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 ... there were work camps." Asked why Jews construct Holocaust museums, the elder Gibson answered: "They have to go where the money is ... they are the superior people and therefore they are entitled to the top jobs, supervisory stuff and so on, because they hire each other. They have so much influence in the banks, for instance. "I don't know what their (the Jews') agenda is except that it's all about control. They're after one world religion and one world government." At one point, Hutton Gibson, speaking of the Vatican, said that "the ones we have there are all involved in the (Jewish) plot." Asked what plot he was referring to, Hutton Gibson said the "Jewish conspiracy," the Jewish "drive for control" that goes back to the time of Jesus. The Sanhedrin (the highest court of the Jews at that time) had a good thing going in the temple, he added. They were selling the victims to be sacrificed. And he (Jesus) went in and overturned their tables. "They knew what he was after," Hutton Gibson continued, "and they were killing him just for that. They (the Jews) cannot admit that they were wrong. They have been at it for all of history. They are the people with an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Is the Jew still actively anti-Christian? He is, for by being a Jew, he is anti-everyone else." This almost endless construction of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy has been familiar to me since I was a boy, listening to the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin on national radio and reading the pamphlets and magazines of the other fervent anti-Semites of the time .. Unlike many Jews in France, who have suffered what many consider the worst onslaught of anti-Semitism since World War II, American Jews have no intention of leaving the country if the monster emerges here. The great majority of Americans are repelled by the minority of the Hutton Gibsons, who have no power to cut down our protections under the Constitution. But it's useful for all Americans to recognize that the "European disease" has never been entirely cured in this nation, either. And if Mel Gibson is actually concerned about that, he should speak firmly to what his father — fully utilizing his First Amendment rights — is saying. And where — as Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center asks — are the condemnations of Hutton Gibson's comments from the Christian leaders?"

[This article has some good points, but its author bends way over to ignore the avalanche of garbage thrown by a galaxy of Jewish attackers at Christ and Mel Gibson (go to the original link below for Mr. Zmirak's full article). It's not just Abraham Foxman and his Anti-Defamation League who denounces Christianity and aims to destroy it. So does Jewish identity itself. Jews detest Christ and have been assailing the Christian faith since it was born.]
The Christ–The Controversy. Testifying for Christ won’t get you thrown to the lions anymore, but it might get you denounced by Abe Foxman,
By John Zmirak, The American Conservative, March 15, 2004
"To see the preview of Mel Gibson’s new film “The Passion of the Christ,” it wasn’t enough to be a film critic; the studio, Icon, had suspended screenings for ordinary journalists by the time I asked for a ticket. Instead, I had to take a back door—using my Catholic connections to score a seat at one of the film’s many church-based screenings, designed to build word of mouth among pastors and their congregations. I traveled from New York City to Darien, Connecticut, to a shiny new non-denominational Christian fellowship. My name wasn’t on the list, so I had to speak with an executive from Icon. A gracious and beautiful woman, she was beside herself trying to keep the event free of hostile press. She asked me a few questions, none of which seemed to come to the point, then finally posed the crucial one: “Are you a believer?” I said, “Absolutely.” She looked relieved but went on to explain: “It’s just that ever since Mr. Abraham Foxman snuck in to one of our screenings, we’ve had to be very careful …” she said, then paused in thought. “You know, now that he has seen it, I think it will start to work on his heart. Let’s pray that he has a spiritual awakening because of the film. That’s why it was made.” “The Passion of the Christ” has been the target of an extraordinary campaign of attempted prior censorship on the part of Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League ...There is nothing in “The Passion” regarding the Jewish leaders of the time and their treatment of Christ that does not come from the New Testament itself —which Christians regard as divinely inspired ... It is easy to see how a paranoid viewer, eager for hints of anti-Semitism, could read them into the empty spaces in the narrative. But Gibson didn’t put them there. In fact, to the fair-minded viewer, Foxman’s attack upon the film will seem like a thinly veiled assault on the Gospels themselves. And this is supposed to be good for the Jews? ... But Gibson did not go far enough for his enemies. They seem in fact implacable—though that does not stop self-hating Christians from trying. Some biblical scholars suggest the Gospel of John be edited or excised from the scriptural canon because it is “inherently anti-Semitic.” In 2003, some theologians associated with the U.S. Catholic Bishops colluded with several Jewish leaders to produce a document that effectively declared that Christianity was meant only for gentiles, not for Jews, so the Church should stop evangelizing them. When prominent Jewish Catholics, among others, pointed out such statements by Jesus as “Go nowhere among the Gentiles … but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 10:5) and “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), the document was quietly dropped. Appropriately, the architect of that document was Eugene Fisher, the same man who helped the ADL orchestrate an attack on “The Passion” —based on the preliminary, stolen script. The bishops had to back away from that one, too, under threat of legal action. The eagerness of liberal Catholics to assist in slandering the great Pope Pius XII—whose early anti-Nazi diplomacy has recently been documented, along with the hundreds of Jews he personally ransomed—is even more detestable. Ironically, there are certain parallels between Pius XII and “The Passion’s” Caiaphas. In each case we find a world religious leader existing under military occupation at the sufferance of enemies who persecute innocent Jews. Let Pius be judged by the same standards critics would have us use in judging Caiaphas. Which leader comes off better? It is clear that the same spirit motivates the campaign against Gibson’s film, the attacks on Pius XII, and similar assaults against Christianity in public life. It’s more than just a rejection of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah—a shocking assertion that requires the divine gift of faith to accept. It is an attack on Christian culture root and branch, an assertion that the Christian faith is a dangerous poison that must be purged from the earth to ensure social progress and the safety of other religions. This position, which most Jews would surely reject, is the basic assumption of contemporary secularism, which knows no race or creed. But since Foxman is leading this particular jihad against the cross, one wonders whether he does not agree with Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby. Interviewed for Ron Rosenbaum’s fascinating book, Explaining Hitler, Maccoby blames Christianity itself, its central doctrine of the divinity of Christ and His sacrificial death, for subsequent anti-Semitism and for the Holocaust. Maccoby asserts in his various writings that the core narrative of Christ’s death on the cross led directly and inevitably to Jews being sacrificed, en masse, in Nazi death camps. “Christians say the Holocaust is part of the evil of humanity,” he told Rosenbaum. “It isn’t the evil of humanity. It’s the evil of Christendom.” For this reason, Maccoby considers that the only forms of Christianity that are not intrinsically anti-Semitic are those that reject Christ’s divinity and redemption. On the same page, Maccoby insists that for him, “Christmas is a sinister festival,” since it points ahead to Easter. Does Foxman agree? I don’t know. But his organization provides on its Web site a comprehensive guide for members on how to purge holiday celebrations in public schools and civic spaces of any reference to Jesus, the Nativity, or Christmas. Perhaps it’s time to turn the tables on Foxman, who freely attributes to his opponents the darkest of motivations, and demand of him: How much of our faith do you demand that we renounce? How far do you intend to go?"

[The Culture War takes deeper shape, broken down into movie star icons : Spielberg's Holocaust and "gay marriage" versus Mel Gibson and Jesus, traditional family values, etc..]
Analysis: Spielberg, Schindler and Shoah,
By Pat Nason, UPI Hollywood Reporter, March 5, 2004
"Steven Spielberg is steering clear of the controversy over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," but at a Los Angeles appearance to promote the DVD release of his Oscar-winning movie "Schindler's List," Spielberg cheered San Francisco for performing same-sex marriages. Spielberg spoke Wednesday at the headquarters of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation to promote both the DVD release and the ongoing work of the foundation he established in 1994 after filming the Holocaust-themed movie in Poland. At one point, a questioner asked Spielberg if he had seen Gibson's movie and what he thought of it. Spielberg said he had not seen "Passion," so he could not critique it ... Given that the Holocaust claimed the lives of large numbers of homosexuals, Wednesday's session with Spielberg also featured a question about the current spate of same-sex marriages being performed in a growing number of American cities. "Right on, San Francisco!" he said."

[How it works for the Judeocentric Media Elite: The Passion of the Christ is violent trash for birdbrains. Schindler's List is violent, but so what? The Holocaust has become the Jewish SACRED, secular or religious, and it is beyond criticism in the opposite way Christianity isn't.]
Spielberg's Holocaust epic, Schindler's List, arrives as DVD special edition,
CJAD (Canada) March 8, 2004
"This week Schindler's List (Universal) makes its DVD debut, removing another significant title from the rapidly shrinking list of great films not yet available on disc. This is one of the world's most highly regarded and honoured motion pictures, one that Steven Spielberg says changed his life and reinforced his faith. But there's one thing that might not make it a bestseller, and that is the intensity of the subject matter. With its graphic Holocaust premise, this is a profound screen experience but not the kind that begs for repeat viewings, which may prompt many people to simply rent it for a one-time-only viewing."

Reel flap distracts Jews from real threats,
BY MARK STEYN, Chicago Sun-Times, March 7, 2004
"Benyamin Cohen, editor of the online publication Jewsweek, went to see Mel Gibson's ''The Passion of the Christ'' and came out homicidal: ''My first comprehensible thought was this: I really want to kill a Jew.'' Maureen Dowd of the New York Times agreed: ''In 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot,' his other emotionally manipulative historical epics, you came out wanting to swing an ax into the skull of the nearest Englishman. Here, you want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth. And since the Romans have melted into history.'' Really? You want to kick in some Jew teeth? I mean, really want to? If you say so. It may be that elderly schoolgirl columnists at the New York Times are unusually easy to rouse to violence. But I reckon Dowd and Cohen are faking it. They don't mean that, thanks to Mel, Times marquee columnists and liberal Jewish New Yorkers will be rampaging around looking for Jews to kill; they mean all those rubes and hicks in Dogpatch who don't know any better will be doing so. True, it's an inspirational film. A woman who drove her Chevy Lumina into a brook in New Britain, Conn., last week told police she'd been inspired to do so by ''The Passion.'' What's that about? Aqua-Semitism? But, so far, even sodden sedans are a rarity. Chances of any Jew getting his teeth kicked in by one of Mel's customers? Zero percent. OK, let me cover myself a little: Point-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-whatever percent. Throughout the whiplash U-turn, only one feature of the ''controversy'' remained constant: that the movie is ''anti-Semitic.'' It's true that in Europe ''passion plays'' often provided a rationale for Jew hatred. But that was at a time when the church was also a projection of state power. What's happening in America is quite the opposite: One reason why Hollywood assumed Mel had laid a $30 million Easter egg was because the elite coastal enclaves who set the cultural agenda haven't a clue about the rest of the country when it comes to religion. They don't mind Jesus when he's hippy (''Godspell'') or horny (Terrence McNally's ''gay Jesus'' play ''Corpus Christi''), but taking the guy seriously is just for fruitcakes. So, when metropolitan columnists say Mel's movie makes you want to go Jew-bashing, they're really engaging in a bit of displaced Christian-bashing ... Critics berating Gibson for lingering on the physical flaying of Jesus would be more persuasive if they weren't all too desperately flogging their own dead horse of fundamentalist moral equivalence. The more puzzling question is why so many American Jewish leaders started crying anti-Semitism months before anyone had even seen the picture. It requires a perverse inability to prioritize to anoint Mel Gibson as the prime source of resurgent anti-Semitism. Not to mention that it's self-defeating. As Melanie Phillips, a British Jew, recently noted in The Observer: ''Let us all agree on one thing at least. The more Jews warn that anti-Semitism has come roaring out of the closet, the more people don't like the Jews.'' Phillips is right to the extent that, with such an array of real enemies, one should be wary of picking unnecessary fights. During the New Hampshire primary, I prompted the following complaint from Barbara Baruch of New York: ''What motivated Mark Steyn to describe Joe Lieberman as the 'Yiddisher pixie'? As this has absolutely no relevance to Lieberman's political viability, it's obvious that Steyn's linguistic choice is nothing less than insidious anti-Semitism.'' Oh, phooey. I called him a pixie because, in contrast to John Kerry, he was jolly and beaming, and ''Yiddisher'' is an allusion to the old song ''My Yiddisher Momma,'' since Joe was always going on about his own momma.' ... If Jewish groups think Mel Gibson's movie and evangelical Christians are the problem, they're picking fights they don't need."

[What's the subtext here? Pat Buchanan doesn't say the "J" word in this article, but he's routinely accused by the Jewish Lobby as being an "anti-Semite." ]
The aggressors in the culture wars,
by Pat Buchanan, World Net Daily, March 8, 2004
"There is no question who the aggressors are in "Culture Wars, Part II." There is no doubt who pushed the "wedge issues" onto the docket. Consider the subjects that have roiled America since New Year's Eve: One hundred million Americans gather together for the Super Bowl and are treated to a vulgar stunt, as pop star Janet Jackson has her breast plate ripped off by Justin Timberlake. Superstar Mel Gibson invests $25 million of his own money to do a film on the passion of Christ and is scourged near to death as an anti-Semite before anyone has seen the film. Powerbrokers in Hollywood tell the New York Times they will destroy him. The Massachusetts supreme court orders Gov. Romney and the legislature to begin handing out same-sex marriage licenses by May, and that their approval of civil unions will not satisfy the court. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco ignores a law enacted by the people of California two-to-one in a referendum, and starts handing out marriage licenses to homosexuals. Rosie O'Donnell arrives with female paramour in tow, gets hitched, and cusses out President Bush for saying he is troubled by this and will try to maintain traditional marriage in America even if it requires a constitutional amendment. Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all. But if this assault on the sensibilities of the majority continues, the candidate of Hollywood and the Left, John Kerry, will pay a price in November. Do they recognize how they are being perceived? Do they care? Perhaps not. For Middle America, however, these have been weeks of revelation. The crudity of the MTV crowd, manifest in the Janet Jackson episode, and the ferocity of the hatred of the Hollywood elite for Mel Gibson's film have jolted Christians. The endorsement by gay-rights groups and their allies of this schoolhouse door disobedience by elected officials has shown not only that the other side in the culture war considers itself above the old morality, it considers itself above the rule of law. Truly, these nine weeks since New Year's Eve reveal that we are a "house divided" in ways deeper than the shallow rich-and-poor divide of John Edwards' campaign rhetoric. We no longer inhabit the same moral universe. We are no longer a moral community. We are two countries. One part of America has seceded, and the other has no interest in re-establishing the Union. While the Left lacks the majority to prevail in a legislative process, and its agenda is despised, it has succeeded by persuading judges, whom voters cannot remove, to impose its agenda by dictat. Thus, the great battleground of the culture war, after the schools, is the courts. And here, the elected branches, especially Congress, have been derelict in permitting their powers to be seized by judicial collaborators of the moral minority. Presidents can, as Bush has done, make recess appointments to the federal courts. Like Jefferson and Jackson, he can interpret the Constitution and ignore Supreme Court orders. A strong president would lead Congress in reasserting the supremacy of the first and second branches of the U.S. government over the third branch. Congress has the power to impeach federal judges and remove them. It has the power to impose term limits on them. It has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. It has the power to abolish every federal court but the Supreme Court. But it has refused to use that power. Time for Congress, in this culture war, to lead, follow or get out of the way."

[Who would want to harm the man who played Jesus? Who would want to hurt Mel Gibson? The field for suspected haters of Christ, screaming "anti-Semite," is very narrow, isn't it?]
'THE PASSION' UNLEASED. 'Protection squad' for Gibson's Jesus. Security detail hired for James Caviezel as execs think movie's main stars targeted,
World Net Daily, March 8, 2004
"James Caviezel, who plays Jesus in Mel Gibson's blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," has reportedly been assigned a security detail to protect him. Jim Caviezel portrays Jesus in 'The Passion of The Christ' (courtesy Icon Distribution) "There are some crazy people out there and everything is being done to protect Mel and Jim from physical attack," a source close to executives of Newmarket Films told the London Express. The paper said Caviezel, a devout Catholic, was being guarded by a "protection squad" amid fears of attacks by "religious fanatics." According to the report, a mob of protesters has already screamed "anti-Semite" and hurled a bucket of lamb's blood at Gibson in a New York street. Charges of anti-Semitism dogged the filmmaker for months prior to the movie's Feb. 25 opening. The Express reports Caviezel, 35, and his wife, Kerri, are protected whenever they leave home. Studio executives reportedly are concerned the film's principal figures could be targets for assassination. Caviezel, who has 20 movies to his credit, told the London paper: "Sadly, any threats have to be taken seriously. It seems a terrible irony to me that this movie has spawned anger and violence. The idea that actors need minders because they portray a man whose mission was to spread the love of God is awful." As of yesterday, "The Passion of the Christ" had taken in $213,888,740 in U.S. ticket sales and likely is on its way to becoming the highest grossing R-rated film in history."

[We are getting to the meat. Paul Gottfried is Jewish. A Jew this honest on this subject is so rare that it is almost difficult to believe he exists. Behold! Another Jewish "anti-Semite."]
The Passion and the Jews,
by Paul Gottfried, LewRockwell.com, March 8, 2004
"John Zmirak (in The American Conservative) has written a forceful and timely defense of Mel Gibson’s reverential cinematic treatment of The Passion of the Christ, and one can find much to admire in his criticism of Christianity-bashers. One can never vent enough contempt in dealing with the whiney Abe Foxman, who is beginning to surpass even Al Sharpton as a victimological nudnik. Zmirak rightly stresses that anti-anti-Semites dislike pious Christians more than they like Jews ... A recent interview in the Israeli newspaper Maariv with the former Israeli minister of labor and a leading spokesman for the Sephardic Orthodox party Shlomo Beniziri, revealed what traditional Rabbinic Jews still believe about the death of Jesus. On the basis of the received Talmudic account, Beniziri proclaims that the Gospel story is "nonsense." The Orthodox leader goes on to explain that Jesus was a rebellious student in a Rabbinic academy, who after a proper judicial proceeding, was executed by the Sanhedrin. The judges "took him to a high roof and threw him crashing to the ground." To send a message to others, the Sanhedrin then took his lifeless body and displayed it on a crossbeam. Note that all of this is unrelieved fantasy, which cannot be attributed to Christian persecution of Jews. The relevant Talmudic statements came from Jews living in a non-Christian society; and Maimonides, who famously expanded on this interpretation, and Rabbi Beniziri were born and grew up in non-Western Muslim countries. While there are real theological differences that separate Jews and Christians, the offensive references to Jesus that by now everyone knows about should have about as much standing as a truth-claim as the view that all Jews are Christ-killers. Perhaps it is time for Abe Foxman and the editorial board of the New Republic to give at least some consideration to the festering problem of Jewish bigotry. It is for me inconceivable that such a sentiment has nothing to do with why American Jewish organizations appeal successfully to their donor base by evoking the specter of Christian traditionalists. This is happening not in Tsarist Russia but in a country founded by Protestant sectarians, who have never persecuted Jews, and the campaign of fear and loathing is being directed against enthusiastically philosemitic Christians. It is unlikely that contemporary Jews have forgotten entirely about medieval Rabbinic prejudices. American and Canadian Jews are at most three generations removed from Eastern European ghettos where the inhabitants certainly listened to Rabbi Beniziri’s pseudo-history. As a boy, I recall that "religious" Jews were always fuming against Christians, including those who treated them well, and that the Rabbinic narratives about Jesus always had a way of surfacing during these invectives. In short, the myth had a way of trumping truth. One might hear from one and the same person the historical fact, that ancient Jews had lost their right under Roman rule to execute anyone generations before Jesus’s death, and then the mind-boggling Talmudic narrative. If the historical fact is correct, then the Rabbinic account is fictive. But while being fictive, it is also gratuitously nasty; and since it has no Jewish legal standing, it might be nice if Jewish religious authorities disavowed this garbled account. But such an honorable course would have no more appeal to Jews qua Christian victims than admitting the truth about black Africans keeping and selling slaves would have for American civil rights leaders. It is easier to have public fits about the bigotry embedded in the Gospels or in the hearts of white people than to acknowledge the questionable legacies of designated victims. Liberal Christians are the classical enablers in both situations. Why should Jews reassess their own history of prejudice when they enjoy the status of Christian victims, courtesy of the Christian world? In this situation, David Klinghoffer, Abe Foxman, and Elie Wiesel will all go on sharing the fruits of moral success. And this is bad for Jews and Christians alike."

[Before you get too deeply engrossed in this one, it's a Purim spoof.]
Purim news: Gibson plans Holy Land tour for Passion during Holy Week,
Israel Insider, March 7, 2004
"The Passion for Passover: guess who's coming to the seder? Mel Gibson, superstar actor and director of The Passion of the Christ, is expected to bring his controversial blockbuster to movie screens across the Middle East. A source in his entourage confirmed what Hollywood insiders have been whispering about since the film launched on 2000 screens in the United States on Ash Wednesday. The promotional tour, set to arrive in Israel on April First, is expected to climax with a premiere showing in Jerusalem on Good Friday, with a repeat appearance on Easter Sunday. Israeli officials expressed shock at the planned visit, saying that Gibson's movie had yet to be approved by the censor, and that there was a concern that the film would destabilize the Middle East and trigger the Apocalyptic War of Gog and Magog. A source close to Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, responding to the report, said that Israel would on Purim raise its level of strategic preparedness to Purple in preparation for possible Palestinian provocations prior to a possible screening of the film in the region. Purple is second in severity only to mauve on Israel's color-coded alert system. "Of all the places in the world to promote his Passion, he had to pick on us," fumed an exasperated Foreign Ministry official. Sources in the Prime Minister's office said Mel Gibson would be the personal guest of Ariel Sharon and his elder son Omri, who reportedly helped arranged the visit, and his younger son Gilad, who sources say earned three hundred thousand dollars for researching the movie in recent weeks and discovering its commercial potential. The sons of Sharon have also reportedly purchased from Gibson's company local distribution rights for the popular pewter crucifixion souvenir nails. "We're being crucified anyway," one of them reportedly quipped, "so we may as well profit." The visit has aroused a furor among Jewish organizations. A source close to Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has repeatedly locked horns with Gibson over portrayals of Jews as devils, sadists and masochists in The Passion, said that the visit was another example of "Jew baiting" and that he would not take the bait."

The Passion Fashion,
By Geoff MetCalf, Axcess, March 4, 2004
"Sunday box office estimates were that five days into the release that wasn't going to happen, 'The Passion of the Christ' are in the neighborhood of $118,000,000. Not too shabby a neighborhood for a 'religious' flick in two dead languages. Those Armani clad nay saying distributors and presumptuous 'in the know' movie execs have to be kicking themselves in the wake of an epic tragic flaw that makes Shakespeare read like Sesame Street. Frankly, the fact that critics and supporters of the Gibson movie cover such a broad spectrum and the films obvious success ignores the effete sniping pretensions of film critics, kinda/sorta demonstrates a humongous potential audience. Even the refusal of, that antithesis of conventional wisdom, France, to show the film cannot deny audiences that once upon a time were only available to Speilbergs ... One has to wonder, if instead of 'The Passion of the Christ', Gibson called his film 'Kill Jesus', and updated and revised the story to be the victimhood of a gay rights/anti-gun/PETA/Mexican illegal immigrant, his critics wouldn't be singing his praise. Gibson says the message of 'The Passion of the Christ' is one of tolerance. Obviously his mean spirited, petty, detractors lack the intellectual capacity (or honesty) to see, hear, or comprehend the message. Reasonable people should be able to reasonably agree to disagree. However, too much of the debate over this film fails the 'reasonable' test. Both extreme sides of the debate of 'The Passion' are visceral, prejudiced, and flat out refuse to be confused with any facts that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices. The New York Times and NewsMax have reported that Hollywood bosses vow to destroy Gibson. The chairman of a major studio was quoted as saying "I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of." 'Hollywood's' trinity of Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen reportedly are torqued about the film and anonymous, gutless (which is synonymous with cowardly, craven, spineless, spiritless, weak and timid) chairmen of a couple of other big studios claim they won't work with Gibson. As Edward Albee once wrote, "...what is gained is loss." Of course if these anonymous detractors see a way to cash in the financial success of Gibson all will no doubt be forgiven. Mel Gibson should be praised by all (regardless of whether you love or hate the film). He should be praised because of his inimitable ability to demonstrate to the world something that is good. No, not his willingness to suffer slings and arrows and professional assaults for his faith...but for his remarkable strength of character and commitment to principles. In a world, and certainly an industry, where principles are transient disposable accoutrements, Mel Gibson has displayed remarkable courage rivaling his on screen portrayals of William Wallace and Benjamin Martin."

[Let's hope this is just rumor. Do we really need more Jewish Hollywood heroes? Isn't there some kind of limit? Don't suck up to the Jews, Mel. The potential is open for you to go your OWN way, Christian or otherwise.]
Gibson's next movie: A look at heroic Jews?,
By Mark I. Pinsky, Orlando Sentinel, March 6, 2004
"With record box-office receipts for The Passion of the Christ rolling in, now might be the time to ask: What will Mel Gibson do for an encore? Officially, he is scheduled to do Mad Max 4. But in light of the controversy surrounding his first religious film, and the likelihood that it may soon cross the $200 million mark, many in Hollywood doubt Gibson will return to his old action franchise. The filmmaker has been hinting that he may go back to the biblical period, if not the Bible itself. The most intriguing speculation centers on two heroic Jewish struggles that bracket the historical time frame of the filmmaker's current biblical blockbuster. If the rumors are true, Gibson's next move could be a stroke of genius, at once disarming Jewish critics of The Passion and providing an ideal dramatic vehicle. Both stories are the stuff of screenplays. One parallels Gibson's earlier hit, The Patriot, set during the American Revolution. The second is nearly identical to Braveheart, the story of a medieval Scottish insurrection. Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Gibson and his Icon Films, confirmed that the filmmaker has spoken in several interviews, including one with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, about looking to the Old Testament for stories, but said Gibson has not been specific about which stories. The first rumor flitting through the evangelical world is that the filmmaker intends to plow the profits from The Passion into a movie about the central characters of the holiday of Hanukkah, fighters called the Maccabees. Their story is told in sacred writings of the biblical period, although the two books of the same name are not officially a part of either testament. Nearly 200 years before Jesus' birth, religious Jews in the land of Israel rose in violent rebellion against pagan occupiers and their Jewish allies ... Last week, the American-born Israeli educator Yossi Katz suggested that Gibson's next film should be a dramatization of the Bar Kochba Revolt of A.D. 132-135. This rebellion took place a century after Jesus' death, and 60 years after a failed uprising against the Roman occupation that led to half a million Jewish deaths and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Writing in a column syndicated to Jewish weekly newspapers, Katz recalled that the Roman emperor Hadrian -- like Antiochus Epiphanes before him -- tried to impose paganism on the Jews at sword's point ... Of course, even a sympathetic portrayal of Jewish heroes might not assuage all of Gibson's critics. Abraham Foxman, executive director of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, predicts that if Gibson dramatizes either Jewish rebellion, "we'll lose." "He'll write his own history," Foxman says. "I would prefer to leave the fate of Jewish history and Hollywood to Steven Spielberg. The Maccabees and Bar Kochba are our sacred history. "The way he treats history -- with a cherry picker of that which fits his ideology or view -- is not the way I would like the world to learn about the heroism of the Maccabees or Bar Kochba. So, thanks but no thanks."

[Comments about a Christian Judas and a normative Jew in the anti-Jesus Attack Pack:]
CRITICS OF “THE PASSION” CRACKUP,
Catholic Legue for Religious and Civil Rights, March 8, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue notes today how critics of “The Passion of the Christ” continue to rant: “In a Knight Ridder column, Rev. John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program at the Catholic Theological Union, wrote the following: ‘Christians who react favorably to Gibson’s film are shamefully evading their religious responsibility.’ Thus did he indict Pope John Paul II; 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; Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison, Wisconsin; Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, Editor-in-Chief, First Things; Reverend Thomas Rosica, CEO, Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation; theologian Michael Novak; and scores of Protestant leaders from virtually every denomination. “Yesterday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich labeled ‘The Passion’ a ‘porn movie,’ noting ‘its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids.’ He also said that when Mel Gibson was speaking of his critics in his interview with Diane Sawyer, Mel must have been referring to him: ‘But Ms. Sawyer never identified me as Jewish, thereby sanitizing Mr. Gibson’s rant of its truculent meaning. (She did show a picture of me, though, perhaps assuming that my nose might give me away.)’ How observant. “On August 3, 2003, Rich said, ‘it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America.’ It must break his heart to know the film has well surpassed the $200 million mark. “In short, Christians who don’t agree with Pawlikowski are acting irresponsibly, and those who criticize Rich are anti-Semitic. Thus does the crackup continue.”

[Rabbi Lapin is not the Jewish norm. He is an anomaly. He is almost alone in the Jewish community in standing up for Christian rights.]
The Death of Jesus: Who's Really Responsible?,
By Rev. Mark H. Creech, Agape Press, February 23, 2004 (AgapePress)
"With the opening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, scheduled for this Wednesday, the current burning question is: "Who killed Jesus?" Some Jewish groups are deeply concerned Gibson's film lays the blame for Christ's death on the Jews. They fear it could result in anti-Semitism. And certainly they have a legitimate concern. As Chuck Colson has pointed out: "During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia, there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race." Nevertheless, Jewish sensitivity to Gibson's film seems hypocritical at best. Even Rabbi Daniel Lapin acknowledges Jews of late have supported and promoted the most blatant forms of anti-Christian bigotry in the arts and media. He sites the case of Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum, and its featuring of British Jew Charles Saatchi's several works desecrating Catholicism and Chris Ofili's Madonna with elephant dung. Lapin writes, "William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a good friend who has always stood firmly with Jews in the fight against genuine anti-Semitism, yet now, in his fight against anti-Catholicism, he appealed to Jewish organizations in vain. Almost every Christian denomination helped vigorously protest the assault that the Brooklyn Museum carried out against the Catholic faith in such graphically abhorrent ways. Even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed his outrage by trying to withhold money from the Museum. Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness? Only a small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity .... And were other Jews silent? No, unfortunately not. In actuality a small but disproportionately vocal number of them were defending the Brooklyn Museum and its director in the name of artistic freedom." Proposing as some Jewish authorities have -- that "violence" against Jews could break out across Europe, or any other place for that matter, because of Gibson's film -- is an argument based more on paranoia than fact. It's unfortunate, but both Europe and America are in the midst of a post-Christian era -- and the possibility that anti-Semitic hostilities would develop over a gospel story is extremely remote. Besides, the current wave of European anti-Semitism is based largely on the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict and has absolutely nothing to do with a militant zeal for Christianity. Moreover, Christians who take the principles of their faith seriously are the most enthusiastic supporters of the Jewish people. They recognize that Jesus, their Lord, was a Jew. The first disciples were Jews. Most believe Jews are God's chosen people and have a divine right to the land of Israel. As Allan Dobras claims in his editorial, Mel Gibson: Passion and Prejudice: "To suggest that they would react in a wave of anti-Jewish violence over a movie about Christ makes no more sense than laying the blame of Roman persecutions of Christians on modern-day Italians after viewing Quo Vadis." So what's all this hype about anti-Semitism? I suggest the criticisms of Gibson's film are not really about ethnicity, but about avoiding the greatest issues of our time. It's about the triumph of truth over moral relativism."

Washington Post: Mel Gibson Is Going to Hell,
Newsmax, March 10, 2004
"TV reviewer Tom Shales, one of the more blatant members of the left-wing thought police at the Washington Post, says you can take it from him: Mel Gibson is going to hell. In his review today of ABC's latest movie, he writes: "TV Guide reports that 'Judas' was made in 2001 but was salted away by ABC executives who feared the film would offend fundamentalists. ... "Unlike Mel Gibson's notorious 'The Passion of the Christ,' ABC's movie seems happily lacking in anti-Semitic aspersions. Writer Tom Fontana, whose impressive credits include the uncompromising 'Oz' on HBO, has Pontius Pilate's wife tell her husband, as the assassination of Jesus is plotted on Palm Sunday: 'Fix it so the Jews themselves are held responsible.' "It might have been better still if the conversation had continued with Pilate scoffing, 'Who'd believe that?' and his wife replying, 'You can always find a few bigots and idiots who'll believe anything.' Regardless, the Big Lie was born, and two millennia later, Gibson would find a way to recycle it and gross more than $200 million in the process. Surely his parking space in Hell has already been reserved." Yep, that's the sort of thing the anti-religious fundamentalists of the left are writing these days in America's biggest newspapers."

[Discussion of the growing Jewish censorial fascism and increasing threats of Jewish-inspired violence to intimidate free speech.]
Fuss over ‘Passion’ fuels growing war of words in France,
By Philip Carmel, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 7, 2004
"When distributors across Europe announced dates for premiere screenings of “The Passion of the Christ,” one country was noticeably absent from the list. Despite breaking some box-office marks in its first five days in the United States, no distributor could initially be found in France. Word quickly spread that the country’s Jewish community was deliberately seeking to prevent the film from being shown. The allegations proved to be unfounded and the film will premiere in Paris in April to coincide with the Easter holiday. But talk of a highly influential Jewish lobby intent on censoring material has suddenly become a subject of legitimate debate. Indeed, such accusations did not abate even when it became clear that major distributors in France were deliberately prevented from seeing an advance of the film by its producers, Icon, who appear to have utilized a premeditated marketing strategy to raise the film’s profile in advance of its premiere. The spat over Mel Gibson’s film — which a number of American Jewish organizations have accused of fomenting anti-Semitism — follows a similar debate over a well-known French comedian currently facing charges of racial incitement after he performed an allegedly anti-Semitic sketch on live, prime-time television. In an episode of the popular talk show “You Can’t Please Everybody” last December, Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala entered the TV studio dressed as a fervently Orthodox Jew, then made a number of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments. He then exited to the word “Israheil” accompanied by a Hitler salute. Since the live sketch, and further comments by the comic describing Jewish leaders as “slave-traders converted into bankers,” Dieudonne has been virtually unable to perform in France. In addition, French-speaking venues in Belgium and Switzerland have also been reticent to allow him to take the stage. Initially, a number of Jewish organizations were behind calls to boycott the comic while the president of Likud France, Alex Moise, publicly admitted that he had influenced the cancellation of one of Dieudonne’s shows at the coastal resort of Deauville in northern France. Within a few weeks, Dieudonne appearances were canceled at other French venues. Although the comic did go ahead with a performance in Lyon, the event was interrupted when protesters poured acid on the stage. That act led to a highly publicized cancellation at the Olympia Theater in Paris last month after the theater said it could not guarantee the safety of its staff and audience. Taken together, the rows over “The Passion” and the Dieudonne affair have drawn widespread criticism. Some French media outlets have come close to labeling the disputes as Jewish attacks on freedom of speech. In an editorial in the leading daily Le Figaro, Michel Schifres wrote that France, a “Christian land and secular nation,” was doubly confronted by “an attack on freedom of expression.” While Dieudonne was unable to perform “not for lack of public but by a ban,” Gibson’s film was prevented “not by indifference but by a fault in distribution,” he said. Perhaps of more concern to Jews in France has been a recent tendency to satirize claims of anti-Semitism, as if the community were complaining too often and picking the wrong targets. That was exemplified earlier this month when the country’s most popular satire show led one of its episodes with a puppet representing a Portuguese building worker offering comments on Israel’s West Bank security fence. The comments were followed by a news-presenter puppet saying that the show had chosen the Portuguese worker because anti-Portuguese racism was OK while the show would have been accused of anti-Semitism if it had depicted a Palestinian instead. Some Jewish commentators have encouraged Jewish organizations to tread carefully in order to avoid inspiring anti-Semitism. Both the movie and the Dieudonne ban at the Olympia Theater had “a common denominator, anti-Semitism,” wrote Elisabeth Schemla, editor and founder of the online news site www.proche-orient.info. But that was not all they had in common, she said, because in both cases, French Jewish organizations had gone “blow for blow” with their aggressors and had won. This pointed to an efficient and new “Jewish lobby,” Schemla wrote. Nevertheless, even though these efforts by the French Jewish community have been successful in influencing people, they do not always appear to be winning friends in the process. Schemla further implied that this newly vocal pressure group should be careful not to incur a backlash by overstepping “the line between the tolerable and the intolerable.” For example, in the case of Dieudonne, initial criticism of the comic’s anti-Semitism soon turned him into a cause celebre for anti-Israel groups in France. Members of these groups were among the 1,000 people turned out to see him perform on the sidewalk outside the Olympia. In addition, a campaign by the Seine Saint-Denis Jewish Community Council in the Paris suburbs to prevent a local performance by Dieudonne had the opposite effect when the event went ahead anyway to a sold-out theater. However, recent failures to stop Dieudonne have not persuaded Jewish organizations from joining the call to prevent the showing of a pro-Palestinian film entitled “Route 181” at a film festival in Paris this week. Those calls have been largely successful. The organizers of the festival at the Centre Pompidou cut a number of showings, citing fears of public order disturbances. In a statement, the center said that not only would it be showing the film only once, but that it would also be handing out leaflets during the performance to explain the dangers “of only presenting a single, unilateral viewpoint.” Attempts by Jewish groups to muzzle speech they see as hateful or hate-inducing come at a time when members of France’s Muslim and Jewish communities are increasingly setting themselves apart from each other. That showed itself in a particularly controversial event in Nice recently when the local CRIF Jewish umbrella organization was involved in preventing a pro-Palestinian debate from taking place in a neighborhood of the city with a large Muslim population."

[JTR Contributor's comment: "when she says "adolescent" another word fits better...... "]
W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?,
by Ann Coulter, Townhall, March 11, 2004
"William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" – who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives – was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize. With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.) The "passion play" has been put on in Germany since at least 1633. I guess 1633 would be "pre-Hitler." In addition, Moses walked the Earth "pre-Hitler." The wheel was invented "pre-Hitler." People ate soup "pre-Hitler." Referring to the passion play as "pre-Hitler" is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler! Despite repeated suggestions from liberals – including the in-house "conservative" and Clinton-supporter at the Times – Hitler is not what happens when you gin up Christians. Like Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine killers and the editorial board of the New York Times, Hitler detested Christians. Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an "invention of the Jew" and vowed that the "organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed" so that the state would "remain the absolute master." Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century – all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot ... Perhaps Safire is indulging in his own negative stereotyping about Jews by assuming they simply viewed Romans as "the help." But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? (Besides people who go around putting up nativity scenes that have to be taken down by court order?)"

[Another Jewish attempt at censorial fascism:]
Department of Justice Petitioned to Evaluate Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" for Violations of Hate Crime Statutes. A new petition implores US Attorney General John Ashcroft to evaluate possible actions against the creators of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" for violation of state and federal hate crime statutes in the purposeful encouragement of anti-Semitic violence,
emediawire, UNION, NJ (PRWEB) March 10, 2004
" Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ," through purposeful rewriting of the Christian Gospel mythos has, itself, become an anti-Semitic diatribe which, since it’s February 25, 2004 release resulted in hate crimes against Jews, Synagogues and Jewish Cemeteries in cities throughout the US. Mel Gibson’s unbiblical and a-historical account of the "crucifixion" story has taken Hutton Gibson’s claims that the Holocaust is "fiction," even one step further. Just as Adolf Hitler described the 300th anniversary performance of the Oberammergau Passion Play as "a convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry" in 1934, Gibson and Writer/producer Tom Fontana’s 2004 use of extreme graphic and excessive violence set up and perpetrated at the urging of "the Jews" in their portrayal displays a clear prejudicial bent against the Jewish faith ... United State law defines "bias related" or "hate crime" to mean a "designated act that demonstrates an accused's prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act." Depending on the state, criminal and / or civil laws may apply, as well as recently enacted Federal statutes. A digital petition at www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/765533849 implores US Attorney General John Ashcroft and the US Department of Justice to evaluate the anti-Semitism clearly presented in Gibson and Fontana’s portrayal, and asks that civil, criminal, and Federal hate-crime laws, as appropriate, be utilized not only against the perpetrators involved in each and every act which it has encouraged, but against the directors, producers, and screen writers responsible for the work itself."

[Official Catholic groups fall all over themselves to kiss Jewish Butt and were completely scammed by Jewish whiners and propagandists about the Mel Gibson movie. The Jewish Lobby dances Christian groups like a puppet master. Hold Jews responsible for their OWN actions and history.]
'Passion' critics retract reviews,
By Julia Duin, THE WASHINGTON TIMES,February 27, 2004
"Early detractors of Mel Gibson's hit film, "The Passion of the Christ," are backing away from their critical remarks after the movie grossed a record-setting $26.6 million on its opening day. "The Passion," which opened Wednesday on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, set a record for the biggest opening day for a movie released outside the summer (May-August) and winter holiday months (November-December). It came in third among all movies that have premiered on a Wednesday, bypassed only by "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ($34.5 million) and "Star Wars: Episode 1 -- The Phantom Menace" ($28.5 million), according to the movie tracking service Box Office Mojo. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) retracted critical remarks made about the film last April by its ecumenical and interreligious committee, which suggested that the film might be anti-Semitic. In remarks released Wednesday on Catholic News Service, three staff members of the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting said the film might be overly violent but not anti-Semitic. "Concerning the issue of anti-Semitism, the Jewish people are at no time blamed collectively for Jesus' death," said a review by Gerri Pare, David DiCerto and Anne Navarro. "Rather, Christ freely embraces his destiny." The reviewers went on to call the movie "an artistic achievement in terms of its textured cinematography, haunting atmospherics, lyrical editing, detailed production and soulful score." Hollywood film company Dreamworks also backed away from remarks published in yesterday's New York Times suggesting that Hollywood producers will blacklist Mr. Gibson. Quoting unnamed studio executives, the article said some of Hollywood's biggest producers were angry over Mr. Gibson's refusal to repudiate remarks by his father, Hutton Gibson, a Holocaust denie ... Mark Joseph, an entertainment executive in Los Angeles and author of the upcoming book "The Passion of Mel Gibson: The Story Behind the Most Controversial Film in Hollywood History," said the film industry is in shock. "This town is rocking," he said, "wondering what it all means. This is the film everyone deemed unreleasable." According to the Feb. 20 issue of Entertainment Weekly, Mr. Gibson told actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, that "The Passion" could be a career wrecker. "You don't have to do this," Mr. Gibson reportedly told the actor in fall 2002. "After you finish this film, you may never work in Hollywood again." Seattle Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the founder of Toward Tradition who has written extensively on Jews and Hollywood, predicted yesterday that the film will take in $100 million in its first three weeks. "They used to call such treatment 'McCarthyism,'" Rabbi Lapin said, referring to the barrage of negative criticism unleashed on Mr. Gibson and his film. "If the film had bombed, that would have hurt Mr. Gibson's career. Now they are standing in line for it." Mr. Caviezel, he added, should at least be nominated for an Oscar. "If not, [Hollywood] will leave itself open to charges of antireligious prejudice," he said. Many in the industry, he added, "are prostitutes, and they will go wherever the money is."

[Here it is clearly: the incessant propagandistic deluge of the "Holocaust" as the modern Jewish religion, for both secular and religious Jews. It is decreed to be Sacred and it is enforced to be beyond criticism. Question any aspect of the Holocaust and you face the ruthless Jewish Inquisition. Behold Auschwitz: the modern Jewish pilgrimage Mecca. And, to paraphrase Ms. Rosett below, "Our Jewish religion is better than your religion. Na, na- na, na-na, na." It's impossible to talk about The Passion without a Jew screaming "Auschwitz!," elbowing decreed Jewish martrydom center stage -- always.]
Movies vs. Reality. "The Passion" is mute next to Auschwitz's quiet power,
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT, Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2004
"Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion of the Christ" opened last week in this venerable Polish city, playing to a rapt audience at the refurbished Kiev Cinema, a large movie house with a wide screen, good sound system and well-padded seats. Most of the audience sat transfixed until the last credit had rolled. I'd come to Poland on other business, and I tagged along with two acquaintances to the movie that evening because I was curious. Like many, I'd followed the debate since "The Passion" began its promotional warm-up this past winter. I knew there was friction over Mr. Gibson's ugly portrayal of the Jews, especially at a time when in many parts of the world anti-Semitism is again on the rise. I'd read about the scenes in which Jesus is scourged and crucified--with the most expert special effects that 21st-century filmmaking, on a $25 million budget, can deliver. What I had not anticipated was that "The Passion," in its frenzy to convey suffering, would inspire an urge not to weep, but chiefly to wince. Whatever faith or beliefs individual moviegoers may bring to the theater, what transpires in the film itself is a Hollywood marathon of dizzyingly bloody close-ups, some in slow motion, some moving along at a music video clip, all set to a hyperventilating score of hypnotic drumbeats and soaring chants. It was a jarring contrast to a place I had visited earlier that same day--a place of silence. Located about 40 miles west of Krakow, this site is known to the Poles as Oswiecim. To the rest of the world it is better known by its German name: Auschwitz. In the 59 years since the liberation of the Nazi death camps, so much has been said about Auschwitz that it may seem there's nothing to add. Perhaps. But some things need saying again and again. Some places need visiting by every generation, and not solely because there are crackpots at the extreme, such as Mel Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, who would have us believe that the Holocaust was mostly fiction (his logic being, apparently, that the Nazis lacked the fuel to burn the bodies of six million Jews). We tend to remember the Nazi death camps today as a sort of shorthand for evil. I wonder how many Americans contributing to "The Passion's" $200 million take at the box office could find Auschwitz on the map. It matters to go there. ... I have never seen a place so evil. Nor am I sure how to return at this point to the subject of a movie I must assume set out to depict what can be felt everywhere in the stark remains and devastating silence under the gently falling snow at Auschwitz-Birkenau."

[Mel Gibson's movie brings out all the kooks in the mainstream media. Here a self-described "Catholic" tells us the "greatest tragedy in human history" is the "Holocaust." Now, who taught him that the purpose of being moral is to protect Jewish Racism, Jewish Power and to herald Jewish Victmology as the beacon to humankind? Who brainwashed him, if not our Judeocentric culture that is propagandist at core. This guy practices a form of Catholic Judaism: he worships Jewish suffering above Christ's own.]
Is the Gospel anti-Semitic?,
By ROY PETER CLARK, St. Petersburg Times (FL), March 7, 2004
"I am a lifelong Catholic with a Jewish grandmother. It is from that vantage point that I venture into the debate surrounding Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, a film that depicts in agonizing detail the torture and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In order to see the movie, I had to overcome my biases against its creator. Popular actor and director Mel Gibson is the son of Hutton Gibson, a notorious Holocaust denier, a man who, at the age of 85, continues to spout anti-Semitic invective and conspiracy theories about the Jews. Father and son are both members of a breakaway sect from the Catholic Church that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including those that seek reconciliation between Christians and Jews. I wanted to be able to judge the movie as a work of art on its own terms - but, then again, why should I? Why should anybody? And why, especially, should the Jews? To me, the greatest tragedy of human history is not the crucifixion of Jesus. (His death, after all, is a Divine Comedy for us believers.) The tragedy lies in how we Christians have used the story of Jesus to hurt the Jews. This injustice will be visited upon our Jewish brothers and sisters with each viewing of The Passion of the Christ, not because the film is a hyperviolent distortion of the Gospels, but because it is a mostly accurate meditation on the central story of Christianity. Let me state my thesis more boldly: Every time we Christians tell the story of our salvation, we hurt the Jews."

[The core of Jewish hatred for Mel Gibson and Christianity: Jewish Leadershp is worried that a few Jews might wise up and leave their racist Klan.]
Commentary: Responses spur new discussion of ‘Passion'. Portrayal upsets some area rabbis,
by David Yonke, Toledo Blade, March 6, 2004
"I had planned to give readers a break from the media blitz over The Passion of the Christ, but there were just too many interesting comments and worthwhile statements among the wave of movie-related letters, e-mails, phone calls, and faxes I received this week. Several Toledo-area rabbis expressed concerns about the film's portrayal of Jews, although they did not want to be quoted in the paper. Generally speaking, however, they all believe that The Passion presents a distorted and unfair view of the Jewish council and the people who scream for Jesus' crucifixion. One rabbi said some members of his congregation are feeling harassed by Christian co-workers or students who keep insisting that they see the movie. The unstated implication is that the film will persuade Jews to convert to Christianity. "

[Katzenberg: Jewish. Geffen: Jewish. Bart: Jewish. Hollywood: Jewish.]
Hollywood Heads in the Sand,
by Laura Ingraham, Town Hall, March 6, 2004
"Can anyone remember the last time Hollywood seemed so bummed out over a film making a boatload of money at the box-office? The Passion is poised to make $350 million in North America alone—making it undoubtedly one of the biggest smashes of all time--and yet studio heads still don’t get it. They haven’t stopped grumbling and grousing—Dreamworks executives Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen told the New York Times that they are angry over the film. Other studio chiefs privately vowed never to work with Gibson again. Now who’s blacklisting whom? Entertainment honchos are busy convincing themselves that the main reason the film is doing so well is the pre-release controversy. It was all just a big marketing ploy by Mel Gibson. (And we know how Hollywood dislikes hype!) Some of my friends who saw The Passion with me speculated that its success might inspire more religiously-oriented film projects, perhaps exploring the amazing lives of some of the saints—Peter, Paul, Luke, Matthew. But here’s where Hollywood’s anti-religious prejudice rears its ugly head: it doesn’t matter if there is a huge market out there for such films, traditional film studios don’t seem interested. “I don’t think this will set off a rash of movies about the Bible. This is just the one that will break the rules,” speculated Variety editor Peter Bart in USA Today. Since when did Hollywood ever take that attitude? It lives off sequels, remakes, and copy-cat productions. We are used to hearing the elites in the entertainment and media worlds complain that conservatives like President Bush are “out of touch” with the real world, they don’t identify with the lives of real people. But real people are showing up in droves to see The Passion. Real people hunger for entertainment that speaks to their souls, that confronts the consequences of sin, that takes on the new aggressive secularism. Real people are weary of having their values and beliefs derided by the Big Thinkers in the entertainment industry as backward and ignorant ... Mel Gibson made an important film. And its importance is not just what it shows on screen, but what it brings out in people off screen. Hollywood may not have learned much from the success of The Passion. But we’ve learned a lot about Hollywood."

[Here you have the quintessential model: Jewish beliefs and actions create "anti-Semitism."]
Legal action urged against Mel Gibson film,
The Age (Australia), March 12, 2004
"A Jewish advocacy group has asked the US Justice Department to "utilise civil, criminal and federal hate crime laws" against Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. The group, Messiah Truth Project, says the "anti-Semitic" tone of the movie has resulted in hate crimes against Jews, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries across the United States since its release on February 25. Three incidents involving anti-Semitic graffiti have been reported in New York in the past fortnight and a Los Angeles college was closed yesterday after a speaker's car was sprayed with graffiti while she addressed a forum on hate speech on Tuesday. Yesterday, the group's online petition had collected 195 signatures."

[More Jewish-inspired Culture War. More Jewish propaganda disguised as a movie review. Jewish martyrdom must elbow out Christian martyrdom. Schindler's List is heavenly, while The Passion of the Christ is considered by so many Jewish authors and sychophants to be sadistic garbage. On the terms The Passion is judged, how can Schindler's List be a "masterpiece?" It's very violent and it creates anti-Christian hostility. Right? Isn't Schindler's List close to being a "hate crime?"]
‘Schindler's List’ is still a masterpiece DVD includes remembrances from some of the ‘Schindler Jews’,
By Michael Ventre, MSNBC, March 9, 2004
"The notion that one man can make a difference has never been driven home more forcefully than in “Schindler’s List,” director Steven Spielberg’s much-honored 1993 masterwor ... The film won seven Academy Awards, including best picture and best director, but more importantly, it served as a catalyst for a deeper re-examination of the Holocaust by new generations. The horrifying, poignant and ultimately inspirational saga of the “Schindler Jews” connected millions to ideas about the power and resiliency of the human spirit and the ongoing fight against hated and intolerance ... . “Schindler’s List” put [Spielberg] squarely and indelibly into the category of artist ... The DVD is not packed with extras, but what it does have is moving. There is a feature called “Voices from the List,” which contains remembrances by some of the remaining Schindler Jews; a piece on the work of the Shoah Foundation; cast and crew bios, and a look at Schindler himself ... One major realization you probably will have upon watching this is that, even though “Schindler’s List” was based on fictional source material — the Australian Keneally’s novel — and then made into a Hollywood movie, so many of the most memorable events in the film actually happened just the way they are depicted."

[More Jewish -inspired Culture War. Here you have it. The Pope tells all these boatloads of obnoxious Jews pounding on his door (demanding that he condemn Mel Gibson and Christianity) to go to Hell, as discretely as he can. He ignores them.]
Pope says Jesus film isn't anti-Semitic,
Mail and Gurdian, 11 March 2004
"Pope John Paul II does not consider Mel Gibson's controversial movie The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic, Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in an interview published on Thursday. In the interview by the Rome-based daily Il Messaggero, Navarro-Valls said the Vatican would not issue an official statement distancing itself from the biblical epic about Christ's crucifixion. "The pope has seen the film and has not commented on it," Navarro- Valls said. "The subsequent silence by the [Vatican] hierarchy is eloquent," he added. Jewish groups throughout the world have strongly criticised the film about the last days of Jesus Christ on earth as being anti- Semitic. Both the Italian Jewish community and the Anti Defamation League (ADL), an international Jewish group that seeks to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, have issued protest notes against the movie. They argue that its interpretation of the gospels may lead to a charge that the Jews killed Jesus. This, the ADL holds, may incite animosity towards Jews and even murder. According to Navarro-Valls, however, the movie is merely a "cinematographic transcription" of the gospels. "If the film were to be considered anti-Semitic, then the gospels would also have to be considered so," Navarro-Valls said."

[A few doors against the Jewish Lobby's super-glued seal are being pushed open. Frank Rich, ardent slammer of Mel Gibson and hater of Christianity, is Jewish. In order to solve a problem, you must name the problem. Name the powerful Jewish Bigot. It is time to say the "J" word, loudly and clearly. Or become complete slaves to the Jewish Lobby that defines the media world.]
Battle Lines Drawn Between O'Reilly and Rich, Newsmax, March 11, 2004
"America's raging culture war has come down to a sparring match between two top media figures, with Fox News superstar Bill O'Reilly verbally slugging it out with New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich, says today's issue of the Forward. Zeroing in on this week's heated exchanges between the two men, the Forward reported that O'Reilly let loose on Rich for what he called the Times columnist's "savage attack on Mel Gibson" in the paper's Sunday edition, one of a number of vicious attacks Rich has aimed at "The Passion of the Christ" and Gibson over the past year. According to the Forward, on Monday O'Reilly spent most of his time condemning Rich as a member of the "elite media," who, O'Reilly charged, "believe that the majority in the country — white Christian Americans — are prone to oppressing the minority," and added that "elites don't debate, they attack and marginalize." In his Sunday column Rich raised questions about O'Reilly's show three days earlier, during which O'Reilly asked a film critic whether the hubbub over Gibson's movie was because "the major media in Hollywood and a lot of the secular press is controlled by Jewish people?" Noting that "Rich has not resorted to personal invective in print," The Forward recalled that during a recent interview with the paper Rich had compared O'Reilly both to Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic radio host from the 1930s, and "Ted Baxter [from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"], the blowhard local anchorman, where it's all about him rather than the issue." Then on Wednesday morning, Rich appeared on the "Imus in the Morning" show and renewed his assault on O'Reilly, provoking the star of the top-rated "O'Reilly Factor" to fire back later in the morning during his own appearance on the Imus show. He continued his response to Rich's comments that night, devoting his opening editorial to attacking Rich for claiming that he had never used his Times columns to wage personal attacks against Gibson or O'Reilly. "For one of the few times in history," O'Reilly said, "the elite media has been called on a blatantly unfair campaign and is losing the debate." "If you go up against the elite media, it's not going to be pretty. You'll be branded a bigot, racist, anti-Semite, homophobe," O'Reilly added. But Rich says, without a shred of evidence to back the accusation, that O'Reilly's constant references to the "elite media" are a veiled "code word" for Jews — a reference, the Forward suggested, that the host "seemed to make explicit in his March 4 question about Jewish control of the media." "Whenever he attacks me, it sets off a flood of anti-Semitic e-mails and voice mail messages," Rich told the Forward. And so it goes. For his part, O'Reilly keeps challenging Rich to appear on his show, an invitation Rich continues to decline - which, O'Reilly says, proves he's a coward. "He's hiding under his desk," O'Reilly said."

[The modern media champions Jews and Israel, and crushes everyone else. Here's the same jerk Jewish journalist as above, afforded the Judeocentric mass media power to piss on Islam and Christianity, in rotation.]
Is 'The Passion' antisemitic?,
Jeff Jacoby, Town Hall, February 25, 2004
"'The Passion" is violent, bloody, and sadistic. Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus's last day -- two hours and six minutes of almost unrelieved savagery and gore -- has to be the most graphic and brutal death ever portrayed on film. It is being described as a masterpiece -- soul-stirring and beautiful. I found it stomach-turning and deeply troubling. I am not a Christian, but I tried to view "The Passion" the way a Christian might view it. I tried to experience it as a message of God's love and mercy, as a depiction of self-sacrifice so complete and all-embracing as to transform human history. I tried to imagine believing that all that blood -- and "The Passion" is drenched with blood -- was shed to wash away my sins. I tried to understand this grim nightmare as an enactment of mankind's redeemer being tortured and killed, to accept that this was the purpose for which he was born, to feel that I, no less than the howling mob on the screen, was responsible for -- and the beneficiary of -- his death. I tried -- but I failed. I failed in part because I am not a Christian, but a believing Jew."

[The Jewish community is corrupt. Where are all the rabbis stepping forward to publicly condemn the worst in their holy book, the Talmud? It's the usual two-faced hypocrisy:]
'THE PASSION' UNLEASHED. Pope says Gibson film not anti-Semitic. Response to rabbi's request to formally condemn blockbuster film,
World Net Daily, March 13, 2004
"The pope has declared "there is nothing anti-Semitic" about Mel Gibson's blockbuster film "The Passion of the Christ." Amid continued criticism of its depiction of Jews, Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls called the film on the final hours of Jesus' life "a cinematographic transcription of the Gospels. If it were anti-Semitic, the Gospels would also be so." Navarro-Valls said Pope John Paul II would have criticized the film if it were bigoted against Jews. The spokesman made his comments in reply to Riccardo Di Segni, chief rabbi of Rome, who had asked the Vatican for a formal condemnation of the movie, which has grossed more than $200 million in the U.S. since its Feb. 25 release. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said this will now settle the issue for most Catholics. "Naturally, there will always be some, most especially dissident theologians, nuns and priests, who will reject the Vatican's understanding of the film," he said. "But then again they have a long track record of rejecting lots of things the Vatican says. It would be a mistake for the millions of Catholics who have embraced this movie to allow the dissidents to distract them from the beauty of the film."

[There are too many bigoted Jewish "experts" running around. Any Jew commenting on Mel Gibson's movie has an intrinsic conflict of interest. Where are all the non-Jewish "experts" on the Talmud? Heard of any lately?]
Passionate subject: Jewish interfaith expert to grapple with issues raised by Gibson film,
By: Anna Jaffe, Kansas City Jeish Chronicle, March 12, 2004
"Two weeks after the release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," reverberations from the controversial film are still being felt. "The Passion" and its ramifications will be the subject of discussion at a joint scholar-in-residence weekend March 19-21 and an interfaith clergy institute on March 22. The weekend will feature Dr. Michael Cook, author and professor of Judeo-Christian studies at Hebrew Union College, speaking at two local synagogues. Cook is uniquely qualified to discuss the film and issues related to it. He is both a respected rabbi and a New Testament scholar. And he was one of seven scholars who assessed an early version of "The Passion" script. These days, Jews are more familiar with the Holocaust than Passion plays and the age-old charge of deicide. But the latter are subjects that Jews must know about, said Rabbi Mark Levin of Congregation Beth Torah, who invited Cook to the Kansas City area. "The Passion play is historically the oldest and most anti-Semitic of literature," he said. "Understanding is power. We were blind-sided by this film." Cook became involved in "The Passion" uproar in April 2003. He was part of a group of Christian and Jewish scholars invited by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs to offer a confidential assessment of the film that was to be forwarded to the filmmaker. "There was concern at the secretariat, which was working in cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League, that the film might violate recent Catholic teachings on how to present Jews in dramatizations of Jesus' last hours, which historically have often fueled anti-Semitism," Cook said in an interview conducted via e-mail ... Cook said the film that was released Feb. 25 very closely resembles the script that he vetted last year. Both are disturbing to him ... The impact of "The Passion" on Jewish-Christian relations is still unclear. "There are discomfiting developments, including the continued reticence on the part of the senior Catholic hierarchy to speak out about the dangers presented by the film," Cook said."

German Jews denounce Gibson's 'Passion',
Expatica, March 15, 2004
"The head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany has denounced Mel Gibson's controversial blockbuster "The Passion of Christ", calling it dangerously anti-Semitic. Emerging from a screening of the movie in Germany, where it has not yet been released, Jewish Council head Paul Spiegel said, "Unfortunately, the film perpetuates anti-Jewish clichés to the effect that the Jews murdered Jesus." He told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa, "I had hoped that these clichés would have dissipated after decades of ecumenical discussion." The film is set for release in Germany 18 March. "I fear that persons disposed to the attitude could easily construe it as anti-Semitic," said Spiegel, who represents some 100,000 Jews in Germany. "At any rate, I found the gruesome depiction of the crucifixion to be extraordinarily violent," he added. "For the life of me, I can't see what the intention is behind this film."

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF MEL GIBSON. A Look Behind the Headlines Reveals "The Passion of Christ" as Propaganda for a Fascistic Cult,
by Shlomo Svesnik, World War III Report [Editor: Bill Weinberg]
"The debate around Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" has gone on too long. Not only is the film bad history that even deviates sharply from the gospels (contrary to all the empty hoopla about its supposed accuracy), not only is it a transparent exercise in "blood-libel" Jew-hatred, not only does it indulge in extended pornographic sadism that makes a mockery of the very "Christian" values it is supposedly promoting--but a dispassionate look at the facts reveals it as a piece of propaganda for a reactionary religious cult that intersects with the new networks of European fascism while literally claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope. The Traditionalist Church and Clerical Fascism By now most followers of the controversy are aware that Gibson has ploughed $2.8 million into a church he is building hear his Malibu home for followers of the "Traditionalist" Catholic break-away sect. ... The movement, claiming a few hundred thousand followers worldwide, is now fractured, with strains assuming different degrees of distance from the Vatican--and of open nostalgia for the clerical fascism of Franco and Mussolini ... As they flog endlessly away, Shaved Eyebrows appears--bearing a grotesquely deformed baby--and merges with the gleeful Jewish spectators. (When I was watching this at a Brooklyn theater, the middle-aged African American woman seated behind me said, "The Devil walks among them"--and up went my paranoid Jewish hackles.) ... Gibson is (not surprisingly) joined in his fondness for Pilate by Adolf Hitler, who said that the Roman governor stands out "like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry." He was commenting on the production of the Passion Play at the German village of Oberammergau, which he called "a convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry." Gibson, it seems, has produced an Oberammergau for our times ... It also has to be said that official Jewish reaction to the film has been amazingly stupid and counter-productive. It was reportedly under pressure from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that Gibson dropped the line "His blood be on us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). The crowd does, in fact, shout it in Aramaic, but it goes untranslated. These sanitization demands just legitimize a work of anti-Semitic propaganda--and play into the perception that Jews control the media, can exercise censorship with a wave of their hands (while Arabs, African Americans and others are far more often portrayed in vicious stereotypes) ... Have we learned anything? Maybe there's an unintended message in Gibson's monstrosity. Jews are going to be periodically slapped around by history as long as they keep playing suckers for the Man. Yo, brothers: wise the fuck up."

[Jews continue to gang up on Mel Gibson in their anti-Christian "hate" feast.]
UK: The Passion 'is anti-Semitic,'
News Interactive, March 15, 2004
"A SENIOR British lawmaker on Sunday accused Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" of being "damagingly anti-Semitic." The film, which opens in Britain on March 26, depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ and features scenes of graphic violence. It has drawn criticism from Jewish leaders in the United States who fear it will lead to anti-Jewish sentiment, while winning praise from some Christians for its portrayal of Christ. "What you are in for is sadism, gratuitous violence, ugliness, wallowing in blood and, it has to be said, crude anti-Semitism. That is what this movie is about," said Gerald Kaufman, a member of Britain's governing Labour Party and chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee. "The Jews depicted are depicted as almost caricature Jews who demand (Christ's) blood," he told commercial television station ITV. "I am not accusing him (Gibson) of being a deliberate and overt anti-Semite but there is no doubt that the message of the film is seriously, damagingly anti-Semitic."

UK: The Passion 'is anti-Semitic ',
News Interactive, March 15, 2004
"A senior British lawmaker on Sunday accused Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" of being "damagingly anti-Semitic." The film, which opens in Britain on March 26, depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ and features scenes of graphic violence. It has drawn criticism from Jewish leaders in the United States who fear it will lead to anti-Jewish sentiment, while winning praise from some Christians for its portrayal of Christ. "What you are in for is sadism, gratuitous violence, ugliness, wallowing in blood and, it has to be said, crude anti-Semitism. That is what this movie is about," said Gerald Kaufman, a member of Britain's governing Labour Party and chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee. "The Jews depicted are depicted as almost caricature Jews who demand (Christ's) blood," he told commercial television station ITV. "I am not accusing him (Gibson) of being a deliberate and overt anti-Semite but there is no doubt that the message of the film is seriously, damagingly anti-Semitic."

GIBSON'S GOAL,
by Joe Sobran, Sobran's, March 2, 2004
"Mel Gibson's movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST has been greeted by some remarkable expressions of hatred for Christianity -- all in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, of course. By now it would take a whole book to deal with them thoroughly, but the prize for venom goes to columnist William Safire of the NEW YORK TIMES, who blames the Holocaust on Christ. After the standard rundown of the Gospels, medieval Passion plays, and the "sadism" of Gibson's film, Safire quotes Christ himself in Matthew 10:34: "I have come to bring not peace, but a sword." Get it? Christ preached hatred and violence. If you connect the dots, his teaching ultimately bore fruit in millennia of anti-Semitism, culminating in Hitler's mass murders of Jews. Of course Safire, who seems to be writing for people who don't know the New Testament too well, doesn't mention that Christ is speaking metaphorically, as the rest of the passage immediately makes clear: "For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own house." That is, Christ's truth will divide people even from their closest relatives. As it often still does. Safire overlooks an even more famous metaphor of the sword, though Jesus speaks it in the new film: "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." Jews like Safire can't shake the obsessive belief that they are the victims of hatred, even when they're spreading hatred themselves. Among Jewish writers during the present controversy, only David Klinghoffer, writing in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, has been candid enough to mention that the Talmud proudly gives the Jews "credit" for killing Jesus. The Talmud's account is historically incredible, but it shows that the notion that some Jews played their part in killing Christ isn't just a fiction of the Gospels. The Talmud doesn't even mention the Romans' role in the story, whereas the Apostles' Creed doesn't mention the Jewish role: it merely says that Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried." If the early Church was so eager to blame the Jews, it muffed its big chance. Moving along to the WASHINGTON POST, we find columnist Richard Cohen charging that Gibson's film is "anti-Semitic, maybe not purposely so but in the way portions of the New Testament are -- an assignment of blame that culminated in the Holocaust." Cohen doesn't quite reach the heights of slander Safire has set; in fact, it's a standard Jewish anti-Christian calumny -- a "hoary canard," to use another regular cliche. As history, it's naive in the extreme; if the Gospels were going to "culminate in the Holocaust," they should have done so when Europe was still Christian, not under the pagan Nazi regime, which left something to be desired in the way of Christian piety and ethics. The attempt to link Christianity to Nazism has become a heavy industry, culminating, if you will, in recent books smearing Pope Pius XII and the entire Catholic Church from New Testament times to 1965 -- when, we are falsely told, the Second Vatican Council "reversed" a teaching the Church had never in fact taught. Little did the bishops of 1965 imagine that their goodwill gestures toward Jews would soon be used to vilify their predecessors. Lately we've witnessed a somewhat new kind of vilification: the calumnious prediction. Jews -- not all, but not a few, either -- have said flatly that Gibson's movie "will," not "may," incite anti-Jewish violence. They were saying this for months, while the film was still in production. Well, the movie has been an astounding success. Millions of Christians have seen it, yet not even one violent incident has been reported in or near the theaters. Not even one! The Christians have been behaving like -- well, like Christians. Is anyone surprised? Of course not. Yet, at the urging of some rabid rabbis, the New York Police Department has assigned its Hate Crimes Unit to attend the movie and nab law-breaking Christian bigots who are "pushed over the edge" by the story of the Crucifixion. Arrests so far: zero. If Gibson's aim is what he says it is, namely, to bring Christ's Passion home to millions, he has scored a huge triumph. If his goal is what his Jewish enemies say it is, namely, to cause the persecution of Jews, he has fizzled miserably. "Hate," anyone?"

Ombudsman: Pathos, Partisanship and 'Passion',
By Michael Getler, Washington Post, March 14, 2004; Page B06
"Several dozen angry readers wrote last week to blast The Post, and TV critic Tom Shales, in very strong terms for Shales's commentaries on Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" that were part of a March 8 Style section review of the ABC-TV movie "Judas." At one point, Shales takes a line from "Judas," in which the wife of Pontius Pilate, referring to the plot to assassinate Jesus, tells her husband: "Fix it so the Jews themselves are held responsible." But then Shales creates some fictional dialogue to convey his criticism of Gibson's "Passion." In Shales's version, Pilate scoffs and says, "Who'd believe that?" and his wife replies: "You can always find a few bigots and idiots who'll believe anything." Regardless, Shales continued, "the Big Lie was born, and two millennia later, Gibson would find a way to recycle it and gross more than $200 million in the process. Surely his parking space in Hell has already been reserved." Readers called these comments ignorant, bigoted, inflammatory and offensive. As one reader wrote, "He effectively labeled all Christians 'bigots and idiots' for believing the story told in the Bible." Style Editor Eugene Robinson says: "I read the 'bigots and idiots' line as a clear reference to what he [Shales] calls in the next sentence 'the Big Lie' -- the idea that the Jews should eternally be held responsible as Christ-killers, a libel that has been used to justify centuries' worth of persecutions and pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust. Since this doctrine has been firmly rejected by mainstream Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, it was evident to me that Shales's 'bigots and idiots' were those who use this discarded canard to justify their anti-Semitism. It was not a broader attack on Christians and Christianity; Shales intended no such thing, and I read no such thing in what he wrote." I read it the same way, but using a contrivance in an explosive way when the subject is some people's faith seemed to invite other interpretations. Gibson's powerful and controversial movie has produced powerful and sometimes controversial responses from many news outlets -- reviews, commentaries, even cartoons. And they have all touched off further controversy. The Gibson film, Robinson said, "speaks in a loud and passionate voice . . . and Shales worded his response with comparable volume and passion." He said a couple of lines in the review "came very close to the line between what is acceptable and what is not, but did not cross it." People have intensely loved or hated this film, he says, "and Shales's commentary fit into this larger context. I can assure you that Shales had no intention to insult or offend," he said."

Walking A Long Mile In Judas's Sandals,
By Tom Shales, Washington Post, March 8, 2004; Page C01
"Jesus Christ was one groovy dude -- at least according to "Judas," an ABC movie that tells a very familiar story but from a unfamiliar point of view. In the modern-vernacular film, airing tonight at 9 on Channel 7, Jesus is certainly the Good Guy (okay, the Best Guy), but Judas isn't simply the bad one. History's most famous traitor, in effect, gets plopped down on an analyst's couch and probed, and though he's guilty as sin of betraying Jesus, we're asked to consider him as a complex human being with traces of decency as well as dishonor running through his veins. At least these filmmakers adhere to the physicians' credo "First, do no harm." Unlike Mel Gibson's notorious "The Passion of the Christ," ABC's movie seems happily lacking in anti-Semitic aspersions. Writer Tom Fontana, whose impressive credits include the uncompromising "Oz" on HBO, has Pontius Pilate's wife tell her husband, as the assassination of Jesus is plotted on Palm Sunday: "Fix it so the Jews themselves are held responsible." It might have been better still if the conversation had continued with Pilate scoffing, "Who'd believe that?" and his wife replying, "You can always find a few bigots and idiots who'll believe anything." Regardless, the Big Lie was born, and two millennia later, Gibson would find a way to recycle it and gross more than $200 million in the process. Surely his parking space in Hell has already been reserved."

[Left-wing, right-wing, whatever Jewish persuasion. For Jews, The Passion of the Christ is a "snuff" film. It is "trash." Jewish vulgar hatred of Christianity is a foundation of Jewish identity.]
Oh, Jesus It's the Movie!,
By SAUL LANDAU, CounterPunch, March 12/14, 2004
"My friend who went with me to see the film that has broken box-office sales commented that had Anti Defamation League chair Abe Foxman not publicly identified as Jews the bearded and robed men in the film who demanded that the Roman governor crucify Jesus, few people would have known who they were and the fear of renewed anti-Semitism would not have arisen. Understandably, critics have demanded of director Mel Gibson a higher degree of accuracy for this big screen version of a religious snuff film without porn-- than they did for example the makers of "Amadeus." He admitted that his father, a holocaust denier and an anti-Semite, exerted a strong influence on him. Did his father also administer the lash to young Mel when he misbehaved, much as the sadistic Roman guards did to Jesus in the film? Did Mel imagine chunks of his own flesh ripped open, revealing the pink tissue underneath? In the film, the audience, thanks to Dolby stereo, hears the crisp sound effects "swish, splat, crack" and watches artful cutting between burly whip wielders and close ups of torn flesh, leaking blood. Gibson leaves little to the imagination. In older Hollywood films a man would get shot, clutch his stomach and fall down dead. We didn't need shots of blood and flesh to convince us. The very premise of movie editing relied on the audiences' imagination. Not so with Gibson. Indeed, the make-up department he hired might have gotten an Oscar nomination, except they forgot to stain all of the actors' teeth the actors who played Jews, black hats, also had blackened teeth. James Caviezel (Jesus) had that Ultra Brite commercial look. Later, some creative "mouth man" inserted colored red dye onto Jesus' dentures to simulate blood. Some of the creative art work called attention to itself, like that done on the self-tortured Judas before he committed suicide (I hope I'm not giving away too much of the plot). The parched, cracked quality of the flesh surrounding the teeth, revealed in extreme close up, actually made me so thirsty that I reached for the $3.50, 12 ounce bottle of water I had lodged in the convenient hole in the arm of my reclining movie chair. God forbid you should actually feel really uncomfortable while the images, sound effects and music combine to make you feel virtually uncomfortable! Watching harsh reality while sitting in a secure chair makes for an ideal vicarious experience. To achieve the semblance of 2000 year old reality, Gibson had the actors speaking Aramaic and Latin, with subtitles. But why didn't Gibson catch the shining white teeth mistake when he watched the rushes? He could have color corrected the scene by adding a dash of yellowish-brown stain. Hey, in pre-dentist days people had gnarly and tarnished bicuspids despite the absence of refined sugar. The gleaming and perfectly set of white molars should have alerted the public: "it's only a film with actors playing parts of the last twelve hours as Mel Gibson and other writers imagined them; not as they were." By taking this piece of cinema trash seriously, critics have helped Gibson quintuple his original $25 million dollar investment after one week ... If you want to learn biblical history, don't see Gibson's production. It bears occasional resemblance to what scholars have unearthed about the crucifixion, but most of the scenes originate in the imaginations of art directors, costume designers, makeup veterans and a very skilled cinematographer, Caleb Deschanel. As history, it is as relevant as the various versions of The Three Musketeers ... Indeed, such scenes should remind viewers that Gibson had a keen interest if not an obsession with suffering on a cross. Critics have emphasized how the actor's recovery from alcoholism through a twelve step program colored his vision of religion, thus leading him to make this film financed with his own money (which he will recuperate several times over). Did I just see an example of commercial art as therapy? Or is Gibson giving AA a bad name? ... Fundamentalist preachers urge their flock to see Gibson's film. They may use this piece of crude cinema rather than complex scripture to re-enforce their anti-Semitism -- while trumpeting Israel's cause."

Essay: Who killed Jesus? Boring,
By HILLEL HALKIN, Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2004
"There is something absurd in the Jewish eagerness, manifested once again in the clamor surrounding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, to prove that "we" didn't kill Jesus. Honestly, it wasn't us, it was the Romans! We simply turned him in. This kind of plea-bargaining is not only demeaning and historically questionable, it is also unreflectingly accepting of the premise of traditional Christian theology that it really matters who killed Jesus because there is a collective responsibility for his death that damns the people of its perpetrators forever. What we need to say loudly as Jews is not that we didn't do it, but that a notion so warped damns only those who believe in it. "Who killed Jesus?" is in fact not a very interesting question ... . It is unfortunate that the world of Jewish-establishment thought and education has been afraid to do what it should have done with Jesus in modern times, which is to return him to our midst. He was truly flesh of our flesh. If so many of us were not still so hesitant to acknowledge this, we would not hesitate to say to Christians: "Of course, Jews killed Jesus! He lived only among Jews. He was loved only by Jews. He was hated and perceived as a threat only by Jews. He was understood and misunderstood only by Jews. His life and death were the concern only of Jews. (They certainly weren't a concern of Pilate's, who appears not to have given a damn about him one way or another.) No one is asking you to pardon or exonerate us for what was or wasn't done to him by Jews - and now go and learn something about Judaism so that you can understand what your scriptures say about him." I don't wish - well, perhaps I do, but I can't - to take Jesus away from Christians, even if, as a Jew, I find it both stupefying and amusing that "one of our boys" - ayner fun unzere, in the words of the old joke - ended up as God ... Jews should understand it too. Religious rebels and innovators have been persecuted throughout history by the powers that be, and the powers that were in Jesus's world were largely Jews. It's nothing to be proud of, but it's nothing to be ashamed of either, let alone to deny. What's to be proud of is Jesus himself. Only Judaism could have produced such an extraordinary character."

[Brandeis University is of course the Jewish-founded, Jewish-centered college named after former Jewish Supreme Court Justice (and avid Zionist) Louis Brandeis.]
Jesus get-up sparks anger at Purim fest,
By Benjamin Freed, The Justice (Brandeis University), March 9, 2004
"Hillel's Purim party Saturday night in Levin Ballroom was interrupted by an altercation between Ari Teman '04 and Mark Brescia '04 regarding a questionable costume. Teman described his costume as a parody on the film The Passion of the Christ. Teman dressed as Jesus on a cross with a sign reading "King of the Box Office." In an e-mail last night, he said it was "entirely sarcastic." Brandeis Orthodox Organization Vice President Mitchel Balsam '05 said he was largely responsible for organizing the party. He told the Justice yesterday he had known of Teman's costume in advance of Saturday night and attempted to prevent any controversy beforehand. "I knew Ari was going to dress up as Jesus on the cross," he said. "But on Friday I spoke to Teman and told him it wasn't appropriate." Balsam said he and other Hillel officials who organized the party then decided that they would not allow Teman in on Saturday night with his intended costume. On the night of the party, however, Teman arrived dressed as Jesus. "It [the costume] was bloody," Balsam said. "It had advertisements for stupid stuff." Teman, defending his intended comedy, wrote that the advertisements were "comic sponsorship by real and fake products to emphasize this was a movie parody" ... Although he apologized for the inconvenience, Balsam said Brescia saw Teman and was "really, really upset." Brescia refused to comment. "No one should have to watch their religion stepped on like that," Balsam said of Brescia's reaction to Teman. But Balsam also indicated the situation between Brescia and Teman escalated. Although Teman wrote he was unaware what happened with Brescia, Balsam said the two never had any interaction, but that he filled out a report after University Police arrested Brescia. Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett said she didn't see Teman's costume, but she understood the reactions. "I understand that it was quite an extraordinary costume and aroused some of the same feelings as Mel Gibson's movie," she said. "I've heard students say it was an amazing costume and in amazingly poor taste."

[Unstated here, the organization seeking to render "The Passion of the Christ" a "hate crime" is Jewish.]
'THE PASSION' UNLEASHED. Gibson film violates 'hate crime' statutes? Group wants Ashcroft to investigate, claims movie caused attacks on Jews,
World Net Daily, March 16, 2004
"Claiming Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" has resulted in "hate crimes" against Jews, a nonprofit organization is seeking online signatures for a petition asking Attorney General John Ashcroft to "evaluate possible actions" against the filmmaker. According to a statement from the Messiah Truth Project Inc. – a nonprofit group that says its purpose is to "combat the deceptive missionary techniques of evangelical Christian denominations and the Messianic movements" – "The Passion," through "purposeful rewriting of the Christian Gospel mythos has, itself, become an anti-Semitic diatribe." The organization claims the movie has caused crimes against Jews, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries "throughout the U.S." In making its case, the Messiah Truth Project cites Adolf Hitler's description of a 1934 performance of the Oberammergau passion play in Bavaria as "a convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry." The group says the use of extreme graphic violence against Jesus in the film, at the urging of the Jewish crowd, displays a "clear prejudicial bent" against the Jewish faith. The group has set up a petition that can be signed online. The petition states: "Gibson's 'The Passion' violates state and federal hate crime statutes for the purposeful encouragement of anti-Semitic violence. We implore U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to evaluate action against the perpetrators involved and those responsible for the work itself." While the petition states a goal of 50,000 signatures, just 250 people had signed as of yesterday. In its statement, the Messiah Truth Project failed to cite specific incidents of violence attributed to a perpetrator who had viewed the film. On the group's website, a message proclaims: "Evangelical Christianity has spent over $1 billion in the last decade to convert Jews to Christianity. Under the guise of 'Jews for Jesus' and 'Hebrew Christians,' a new threat of spiritual terrorism has emerged in the form of 'Messianic Synagogues,' whose theological tenets are identical to the Christian fundamentalists who created them. Their ultimate goal is the eradication of the Jewish people through assimilation – it is our obligation to stop them."

Germany wary of Passion reaction,
BBC News (UK), March 18, 2004
"German Jewish leaders and church officials have warned that The Passion of the Christ may stir up anti-Semitism when it opens in the country. Mel Gibson's film will be shown in 400 German cinemas from Thursday. "The anti-Semites will only have their views on Jews confirmed," said Salomon Korn, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany ... The movie is being released in Germany three weeks ahead of schedule in response to public demand. Anti-Semitism charges against the film - which portrays the death of Jesus - are especially sensitive in Germany, where the Holocaust was planned. German Catholic leaders called the film problematic, and the German Bishops' Conference said: "We urgently warn against using the suffering of Jesus as an instrument for anti-Semitism." Salomon Korn said the film was a "sado-masochist orgy of violence" laden with "kitsch", while Wolfgang Huber described the film's violence as "intolerable". Jim Caviezel recently had an audience with the Pope Leading German essayist Henryk M Broder wrote in Der Spiegel magazine that "those who can't stand Jews will find confirmation in the film". "Amazingly, Jews will once again be held responsible for a murder that happened almost 2,000 years ago," he wrote."

[Yet another Jew, the billionth, tells you what Catholicism is. Jews line up -- from all political persuasions, horizon to horizon, fanatics all -- to crucify Mel Gibson.]
Time for Mel Gibson to Go to the Confessional,
by Scott Shore, Intellectual Conservative, 12 March 2004
"While Mr. Gibson may have awakened the faith of many in America, he has also opened a Pandora’s Box of hatred among a small minority in the US and among the not-so-silent majority abroad. As one of the few Jewish writers who tried to lower the decibel level of vituperation regarding Mel Gibson’s movie, and as one who was primarily critical only of his liberal use of cinematic artistic license and selectivity of history and scripture in his portrayal of the Passion, I feel I have an obligation to speak my mind about the real problem with Mel Gibson. I respect Mr. Gibson’s faith and his desire to bring it to life using the genre of movies. Granted that movies are a pretty dumbed-down way to faith, but we are living in such times. Nevertheless, Mr. Gibson does have guilt on his head. He has set himself up as a religious personality and must take the responsibility that goes with it. If Mr. Gibson is sincere that his movie is not anti-Jewish but about universal love, then he must speak openly and loudly to the Christian community that his work not be misinterpreted. Instead, Mr. Gibson has chosen to speak occasionally on television before friendly interviewers and made fairly empty remarks that “we are all guilty of Jesus’ death,” in spite of the fact that this does not seem to be image movie-goers get while watching ugly Jewish mobs and smug and sadistic Jewish leaders watch Jesus’ gruesome and violent death. The voluntarism of Jesus’ sacrifice and the universality of mankind’s guilt are not the first things that come to the viewers’ minds. If that was Mr. Gibson’s meaning then he should be screaming from the rooftops that people should not be misled by his movie. Mel Gibson has done nothing of the sort and is quite content to let the social fallout be whatever it will be. He has made himself a religious spokesman and if he believes in tolerance and love, he should be everywhere spreading that message in the same way that he acted like a typical Hollywood producer, selling his movie like a carnival barker on every talk show that would have him. This act of omission is serious. Mr. Gibson should acknowledge the terrible results of his movie that have already occurred in Europe. Jewish children have been beaten in hundreds of incidents and the cry of “Christ killers” has once again raised its ugly head. Mr. Gibson needs to go to Europe and set the record straight as to the meaning of his movie and to condemn in the strongest possible terms the entirely PREDICTABLE outbreaks of anti-Jewish behavior in Europe. Mr. Gibson should be working with all people of god will in Europe to stop this phenomenon. Given the climate in France, could Mr. Gibson have been so naïve as to believe that anything but anti-Jewish outbreaks would occur? Does Mr. Gibson believe that in Russia his movie will lead to interfaith dialogue? Can Mr. Gibson believe that the Islamic world will use his film as anything BUT a further tool of incitement against Israel and Jews? Mel Gibson is a sophisticated film maker. He knows the financial rewards of overseas markets and the distribution rights to other countries. Mr. Gibson’s silence and lack of action on these fronts is nothing short of shameful. Mr. Gibson will have Jewish blood on his hands in nations less enlightened and tolerant than the United States. This is a sin of commission. Incitement to violence and murder is not the sign of a man of love ... Mr. Gibson needs to get over his whining, self-pitying, “I am a victim of the Hollywood establishment” role and think of the real victims he is helping to create. His behavior so far has been self-righteous and belligerent. It would seem the Hollywood establishment has been pretty good to Mel over the years. When Mel was getting started and needed the money, he did his own fair share of schlock movies with questionable moral messages. I must finally discuss the most unseemly aspect of Mel Gibson. His recent interview in Reader’s Digest and his many statements prior to that leave absolutely no doubt that he is a Holocaust-denier like his father ... Before the movie, Mel Gibson deserved the benefit of the doubt. His subsequent behavior leaves him beyond the pale of civilized opinion. Instead of furthering the goal of trying to reassert traditional values in American life and general opinion, Mr. Gibson has set back the cause of traditionalists by restoring the worst stereotypes of traditionalist and religious people as mere bigots. This is NOT true, but thanks to Mr. Gibson a lot of work has been undone. As a Catholic he should run—not walk—to confess his sins. Then again, I forgot that Mel doesn’t believe that the Catholic Church is Catholic enough for him. He rejects the teachings of the Popes since Vatican 2. He has set up Gibsonian Catholicism. From whom does a man who is holier than the Pope receive absolution of sins? It is good that Mr. Gibson believes in a forgiving God because he will need it."

Gibson's seedy version of Orientalism,
by Sol Salbe, Scoop, Tuesday, 16 March 2004
"Let me start by laying my cards on the table. I am an atheist Jew, and an Israeli to boot. I am also a universalist who rejected tribalism nearly 40 years ago. That means that the first question I ask is not "Is it good for the Jews?" (or Palestinians, or footy fans or whatever) but "Is it good for humanity?" I can also admit to not being well versed in the early history of Christianity. Jesus did not rate a mention in my first nine years of Israeli education, and when I got to Australia, everyone my age already knew all the arguments backwards. Thus, the biggest item of baggage I took to the film was a healthy dose of scepticism ... There's a lot to object to in Mel Gibson's movie. There's the interminable violence. There's the stereotyping of the Jewish leaders who are not only bloodthirsty, manipulative and cruel, but look so "Jewish". (Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene and even Peter, on the other hand, may not be blonde as in the usual European rendition, but could definitely pass for "European"). This film is anti-Semitic. Anyone not inoculated beforehand cannot fail to be moved by Jesus' suffering. When you watch the film, it seems endless: beating, flagellating, torture, and finally crucifying. It makes you angry. If you want to blame anyone, Gibson gives you only one choice: the Jews, who with a few exceptions are seen braying for Jesus' crucifixion. But it's the contrast between the civilised Romans and the "inferior' natives that really got me ropeable. ... The universal racist message of this film can make it anti-Palestinian (as well as anti-Iraqi etc.). It doesn't take much imagination to replace the Jews shouting "Crucify him!" with Muslims shouting "Allah akbar". They are more or less already dressed for the part. Pontius Pilate's clean-shaven image could easily be replaced by that of US administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer. You can make your own selection as to who can replace the Roman soldiers. You cannot ignore the political context in which this film is being shown ... It may be my paranoia, but the anecdotal evidence is that those in the Bush administration with Jewish-sounding names are being mentioned more now as war architects than they were a year ago. Mel Gibson's Passion is a nasty film that may haunt us for years to come."

[Note: Non-Jewish actor Jon Voight is apparently a shabbes-goy pimp for the Jewish Lobby, especially the racist Chabad organization. Aside from other anti-Christian slurs, Rabbi Boteach (author of "Kosher Sex") also says that the suffering of Christ in The Passion is the equivilant of a fake wrestling match.]
'Scarborough Country' for March 15, [2004]
Read the complete transcript to Monday's show,
MSNBC
"SCARBOROUGH: You know, the actor Jon Voight claimed that Mel Gibson used Nazi-like propaganda in his film. He made that claim on our show. And I want to play all of you that clip right now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON VOIGHT, ACTOR: That reminded me of the way Hitler, in his films on the Jews, created this uproar against the Jews. Hitler would use rats come into a neighborhood. Then he would intercut that with Jewish stereotypes. And he built the Holocaust on that stuff, turning the whole nation against the Jews. So I‘m saying that this film has ingredients. And then you have to question why he did it and is there an agenda here? (END VIDEO CLIP) SCARBOROUGH: Jennifer Giroux, you are president of Women Influencing the Nation and director of SeeThePassion.com. We, of course, played Jon Voight‘s clips before. I am just wondering, though, do you think the rest of Hollywood is finally starting to get it, that Mel Gibson has tapped into an emotion out there, to a faith out there that Hollywood hasn‘t played to in quite a long time?
JENNIFER GIROUX, SEETHEPASSION.COM: The silence is interesting. I think the far left is still attacking him, but one of the things on our Web site, the thing we always said is, to see it with your own eyes is to feel it in your heart forever. And I think that‘s what people are feeling. And the word haunt I am not comfortable with because haunt means something kind of evil to me. I think what‘s happening is people are saying this and they are drawn to the good and the holiness of it, and so they are looking to have their questions answered and fulfilled. As far as Jon Voight goes, he is just a person with a diseased mind that obviously has issues. Unfortunately, what we have found out and a lot of people have realized here is anti-Semitism no longer means someone that hates the Jews. It means when the Jews hate you, they are going to tell you, you are anti-Semitic. And, unfortunately, I think this has been something that is used many times, but people never saw it until now, because, when they attacked Mel Gibson, they attacked millions of Americans that are standing with him and are grateful for him what he has done.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I need to bring in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi, I want you to respond to that, to what you just heard, and talk to Jennifer.
RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, SPIRITUAL ADVISER: Well, this is a pretty sad day in America when as fine human being as Jon Voight—and I know him personally. He‘s so devoted to so many humanitarian causes—is called—is accused of being possessed of an evil mind because he doesn‘t like a movie. Talk about character assassination. There are many honest religious Christians who do not believe that the interest of Christianity are served by a gory depiction of God dying on the cross with such graphic detail. It‘s also a sad day in America when a woman—when Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of the greatest religious orator of the 20th century, is telling us we should go and see a movie, not hear more evangelists, not hear the spoken word. The Book of Timothy says that the Gospel is transmitted specifically through the spoken word, the oral word.
(CROSSTALK) BOTEACH: Her father brought Christianity to life. Now Christianity goes to Hollywood? We need to see the most gory depictions of a man being flayed, whipped, really almost indistinguishable from a Vince McMahon World Wrestling Federation show, where they take someone in a ring and they break a brick over his head and then they break a chair over his head. (CROSSTALK) LOTZ: No, Rabbi, Rabbi, Rabbi, let me break in here. (CROSSTALK) BOTEACH: I am almost done. One second, please. Come on, Joe. The character assassination. If you attack Mel Gibson‘s movie, you‘re attacking tens of millions of Christians? And did Jennifer really just say—did I just hear on a national television show that anti-Semitism is when Jews hate you and accuse you of being anti-Semitic? Jennifer, are you a student of history? Are you aware of the fact that even as great a man as Anne Graham Lotz father, Billy Graham, who I revere and who I as a Jew have been so inspired by, referred to Jews as devils in a secretly taped conversation with Richard Nixon in 1970s? Now, I am sure he didn‘t mean it. But, sadly, when some read the New Testament and take it literally, that comes from John, Chapter 8, Verse 44, where Jesus says that you Jews are the children of the devil. He was a murderer before you. (CROSSTALK) BOTEACH: ... horrible, breakout of anti-Semitism. (CROSSTALK) BOTEACH: And we need to safeguard against him ...
SCARBOROUGH: Jennifer Giroux, you were accused of engaging in character assassination. Are you engaged in that? Is Mel Gibson engaged in that, in some subversive type of way, going after an audience that may be anti-Semitic?
GIROUX: I will tell you, Rabbi, I am glad you are here to listen to this, because you asked me what I am. I am a child of God and you are a child of God. And the character assassination done has been against Mel Gibson and millions of Christians on our faith ...
BOTEACH: Well, just to respond to what both Anne and Jennifer said very quickly, have we reached time of lowest common denominator in Christianity? Is that what Anne is saying? Everybody was wondering who the successor to Billy Graham was going to be. Well, ta-dah, it‘s Mel Gibson with a very, very violent movie, no longer inspiring people through great speeches. Now Anne is saying, America is in the theaters. Let‘s empty churches and go into the theaters as well, because Christianity has failed. That‘s indictment of Christianity. And it‘s an unfair indictment, because I know millions of Christians who are inspired by the spoken word and not by some stupid movie. But Jennifer really is making a classic mistake in thinking that Mel Gibson is Jesus Christ.
GIROUX: Oh, please, Rabbi. Please. (CROSSTALK) GIROUX: Mel Gibson has the support of Christians because of his Christian integrity. That is ridiculous. (CROSSTALK)"

[The usual "Chosen People" "We're Unique" "You can't escape being Jewish" cheerleading in the face of massive Jewish shame for racist Jewish identity.]
The Untold Truth About The Passion,
by Rabbi Ben Tzion Krasnianski, Israel National News, March 18, 2004
"Israel today has become "The Jew" of the world. Although you could hardly find Israel on the map and the Jewish people are merely 0.2 percent of the world population, the whole world has strong opinions about the Jews. The Muslims blame all their woes on Israel. Many Christians via "Passion" accuse Jews of Deicide, and many liberals and atheists blame the Jews for the scourge of terrorism. Nations who don't see eye to eye on anything, many of who don't even know what a Jew looks like, unanimously agree that Israel is guilty of many charges. The only time the UN seems to agree on anything is when condemning Israel. The Jew appears to be the great unifier, possessing the ability to unite the world in a profound and unique way. The good news about all of this is that after thousands of years, the Jew hasn't lost any of his power, his youthful vigor and his potency. This also demonstrates beyond a doubt that all Jews are truly equal: A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Although there's no such thing as an atheist Christian or an atheist Muslim, for that would be an oxymoron, you can still consider yourself an atheist and be a full Jew. Even an atheist Jew evokes the same powerful response as the most devout religious Jew. Being Jewish is deeper than being religious. Religious beliefs and attitudes are subject to change, because they are acquired beliefs. A faithful Christian can turn into an atheist, and vice versa; it has happened countless times throughout history. Something occurs in one's life that violently shakes up their previous model of life. Yet you can never cease to be a Jew, even if you cease to believe in Judaism or G-d. Being Jewish is like a parent-child relationship. You can't divorce your parents. The truth behind anti-Semitism All the superficial explanations for anti-Semitism miss the point. When the Christians, Muslims, atheists, fascist, communists, leftists, and African Americans hate the Jew for a multitude of reasons, and when you discover that it has been this way for thousands of years, you must suspect that there's something deeper going on ... A Jew, who has survived destructions, exiles, pogroms, inquisitions, Holocausts, and endless wars, is the greatest living proof that there is a G-d in this world; that history is a moral narrative. The Jew, by his or her very existence, reminds six billion people that this world is not a jungle, and that we are all going to have to answer for ourselves and for our actions, after our proverbial sojourn here on earth ... [T]he righteous gentiles, who embraced the morality of the Torah and therefore had nothing to hide and fear, always cherished the Jews. ... A Jew knows G-d from within; from his hidden depth, his inner core and the very essence of his being. Every single Jew inherited a uniquely Jewish soul from our Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and our Matriarchs, Sara, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah ... What is the real root-cause of the problem? When a person is uncomfortable in his own skin, he makes everyone around him feel uncomfortable. Conversely, when a person is comfortable in his own skin, he makes everyone around them feel comfortable. Our problem is not Mel Gibson or Yasser Arafat. We have encountered the enemy: It is us. When the Jew feels uncomfortable with his or her own Jewishness, do you expect the non-Jew to feel comfortable with the Jewish "problem?" Have you ever met a self-hating Italian or a self-hating Arab? It appears to be a unique Jewish affliction, particularly affecting those of Ashkenazic descent with a highly intellectual bent."

[Who are America's new censorial (secular, anti-Christian) mullahs? JEWS. From the Sulzberger-owned Jew York Times to New York magazine through Wolf and Bloom and Foxman and Wieseltier on down.]
A Nation of Victims,
By Taki, The American Conservative, March 29,. 2004
"What in God’s name is going on in the United States? Has a reverse Taliban taken over? America’s cultural mujahedin have launched a jihad over an old sacred cause, sexual harassment, all because the literary world’s answer to Paris Hilton, the preposterous self-publicist Naomi Wolf, wrote that her Yale professor Harold Bloom put his pudgy hand on her pudgier thigh 20 years ago. This drivel appeared in New York magazine, whose main function is to list restaurants and penile-enlargement medical centers. Heaven help us. Having done nothing about it two decades ago, Wolf is now getting back by publicly humiliating a sick and distinguished man. She and New York magazine are engaging in character assassination. Had the magazine any decency, it could have run her story, reported by one of its writers, along with Yale’s and Bloom’s responses to it. Instead, it ran a long cover story consisting of nothing but Wolf’s unsupported accusations. What I found incredible was that her stomach seems peculiarly prone to upset at the best of times. She was “sick with excitement” before the prof arrived, then found herself “vomiting in shock” before his departure. Give this pest some Alka-Seltzer and hope she jumps in a freezing lake. Clearly life has been good to Wolf, but a little publicity never hurt. ... Banning and eliminating comes naturally to these liberal spiritual brothers of Osama bin Laden. Our mullahs have declared a fatwa on Mel Gibson’s film. Abe Foxman is leading the jihad against the cross, just as liberal Catholic scholars are assisting in slandering the great Pope Pius XII. Personally, I find Foxman’s cries of wolf (pun intended) laughable. The New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, refers to the Gospels as “way beyond the pale of decency.” I find Wieseltier beyond the pale. When our Lord Jesus was depicted as having sexual thoughts while dying on the cross in “The Last Temptation of Christ,” few voices were raised in protest. When some untalented pig photographed a crucifix in a jar of urine, even fewer voices were raised. Art and all that. Now that Mel Gibson has shown things the way they were, Foxman wants to censor. The neocons forced an agenda on President Bush that will most likely make him a one-term president. Their dual agenda has Uncle Sam’s interests taking second place after those of Israel. Now people like Foxman want to ban a Christian film made by a devout Catholic like Gibson. What I’d like to know is how that could happen in a Christian country. And lastly, the New York Times did not like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader taking part in the 2000 presidential debates. It’s Bush and Gore and no one else, according to the Times. Who do the Times think they are? The hard-liners in Iran? Tell all these American mullahs to go to hell and take their political correctness with them."

[Folks, it is a Jewish WAR against Christians and Muslims. It is everywhere, from the slaughter of Muslim clerics in wheelchairs to shitting on The Passion. Open your eyes. Listen to the Jew below: the Jewish Lobby is "fascistic."]
'Passion' is fascist propaganda: French film boss,
By John Lichfield, The Independent (UK), in Paris 24 March 2004
"An independent French film distributor has described Mel Gibson'sThe Passion of the Christ as "fascist propaganda". Marin Karmitz, president of the MK2 group, said that he would not show the movie - a runaway box-office success in the United States - in any of his 10 cinemas. In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, the newspaper of the American movie industry, M. Karmitz said: "I have always fought against fascism, notably through [the films I show]. For me, Passion is a film of fascist propaganda." M. Karmitz is president of the French federation of movie distributors, but said that he had no objection to the film appearing in other cinemas in France to allow an informed debate on Gibson's work. He accused the Australian-born director of not only presenting a distorted and anti-Semitic view of the New Testament story but also "turning violence and barbarity into a spectacle". "For two hours, you see a man being tortured, nothing else," said M. Karmitz. Although he is Jewish, he criticised Jewish lobbies in the US for focusing on the alleged anti-Semitic elements in the movie and not its "culture of violence". "Behind this Passion ... you can glimpse a whole internationale of religious fundamentalism, a martyrology based on violence, contempt for the body and hatred for [humanity]," he said. The film is due to be released in 600 cinemas across France on 31 March by Quinta Distribution, a company owned by the Franco-Tunisian film producer Tarak Ben Ammar. M. Ben Ammar, who produced Franco Zeffirelli's equally controversial Jesus of Nazareth in 1977 and Roberto Rossellini's The Messiah in 1975, has said the film is not racist or anti-Semitic. Other French distribution firms have been wary of the movie. The Catholic hierarchy described it as "challenging". M. Ben Ammar said: "I thought it was my duty as a Muslim who believes in Jesus, and because I was brought up to respect all three monotheist religions, to show this movie to the people of France and let them judge for themselves."

