After viewing Mel Gibson's new film on the last days of Jesus Christ the ADL released the following statement: "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus. We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

Now maybe I'm just ignorant, but isn't that exactly what happened? A council of Jewish elders led Jesus to Pilate who washed his hands of the whole thing and tried to release Jesus, but the jewish people demanded he be crucified. So Pilate decided to grant their demand.

Someone fill me in if I'm wrong. It's been awhile since Sunday school.

The current hyper Hebrew ADL party line is that the Romans crucified Christ and that the Jews had absolutely nothing to do with it.  If you say otherwise, you are an anti-Semitic Nazi Jew hating SOB.  You are required by the ADL to ignore the arrest of Jesus by the Temple Sanhedron and to ignore their request to Pilate to have Jesus crucified.

While it is true that the Romans actually performed the crucifixion and issued the legal death warrant, these actions happened only due to the demand for them by the Jewish temple clerics.

Of course, this is what the New Testament says and it is a bunch of lies anyway.  What fool could ever believe in ritual cannibalism, walking on water and rising from the dead.  Plainly superstitious claptrap.

When was the last time that a sub-titled foreign film of a serious nature actually made an impact in the United States (with the exception of art houses and film schools).  Although it can be done, it is VERY rare.

Combine this with the fact that this film using Amariac (sp) and Latin as its dialog medium and you have a film that is going to be a smash hit in Ethoipia and several religious enclaves within Rome.

In short, if this film is even distributed here in the USA, I am willing to bet that its total bank (number of folks seeing it multiplied by the cost of a seat) is going to be less than the international take for such film greats as Ishtar and Ernest Goes to Hell!

-- Modified on 8/12/2003 6:57:15 AM

Slant,

Perhaps the world is a little more complex than what you learned in Sunday school, or even what you can learn by watching Jack van Impe or Jerry Falwell.

Are you satisfied with the sex education you received from the Bible? The politics? The dietary guidelines? The cosmology? The biology? If so, we have no more to discuss. If not, then please consider whether you think that is the place to learn history.

Take a look at the book "Constantine's Sword", by James Carroll, a Catholic and a former priest, on 2000 years of anti-Semitism, often "justified" by the same words you used.

Please don't be so blithe about repeating what you "know" based on stories written long after the fact, by folks with an axe to grind.

Regards,
Anon

It doesn't much matter that the film dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin.  That's why they invented sub-titles.

What does matter is that there are people out there that will either view the film, or more likely hear about it and simply ignore the fact that whatever did happen (and who really knows for sure what happened?), happened 2000 years ago.  There will be those that will plug whatever they want into their current thinking, and that thinking very well may be anti-semitic.

This is not very different from some African-Americans who blame the white population at large for acts committed against their families 2 centuries ago.  And yes, most Black people are smarter  than that!  Hell, my ancestors were in Poland and Ukraine at the time worrying about the Russian Cossacks.

Slanteater's post reinforces this theorum.  Here's a guy that says:

" Now maybe I'm just ignorant, but isn't that exactly what happened? A council of Jewish elders led Jesus to Pilate who washed his hands of the whole thing and tried to release Jesus, but the jewish people demanded he be crucified. So Pilate decided to grant their demand."

This is simply taking the New Testament literally, then using it as a basis for truth.  The New Testament was written by men, and we don't know, 2000 years later, what their motivations were and why they wrote what they did.  I'm not even sure if his facts are right, having last read the New Testament 35 or more years ago, but for now will assume they are.  Also, niether Slanteater nor I have actually seen the film, so this whole thread at this point is merely conjecture.

But there are ignorant people out there that will take literally what a film like this has to say, and even be reinforced with the knowledge that Mel Gibson had something to do with it (although I have doubts about Mel being anti-semitic.  You almost can't be as a member of the Hollywood community I think).

When I was drafted into the Army, my Basic Training post was in the Deep South, and the Drill Instructor had never laid eyes on a Jew before.  When he looked at my dog tags and saw the letter "H" for religion ("H" meant Hebrew at the time.  They now rightfully use "J") he asked me where my horns were, and he was serious. I imagine that if he's still alive he would be affected by hearing about such a film.  I doubt that he would go to a movie that didn't have at least one car chase.

So my feeling is that the ADL is not being overly sensitive, but rather looking out for potential societal problems as a result of such a film.  And by the way, The Anti-Defamation League does this very same thing for other groups that can be damaged by such obvious reference.  Like Italian-Americans when The Godfather was released.  It is not an exclusively Jewish organization.

My .02

F.

How sad is it that because I asked a question in order to receive more information from those better educated on this topic than I that somehow I become the problem? Even if I do take the new testament literally, I would not blame the Jewish community of today for the actions of a few men and women two thousand years ago. However having grown up in a midwestern christian community, I was not privy to the Jewish point-of-view on this issue. I was curious to hear both sides of the argument. In my mind, that's how most intelligent people start to form a rational conclusion. So yes, forgive me for being so "blithe" in asking for help. Forgive me for seeking out knowledge. Forgive me for questioning any of this, when some of you already seem to have all the answers and stand ready to jump down anyone's throat as soon as your beliefs and experience are threatened. It was simply a question.

Oh, the politics of religion!  One quotes a verse within the Bible and you will have differing interpretations as to what the meaning of the quote is.  No wonder there are so many denominations.  All we can do is respect an individuals point of view even if it doesn't reflect our own and as long as it does not put us in any danger (more for extreme religious zealots).

The film is an interpretation and of course for entertainments sake will some facts be embellished.  Remember when Mel came out with Braveheart?  Oh, the controversey surrounding the historical content on that one, when in truth there is virtually very little historical documentations on William Wallace.  With that fact, there is actually no way anyone could come up with a true depiction of the man.  One can only do what Mel did.  Piece things together for some semblance of truth, add some kick ass entertainment and you have a wonderfully entertaining film of what could have really happened.  Nothing more than an interpretation.

I remember the gay community coming up in arms about the scene in which the king pushes his sons lover out the window.  There was a fear of rise in gay hate crimes.  It never happened and the protests drove people to the theatres in droves out of curiosity.  So in retrospect the gay community helped in catapulting that film to the top.  Of course, it would have still made it on its own merit, but it did help.

It is a cold hard fact that treatment of gays in the time period was ferocious.  Mel bought that point across and if anything had pointed out how attitudes have changed over the centuries.  Even the treatment of prisoners in those days made my stomach turn.    

And so, now it is the Jewish community that will squirm and perhaps inadvertently do the same as the gays did in promoting the film with their protests.  I do think the majority does believe that the Jewish Community of the time did have a hand in the death of Jesus and obviously that is the way Mel is interpreting the information  before him.  I think it foolish for people to view this film and take it as a true historical account.  Of course he will try to be true to historical content, but of course, he will also embellish it for entertainment sake and should be taken with a grain of salt to begin with.    

That's Entertainment!

Lauren

I am not Jewish, but I have been called a "Hebe" in my lifetime by a person who was the spirtual brother of your ex-drill sergeant.  

Prejudice and hatred do exist out there, people.  If groups like the ADL or the NAACP or the Lambda Defense Council overreact sometimes regarding things that put specific races or creeds or viewpoints in a bad light, I tend to be more accepting of this than to think that "the world is too worried about being politically correct".  It is almost entirely the people in a country's dominant (power wise) social hierarchy (which in this country is white Christian heterosexuals) that could feel this way in the first place.  

Until you belong to a group that has experenced prejudice and hatred first hand, it is hard to understand.

Once again, I have to go to Mark Twain and a story he told...(twice in one day...who would have thunk it)... paraphased:

I caught a cat, placed it in a cage and waited a day or two until it seemed civilized.  Then I did the same with a dog, a rabbit, a rooster, a lion, an anolope, and a duck.  I treated them well, fed them and let them all out.  When I came back a day later they all were getting along just fine.  It would seem that animals kill only when they need to survive.  Overcome with my success, I caught an Irish Protestant and placed him in a cage for a day or two until he was sober and seemed civilized.  I did the same with a Catholic, a Roman Catholic, a Jew, a Lutheran, a Buddist, and a Muslim.  I treated them well, fed them and let them all out.  When I came back, darn if they we not all dead.  It seems man will kill just to shut the other one up.  Funny thing is they all basicly beleive in the same things.

There is a reason they say that Religion is the opium of the masses.

My first assumption Lauren, is that like the rest of us, you haven't seen the film.  That said, I beg to differ with you.  You, Lauren, in your work, can be construed to be entertainment.  A Daffy Duck cartoon is entertainment, of course of a different type for most of us, but entertainment nonetheless.

Anything that can potentially incite a group of people to act against any other group for no reason other than that group happens to be Gay, African-American, Irish, Jewish, or anything else may have some entertaining component, but in the end merely serves as tongs used to separate the components of the Utopian "Melting Pot" that America is supposed to be.

I am totally against censorship, and am a card carrying member of the ACLU.  That said, it's another story when there's content that has the potential to undo years of building understanding and tolerance amongst diverse groups.  Or worse.

The Jewish people living in Nazi Germany in the 30's had that attitude.  The anti-semitic rants of the Nazi leadership was ingnored with a "this too shall pass" attitude.  I have seen with my own eyes how it passed to places like Dachau and Auschwitz, and frankly I didn't like what I saw.

Anything that is inciteful in a religious, racist, sexist, or against any other group is reprehensible, in my opinion.  And any individual that has a "That's Entertainment" approach to it all ought look at some history books.

Read about the wars and the deaths perpetuated over the centuries in the name of God,  From the Egyptians throwing Hebrew slave's male children into the Red Sea to Crusaders marching to liberate the Holy Land from the Turks, to flying jet liners into the World Trade Center, to Hamas sending human bombs into a crowded Jerusalem marketplace.  It's all the same.  And at some point it has to stop.  The most important step to stopping this is education.  And anything passing itself off as "Entertainment" that also serves to de-educate, is nothing but trash.

My humble opinion.

F.

I did Catholic School from grades one to 12.

Remember Pilates dream?
Remember the mob screaming to "give us Barabbas"?
Remember the Chief priests and elders that accompanied the soldiers to seize Jesus in the Garden after the last supper?

The Romans crucified Christ. They were the law of the land.
The Jews, shall we say, continued to lobby for his execution.
You can spin that anyway you see fit...

Very cleverly put. In that case, I'm sure you see the Palestinian side of things too. I bet when surrounded by Jewish friends who've had friends and family murdered in the holy land, you often tell them to educate themselves before spouting emotionally charged hatred as fact. Because as you said "...anything that is inciteful in a religious, racist, sexist or against any other group is reprehensible..." I applaud that.

However, since you have also not seen the film you might want to reconsider your obviously biased opinion before you attempt to pass it off as concern. In the same way that a "this too shall pass" attitude scares us all, so does your willingness to stand behind what others have told you without viewing the "offensive" film yourself. Remember, the "I was just doing what I was told" mentality didn't save anyone at the Nazi trials, nor should it now.

Furthermore, I will also assume that you were not at Jesus Christ's crucifixion, so what really happened is up for debate. Debate leads to education and tolerance. Telling others what to believe leads to trouble.

In my humble opinion.

-- Modified on 8/12/2003 4:44:45 PM

-- Modified on 8/12/2003 4:47:56 PM

Fortitude,  do you respond with zeal and anger when Jerry Falwell, son of Billy Graham, and a host of other evangelical "christians"  speak in a language of complete racism against muslims?  Not only they have called Muslims "Children of Devil", but also, one truly amusing one, has been a reference that they have caused the death of Christ! Given Islam was born some 700 years later than Chrisitianity, that is one incredible accomplishment!  I heard that with my own ears from a "Born Again Christian" friend of many many years, othewise, I wouldn't have believed it!

I would like to see someone as enlightened as you, to make a stand whenever there is prejudice against any one ...  I have not seen that in any significant way, from ADL either after World Trade Center tragedy.  

People like Daniel Pipe, have expressed in explicit terms, that they would like to see Muslims in this country to be suppressed.

I have never been a memember of minority, but I still feel the pain when I see someone being subjected to inhumane and racist behaviors.  It happens to jews, muslims, mexicans, blacks, and a host of others. We all need to make a stand in each and every case ...

I must be biased or something, because it didn't seem to me like Fortitude was jumping down your throat by stating that you are a person who was primarily relaying the test of the New Testament and by his stating that HE wasn't even sure if you were laying it out verbatim.  I thought he was just referring to where you were deriving your information from and that you were taking it literally.

First of all, there are many legitimate concerns and rights that Palestineans have in the Middle East.  And those who know me will tell you that I have advocated a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinean War for the past 20 years.  They have as much right to a homeland as any Israeli Jew has.  The only right they don't have is to purposely target and kill women and childen.  Emphasis on "purposely".

So stop accusing me, or anyone else, of anything that isn't true.  I didn't say anything other than if in fact this film does portray an anti-semitic theme it would be reprehensible.  If it portrayed anti-gay sentiment, or anti-anything else sentiment it would also be reprehensible.  Having not seen the film, just as you haven't, this is all conjecture on both our part.

But if I express the opinion that any bashing of any group anywhere undoes alot of learning, don't you tell me what I think.  And just remember you asked for this the minute you posted this on the TER Board.  Now don't go taking off at me because I may feel differently about this topic.

First, Q1, I suggest you read my response to Slanteater, above.  Second, I suggest that you may need to get some facts straight before your "I would like to see you..." comment.

The ACLU and the ADL HAVE been involved in defending Muslim citizens and visitors to this country who have been detained by our Ashcroft Justice Department after 9/11.  I have first hand knowledge of this.  My very best friend on Earth, a NYC attorney, has worked with them in freeing many of these people.  This is not conjecture.  For 6 months after 9/11 I was not able to spend any time with my friend because he was up to his ears with cases involving these innocent and unfortunate people.

I cannot speak for Falwell or Billy Graham's son.  I wouldn't even want to.  I don't know very much about Rev. Graham, Jr.  And I'll hold my opinion of Falwell to myself.

By asking or suggesting that I take a stand against prejudice towards anyone, are you suggesting that I don't?  Where did you get the information that I don't care, or that I don't take stands?  

But weren't the Jewish priests, and not the general population, lobbying for Christ's execution?  My understanding, and I grew up without the benefit of any Christian education, is that the priests looked  at JC as a threat to their control, secular and theological, over the population at large, and desired his elimination.

"And just remember you asked for this the minute you posted this on the TER board?"

Huh?! With this one sentence you completely outed yourself. Hidden agendas, anyone?

If you'd like to go back and read the original post, I asked for others to inform me if there was another scenario other than the one I remembered from the new testament. I wanted to understand what about this account the Jewish Community was questioning.  Others were able to answer that question for me and I thank them.

What I didn't ask for was your inferred judgement, your paranoid assumptions, your bias diguised as concern, your righteous indignation, or your need to categorize me based on my question.

By the way, I don't remember telling you how to think. I believe you've got that area covered. And furthermore, why would I argue the point that the bashing of any group undoes alot of learning. I just got done saying education and debate leads to tolerance! Good grief, you act like people can't go back and read what was written.

Okay, that's it for me. Back to tits and ass and the price of pussy.

...that the jewish priests were lobbying for Christ's execution. If they lobbied for it, does that make them partially culpable? Furthermore, as this poster noted, according to the bible the Jewish mob then asked that the Romans release Barabas, a murderer, instead of letting JC go free. According to a friend who saw the film, and from what I've read, these two scenes are the inciting moments in Mel's movie that the ADL takes issue with. The Romans still crucify him, but a specific group from the Jewish community influence the decision.  

Again, my very specific question is this: Is it the ADL's stand that no Jews had any hand in influencing the decision to crucify Christ? And if so, is their only proof of that the historical record of the Romans ruling the land at that time? Who's to say which version is correct?

I've changed my thinking. After all of this discussion, I'll admit that I can see some ignorant asshole getting involved in an anti-semetic hate crime because of this movie (however, I have a hard time believing those same fools are going to go to a film with subtitles.)  But does that mean Mel Gibson is being irresponsible by presenting what might be an accurate depiction of what happened?  Should we not allow WW2 films to be made in order to protect the Japanese? Or films about the 9-11 tragedy to be made in order to protect Muslims? Maybe instead we should spend more time teaching our children to be tolerant of others.

Okay, that's probably not gonig to happen either. In any case PS Audree Jaymes is a bargain at 350 bucks. Take advantage when in Vegas.

either. Also from my understanding there were to be no subtitles, but that seems to have changed. The languages will be Latin and Aramaic. I'll be able to understand the Latin, I'll have to find a resource for the Aramaic.

Given that, I'll wait till I see the film before I try to paint it one way or the other.

Religious groups in general always come out ranting about how a film is anti-this or anti-that! After all, they have a vested interest in keeping their following in the fold.

Remember the following?

Jesus Christ Superstar
The Exorcist
The Last Temptation of Christ

Cheers,

HPG

Modified to include link

-- Modified on 8/13/2003 7:34:50 AM

Religion and history is always spun to support whomever is on the pulpit (or soapbox):  
``And the Germans killed the Jews
And the Jews killed the Arabs
And the Arabs killed the hostages''
And of course the favorite in the US (unless your Jewish),
Slavery.  

It is a shame that there is the need for the ADL.  Can't we all just get along - Oh, I know we can't.  Groups will always find an excuse to further their agenda - and in a world of limited resources, this entails taking (or taking back, and vice-versa, vice-versa, vice-versa) from others.


