Critics say Gibson film mimics a hateful book

Detroit Freepress ^ | February 19, 2004 | David Crumm

[novacation]

Well that's it! After 10,000 threads about gibsons film I have to go see it.

[sully777]

It's cliche but worth repeating: Read the Book, it's much better than the movie.

[2nd Amendment]

I was raised to love the Jews, not necessarily to agree with them!

[novacation]

good point

[lonevoice]

Just had to drop a note to express admiration for your very informative and compelling essay. It would make a wonderful opinion piece on its own thread. Thanks for the great post.

[Fury]

Interesting...

Have you seen the movie?

I thought Paul was speaking primarily to the Gentiles (specifically a Gentile church) about hair length and head coverings for women during worship. Additionally, Romans tended to wear their hair even shorter than folks in Palestine(I am looking for the historical references for this in and aming my office), so I am not sure that the it can be stated that Jews in the Palestine area wore their hair in the style of a Roman haircut, if by style we mean hair as short as the Romans.

It seems reasonable from reading Scripture that the hair length of Jesus was probably longer than a short haircut and shorter than is often depicted.

Will do some more research in Scripture on this.

[sully777]

"I thought Paul was speaking primarily to the Gentiles (specifically a Gentile church) about hair length and head coverings for women during worship."

---

Paul's subject was hair length according to the greek useage. Paul spoke to a Corinthian audience that was mixed with Jew and gentile. Paul says the edict concerning short hair was an edict throughout all the churches of God, not just to this particular church. Finally, Old Testament history and archeological data prove people of Israel and Judah had short hair. I think the subject seems fairly clear.

[Robert Teesdale]

All of this "controversy" over the Passion of the Christ is really a storm in a fishbowl. I find that the majority of folks who are raising a fuss over it are ignoring the most important, and the most critical, facts of the entire matter:

1. Mel Gibson is making this movie with his own money. That pretty much removes anyone else's standing to complain about what he makes. Repeat: it's his money and he can make a movie about Jesus and Mohammed getting married in San Francisco if he wants.

2. It's clear that Mel Gibson is a superb director with a sensitivity and vision that is hard to equal. "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" instill in me a trust in his ability to handle a powerfully emotional topic with grace, clarity and moving passion. In other words: he's good at what he does, and he won't make a bad film.

3. There are lots of folks who make enormous amounts of money by institutionally spreading paranoia. Abe Foxman is one of them. That he is using Mel Gibson's movie as a vehicle for this shouldn't surprise anyone. When a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, he's not committing vandalism. He's just being a dog.

4. The "controversy" over the film has guaranteed a huge audience for it, which in the end rather makes the whole issue moot....

Personally speaking, I have little patience for the ADL ot their type of manipulator. They wrap guilt, fear, paranoia and wild accusations of bigotry in a practiced package with money as their first objective.

Where the defense of their lives and loved ones from pogrom or persecution is concerned, I would far more trust a Jew with a loaded rifle in his hand. The best example, I find, is Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

As some have noted it's a common defamation used by many: accuse someone of being remotely connected, in some way, to something that can be used as "evidence" of "suspected" anti-Semitism. And that serves, therefore, as unalterable "proof" that the accused secretly hangs Fuehrer pictures in his basement and lusts after human soap.

It's a pathetic approach to social discourse.

As for supporting Israel... personally, I'd like to see a bilateral nuclear defense treaty between the United States and Israel. Attack one nation with WMD, and the other will incinerate your land. Perhaps that would put a brake on some of the proliferation in the region.

Ultimately the only way of "proving" your friendship and faith with another people, is over time and with actions, not words. If the majority of Jews in America really think that Mel Gibson's movie will incite anti-Semitism, all I can do is shrug and disagree. I don't think your average American Christian secretly nurtures the desire to engage in pogromic bloodbaths.

Personally, if I ever witness someone cutting the beard off an elderly Hasidim, or spraying a swastika on a synagogue, or beating a Jew in the street - I'm going to be extremely decisive, and promptly immediate, in my response. That's about all I can offer anyone. I'd do the same for a black woman, or a gay teenager.

It's called standing up for the rights of your fellow citizens. Ain't that what this country's all about in the first place?

[Wallace T.]

This is my understanding of the cause of the Gibson family's migration to Australia. I am not really familiar with the intracacies of South Vietnamese and U.S. policy in 1963.

[Fury]

Hello,

Should we read 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 and how women should keep their heads covered as an either/or (long hair or covered head) or BOTH long hair and covered head with some sort of covering?

I dug up (no pun intended) some representations of Romans who had had hair cut above the ear, slightly below the ear and slightly off the shoulders. I'll try and post links to these today.

[walden]

"I'm beginning to get so outraged by these attacks as to reconsider my own previously unwavering support of Israel."

Don't do it. The right thing to do is the right thing to do, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS ABOUT ANYTHING. If we once turn from the good and true, we are in danger.

[rcath60]

MOST of the people on the anti-Semetic kick are not Jewish. Many of them are liberal so-called Catholic priests/nuns, especially from the Albany diocese.

[Gumdrop]

I read this book about 12 years ago. It filled me with extreme remorse for my sins. It is meant to be used as a meditation on the suffering of Jesus, not to be taken literally, as it is from private relvations, not biblical.

I do not recall having any anti-Semitic feelings after reading the book, only feelings of guilt about my sinful nature. Jewish friends of good will understand this. The secularists never will understand.

The critics of Mel have not gotten any ground with their ridiculous charges against him or the bible, so they are now attacking a deceased, pious Augustinian nun who cannot defend herself or her reputation. And, heaven forbid, she is German!!!!!!!!! That must make her triply dangerous. Funny isn't it? Somehow they cannot accept that some of the high priests of Jesus's time were not nice, but they can readily throw all sorts of claims against good German people, because, after all, blanket guilt for the Germans is acceptable.

No, the stumbling block is Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Savior. It is more than these heathens can take.