, and fully supports Israel rights.

In today paper: 48 Christian people were killed in Nigeria as they ran to seek refuge in their church by militant Moslems. In the past ten years there was, and still is a systematic holocaust of Christians by Moslems in the Sudan. Millions have been killed. Millions! How do we compare the systematic killing of Christians by the fanatic Moslems throughout the world, with killing of Jews anywhere around the world – recently? I have to submit that the cases where Jews are killed because they are Jews are practically non-existing any more, while the cases of Christians slaughtering are going on every day; hundreds in some countries, thousands in other countries, and MILLIONS in the Sudan.

Christians and Jews should thank God for having the commonsense to live peacefully together. Jews must abandon the hysteria of Anti-Semitism, and work together with the Christians to highlight the agony of the Christian minorities throughout the world under the barbaric Moslem oppressions. Christians and Jews are the target of Moslem terrorism, and should never lose focus.

339 posted on 02/27/2004 8:24:16 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
It seems the only people who are talking non-stop about antisemitism in the film are the so-called "Jewish leaders" who most certainly don't speak for this Jew.

I think you are right that they spoke too soon, and too much. It is good that the discussion took place surrounding the film, but the best contribution to the discussion did not come from "Jewish leaders" who seem to be the only ones still thinking in Holocaust mentality. I think most Christians are pretty insulted at the insinuation, which is really the best news.

340 posted on 02/27/2004 8:27:59 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Actually, I think they do, to a point, know what they do and who they serve.

If this were a flick about the Hindu religion, would anyone be this up in (8) arms about it?

It's not that they are intolerant of other's beliefs, they hate what they believe but have rejected. On some level they know they have turned their back on Christ for a mere 30-40 years of flesh. They are old enough now to know the joy of offered by their "lifestyle" was an illusion. They know they've been ripped off. We've all experience this on some level ourselves, it's the nature of sin. These homos have been consumed by it.
341 posted on 02/27/2004 8:34:21 AM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Its to be noted how the Quran and commentary works by their Immans and clerics identifies..takes all issue points and unifies the tought stream into a mesmerizing cadence....like *Al Harb..[House of War].
Islam has 2 battle colors..which are entwined in the many flags of Islamic nations.
Most chose the *Black Flag of the Mahdi..but there are White battle flags with written script too.
We see them hanging in the background during interviews with Jihadi..and few notice what is being said.
The interview may be in English for consumption..but the flag in the background says...well you guessed it.

This is the truth of the war on terror most gov's are not willing to face.
wether Jihadi go active and kill infidel....the majority of Islam stands by the flags and the script.

To deny this..is to deny all..and they can't.
Lying and deception are not offensive principles ..they are to be used like tools to defeat the infidel.

so..how do you reason with a juggernaut machine which supports your demise..whether its done in actuallity..or by tacit approval by the onlooker.

In southern Iraq..a few Shia clerics have enlarged themselves with their new freedom..and what has occured is chilling.
thousands and thousands of emotional jihadi wearing green head bands..chanting death too...
Hizbullah was the first kodak of this Hitler brownshirts thingy in the early 80's.....today it pours into the vacumn in Iraq.

This is the same dynamic which has been in Africa...has spawned or embraced Mahdism..and lead to the deaths of millions.

If this crowd gets WMD...look out.
its not in their psychy to feel sorry for the death of anyone in the way....muslims are expunged in great numbers if they are seen as non commited to the great cause.

The war on terror has a home front..it is the mosque.

342 posted on 02/27/2004 8:51:35 AM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
So my advice is this. Do not go.

Leave it to the sickoes who like this sort of thing, and don't fill the pockets of the sicko who made it.
-----
Hey Pistoper: I guess It takes a sicko to know one. Hey guess what- Gibson knew he was a sicko he found escape from his sickness. What's your escape from your sickness? Also, Gibson's sickness looks washed way. Your sickness appears alive and well -Exposed..
The Devil Always Overplays His hand. I would be ashamed to be used as his pen--pal.


343 posted on 02/27/2004 8:51:40 AM PST by juzcuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
The best thing one can say about a writer who excels at his craft is that he need not have anything important to say.
344 posted on 02/27/2004 8:52:37 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
You have to expect this from people who haven't realized that this was done because of their sins and that Christ rises.
345 posted on 02/27/2004 8:54:20 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Was Hitchens among the adoring crowd at last year's Oscars giving a big Standing O to "the courageous" Roman Polanski?
346 posted on 02/27/2004 8:58:13 AM PST by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John Fin Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
INTREP - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
347 posted on 02/27/2004 8:58:20 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
 

Hitchens is not apparently objective: witness his overtly political biased judgment against Mother Teresa's beatification:

Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 20, 2003, at 1:04 PM PT

[During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT (Mother Teresa) was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize *. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996.&#8230; ]

348 posted on 02/27/2004 9:04:26 AM PST by antonia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Jews have very long memories.

Every week observant Jews celebrate the holiday of the Sabbath, commemorating the creation of the world, and once a year, other holidays centered around more recent events in our history, such as our escape from slavery in ancient Egypt.

Given this, it should not be surprising that we also remember that in 1555, Pope Paul IV published a Bull that stressed that we, the "Christ-killers," were by nature slaves and should be so treated, or that in 1581, Pope Gregory XIII said that our guilt regarding Jesus' death grew deeper with time, requiring our perpetual slavery. We also remember the anti-Jewish quotas at US universities that persisted into the early 20th Century.

In fact, there are Jews alive today who remember having the "christ killer" epithet hurled at them while either fleeing from or recieving a beating by zealous Christian bullies.

Now, I do recognize the pronounced irony in this position, the Church simultaneously stating that Jesus Christ "freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father," and that "by his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men,"1 while on the other hand reviling Jews for our supposed role in his death, and that "christ killer" has no place in a modern understanding of Christianity.

But I don't think that it is entirely unjustified, given the place of that epithet in living memory and recent history (less than 500 years ago), for Jews to express concern about how people who have never read the Catholic Catechism and don't even really understand their professed faith might interpret this film, or about what kind of overt or subtextual message is presented in the film.

That expression of concern isn't an accusation.

Personally, I tend to agree with the JPFO press release - there's people out there who, film or no film, will hate Jews and want to do us harm. Our so-called Jewish leaders should focus on the real threats to Jews, such as Arab fundamentalism, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia, rather than on Mel Gibson and his cinematic profession of Christian faith.


1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Item 1019
349 posted on 02/27/2004 9:05:53 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I know so many people, usually logical and fair, who go completely of the deep end at anything "Christian". Hitchens seems to suffer from the same kind of emotional childhood trauma that has closed his mind to any tolerance of Christian views and practice. This is the way any bigotry is formed. Hitchens is a bigot. Of course he would deny that...while calling Gibson one.

I want to see this movie!! I'm not sure I can handle the gore.

350 posted on 02/27/2004 9:10:47 AM PST by AuntB (Petition to reform SSdisability: http://www.PetitionOnLine.com/SSDC/petition.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 451-470 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson