THE NEW TESTAMENT A NASTY LITTLE DOCUMENT,
By: Joe Sansone, Ether Zone, February 27, 2004
‘The Passion of the Christ’, Mel Gibson’s depiction of the last twelve hours of Jesus has finally hit theatres after months of what seem to be nothing more than bigoted attacks. Detractors have called the movie anti-Semitic and have attempted to smear Mr. Gibson and even his religion in a tasteless campaign of hate. The movie has a narrow, but extremely intense focus, capturing the pain and suffering of Jesus during torture and crucifixion. It was clearly the intent of Gibson to convey the depth of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. It is true that the film shows the Jewish high priest as the driving force behind Christ’s crucifixion, but other members of the Pharisees defended Jesus. The Romans are also portrayed in a similar light, some sympathizing with Christ and others lusting for his blood. The movie highlights the worst of Jews, and the best of Jews, the worst of humanity, and the best of humanity ... After viewing the film it seems that outside of Paranoia, there are two main reasons why some radical Jews have tried to condemn it as being anti-Semitic. 1) They hate Christians and the idea of Jesus being portrayed as the Messiah. Gibson’s portrayal of Christ is not simply as a philosophical leader. The title itself ‘The Passion of the Christ’ probably irks some beyond belief. In an article called the Most contentious story ever told Naomi Seidman, the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, is quoted as saying, "This movie is a representation of the New Testament, which is a nasty little document, it's hard for Jews to read.'' Clearly, some people hate Jesus Christ. Quite frankly, this is the attitude that the high priest had in the film and is extremely hypocritical since Seidman is complaining of anti-Semitism while acting anti-Christian. 2) A desire to stay in business. In that same article, Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, after sneaking into a screening of the film is quoted as saying the film was "unambiguous" and a "poisonous accusation that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus.'' Jews represent less than three percent of the American population and to their credit are overrepresented in most professional fields in America. Clearly anti-Semitism is not running rampant in the United States. Like many in the field of politics, it would seem that the ADL needs a reason to exist and therefore is forced to go to the extreme of creating fear that the possibility of anti-Semitism may arise as a result of a movie. A snapshot of the biblical history of Christ, Gibson’s film is certainly an artistic interpretation of the New Testament, it is however an accurate one as well. Those that attack the film as being anti-Semitic are essentially accusing Christianity of being anti-Semitic, and in fact are being anti-Christian. This is the type of behavior that will fuel anti-Semitism, not Gibson’s movie."

[Another Jew "stirring shit" about Mel Gibson and generic Christians. This movie is so "hyped" because of the Jewish censorial Lobby that tried to kill it. Period. This Jew only sees a movie about Jesus as a hustle. Why might that be? Because hustling is his world paradigm? Hey Goldstein, how come a bunch of people getting gassed in Schindler's List isn't a porno fest of violence in your eyes? How come when the Nazis slaughter Jews in the movie THAT is sacred? How come a Christian symbol of suffering is "stirring shit" for you? How come you don't write nasty articles about Jewish self-absorption with endless Holocaust agony as the foundation of modern Jewish identity? How come Jews frame their Holocaust as a pseudo-religious event which All are forced to accept as secular sacrament?]
The Backlash Passion. A Messianic Meller for Our Time,
by Richard Goldstein, Village Voice, February 25 - March 2, 2004
"Blood, guts, and a happy ending. No wonder The Passion of the Christ is a showbiz sensation. Mel Gibson's messianic meller, which opens today after more free media than Janet Jackson got, and a marketing campaign that could make Harvey Weinstein weep, may rake in $100 million—not to mention the skim from souvenir mugs, coffee-table books, prayer-reminder cards, and pewter spike pendants. How did a film described as an "anti-date movie" generate such buzz? The answer has everything to do with Gibson's canny use of Hollywood hype techniques. First, stir the shit. Gibson did this by fanning the fires kindled by Jews (whose fears were well founded, judging from leaked copies of the script). He made outrageous comments on the order of, "Secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church." He allowed that he'd cut a scene in which the head Jewish priest cries, "His blood be on us and on our children," because, "Man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." Guess who they are? Next, build a base. This Gibson did by flogging the film to a network of fundamentalist churches. Gibson's company, Icon, worked this sale like the pros they are, sending their man out on the road, facilitating block purchases of tickets, and soliciting testimonials from A-list televangelists, even as they kept the film from the eyes of potential critics. But the mass media were wary until The Passion's distributor got involved. In Bob Berney, president of Newmarket, Gibson had chosen a partner with a track record in pitching edgy films about subjects like pedophilia (Happiness) and lesbian serial killers (Monster). For this project, Newmarket tapped into the current passion for backstory revelations. Soon we were hearing about the miracle (involving a lightning strike) that had occurred on the set. It was taken as an auspicious sign that the actor playing Jesus, Jim Caviezel, had the same initials as the Savior. These tantalizing tidbits were gravied up with a human-interest angle that centered on Gibson's struggle against the classic demons of drink and drugs ... Here's a prophecy: You'll see all sorts of faith-based pageants as the media compete for this audience and shrink from its wrath. Their eye is on the sparrow of the bottom line. The real story here is the rise of a newly mobilized market and the crossing over of its values. In that respect, Gibson has done what Pat Robertson could only dream about, by enlisting the very techniques his co-religionists object to in Hollywood films. Among these aesthetic values, none is more commercial—and less faithful to the Gospel—than ultra-violence. You won't find epistles dwelling on the finer points of human brutality in the New Testament, but you will find such lessons in the cinema of Brian De Palma. When you see Jesus soaked in gore, think of the blood-bucket scene in Carrie. Never mind those Caravaggio paintings that inspired Gibson. The real model for this film is Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, with its relentless depiction of torture, along with every slasher movie that cloaks its intentions in a higher message. Violence has become the measure of verisimilitude. If it's bloody, it looks real. This illusion allows us to enjoy what violence does provide: pleasure. If it weren't so exhilarating, it wouldn't be so popular. Many people who would never attend a Bible movie will flock to this one because they get to see a man tormented by men as others look lustfully on. The faithful will sublimate this sadomasochistic sensation into religious ecstasy and find it profoundly moving. Either way, Gibson wins. He's made a spectacle of joy in pain—the essence of boffo ... Gibson lives in a world, and works in an industry, where Jews are not afraid to be powerful and profane. It is hard for him not to see these Jews as the linchpin of a culture that tempts him, rewards him, and alienates him from his father's convictions. So it has been for millions of Christians in the centuries since the rise of secular society—and millions of Jews have died as a result ... It is naive at best to deny that these images will resonate with what many Muslims think about Jews and what many Christians still feel deep in their hearts. A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 25 percent of respondents think the Jews killed Jesus. There are signs of this bias among some champions of this film, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who told CNN that Jews were upset because they don't share the Christian teaching of the Gospel, as faithfully rendered by this film. William Donohue of the Catholic League (which is unaffiliated with the Church) has called the ADL's Abe Foxman "an Orwellian genius" and attacked "Catholic and Jewish elites" for "instructing Mel how to portray Jews" while ignoring the blasphemous works that pour out of Hollywood. No doubt some fundamentalists view this film as an act of revenge on Jew-financed sacrileges like The Last Temptation of Christ. Still, many ministers will deliver sermons on anti-Semitism in the coming weeks. Doesn't that settle the issue? On the contrary, it begs the question. There's a reason why Gibson's film shows some Jews helping Jesus while others torment him. Though he offers this as proof that he's not a bigot, it perfectly fits the Manichaean view of Jews that many fundamentalists hold. There are good ones who act in a way that hastens salvation and bad ones who are agents of the devil. Either way, Jews have a preternatural power. They can abet the Rapture (especially by moving to Israel) or subvert God's plan. Those demonically clever secular Jews are out there running Hellywood and the Mephistophelian media. To quote Gibson, both the New York and Los Angeles Times are "anti-Christian" papers. Many fundamentalists would agree."

[Christopher Hitchens is one of those many who claim partial Jewish heritage. Here his allegiance shows. His conjured closure: the suffering of Jesus and "anal sex." And "sadomasochistic male narcissism" is best exemplified by guys like Hitchens who seize the role of God (as an ideologically consumed journalist) in declaring reality to the masses. So now Mel Gibson is a "fascist." This is a stock-in-trade accusation against anyone who doesn't mention Jews in anything less than a prone -- or bending -- position. Something Hitchens apparently knows something about. Hitchen's moral and intellectual prism is that of the Great PeePee God.]
Schlock, Yes; Awe, No; Fascism, Probably. The flogging Mel Gibson demands,
By Christopher Hitchens, Slate, Feb. 27, 2004
"The gay movement in the United States—and the demand for civil unions and even for actual marriage—has had at least one good effect with which nobody can quarrel. The closeted homosexual is a sad figure from the past, and so is the homosexual who tries desperately to "marry" a heterosexual, thus increasing misery and psychic repression all round. This may seem like an oblique way in which to approach Mel Gibson's ghastly movie The Passion. But it came back to me this week that an associate of his had once told me, in lacerating detail, that an evening with Mel was one long fiesta of boring but graphic jokes about anal sex. I've since had that confirmed by other sources. And, long before he emerged as the spear-carrier for the sort of Catholicism once preached by Gen. Franco and the persecutors of Dreyfus, Mel Gibson attained a brief notoriety for his loud and crude attacks on gays. Now he's become the proud producer of a movie that relies for its effect almost entirely on sadomasochistic male narcissism. The culture of blackshirt and brownshirt pseudomasculinity, as has often been pointed out, depended on some keen shared interests. Among them were massively repressed homoerotic fantasies, a camp interest in military uniforms, an obsession with flogging and a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews. Well, I mean to say, have you seen Mel's movie? I think that it's a healthy sign for our society that so many Jews have decided to be calm and unoffended by the film, and that so many Christians say they don't feel any worse about Jews after having seen it. We have a social consensus where Jews feel more secure and Christians less insecure. Good. But this does not alter the fact that The Passion is anti-Semitic in intention and its director anti-Semitic by nature. Some people including myself think that Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League are too easily prone to charge the sin of anti-Semitism. But if someone denies the Holocaust one day and makes a film accusing Jews of Christ-killing the next day, I have to say that if he's not anti-Jewish then he's certainly getting there."

[An avalanche of hatred and another trembling Jewish victim. "Bias crime?" Is that like so many Jews hating Christ, The Passion, free speech, the right to make a movie about your religious faith, and Mel Gibson? ]
'Vile' E-mails sent to rabbi,
by Jonathan Lemire and Melissa Grace, New York Daily News, February 29, 2004
"Since staging a protest against "The Passion of the Christ," a prominent Bronx rabbi has gotten eight anti-Semitic E-mails, he and police said. Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale got the first note after a Wednesday rally at a West Side movie theater showing the film. "They were full of hatred and vile language," he said. Police said they are investigating the incident as a possible bias crime."

SAINT MEL,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, February 26, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the reaction to “The Passion of the Christ”: “We are at a cultural tipping point. Never has the division between the elites and the masses been more evident. Many good things are happening: the smack-in-the-face that the public awarded Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake; the public revulsion to the anti-marriage campaign; the firing of Howard Stern from many radio outlets; and, most of all, the public’s embrace of ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ “Saint Mel. That’s what he is in the eyes of millions of Americans. But for some, he’s Satan. Leon Wieseltier, the big fan of the Catholic-bashing writer Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, labels the movie a ‘sacred snuff film.’ Ex-Catholics like Maureen Dowd not only mistake the sacred for the profane, they think the film engenders intolerance when, in fact, the intolerance has come almost exclusively from the movie’s most vociferous critics. “But this is good—the pus has come to the surface. Now we can get on with the real debate: should the culture continue its celebration of self-indulgence or repair to a culture of restraint? If the latter is to be achieved, believing Christians, Jews and Muslims will have to join together to defeat those whose concept of liberty is pure libertinism. “Already, left-wing censors in Hollywood are out to get Mel. They think they can stop him. But it’s too late for the blacklisters to win. Nothing can stop the public from rallying around Saint Mel.”

[Here you have it. Jewish propaganda for Jews. Why do Jews overwhelmingly hate The Passion? I mean, really. Jews fear that some fellow Jews may see the film and be influenced to reject Jewish tribal identity and leave the racist fold. This is the heart of the HISTORY of Jewish hatred of Christ and Christians and the undercurrrent of the massive Jewish attack of Mel Gibson. Preserving the elitest "Chosen People" Jewish Klan is the ESSENCE of Jewish identity. Jewish leaders fear some Jews could abandon racist Israel-centered elitist allegiance. ]
Jewish Response To "The Passion",
Israel National News, 17:38 Mar 01, 2004
"'What I'm concerned about is that Jews who see this film will identify deeply with Jesus - the movie's heroic 'good guy' - and will dis-identify with their own G-d-given identity as the Jewish people." Excerpts from an OU symposium. The Orthodox Union has prepared a response to the controversial, anti-Semitic and violence-saturated film The Passion. The response takes the form of a video presentation of a three-member symposium, which was sent to hundreds of synagogues across North America. Taking part in the symposium were Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union; religion scholar Professor David Berger of Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and Rabbi Michael Skobac, Education Director of the Toronto branch of Jews for Judaism. The goal of the video is "to empower our member synagogues and their constituencies with relevant programming," explained Rabbi Moshe D. Krupka, the OU's Executive Director of Programming. "This response reflects a basic mandate of the OU to respond to hot button topics affecting our community. In this case, it was our responsibility to provide our constituency with an antidote to the potential challenge the film will create." Rabbi Weinreb's concern is not so much with anti-Semitism the movie might cause, but rather "for the effect that seeing this movie, or even seeing part of this film or reading about this film, will have upon my Jewish brothers and sisters, observant or non-observant, Orthodox or non-Orthodox, old or young." A distinguished clinical psychologist, Rabbi Weinreb describes the inner psychological process that all movie-watchers undergo when seeing the "heroic and innocent" good guys, compared with the "fiendish-looking" bad guys - the Jews, in this case. "What I'm concerned about is that Jews who see this film will identify deeply with Jesus, and will dis-identify with their own G-d-given identity as the Jewish people ... ' We must retain that Jewish pride in the face of the temptations of this film, and of the efforts that will be made by others to undermine our Jewish pride. We are fortunate to be Jews. We thank G-d for our Jewish identity even as we intensify our commitment to that Jewish identity."

[Christianity has become a persecuted faith again. Starting in New York City. Now why would that be?]
NYC Police Watch Gibson Film for 'Hate',
Newsmax, March 2, 2004
"Reports that cops from New York City's Hate Crimes Unit were sent to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" to learn if it inspires hatred have a top Catholic civil rights leader demanding answers from NYPD officials as to what and who was behind the screwball assignment. According to the New York Post, Hate Crimes Unit supervisor Inspector Dennis Blackman ordered the 20 detectives under his command to see the film after it opened last week. A source told the Post that cops feared that someone who already held strong anti-Jewish views or was a religious zealot could be pushed over the edge by watching the film. However, the same sources reported that there had not been any increase in anti-Semitic crimes since the movie opened Wednesday. The Post quoted one detective who had viewed the film as saying, "It was beneficial to understand what all the hype was about." After the Post raised questions about the official assignment of police officers to watch the movie while on duty, the NYPD asked the cops to see it on their own time, voluntarily, and not because they were ordered to attend screenings. The story raised the hackles of Dr. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. In a blistering letter Donohue told NYPD Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly he wanted to know what provoked the ill-advised monitoring of a film by NYPD detectives. Wrote Donohue, "There is a story in the March 2 edition of the New York Post claiming that Hate Crimes Unit supervisor Dennis Blackman ordered 20 detectives to see 'The Passion of the Christ' when it opened last week; some watched the movie during working hours. "Accordingly, I would like to know the answer to the following questions: a) Is it common practice for detectives of the NYPD to watch movies during working hours? b) What prompted the request? c) What criteria are used to assess whether this is a useful function for the police to provide? d) What is the purpose of such an exercise? e) What exactly would the police be empowered to do if they determined the film constituted hate speech?"

NYPD MONITORS “THE PASSION” FOR HATE CRIME,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, March 2, 2004
"The following letter by Catholic League president William Donohue was sent to New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly: March 2, 2004 Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly 1 Police Plaza New York, New York 10038 Dear Commissioner Kelly: There is a story in the March 2 edition of the New York Post claiming that Hate Crimes Unit supervisor Dennis Blackman ordered 20 detectives to see “The Passion of the Christ” when it opened last week; some watched the movie during working hours. Accordingly, I would like to know the answer to the following questions: a) Is it common practice for detectives of the NYPD to watch movies during working hours? b) What prompted the request? c) What criteria are used to assess whether this is a useful function for the police to provide? d) What is the purpose of such an exercise? e) What exactly would the police be empowered to do if they determined the film constituted hate speech? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, William A. Donohue, Ph.D."

[JTR Contributor's comment: "Interesting tidbit making the rounds. The Internet Movie Database is the largest film site on the net. It always features the new film hits and this past week featured The Passion on the front page...... now on that same spot it has been replaced by Schindler's List..... If you do a search for passion in their search engine, you get very interesting result." Editor's note: the first item to come up under a "Passion" search is The Last Temptation of Christ, a film that widely outraged Christians.]
IMB's current feature (March 2, 2004):



Schindler's List on DVD Director Steven Spielberg's Academy Award™-winning film, Schindler's List, is coming to DVD. Schindler's List is based upon the true story of Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party, a reprobate, and a war profiteer who saved the lives of more than 1,000 Jews during the Holocaust. This unforgettable film won seven Oscars™ including Best Picture and Best Director and stars Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley and Ralph Fiennes. The DVD includes two featurettes, "Voices from the List" and "Behind the Shoah Foundation With Steven Spielberg," and comes in widescreen, full frame and a special, widescreen collector's gift set. [Pre-order Schindler's List on DVD]"

“PASSION” CRITICS EVINCE NEW PURITANISM,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Febraury 24, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on how film critics of “The Passion of the Christ” are reacting to the movie: “Having failed to tag the movie as anti-Semitic, those who hate everything about Mel’s masterpiece are trying to convince the public not to see it because it’s too violent. Alas, there is a New Puritanism in the land. Violence has now joined cigarettes as the new taboo. “But as it turns out, violence, like cholesterol, can be both good and bad. Consider New York Daily News reporter Jami Bernard. She voted the super-violent flick, ‘Gladiator,’ best picture for the year 2000. But she brands Mel’s film, ‘a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club.’ Yet she is a big fan of the Marquis de Sade—the pervert who wrote the book on S&M—and that is why she liked ‘Quills.’ Peter Rainer also condemns Mel’s movie for delving into ‘the realm of sadomasochism.’ Yet he commended Spielberg for the ‘gentleness’ he brought to ‘Saving Private Ryan.’ “Richard Corliss of Time thinks the only people who will be drawn to ‘The Passion’ are those ‘who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified.’ Yet he calls the ‘body halvings, decapitations, [and] unhandings’ of ‘Gladiator’ a ‘pleasure that we get to watch.’ Newsweek’s David Ansen says Mel’s film will ‘inspire nightmares,’ though he hails as ‘a must-see’ movie a flick about incest (‘The Dreamers’). David Denby of the New Yorker cites ‘The Passion’ as being so violent it ‘falls into the danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.’ This is the same guy who said of ‘Schindler’s List’ that ‘the violence [is] neither exaggerated nor minimized.’ “The New Puritans will not win this one. The public does not share their deep-seated aversion to religion nor their phony pacifism.”

[Yet more Jewish hatred of THE PASSION.]
Rabbi schools students about controversial film,
By JO CIAVAGLIA, Bucks County Courier Times, March 3, 2004
"Standing before middle school students, Rabbi Eric Wisnia couldn't say it enough times. The Jews didn't kill Jesus. Only Romans crucified people - specifically Jews, he said. "That is a hard fact no one can dispute," the Lower Makefield resident and spiritual head of Congregation Beth Chaim in Princeton repeatedly told the 100 students yesterday at Abrams Hebrew Academy in Yardley. But, he said, people might not understand that after watching "The Passion of the Christ," the controversial Mel Gibson movie depicting the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life. They won't understand much about Christianity either, he told the students. "This movie is so nasty and bloody no one should see it," he said. "It is so violent and terrible. It's the worst thing I've ever seen." But that doesn't mean those who have seen it, like Wisnia, shouldn't talk about it. That's important, said Rabbi Ira Budow, the school's director, who invited Wisnia to speak to the students. "What is on the minds of our children, we cannot dismiss," he said. "We have an obligation not to put our heads in the sand." The 90-minute presentation mixed religious history lessons with a critique of the movie, which was released last Wednesday and has grossed more than $125 million in its first five days."

[A compilation of attacks on Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ. This list is far from exhaustive. Defamations include those by a few non-Jewish sycophants and then those by Jews (the Catholic League has missed some of the juiciest ones we've found and posted at this web site). Jewish defamers include: Amy-Jill Levin, James Rudin, David Elcott, Emily Soloff, Rabbi David Rosen, David Friedman, Mark Briskman, Abraham Foxman, Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granator, David Klinghoffer, Mark Finkelstein, Eguene Korn, Ken Jacobson, Myra Shinbaum, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Harold Brackman, Rabbi Abraham Hecht, Rabbi Joshau Hecht, Leon Wiesltier, Robert Scheer, Stephen Rosenfeld, Richard Cohen, Shmuley Boteach. Folks, this is merely the tip of the iceberg.]
Maligning Mel Gibson,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

[It would be nice if the Catholic League fought fire with fire and started outlining the many, many, many, many anti-Gentile flaws in Judaism.]
ADL “PASSION” GUIDE FOR TEENS IS FLAWED,
Catholic League for Religius and Civil Rights, March 3, 2004
"The ADL has issued an online guide, Things Teens Should Know about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Most of it is fair enough, but not when it comes to the issue of whether the film accurately reflects Church teachings. Of the Gibson movie, the guide says, “His film does not adhere to these [Vatican II’s] guidelines.” Catholic League president William Donohue disagrees: “The ADL has failed in a) altering the movie’s script b) getting the Vatican to denounce the movie c) getting the U.S. bishops to denounce the film, and d) getting a postscript. Now it is instructing the public that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ contravenes Church teachings. We’re getting used to the chutzpah, but the ADL’s latest salvo deserves an answer. “The movie has been heralded by such Catholic heavyweights as Pope John Paul II (yes, he did say, ‘It is as it was’); Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy; Most Reverend John Foley, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications; Reverend Augustine Di Noia, Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago; Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia; Most Reverend Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver; Most Reverend John Donoghue, Archbishop of Atlanta; Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, Editor-in-Chief, First Things; Reverend Thomas Rosica, CEO, Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation; and theologian Michael Novak. “According to the ADL, all these authorities are wrong. Do those at the ADL really think anyone will believe them? “Finally, let’s put one thing to rest: 1965 was not the first time the Catholic Church condemned collective guilt of the Jews for the death of Christ. Indeed, the Catechism that the ADL so likes on this subject quotes a passage from the Council of Trent that also condemns collective guilt. And it was written in the mid-1500s!”

[Hmmm. Why has Spielberg "delayed" his Schindler's List DVD to parallel the opening of The Passion of the Christ?]
Spielberg: Won't comment on 'Passion'. First person he'll talk to will be Gibson,
CNN, Thursday, March 4, 2004
"Declaring himself "too smart to answer a question like that," Steven Spielberg on Wednesday deftly sidestepped the controversy surrounding fellow filmmaker Mel Gibson's box office smash, "The Passion of the Christ," which has been accused of anti-Semitism. He said he had yet to see the film, which depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life. In its first week, it grossed more than $125 million at the domestic box office. "I certainly am not going to comment based on circumstantial evidence from what I've been hearing and feeling in the last seven or eight days," Spielberg said at a news conference to promote the DVD release of his Oscar-winning Holocaust epic "Schindler's List." "I think it's much too important, and I'm really too smart to answer a question like that. "When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else," he added. Jewish groups have said "Passion" resurrects old claims that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus. Gibson's father, Hutton, a traditionalist Catholic, has said much of the Holocaust was fiction. Flanked by Holocaust survivors, Los Angeles teens and many of the film's stars, including Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley, Embeth Davidtz and Caroline Goodall, Spielberg said he hoped "Schindler's List" would prove to Holocaust deniers that the murder of 6 million Jews did occur and that it would help educate children to prevent history from repeating itself. The DVD will include an 11-minute clip explaining the work of Spielberg's Shoah Foundation, which is dedicated to archiving the testimonies of Holocaust survivors, and a 77-minute documentary, "Voices From the List," which presents never-before-seen commentaries from Schindler survivors. "There are Holocaust deniers who are so stuck in their hatred for Jews that neither 'Schindler's List' nor the Shoah Foundation will be able to convince them that 6 million murders actually occurred, but still we must try to convince them," Spielberg said. Spielberg said he delayed the release of the DVD in order to celebrate the 10th anniversary of both the film and the foundation, which has collected more than 52,000 Holocaust survivor testimonies in 56 countries."

[Like The Passion? You're probably sick! The Jewish Lobby seeks to toxify you as a bigoted kook: You're an EXTREMIST.]
Extremists Latch on to 'The Passion of the Christ', Says the Anti-Defamation League,
U.S. Newswire, March 4, 2004
"White supremacists and anti-Semitic extremists are expressing delight over the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Their hope is that anti-Semitic sentiments will be inflamed by the film and are planning ways to use the controversy to promote their anti-Semitic messages, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which monitors extremist groups and exposes their rhetoric, has identified several anti-Semitic groups and individuals who are attempting to use the controversy to promote their own hateful agendas."

[Which anti-Christian Jewish bigot wrote this editorial at Mother Jones? It's an unsigned editorial. Was it MJ editor Roger Cohn?]
Passion and Fury,
Mother Jones, March 1, 2004
"Now that "The Passion" is out, it seems the preliminary skirmish was just a warmup. The one -- the only -- thing everyone seems to agree about is that this movie is hard to watch -- as blood-drenched as any horror flick. Many wonder at Gibson's decision to focus so obsessively violence of Jesus’ torture and death at the expense, say, of his message of love. But then it was Gibson’s intention all along to inspire a strong, even visceral, reaction from his audience -- in the service, as he sees it, of something larger. Gibson has been wooing evangelical Christians to promote the movie. He sent kits to churches touting "The Passion" as "Perhaps the Best Outreach Opportunity in 2000 Years." Most of the papers sent reporters to do exit interviews with moviegoers, many of whom found "The Passion" affirming. "I knew it would make me feel like this, but actually seeing the Lord suffer, seeing a picture of it took my breath away," one viewer in Arkansas said. "It made me so grateful." Another viewer at the same Arkansas theater agreed: "People left amazed. I left in a very positive manner, uplifted, a little more strengthened in my faith." These supporters say that the film is violent because, well, the story it portrays is violent. One viewer in New York said, "It had to be like that. It had to be as horrible as possible, because that's how it was." The critical response, by and large, has been a lot less positive. Here's Slate movie critic, David Edelstein: “You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith.” Many critics have pointed out that Gibson has long been into this sort of thing. Think "Lethal Weapon," "Brave Heart" and "The Patriot." But David Denby notes in the New Yorker (where an illustration shows Gibson on a cross being doused with buckets of blood) that the stakes get much higher when Gibson moves from fomenting (safely historical) Scottish nationalism and revolutionary fervor, to stoking contemporary relgious fanaticism: The despair of the movie is hard to shrug off, and Gibson’s timing couldn’t be more unfortunate: another dose of death-haunted religious fanaticism is the last thing we need. Whatever Gibson's aspirations, this movie was never really going to be a transforming, much less a converting, experience. It arrives in a polarized cultural landscape and exerts its power of attraction and repulsion in exactly the ways you'd expect. Deeply religious Christians love it; the less religious -- and certainly the secular -- hate it. Even if every American were to see it, we still wouldn’t be able to talk about it, and we certainly won’t be able to see eye to eye about what it all means. What does the movie, or rather its reception, have to tell us about religion and politics in America today? Maureen Dowd was quick to draw the parallel between Gibson’s fanatacism and George Bush’s, well, fanaticism: Mel Gibson and George W. Bush are courting bigotry in the name of sanctity. The moviemaker wants to promote "The Passion of the Christ" and the president wants to prevent the passion of the gays. Rush Limbaugh also has some ideas about what "The Passion" means for the religious right and Republicans in this election year: 'What do you think Mel Gibson's movie is so opposed for? I'll tell you why. Because Jesus Christ portrayed accurately is going to shore up the Christian movement in this country. And here comes this movie and it's the worst thing that could happen to the people who want to destroy the culture. ... George and Laura Bush both said they are looking forward to seeing "The Passion," while John Kerry said that he is concerned about the movie and that we must be careful of anti-Semitism."

[Endless Jewish hate. Safire is, like most anti-Christian Passion Trashers, another pompous privileged Jewish media editorialist. Another Jew telling Christians what they're permitted to think. Read carefully. This is yet another Jewish attack not only on Gibson, but on the Christian faith.]
Not Peace, but a Sword,
By WILLIAM SAFIRE, New York Times, March 1, 2004
"The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen. Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose — to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins — the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal. What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished? Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault. The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers." Much of the hatred is based on a line in the Gospel of St. Matthew, after the Roman governor washes his hands of responsibility for ordering the death of Jesus, when the crowd cries, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Though unreported in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, that line in Matthew — embraced with furious glee by anti-Semites through the ages — is right there in the New Testament. Gibson and his screenwriter didn't make it up, nor did they misrepresent the apostle's account of the Roman governor's queasiness at the injustice. But biblical times are not these times. This inflammatory line in Matthew — and the millenniums of persecution, scapegoating and ultimately mass murder that flowed partly from its malign repetition — was finally addressed by the Catholic Church in the decades after the defeat of Naziism ... Mr. Gibson is reportedly aligned with that reactionary clique. (So is his father, an outspoken Holocaust-denier, but the son warns interviewers not to go there. I agree; the latest generation should not be held responsible for the sins of the fathers.) ... The richness of Scripture is in its openness to interpretation answering humanity's current spiritual needs. That's where Gibson's medieval version of the suffering of Jesus, reveling in savagery to provoke outrage and cast blame, fails Christian and Jew today."

[Want a job at the Jew York Times and you're not Jewish? Make sure you think like this:]
Stations of the Crass,
By MAUREEN DOWD, New York Times, February 26, 2004
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Mel Gibson and George W. Bush are courting bigotry in the name of sanctity. The moviemaker wants to promote "The Passion of the Christ" and the president wants to prevent the passion of the gays. Opening on two screens: W.'s stigmatizing as political strategy and Mel's stigmata as marketing strategy. Mr. Gibson, who told Diane Sawyer that he was inspired to make the movie after suffering through addictions, found the ultimate 12-step program: the Stations of the Cross. I went to the first show of "The Passion" at the Loews on 84th Street and Broadway; it was about a quarter filled. This is not, as you may have read, a popcorn movie. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles, it's two gory hours of Jesus getting flayed by brutish Romans at the behest of heartless Jews. Perhaps fittingly for a production that licensed a jeweler to sell $12.99 nail necklaces (what's next? crown-of-thorns prom tiaras?), "The Passion" has the cartoonish violence of a Sergio Leone Western. You might even call it a spaghetti crucifixion, "A Fistful of Nails." Writing in The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor, scorns it as "a repulsive, masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film" that uses "classically anti-Semitic images." I went with a Jewish pal, who tried to stay sanguine. "The Jews may have killed Jesus," he said. "But they also gave us `Easter Parade.'"

[The Culture War heats up: here we have Jews and non-Jewish sycophants whose allegiance to pseudo-religious Jewish Victim Mythology and Jewish Totalitarianism blinds them to all else, including -- for Christians in this list -- their own faith. Their Christianity is the revised JEWISH version, and they don't grasp that.]
CRITICS SEE PORN AND S&M IN “THE PASSION”,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, March 5, 2004
"The following quotes are from the critics of “The Passion of the Christ”: —Rev. Andrew Greeley calls it “sadomasochistic and pornographic.” —Christopher Hitchens dubs it “an exercise in lurid sadomasochism.” —Ex-priest John Dominic Crossan labels it “pornographic.” —David Edelstein of Slate finds it an “exercise in sadomasochism.’ —Rabbi James Rudin brands it “a sadomasochistic film.” —David Denby of The New Yorker opines “It’s extremely sadistic.” —Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post says it’s “pornographic.” —A.O. Scott of the New York Times sees it as “high-minded sadomasochism.” —Andrew Sullivan was shocked to find it “pornographic.” —Rev. Michael Coffey, a Lutheran minister, says it’s “pornographic.” —David Ansen of Newsweek screams “It’s the sadism” that’s troubling. —Jamie Bernard of the Daily News notes it “would horrify the regulars at an S&M club.” —Ex-priest James Carroll sees the film as nothing but “pornographic.” —Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic dubs it “a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film.” —Harvard professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen was aghast at the “sadomasochistic, orgiastic display” and its “unremitting sadism.” —Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post calls it “the most unremitting sadism in the history of film.” —Bill Safire in the New York Times complains of its “sustained sadism.” —Al Neuharth of USA TODAY calls it a “wasted exercise in sadomasochism.” Catholic League president William Donohue responds as follows: “Christians need to take note of this mental goose-stepping, but they should also note that none of these savants found ‘Schindler’s List’ to be pornographic. What they find pornographic is the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. No doubt for some of them, the New Testament classifies as pornography as well. Indeed that is exactly what a Brooklyn rabbi told me to my face. At least now it’s out in the open.”

[The audacity and two-faced hypocrisy of Jews never ceases to amaze. Who is this next Jewish Mel Gibson/Christ Trasher? He's Yossi Klein Halevi who wrote an entire book about his life called "Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist" which included confessions about institutionalized Jewish racism when he was raised as an Ultra-Orthodox Jew. Halevi (whose grandfather was a millionaire in Europe) grew up in a New York Hasidic neighborhood, in Borough Park. In 1995 he wrote: "Aside from watching them on TV, goyim were alien to me as they were to the Hasidic children. Naturally, I had no non-Jewish friends. An Italian family lived on our block. If I saw one of the Italians at a distance, I'd cross the steet to avoid the awkwardness of saying hello ... I did master [my father's] crucial lesson: to see myself as a stranger in a hostile world, a member of a people only formally to humanity -- in effect, a separate species." [Halevi, Yossi Klein, Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist. An American Story. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, New York, Toronto, London, 1995, p. 15] WE NEED THIS GUY TO LECTURE CHRISTIANS ABOUT TOLERANCE , THAT THEY PAY MORE HOMAGE TO RACIST JEWS? Please. Give me a break. Expose the Scam Masters.]
Essay: Jews and Christians after 'The Passion',
By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI, Jeruslaem Post, March 4, 2004
"I had assumed - hoped - that the Jewish critics of The Passion were exaggerating. The critics, after all, have a habit of assuming the worst of Christianity, and of underestimating the positive changes in Christian attitudes toward Jews. They turned the Pope's beatification of Edith Stein into a nefarious Catholic plot to "Christianize" the Holocaust, and transformed a debate among historians over the role of Pius XII into a campaign against the church headed by John Paul II, who has devoted himself to Christian atonement for anti-Semitism. But this time the critics weren't exaggerating. Mel Gibson has produced a medieval passion play, reviving the whiff of deicide at the most vulnerable Jewish moment since the 1940s. In the film, hysterical Jewish mobs repeatedly call for Jesus's blood as Pontius Pilate agonizes over his fate. Worse, the film undermines one of the seminal accomplishments of the Christian-Jewish dialogue: restoring the Jewishness of Jesus. While the elders of the Sanhedrin look like hassidim from Brooklyn, Jesus looks like a Renaissance Italian. It's hardly surprising that Gibson is a "traditionalist" Catholic contemptuous of Vatican II. His film, after all, undermines a key historical achievement of Vatican II: beginning the process of the Church's reconciliation with its Jewish roots. Given the damage he's done to Christian-Jewish relations, I wouldn't want to be Mel Gibson on Judgment Day. I'm currently visiting Colorado Springs, which many call the evangelical capital of America. The powerful evangelical group Focus of the Family is headquartered here; on a Sunday morning, as many as 10,000 people fill its main church. One local bumper sticker reads, "In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless." (The counter-sticker goes: "In case of Rapture, can I have your car?") This is as good a place as any to contemplate the effects of The Passion. On a weeknight, the theater I attended was nearly full. People emerged from the screening in what seemed like stunned silence. Clearly, many had just experienced a profound religious encounter. Yet I felt alone and vulnerable in that crowd, no longer trusting its benign instincts. Still, those same Christians are almost certainly passionate supporters of Israel. Earlier that day I'd spoken about the Middle East to cadets at the Air Force Academy, here in Colorado Springs. Many of the cadets are devout Christians. When I arrived, the guard at the gate was talking to a young woman about the Rapture. Not surprisingly, my audience was deeply sympathetic to Israel. As I spoke about Israel's dilemmas and the necessity of the security fence, there were vigorous nods around the room. "You're not alone," one cadet said to me afterwards. And that's precisely how an Israeli feels among religious American conservatives: embraced, appreciated, understood. ARE WE, then, supposed to ignore the irony that, in our war with genocidal Islamism, our strongest allies are now promoting a film that resurrects the charge of deicide? A few days ago, a leading conservative Jewish critic appeared on an evangelical TV show to express his outrage at Jewish criticism of the film. It was an appalling display of obsequiousness: Instead of explaining why Jews feel threatened by The Passion, he denounced its Jewish critics for supposedly trying to dictate to Christians what to believe. Yet those Jewish leaders who have led the public campaign against The Passion have also behaved shabbily. In fact, they bear no small responsibility for turning the film into a media sensation. Instead of quietly encouraging an internal Christian debate over the film, they have created the worst possible outcome - a growing Christian defensiveness over a perceived Jewish assault on their faith. The crucial question, after all, is what Christians, not Jews, think about The Passion. Where a Jew sees blood, kitsch, and menace, a Christian sees sacrifice, suffering, and love. I sat in on a discussion about The Passion among a group of Colorado Springs college students, most of them Evangelicals and Catholics. They'd just come from a screening, and were so overwhelmed by emotion that it took them a while to be able to speak ... And so the dilemma remains: How strongly do we challenge and invalidate a faith experience for Christians and impose a Jewish agenda on what should be an internal Christian debate over the meaning of their faith? The dilemma is compounded by mutual insecurity. For Jews, a wildly popular film evoking deicide only strengthens our growing sense that the bad days are returning. For Christians, especially Catholics, who feel under assault because of the Church's sex scandal, the Jewish attack on a positive artistic depiction of their faith intensifies their sense of cultural siege."

[What does this mean? "Heeb" is a magazine for the young Jewish generation. The future. And here's what they have in store for us: arrogance, insult and decadence. It is the modern junction between Jewish porn and Jewish identity. It is not a rogue operation. It is funded by the Jewish Federation. For the Anti-Defamation League's part, they know belittling Jesus so overtly is big-time BAD for Jews. The ADL's central purpose is to protect their community. A bunch of Heebs leaping into fire doesn't help this goal.]
Heeb’s Steamy Passion,
by Julia Goldman, Jewish Week, MArch 5, 2--4
"Aw, Jeez! With a name like Heeb, readers should expect a hefty dose of irreverence between the covers of the self-styled “New Jew Review.” But the Anti-Defamation League says the upstart magazine’s parody of Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” goes beyond bad taste — to blasphemy. In a press release, the ADL blasts the magazine’s “Crimes of Passion” photo display for portraying “Jesus as a sex object with his genitalia wrapped in a Jewish prayer shawl. The Virgin Mary is shown as a seductress with exposed breasts and body piercings.” The Jewish defense organization calls the 10-page photo spread “blasphemous to both Christians and Jews,” engaging in “highly destructive anti-Christian themes that are both insensitive and ill timed.” The ADL has been one of the foremost critics of Gibson’s film, which opened last week and reportedly grossed $122 million in its first five days. The film’s negative portrayal of Jews, the ADL and other critics say, has the potential to inflame anti-Jewish feeling. “It’s not our job to be out there and police,” the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, said of Heeb’s latest issue, “but this is something so crude, so coarse and so ugly, it blatantly crosses the line.” If similar images appeared in a Christian publication, he said, “we would expect that some Christian voices would say it’s offensive.” The ADL did not contact Heeb before issuing its condemnation. The Heeb team claims the ADL has it wrong. “What we’re doing is satirizing not Christianity but one man’s pomposity,” the editor-in-chief, Joshua Neuman, said, referring to Gibson. Heeb’s cover headline reads “Back off, Braveheart.” Neuman said the Passion Play spread emerged from interfaith discussions last fall, talks spurred by the controversy over “The Passion” and a desire “to make sense of this age-old narrative.” Foxman said Heeb is only out to get attention through “schlock shock.” The magazine’s former publicist quit over the issue. But supporters say Heeb has never shied away from provocation in reaching out to its target audience of young, secular Jews. “They’ve always been honest about who they are, and they are no more or less honest with this issue,” said Deborah Joselow, director of the UJA-Federation Commission on Jewish Identity and Renewal. The New York federation is Heeb’s main funder. Heeb’s creative director, Nancy Schwartzman, cited historical precedents in art (minus the body piercings) from Diego Velazquez to Edvard Munch for her sensual depictions of Christian figures and themes. Marc Chagall dressed Jesus in a tallit-loincloth in his 1938 painting “White Crucifixion,” she noted. The painting is in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago. Of Foxman, she said, “This man has no sense of humor at all.”

[Heeb magazine is a real Jewish ethnic journal. Like so many other Jews, it looks like its editors are interested in warring with Christ, Christians, and the Mel Gibson movie. We think they should stick to their strength: their "Exclusive" feature : "Sarah Silverman does porn."]

[More anti-Christian hatred from the Jew Klux Klan. Krauthammer calls Christians "savages." If the game is such name calling, Jews expect to have free rein in smearing all others. If we're looking for "savages," Krauthammer is wrong. Jews are the moral "savages" as their racist "Chosen People" Talmud evidences. He also compares Mel Gibson to Leni Reifensthal, Hitler's Nazi filmmaker. The relentless Jewish attack on Mel Gibson, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and The Passion is corrupt. Jewish hysteria, racism, arrogance, and bigotry continues to pass as legitimate "news" in the Jewish mass media.]
Gibson's Blood Libel,
By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23 "Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai. 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. Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers. Vatican II did not question the Gospels. It did not disavow its own central story. It took responsibility for it, and for the baleful history it had spawned. Recognizing that all words, even God's words, are necessarily subject to human interpretation, it ordered an understanding of those words that was most conducive to recognizing the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people. The Vatican did that for good reason. 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. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow. Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews. His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it." His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation. 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. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10 ... In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people. Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them." Spare us such love."

[A little older article: Yet another whining, bigoted, narcissistic, anti-Christian Mel Gibson-hater whose fundamental sense of being a Christian means kissing Jewish Butt and protecting Chosen People racism as the noble core of modern morality. Yes, "Christianity is in crisis." Why? Because, thanks to guys like this, it stands for very little. It has been completely revamped to accomodate Jewish demands and the West's decadent Judeocentric culture. Christ died for his beliefs. And that included escaping the Jewish Thought Police of his time.]
Will Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ help save Christianity?,
By Daniel Johnson, Telegraph (UK), Novmber 2, 2003
"I am not among the handful of people who have seen Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, on general release at the end of March. Until I do, I cannot express an opinion about its cinematic aesthetics or historical authenticity. I am, however, a practising Roman Catholic. For me, the repudiation of anti-Semitism in all forms is not merely an issue of the utmost moral and theological significance, but integral to my understanding of what it is to be a Christian. The issues raised by the film are impossible to ignore. Christianity in the West is undeniably in crisis. Christians who are ashamed of the historical basis of their faith will not pass it on to the next generation - if, with our pathological failure to reproduce, there is a younger generation. For Christians, The Passion is at once a challenge to re-examine the most problematic aspects of their faith, and an opportunity to share its most sublime mystery with others."

[The accusation of "anti-Semitism" has been a political tool for decades to suffocate legitimate moral dissent against Jewish arrogance, racism, and power. Here below we have a different kind of chauvinistic Jewish/Zionist bigot -- again at the Judeocentric National Review -- who wants the Jewish wagons pulled tighter in the right places.]
The Jews Who Cried Wolf Hubbub over The Passion,
By Julia Gorin, National Review, March 5, 2004
"It's an age-old story with a modern twist: Even as the boy is being devoured by a real wolf, he continues to point to one that is, if not imaginary, at least toothless. To some Jews, indirect anti-Semitism is worse than deadly anti-Semitism. Because it's the former that ineffectual groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center can fight. It's rather like looking indoors for a quarter that was lost outdoors — because the lighting is better. If some Jews were upset over The Passion of the Christ even before seeing it, it's because we gave the exclusive contract on anti-Semitism to Muslims. But why rob Gibson of the benefit of the doubt we gave Arafat? True, the film depicts an imaginatively unflattering Jewish role in Christ's crucifixion — beyond what the Gospels suggest. So yes, Mel Gibson is his father's son. But any Jew who supported the Oslo Peace Process — and there were more of us than readily admit now — should be keeping a low profile amid The Passion. Unless blowing up Jews is more forgivable than Mel's movie. It's certainly easier to point the finger at the Christian, if you want to keep that finger. When a movie like The Passion of the Christ comes along, it's the professional Jew-defender's dream come true. Mouthing off about Mel is basically a paid vacation for these types, who even with all the Jewish financial contributions from over the years at their disposal weren't doing their job — not during Crown Heights and not during seven years of genocide bombings in Israel leading up to the second Intifada in 2000, which managed to catch them off-guard. Only then did they kick into gear, as unabashed anti-Semitism exploded throughout the Middle East and resurged in Europe. Only then did it occur to organized Jewry that they forgot to equip a generation or two of college students to fight, much less preempt, the anti-Semitism they would encounter at their left-wing college campuses. Where did all that Jewish money go? To the NAACP, gay rights, injured Palestinian children and Albanian Muslims. One need only look at Elie Wiesel, the picture of timeless Jewish suffering, to understand the farce that is Jewish outrage today. When three genocide bombs went off in a single week in Israel last year, where was Elie? Elie was in Romania, giving a speech to a village to remind them that 60 years ago "Jews were killed here too." Understandably, Wiesel survived a horrific Holocaust experience, but he devotes his energies to past threats, choosing to remain a universally sympathetic figure rather than a useful one. He and the rest spent the past decade looking for cheap Holocaust analogies everywhere except Israel, where a more literal parallel was in the making. These days, these types seem to come out only when it's safe, like when Jesus is involved. Tragically, the Jewish people reserve greater scorn for the guy wanting to save them from hell than the one trying to send them there. If Jews spent less time worrying about ancient hatreds and more time worrying about the glaring contemporary ones, we wouldn't have come to a point where the legitimacy of Israel's very existence is regularly questioned and where the Jews get blamed when Muslims bomb America. While Jews worry about things like intermarriage, a sleepy KKK, an Austrian named Haider, a second president named Bush, and now a movie about Christ, the real threats spiral out of control. Despite building careers on six million dead, the professional defenders have shied away from the harder fights. So along comes Mel to give them some relevance and put them back in business. And to put media indignation over anti-Semitism back in business. Both Mel and the Jews should feel used. There's a reason the controversy got as big as it did. The liberal media acting like they care whether someone is anti-Semitic or not is not only insulting but insidious as well. The plan is to keep the Passion ruckus they raised in their pocket, for fuel in countering accusations of anti-Semitism the next time they diminish terrorism against Israelis, the next time they misrepresent Israeli raids of terror camps as massacres, and the next time they demonize Israelis for building a wall to stay alive. All they'll have to say is: "We can't be anti-Semites. Just look at the hell we gave Mel!"

[Nonsense. Jewish degrading and defaming reaction to The Passion "inspires anti-Semitic graffiti." Why must the meaning of Christianity be repeatedly negotiated with -- and shaped by -- Jews?]
Hate crime: 'Passion' seems to inspire anti-Semitic graffiti,
By Rick Hellman, Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, March 5, 2004
"Community Christian Church, perhaps best known for its Frank Lloyd Wright architecture or its "light steeple," was marred by anti-Semitic graffiti last week. On the night after Mel Gibson's controversial, some say anti-Semitic, film "The Passion of the Christ" opened in Kansas City, a vandal scrawled "Jesus blood shede (sic) by Jews hand" on a wall and dumped a suspicious-looking white powder in a doorway at the Community Christian Church, 4601 Main St. The church's Rev. Robert Lee Hill said the incident "indicates that the movie and the hubbub around it does have the power to stimulate this kind of crazy behavior in some sick individuals." Police called to the church Thursday morning, Feb. 26, upon the discovery of the vandalism, quickly determined that the white powder was flour, and not anthrax. Custodial crews quickly washed away the green paint used to mark the wall, on the north side of the building, along 46th Street. But the incident was troubling to Rev. Hill, whose church hosted a post-screening Jewish-Christian discussion of "The Passion" last Thursday evening, together with Rabbi Arthur Nemitoff and congregants from The Temple, Congregation B'nai Jehudah ... Rabbi Mark Levin of Congregation Beth Torah saw the film last week as the invited guest of the Rev. Jerry Johnston of First Family Church. "Something interesting is happening," said Rabbi Levin. "Non-Jews genuinely don't see the anti-Semitism. That means that the deicide charge really does not register with them, and perhaps it is not really a part of their culture. I think they are seeing how, in their view, they killed the Christ. "Also, it has forced religious leaders to pronounce that they and their followers should stay far away from anti-Semitism. That's the tradeoff, it seems. To have this movie appear, they feel they must denounce anti-Semitism. This may be a good thing, particularly if they will do it in their pulpits."

[David Ansen is the 22 millionth Jew in the position of media power to trash The Passion.]
All of a Sudden, Newsweek Concerned About Kids Viewing R-rated Movies,
By James L. Lambert, Agape Press, February 27, 2004 (
"It's simply amazing to witness the media frenzy over the new Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ. First, we heard that the movie would fuel anti-Semitic feelings among the populace and generate hostility towards Jewish communities around America. Much of this came from left-leaning critics of the film who had never even seen the movie. Now we hear from publications like Newsweek magazine that tell their six to seven million readers the film is nothing more than "an R-rated movie [that] no child can, or should, see .... Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion." The violence of the crucifixion and other scenes from the film found David Ansen of Newsweek "recoiling from the movie." Ansen goes on by saying, "It's the sadism, not the alleged anti-Semitism, that is most striking .... There's always been a pronounced streak of sadomasochism and martyrdom running through Gibson's movies." Ansen's distaste for Mel Gibson and his movie that opened on Ash Wednesday is strikingly evident in his review released this week by MSNBC.com. What is so mystifying about his criticisms is that this is the same critic who heaped praise on The Dreamers, a movie about incest. Yet Ansen leads off his article under the banner of "So What's the Good News?" That title alone sends a strong message that while his magazine may tolerate all types of bizarre behavior and immorality, it certainly has a low opinion of religion -- most notably Christianity. Newsweek's mockery of Mel Gibson's effort to convey a more accurate depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life reflects the magazine's uneasiness with religion. Salem Radio Network talk-show host Mike Gallagher views this as yet another media attack on Gibson and his movie. "The mainstream liberal press has had a field day trying to convince people that Mel Gibson is some kind of a wild-eyed fanatic," Gallagher says. "The truth of the matter is that he has constructed a powerful, extraordinary movie that dramatically demonstrates the depths of Christ's suffering for us." Gallagher contends that the thought of "a blockbuster motion picture attended by millions ... draw(ing) people closer to God" probably frightens the secularists in the media."

[Jewish revisionist strategy: Better to have hid and screwed Gibson from behind the scenes and let pro-Jewish Christian sychophants to the dirty work. Surely, that'll be the method next time.]
Passion' Critics Endanger Jews, Angry Rabbis Claim, Attacking Groups, Foxman,
By Nacha Cattan, Forward
"The debate within the Jewish community over the proper response to "The Passion of the Christ" was turned up a notch last week when an outspoken Orthodox rabbi declared the film's Jewish critics can be placed in the religious category of rodef, or pursuer. The term is used in rabbinic jurisprudence to describe an assailant who threatens Jewish lives and may be killed to preempt the danger. Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, religious leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, N.J., invoked the controversial term from his pulpit, saying that certain Jewish organizations were "endangering Jewish lives" by attacking a film widely hailed in the Christian community as iconic. A handful of critics have echoed Pruzansky's extreme criticisms. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of the Seattle-based Toward Tradition organization, declared on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" that the Anti-Defamation League and its allies were "dangerous organizations, organizations that are driving a wedge between American Jews and Christians." Referring to ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Lapin said that by calling Gibson's film antisemitic, "what he is saying is that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith." Pruzansky's use of the term rodef, however, especially infuriated critics who recalled that its invocation by rabbis against the late Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin had been cited by his assassin, Yigal Amir, as a justification for the murder. In a subsequent interview with the Forward, Pruzansky insisted that he had made clear to his congregation, which comprises 500 families, that he was not calling for anyone's death. He only invoked the concept of rodef, he said, as a way of emphasizing his opposition to the noisy criticism directed against Mel Gibson's cinematic depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. In an initial interview, Pruzansky told the Forward he had employed the term as part of a larger argument for shutting down Jewish watchdog groups, including the ADL and the American Jewish Committee. Later, however, he said his speech was not directed at any particular organization. But several Jewish communal leaders said they were still outraged by Pruzansky's use of the term. "It was beneath contempt," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. "It was despicable." The rhetorical warfare is perhaps the most extreme example of a debate raging within the Jewish community over the wisdom of aggressively attacking Gibson's film, which raked in $125.2 million in ticket sales during its first five days in North American theaters. Since the movie's release and phenomenal box-office success, a growing chorus of Jewish organizational and religious leaders has begun blaming the film's critics for giving it free publicity and increasing its popularity. Fears have also been voiced that criticism of the film has soured relations between Jews and Christians, especially upsetting evangelicals who have been staunchly supporting Israel, but who also packed movie houses during the past week. A new study of Web sites and chat rooms conducted by the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles has found a "heightened level of anger directed at Jews regarding their opposition to the film." Those who have recently questioned the tactics of the film's critics include Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Rabbi Eugene Korn, the former ADL interfaith affairs director, who initially railed against the film, and Rabbi David Rosen of the AJCommittee, whose group has taken a more measured tone in criticizing the movie. "Frankly, I think we should have had Christians out front speaking about it," Hoenlein said last week in a radio interview on "JM in the AM," a weekday morning show geared toward Orthodox Jews in the New York metropolitan area. "There is a legitimate debate that tickets were sold by virtue of the controversy and that the better part of wisdom would have been to deal with it quietly and perhaps have Christians approach Gibson and let them fight it out," Hoenlein said in the interview. He told the Forward that he had not been speaking as a representative of the Conference of Presidents. Korn, who had served as the ADL's point man on the film last year until his sudden exit from the organization, said that in October, when it became clear Gibson was not going to modify the movie, "the strategy should have changed to work behind the scenes in a quiet way with less testosterone to get Christian leaders" to lead the opposition. ... [Head of the ADL Abe] Foxman was once a member of Pruzansky's congregation, but resigned publicly a decade ago to protest the rabbi's vehement criticisms of Rabin prior to his assassination. Foxman said that if not for pressure from Jewish groups, various liberal Protestant churches and Catholic officials would not have publicly reiterated their stance that Jews were not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus — a position critics say is undermined by the movie. Foxman added that Jewish groups had succeeded in convincing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue a booklet of documents outlining how the last days of Jesus should to be portrayed. ... On the film's opening day, February 25, groups of Orthodox protesters in New York demonstrated against the film. The Orthodox Union warned in a statement and a video that viewing the film could lead to "inner doubts" about Judaism. More liberal elements within the Jewish community appear to be just as divided on "The Passion." Some Reform leaders and civil rights groups have argued forcefully that the film could provoke dangerous anti-Jewish feelings, particularly in Europe and Latin America, while others caution against creating rifts between Jews and pro-Israel Christians. Some communal officials argue that the very success of the film in the face of Jewish protests is a bad omen ... "If there is any Jew-hatred that results from this event," the rabbi said, "it won't be from the movie but from the Jewish overreaction to it."

[The endless lineup: yet another hating Jew trashes Mel Gibson, The Passion and Christ. If you believe in Christ, you are an "anti-Semite." If you believe in Mohamed, you are an "anti-Semite." If you hold Jews responsible for anything, the way you'd hold anybody responsible for their beliefs and actions, you're an "anti-Semite." So surrender already. Do this Jew a favor and turn yourself in to the Jewish Thought Police. And yes, Mel Gibson is a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. You know it. Confess.]
Passion of Mel Is Mean, Gnarled, Next to the Sacred,
by Ron Rosenbaum, New York Observer, May 6, 2004
"But enough about love. Let’s talk about hatred. Not the incitement to hatred in The Passion of the Christ, although by this time any informed person, Christian or Jewish, who doesn’t see it there is engaging in what Gabriel Schoenfeld calls "anti-Semitism denial" (in his important new book The Return of Anti-Semitism). Let’s not even talk about the way Mel Gibson distorted not just history but the Gospels themselves to intensify the vilification of Jews. As Columbia scholar James Shapiro demonstrates in Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World’s Most Famous Passion Play—his fascinating study of attempts to reform Hitler’s favorite Passion play—efforts can be made to tone down the anti-Semitic incitement in the Passion narrative. Mel Gibson tones them up, as many have observed. Let’s instead talk about Mel’s father, Hutton Gibson, and the platform the film gave him for his Holocaust-denying views on George Stephanopoulos’ ABC Sunday-morning show, This Week, three days before The Passion opened. Some might disagree, but I think Mr. Stephanopoulos and ABC were performing an important public service in airing taped excerpts from the astonishing radio interview that Hutton Gibson gave to Steve Feuerstein ... The Passion plays up the money angle. The film focuses on the haggling over the money paid to Judas by his fellow Jews to betray Jesus, giving us a lovingly hateful slow-motion shot of the purse of silver coins as it flies through the air from the stereotypically hook-nosed high priest to Judas. When Judas drops the purse, we see him crawling on his knees to pick up the fallen coins that are his pay-off for the sell-out. Ancient stereotype, anyone? Similarly, he plays up the villainous Jews’ demands on a supposedly reluctant Pontius Pilate that Jesus be killed. Plays it up in a way that doesn’t just go beyond the Gospels but willfully distorts them to give us a deeply troubled Pilate, one who is not merely indifferent but, with his wife, resistant to the repeated demands of the bloodthirsty Jews. The Passion is as much a story of a father and a son as a story of the Father and the Son. It is Mel Gibson going about his father’s business. That’s why Hutton Gibson’s views matter to an assessment of The Passion: his views on the "mostly fictional" Holocaust and how the Christians have been blamed for the fiction cooked up by the Jews, and how it was time to remind the world of just who the Jews were—fake victims, real murderers, the people who murdered God Himself. So the Jews shouldn’t be complaining even about the mostly "fictional" victims of the Nazis, because the Jews were the perpetrators of a far greater crime, and faking the Holocaust was a way of distracting attention from it. I’ve argued in the past that there was something particularly loathsome about Holocaust denial in that, in effect, it seeks to murder Hitler’s victims a second time—murders their memory ... You could argue that Mel Gibson is not intentionally anti-Semitic. It’s possible that he’s just too stupid to know the effect of what he’s done, too ignorant of the historical effect of Passion plays. But his father is intent personified—intent that seems to have been transmitted to a gullible son who wants to win his father’s love. I don’t know: One of the things I’m most grateful to my late father for is that he was a completely unprejudiced man, racially and religiously. He lived to make people laugh, and he succeeded more often than not. When he came back from his wartime service, he wanted to make a better world and joined a veterans’ group dedicated to civil rights for all. I can’t believe how lucky I am to have had a father like that rather than someone like Hutton Gibson. I almost feel sorry for Mel Gibson. ... On Thursday night, Bill O’Reilly asked—"respectfully," he said—whether Mel Gibson was being singled out because "the major media in Hollywood and a lot of the secular press is controlled by Jewish people."

[In the Jewish Lobby's eyes, telling the truth is a Thought Crime. Here's the Englehart (Hartford Courant) cartoon they seek to censor. Folks, in Jewish eyes this is a manfestation of "anti-Semitism." Think about it. This little cartoon that dares to infer in the slightest that it's possible ANYTHING Jews do could instigate anti-Jewish hostility affords the Jewish Censorial Nuthouse to expound their usual inane "tolerance" lecture and look for Englehart's head on a pole.]

[More censorship from the Anti-Defamation League (which recently had to pay out $10 million to the Quigley family for calling them "anti-Semites"). The Jewish Lobby seems to have a special delight in censorsing cartoons. Mel Gibson got away, so they aim for smaller fry. The ADL doesn't even provide a link for you to see the object of their smear. Jews create "anti-Semitism" by their beliefs and actions -- always. Even by this stupid demand upon the Hartford Courant. Are Jews losing touch with reality? ]
Letters to the Editor. The Hartford Courant. March 3, 2004, [The ADL headline says: Hartford Courant Cartoon: a License to Bigotry]
Anti-Defamation League
"To the Editor: For more than 2,000 years, haters of Jews have never struggled to find a rationale for blaming their victims: the Jews are too rich, too poor, they are communists, they are capitalists, they are rootless, parasitic foreigners without their own land, they are nationalists (Zionists) with a country of their own. For anti-Semites and their apologists, the trouble with Jews is simply that they are. Englehart joins these misguided apologists with a cartoon that blames Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for contemporary anti-Semitism, while at the same time trivializing the concerns of Christians and Jews that the a-historic and stereotypical portrayal of Jews in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" could fuel anti-Jewish prejudice and reinforce anti-Jewish stereotypes. This linkage provides insight into Englehart's irrational thinking. The cartoon is not mere criticism of Israeli policy. Ariel Sharon has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that for centuries (during which the State of Israel did not exist) the charge that "the Jews" killed Jesus, most vividly expressed in Passion plays, was used by some to foment violence against Jewish communities. Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jews, has never been and still is not a result of the actions or inactions of the Jewish people. Rather, it is a cancer that attacks periodically and without reason. Providing justification for it is merely an attempt to rationalize the irrational. Anti-Semitism today is no more the result of Ariel Sharon's policies than the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was the result of Hitler's dislike of Albert Einstein's scientific theories."

[Dialogue? Jews don't dialogue. They demand. They manuever concession. They push. They hustle. They whine. Jews! Excise racism from your Talmud! Now! Excise racism out of apartheid Israel! Now! There's some dialogue, their style. And why yet another Jewish "expert" on Christian Passion plays? Are all experts on Passion plays Jewish? That's like having a snake who's an expert on frogs.]
The Anti-Defamation League Hosts: 'The Passion Controversy: A Catholic/Jewish Dialogue',
U.S. Newswire, March 5, 2004
"News Advisory: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announces a special event: "The Passion Controversy: A Catholic/Jewish Dialogue," a lecture and conversation on the history of passion plays and the current controversy about Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. The event will take place Tuesday, March 9 at 7 to 8:30 p.m. The Anti-Defamation League joins the Office of Public Policy and Social Concerns, Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Commission, Archdiocese of San Francisco, the University of San Francisco, and the Taube Center for Jewish Life, Jewish Community Center of San Francisco in hosting this special event. The Keynote speaker is Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University. Professor Levine is one of the foremost experts on passion plays, the New Testament, and the Hebrew Bible. Professor Levine will be joined in discussion by Caryl M. Stern, ADL Senior Associate National Director, and Father Stephen Meriwether, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of San Francisco The event is located at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco."

[The Witch Hunt begins. Someone sprays swastikas on a synagogue. Who gets blamed? Mel Gibson's movie specifically, and Christians generally.]
Swastikas sprayed on Denver synagogue,
By Ann Depperschmidt, The Denver Post, March 7, 2004
"About 10 white swastikas and other Nazi symbols were spray-painted Friday night on walls around the BMH-BJ Congregation, a Jewish synagogue at 560 S. Monaco Parkway. Rabbi Daniel Cohen said he couldn't remember anything like that happening before at the east Denver synagogue. A Holocaust survivor who came to worship Saturday morning told him he hasn't seen anything so hateful in 60 years, Cohen said. Ramon Saenz, a custodian for the synagogue, said he saw the Nazi symbols when he arrived at work about 8:30 a.m. Saturday. Saenz said he checked the building for other damage but that everything seemed in order. Nothing was stolen, he said. "There's a lot of crazy people in this world," he said. "I thought it might have something to do with the movie." He referred to "The Passion of the Christ," released Feb. 25. Many Jewish and Christian religious leaders have expressed apprehension that anti-Semitism would result from the movie's portrayal of Jewish authorities and Jewish mobs involved in crucifying Jesus. The director, Mel Gibson, has denied being anti-Semitic. Cohen also said the vandalism may have been sparked by the movie. "I do feel, after watching the film, that it sponsors the spirit of anti-Semitism," the rabbi said ... Saturday was Purim, a festive Jewish holiday that drew many worshipers to the synagogue for music, a costume contest, food and interactive readings. But as people walked in, each entrance had a swastika or other Nazi symbol near it. As one man walked in with his young son, he shook his head in disgust. "Can you believe that?" he said. The rabbi said it was ironic that the people defaced the synagogue the night before Purim because it's a holiday that celebrates the defeat in history of venomous anti-Semitism. Saturday morning's planned lesson was on never forgetting such hatred, Cohen said. "As we walked into learn about never forgetting," he said, "we had to walk in to see the swastikas." [JTR note about Purim: As usual, Jews are depicted as innocent saints. What about this holiday that celebrates the "defeat of anti-Semitism?" Jewish religious injunctions to mass slaughter are part of traditional yearly Purim commemorations, particularly on Shabbat Zachor ("the Saturday of Remembrance") -- "the Sabbath on which Jews are commanded to obliterate the enemy of Amalek, the arch enemy of the Jewish people." [FEILER, p. 14]   In the wake of the mass murder of nearly 40 Arabs at prayer in a mosque Hebron by Baruch Goldstein, "some Jews," noted the Jewish Bulletin, "say Goldstein was inspired by Purim passages that condone wanton killing." [KATZ, p. 1] Such passages from the biblical Book of Esther celebrate how Jews rose up to kill thousands of Persians who plotted against them, recited twice by observant Jews during Purim. "The tone [of these passages] is not self-defense," complains Rivkah Walton, "but of slaughter, slaughter, slaughter." [KATZ, p. 1]  "The concluding chapters of the Book of Esther," adds Peter Novick, "tell of the [Jewish] queen's soliciting permission to slaughter not just the Jews' armed enemies but the enemies' wives and children -- with a final death toll of seventy-five thousand. These 'memories' provided gratifying revenge fantasies to the Jews of medieval Europe." [NOVICK, P., 1999, p. 5] In the 1960s the Israelis kidnapped former Nazi official Adolph Eichmann from Argentina, and sentenced him to death in the Jewish state. One staff member at the American Jewish Committee worried that, because of the trial, "gentiles might learn that 'for over 2,000 years Jews have cheered joyously in the synagogues when the Megillah readers annually told of the hanging of [Queen Esther's arch-rival] Haman and his ten sons with him.'" [NOVICK, P., 1999, p. 1323] "Objections to the Purim passages don't stop there, however," notes the Jewish Bulletin, "some people oppose the way biblical citations in Exodus (17:8-18) and Deuteronomy (25:17-19) are read on Shabbat Zachor before Purim. These call for the annihilation of the descendants of Amalek, the biblical enemy of the Israelites." [KATZ, p 1] Another Jewish commentator, Ismar Elbogen, noted the traditional emotional climate of such public Purim recitals: "Often the reading of the scroll [of Esther], was accompanied by customs intended to release the overwhelming feelings of joy, and these not infrequently took on wild form ... The noisy disturbances have been eliminated in every civilized country."[ELBOGEN, p. 110]