From Roger Waters ("What God Wants"):

What God wants God gets God help us all
What God wants God gets
The kid in the corner looked at the priest
And fingered his pale blue Japanese guitar
The priest said
God wants goodness
God wants light
God wants mayhem
God wants a clean fight
What God wants God gets

Don't look so surprised
It's only dogma
The alien prophet cried
The beetle and the springbok
Took the Bible from its hook
The monkey in the corner
Wrote the lesson in his book
What God wants God gets God help us all

God wants peace
God wants war
God wants famine
God wants chain stores
What God wants God gets
God wants sedition
God wants sex
God wants freedom
God wants semtex
What God wants God gets
Don't look so surprised
I'm only joking
The alien comic cried
The jackass and hyena
Took the feather from its hook
The monkey in the corner
Wrote the joke down in his book
What God wants God gets


God wants boarders
God wants crack
God wants rainfall
God wants wetbacks
What God wants God gets
God wants voodoo
God wants shrines
God wants law
God wants organised crime
God wants crusade
God wants jihad
God wants good
God wants bad
What God wants God gets

No, I have not seen the film as of yet and yes, I do consider myself to be entertainment.  There is nothing misconstrued there in the least.  

I suppose I could put my ass on my shoulders too and protest all the films out there that cast ladies such as myself in a bad light.  Most of them feed on the worst this forum has to offer or as uneducated dumbasses lucky enough to remember our first names and mainstream stereotyping of what we are really about. There are very few films out there that depict ladies such as myself in a true light.  Do I blame all these films and the film makers for the stigmas placed on ladies such as myself?  Shall I demand to boycott all of them?  Do I fear reprisals when a film depicting us as such comes out?  Not at all.

Even the film "Shindlers List" which is based on true historical accounts was embellished for entertainment purposes (or rather dramatic purposes as the films credits divulge).   It isn't so cut and dry as films so often depict Germans of that time as scum of the earth.  Truth there is in that, but not so on the whole as this film states.  I am sure that many would believe it to be hogwash, but it a point a view within the population no matter how miniscule.  I don't see the Germans suffering for any of these anti German films of the World War II period.  They suffer the backlash of what they did in fact and no film helped that on its way.  

Even Gone with the Wind went through trials and tribulations because the black community feared the outcome of the way they were dipicted.  No back lash occurred there either.  They couldn't very well have them living in the mansion in the film, that wouldn't be true to the period, but they did handle it as tastefully as they could and were still lamented, as was the casting of a British lady for the lead role.  How unamerican!  The call for a ban was ignored and no one suffered for that either.  Vivien Leigh became an American Bell for the rest of the country.  
 
I could go on and on with examples.  Point is that our history has a dark past.  Film makers are going to try and stay within the historical mindset of the time and no one at any time is not going to have a nerve hit in some way or another.  Any film that has some historical basis to it will always catch some kind of flack.  The truth hurts as does view points that don't match our own.

There will also be films that will take a faction of the populations beliefs, such as this one and make a presentation.  The Christian sect would be up in arms if a dramatic film with a Jewish/Hebrew view of their faith were bought to the table or any other not matching their own beliefs.  Hell, they think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and moved the Catholic church to make a statement to these zealots that were having book burnings and attempting to have those films banned.  That's religion for you.  Each sect shoving their beliefs down everyone elses throats and is why every war is begun in the name of God, yet in every sect that I have heard about, that God promotes peace....not war!  Another oxy moron!

I don't think that this film will start any kind of movement any more than any of the others in which fears and complaints came about.

I don't care what kind of card you carry in your wallet.  The ACLU, although bought about with noble intentions, does at times trample on the very things they are vehemently out there fighting to protect without realizing it.  To ban this film for fear of the reprisals to the Jewish community is just one of those times.  To protect one sect, you trample on the rights of the rest.  Oxy moron if you ask me.

Don't like what you are hearing about it?  Don't watch it.  Plain and Simple!  To ban it will do more harm than good, for you will then infringe on my right to watch it and the film makers right to make it and that is so very UnAmerican!  

Lauren            

-- Modified on 8/13/2003 9:00:16 AM

Funny that when someone took pictures of the Queen of England and Bush and rubbed feces on them, the Jews defended this as Art. Now they're on the receiving end (of something far less offensive) and can't take it. There's no proof that The Passions is going to fire up someone to go out and start killing Jews.

How about movies about the Holocaust? The ADL mantra is 'never forget'. How do you think Germans feel? And movies that portray slavery. Because a black man could go out and kill a white person after seeing that movie, should be censor it? Of course not.

Typical of Hand Wringing Liberals. They rail when conservative 'call people names' but when they do it it's ok. Sad. I can't stand hypocrites. What's that old saying? Something about living in a glass house and throwing stones?

PS - I'm a Libertarian - flame away - I will get a good laugh out of it.