[Well, well, well. The Jewish head of the French National Federation of Film Distributors says their earlier decision not to show The Passion of the Christ in France wasn't due to the Jewish Lobby.]
The film of Mel Gibson "the passion of Christ" to be distributed in France,
Yahoo! News, February 29, 2004 [translation from French article]
"The controversial film of Australian Mel Gibson, "The passion of Christ," will be finally distributed in France. The name of the distributor will be announced Monday, says the Newspaper of Sunday, quoting Icon, Gibson's production company. Anticipated by some Christian groups, and criticized by Jewish organizations which fear that it feeds anti-semitism, the film has evoked sharp critical response because of its violence. Questioned by the JDD, Marin Karmitz, President of the National Federation of Film Distributors, declared: "Some press members have portrayed us as boycotting The Passion of Christ, under pressures of an alleged Jewish lobby. But it has been Icon's choice to appear to be martyrs. Why weren't we invited to view the feature film? I do not know, and it is the first time this has happened. People have believed that there is a deliberate will to censure the film" ... Contacted by the AFP, the organizer of the support campaign for traditional Catholics in favour of Gibson's movie, Daniel Hamiche, was not able to confirm the information in the Newspaper of Sunday but declared himself to be "very satisfied that someone has the couage to distribute it".

[The original French version of the above.]
Le film de Mel Gibson "La passion du Christ" finalement distribué en France PARIS (AFP),
"Le film controversé de l'australien Mel Gibson "La passion du Christ" sera finalement distribué en France et le nom du distributeur sera annoncé lundi, affirme Le Journal du dimanche, citant Icon, la maison de production de l'acteur-réalisateur. Attendu depuis des mois par certains groupes chrétiens, ou vivement critiqué par des organisations juives qui craignent qu'il n'alimente l'antisémitisme, le film, sorti mercredi aux Etats-Unis, a été accueilli par de très vives critiques en raison de sa violence. Interrogé par le JDD, Marin Karmitz, Président de la Fédération nationale des distributeurs de films, déclare : "Une certaine presse nous a accusés de boycotter +La passion du Christ+, sous la peur ou la contrainte d'un quelconque lobby juif. Mais c'est une tactique volontaire de la part d'Icon pour se faire passer pour des martyrs". "Pourquoi ne nous a-t-on pas invités à visionner le long-métrage ? Je ne sais pas, et c'est bien la première fois que cela se produit. Les gens croient qu'il y a une volonté délibérée de censure. C'est une forme de marketing inadmissible, qui ne devrait pas trouver un tel relais dans les médias", ajoute-t-il. Si le film trouve un distributeur, il faut au moins trois mois pour qu'il soit à l'écran, indique-t-il."

Muslim broker to screen The Passion,
Al-Jazeera, March 2, 2004
"French film buffs worried that anti-Semitism charges could bar them from seeing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will get to see the movie after all thanks to a Tunisian Muslim producer ready to distribute it. This movie-mad country was rife with rumours last week that wary distributors would boycott the film because it could spark anti-Semitic violence, a problem haunting France's large Muslim and Jewish minorities for several years. The daily Le Figaro reported on Tuesday that The Passion would open in France on 4 April, two days after it hits cinemas in Spain and shortly before it reaches neighbouring Italy and Germany. Tariq bin Ammar, a major film broker with business ties to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Bersluconi, told interviewers the film stressed forgiveness and blamed the Romans rather than the Jews for Christ's death. "I thought it was my duty as a Muslim who believes in Jesus, who respects and was brought up in the three (monotheist) religions, to have this film shown to the French and let them judge it for themselves," he told TF1 television late on Monday ... Bin Ammar, who produced Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth and Roberto Rossellini's The Messiah in the 1970s, has also been involved in the production of such popular films as the Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark series."

[JTR Contributor's comment: "ABC, founded by Leonard Goldenson, and now owned by Eisner's Disney, is now showing a TV movie about the Gospels. For some reason, Judas is represented as a misunderstood hero." Our comment: Especially after Mel Gibson, Jewish Hollywood is on the heavy lookout for Bible revisionism, reinventing Biblical Jews and Jesus' enemies in a better light, recreating the New Testament to be kosher.]
Devil's disciple TV-movie tries to tell Judas' side of the story,
BY MATT ZOLLER SEITZ, Star-Ledger, March 8, 2004
" "Judas." (Tonight at 9 on Channel 7) An ABC movie about Jesus' betrayer, starring Johnathon Schaechas the title character. It's always a dangerous thing to put sense in the mouth of a bad guy. Judas was a bad guy -- so despised that his name became a synonym for "traitor." According to the New Testament, he gave up Jesus to his enemies for 30 pieces of silver. Now here comes the ABC movie "Judas" (tonight, 9 p.m., Channel 7) to tell us that Judas had reasons for doing what he did -- not good reasons, necessarily, but reasons. That in itself isn't unusual. Western culture is full of stories where bad guys take center stage, and when well told, they help us understand ourselves a little better. But "Judas" isn't your garden variety reinterpretation of a bad guy's life. As written by Tom Fontana, the creator of the HBO prison series "Oz," this TV movie seems nearly enamored with Judas and rather unconvinced by Jesus' message of love, tolerance and nonviolence. By accident or design, it presents Jesus as a naive person and Judas as a more cynical but intelligent chap who knew how the world really worked. In this movie, Judas tried to warn his friend Jesus that His philosophy of peace was going to get Him killed -- and would not help the Jews gain freedom. Then Judas got frustrated when the stubborn fellow refused to listen and betrayed Him -- then regretted it. Judas, played by Johnathon Schaech, is portrayed here as a tragic figure -- an energetic but intellectually limited man whose father was murdered for political reasons, and whose entire adult life was spent trying to avenge that loss. In Fontana's telling, Judas wanted Jesus (played by Jonathan Scarfe) to be a warrior. The movie seems to have wished Jesus were a warrior, too. It seems frustrated that He was inclined to turn the other cheek. The same sentiment animates the current Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ," which does an end-run around images of Jesus as a peacemaker and pacifist by portraying Him as a stoic put on Earth to take almost any punishment the bad guys can dish out -- sort of a holy Terminator who doesn't fight back. Along those same lines, but much less bloody, "Judas" makes occasional attempts to make Jesus more macho. There's even a scene where Jesus and Judas wrestle in a forest at night. (Jesus wins.) But all in all, the script seems disappointed by -- and way too preoccupied with -- Jesus' refusal to be violent. Throughout the film, Jesus repeatedly disappoints Judas -- and the rest of His followers, for that matter -- by insisting that violent revolution isn't in the cards, that He was put on Earth to fulfill a different destiny. What destiny, exactly? "You're not ready to handle the details," Jesus tells His followers. This is just one of many lines that seem to have been written to sound modern, and thus more comprehensible, but which end up sounding anachronistic and somewhat silly."

[Nat Hentoff is the well-known (Jewish) crusader for "free speech." But here he leads the great Jewish "Anti-Semite" Witch Hunt to track Mel Gibson down and crucify him, based on what Mel's father says about Jewish Power and Exploitation. (The "interview" with Gibson's dad was attained by fraud over the phone). Hentoff doesn't even seem to care about the film. He hasn't even seen it. All he cares about is "anti-Semitism" and getting Mel Gibson's head on a pole. Another "anti-Semite" trophy.]
A touchstone of anti-Semitism,
By Nat Hentoff, Washington Times, March 8, 2004
"Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, whose commentaries are heard on New York radio, said of the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" to members of his Brooklyn Synagogue that "we don't have to come to agreement on this film ... We can walk away as friends." But he did ask why Mel Gibson has not said anything about his father's widely reported anti-Semitic views. "The sins of the father should not be visited upon the cinema of the son," said the rabbi, as reported in the New York Post. "But love of a parent doesn't mean you have to look the other way when a father indulges in anti-Semitism." Indeed, it's a superb opportunity for Mel Gibson — who has strenuously denied that he or his film are anti-Semitic — to speak unequivocally about comments his father, Hutton Gibson, made during a Feb. 16 radio telephone interview on "Speak your Piece!" — a program syndicated by Talkline, a major syndicator of Jewish programming in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. The program is also available on the World Wide Web. The New York Daily News printed excerpts from the Feb. 19 interview, but I obtained more of the interview from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. I emphasize that I am not commenting on Mel Gibson's film until I see it. But what I am reporting and commenting on is a prototype of anti-Semitism at a time when it has been flourishing in Arab nations, increasing in Europe, and measurably existing in the United States long before anyone heard of Mr. Gibson's movie. As Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon WiesenthalCenter,says, "These remarks (by Hutton Gibson) should be resoundingly condemned by Christian leaders everywhere." What follows is from the transcript of Steven Feuerstein's interview with Hutton Gibson: "(The Holocaust) may not (be) all fiction, but most of it is .