[More here on intrinsic Jewish hatred of Christianity, one of the fundamentals of "being Jewish.]
Gibson's Passion And Christophobic Libel,
By Sam Francis, VDare, March 22, 2004
"OK, I've seen Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and am therefore entitled to pronounce the definitive and final word on a subject over which more ink has already been spilled than cuttlefish can squirt. I have to confess the film did nothing for me religiously and even less aesthetically. It's a well-made movie, but the brutality inflicted on the person of Jesus I found repellent, tasteless, bordering on the blasphemous and implausible. A human being who gets the kind of beating administered in the movie would be dead or dying, and he wouldn't be lugging a 15-foot-tall cross for several miles an hour or so later. I had much the same reaction to the graphic torture scene in Mr. Gibson's earlier film Braveheart, though that was less brutal and mercifully shorter. But the violence of the Passion is only a small part of the controversy. The bigger question has been, is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic? The answer is "No." Yes, Jewish priests and their hired mob are depicted as engineering the execution of Jesus, carried out by Roman soldiers. This is from the New Testament account, the only historical source we have about the event, and it's perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church today. "The Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ," Pope Paul VI stated in his 1965 Nostra Aetate declaration. The writers (mainly but not entirely Jewish) who have denounced the movie for anti-Semitism have dwelled on the Jewish role in the crucifixion as the main basis for their claims, and they don't hesitate to instruct Mr. Gibson, a lifelong traditional Catholic, in his own religion. Probably at least a dozen Jewish writers invoked the 1965 statement and Mr. Gibson's supposed deviation from it. But neither the Church nor Mel Gibson can rewrite historical documents the way these writers demand. The more important point is that neither Paul VI nor Mr. Gibson's film holds Jews today or all Jews responsible for the killing of Christ, which is what most of the critics try to lump in with the historical account. The pope added, "What happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The movie insists on the universal responsibility of mankind for Christ's death and dwells most of all on Christ's own forgiveness of those who tortured and killed him. At no time during or after the movie did I get the idea that it blamed all Jews or that you were supposed to get that idea. Yet the response to the film has been literally hysterical. "Gibson's Blood Libel,” yells Charles Krauthammer. "Fascistic" concludes Richard Cohen. "Unambiguously contrived to vilify Jews" says Frank Rich. Gibson "has chosen to give millions of people the impression that Jews are culpable for the death of Jesus," writes Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic. That's only a small sample. But probably the most bizarre reaction comes from an Orthodox Rabbi, Ariel Bar Tzadok, who writes that he feels nothing for the sufferings of the mother of Jesus watching the crucifixion of her son, a story "considered by many non-Christians to be a fictional account recorded in the Gospels." What the rabbi does identify with are "the Jewish mothers who cried for their sons, suffering from German Nazis, Russian Cossacks, Spanish Inquisitors, and all types of European Crusaders. All of these persecutors of the Jews held one thing in common, they were all Christians, and they had all at one time or another seen a 'passion play,' similar to Mr. Gibson's movie that motivated them to, in their eyes, take revenge for Christ against those who killed him." Well, now, speaking of "fictional accounts." Aside from his insulting parody of Christianity, what's important here is what the rabbi's fiction tells us about the Jewish reaction to The Passion. His response is extreme—but not really very different from other reactions. And what that reaction reveals is that many Jews—Orthodox and traditional as well as modern and secular—seem to harbor a deep, ineradicable and obsessive hatred of Christianity itself and the central events of the New Testament. It's more than the normal dislike one religion often feels for another but a hatred drawn from what they insist are centuries of vicious persecution of Jews, a persecution held to come from the heart of Christianity itself. If that kind of hatred does lurk in the Jewish psyche, then there's a much bigger problem here than Mel Gibson's movie. There's a fundamental (and perhaps irresolvable) conflict with a country and a civilization that—as the immense popularity of The Passion of Christ shows—continue to insist on calling themselves Christian."

Screenwriters blast Hollywood ‘religious rhetoric’,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 24, 2004 [At "breaking News" section at home page]
"Two screenwriters behind a new Mel Gibson film took an apparent public swipe at Gibson’s Jesus movie. Ned Zeman and Daniel Barnz placed an advertisement in the Hollywood trade magazine Variety on Tuesday slamming “divisive religious rhetoric” and calling for “constructive dialogue among peoples of all faiths,” the New York Daily News said. The screenwriters, both Jews, did not name Gibson’s controversial “The Passion of the Christ,” but said religious dialogue in Hollywood “needs work.”"

[Anybody for Jewish Storm Troopers? Door to door, house to house, the Jewish Thought Police demand to patrol free speech.]
Jewish Brothers Seek French Ban on the Passion,
ABC News, March 26, 2004
"Three Jewish brothers urged a Paris court on Friday to ban Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" from French cinemas as anti-Semitic only days before the U.S. box office hit is due to open in France. The brothers -- Patrick, Jean-Marc and Gerard Benlolo -- said at a hastily-arranged hearing that they as Jews felt insulted by the film, which they had not seen, and were sure it would provoke anti-Semitic violence. Jewish critics in the United States, where the movie opened last month, have charged the film about Jesus Christ's suffering and death unjustly portrayed Jews as his killers, but this appeared to be the first attempt anywhere to ban it. "There is so much violent anti-Semitism in Europe that we cannot let this happen," said Patrick Benlolo, referring to rising anti-Jewish violence, especially in France. The brothers, lawyers for distributor Quinta Communications and the judge interrupted the hearing to see the film in a private showing at a nearby cinema. The Passion is due to open in France next Wednesday. The distributor urged the judge to throw out the case because the brothers could not use their religion as the basis for a complaint. Its lawyer also argued they did not show how the film could cause public disorder. The dossier the brothers submitted to support their request contained several legal errors and 15 of its 36 pages were quotes from U.S. movie reviews and an American book in English, which the judge said the court could not accept. "Everybody speaks English, don't they?" Patrick Benlolo replied. The court was due to issue its ruling on Monday."

The War on Mel Gibson. The Media vs. The Passion,
by Gary North, demischools.org [pdf file; 233-page book]
"Movies have long served as both symbols and tools. They reinforce people’s opinions. The question is: Do they change people’s opinions? Hollywood and the secular humanists who have been in control of this tool have always denied that it is a tool. “It’s just entertainment.” I think they knew better. Their overwhelmingly hostile reaction to The Passion indi-cates either that they always knew better or else they have now undergone a transformation in their thinking. I think it’s the former. They always knew. The movies have been crowbars that Hollywood’s humanists have used for a generation to pry Americans away from their first principles: religious, moral, and cultural. I think it is time for Christians to recognize what has been done to them. It is also time for Christians to learn how to use this tool to fight back ... Is The Passion the first step in a systematic, comprehensive counter-attack by Christians in a cultural war that Christians have been losing for almost a century? I think this is the case. So does Hollywood and Hollywood’s cheerleaders in the media. This is why they are horrified. In this book, you will get an idea of just how horrified they are, and also why. This will cheer you up for the whole week. Maybe longer."

[Yet MORE Jewish trashing of Mel Gibson. Jewish identity NEEDS "anti-semitism," even where there isn't any.]
As the Walls Close,
by David Horovitz, Jerusalem Report, April 5, 2004
"Jews around the world seem to be running out of space again, physically and psychologically. If anti-Semites had not made enough headway in Europe through their sophisticated misrepresentation of 42 months of intifada confrontation, cowing some in Diaspora communities into hiding public signs of their faith and looking to escape to less hostile environments while alienating others from their historic homeland, now Mel Gibson has arrived to add fuel to the flames. Gibson’s brutal, pounding gore-fest, with its venal, Der Stürmer Jewish Christ-killers, which I endured out of a sense of journalistic obligation with a predominantly young, black, rapt audience in a Chicago theater almost three weeks after its blockbuster opening, has plenty of North American Jews worried too. They should be. Its calculated anti-Semitism oozes from almost every frame into open, trusting minds, staining their perception of the origins of their faith. Yet debate over its unmistakably hostile agenda is rapidly being superseded in the American media by open-mouthed appreciation for its sheer money-making power, with questions about Gibson’s motives pushed roughly aside by materialistic respect for the self-belief and determination that has scored him such an against-the-odds, dead-language "Crossover Hit" ... Surveys show high proportions of viewers emerging from the torture -- the teenage black girl three seats along jerked involuntarily and wailed out loud as the nails were pounded through gristle and flesh -- to insist that nothing they had seen affected their attitudes to Jews. As an American Jewish friend observed wryly and anxiously, "That can only make you wonder what they thought of us beforehand." And the lack of condemnation from Israel’s would-be allies in the Christian evangelical movements of Gibson’s malevolently selective use of sources can only reinforce longstanding doubts about the wisdom of such alliances."

Paris Court Denies 'Passion' Ban Request,
Yahoo! News, March 29,2004
"A Paris court Monday rejected a request by three Jewish brothers to ban Mel Gibson 's "The Passion of the Christ" on the grounds it would foment anti-Semitism in France. The court ruled that the film, which is scheduled for release in this country Wednesday, would not threaten public order. "To make the death of Jesus into the major motivation of anti-Semitism that leads to secular persecutions against Jews would stem from a narrow view of Mel Gibson's film," judge Florence Lagemi wrote in his decision. The Benlolo brothers — Patrick, Gerard and Jean-Marc — presented their case Friday before going to a screening of the film with a lawyer for the movie's French distributor. They plan to appeal. The film, which opened in the United States on Feb. 25, has divided religious communities. Some Jewish leaders fear it will revive the notion that Jews were responsible for death of Jesus Christ, while some Christians have praised the movie for its portrayal of Christ. The film has earned more than $315 million in the United States so far. The Benlolo complaint argued the film has a "false and erroneous vision of certain religious events" and would "stir anti-Jewish hatred."

[More Jews tell Christians what they are permitted to believe:]
Jewish group calls Gibson 'tortured soul',
USA Today, April 1, 2004
"Calling Mel Gibson "a tortured soul," France's main Jewish group accused his film about Jesus' final hours of having anti-Semitic overtones. An umbrella group for Jewish organizations, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), said Thursday that The Passion of the Christ was a backward portrayal of Christian teachings. The movie debuted Wednesday in France. "The film's violence is extreme and sick," the group said in a statement. "Unfortunately, (CRIF) finds elements of anti-Semitism in the film, which was clearly conceived by a tortured soul." Some Jewish and Christian leaders have expressed concern that the movie could revive the notion that Jews collectively were responsible for Christ's death. France has faced anti-Semitic violence for more than two years, with many attacks targeting Jewish schools, synagogues and community centers. CRIF noted that it had not asked for the movie to be banned, out of respect for freedom of expression. Three Jewish brothers argued before a Paris court that the film would foment hatred of Jews in France and asked that it be banned."

Ideas About Christ's Death Surveyed Growing Minority: Jews Responsible,
By Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, April 3, 2004; Page A03
"The percentage of Americans who say Jews were responsible for Christ's death is rising, particularly among blacks and young people, according to a nationwide poll taken since the release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ." The poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center in Washington is the first statistical evidence that the movie's box-office success may be associated with an increase in anti-Jewish feeling, although social scientists cautioned that cause and effect are not clear. In the March 17 to 21 telephone survey of 1,703 randomly selected adults, 26 percent said Jews were responsible for Christ's death, up from 19 percent in an ABC News poll that asked the same question in 1997. The increase was especially pronounced among two groups. The portion of people younger than 30 who say Jews were responsible for killing Jesus has approximately tripled, from 10 percent in 1997 to 34 percent today. The portion of African Americans who hold that view has doubled, from 21 percent to 42 percent. Pew pollster Andrew Kohut noted that the survey's question -- "Do you feel the Jews were responsible for Christ's death or not?" -- is a potential indicator or "marker" of anti-Jewish sentiment but not a clear demonstration of it. Many Christians believe that Jewish leaders in Jerusalem urged Roman authorities to crucify Jesus but that all of humanity, not today's Jewish population, carries enduring guilt. An ABC News/Prime Time poll, released Feb. 15, found that 8 percent of Americans thought that "all Jews today" bear responsibility for Christ's death, while 80 percent rejected that view. "Does this poll necessarily mean there is a rise in anti-Semitism, or will be?" Kohut asked. "Those are different issues, but it's certainly not a good sign that a growing number of people think this. How bad it is and what it will grow into are still things to be found out." Pew research director Michael Dimock said there are several possible reasons why African Americans and people younger than 30 are more likely to say Jews were responsible. "Historically, you often find that blacks and young people give somewhat higher 'unfavorable' ratings to Jews than the general public does. In addition, blacks tend to be more religious and more likely to say the Bible should be taken literally," Dimock said. "So I wouldn't attribute it all to anti-Semitism. I think there are a lot of other factors there." The Pew poll found a statistical link between Gibson's movie and belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. But the correlation is not simply that a relatively large proportion of those who have seen the movie -- 36 percent -- hold Jews responsible. That view is also somewhat more common among those who plan to see the movie -- 29 percent -- than in the general public. Thus, researchers said, it is unclear whether the movie and its attendant publicity are causing a change in attitudes, reflecting a change, or both. Despite predictions that the movie would spark violence against Jews, the Anti-Defamation League reported in March that the number of anti-Semitic incidents across the country in 2003 remained the same as in 2002. Moreover, some previous opinion surveys have indicated that "The Passion of the Christ" is improving, not harming, Christian-Jewish relations. In a March 5 to March 9 survey of 1,003 adults nationwide, San Francisco-based pollster Gary Tobin found that 83 percent said the film had no impact on their view of contemporary Jews. Two percent said the movie had made them "more likely" to blame Jews, but 9 percent said it had made them less likely to do so."

[True, Jews "don't trust" Christians. In fact, they detest them. Jew only "understand" Jewish narcissism and "ant-Semitism" as the core of their modern identity. "Interfaith dialogues" are fundamentally Jewish accusations and demands.]
Jewish Official Starts Christian Outreach. At Low Point in Christian-Jewish Relations, Jewish Official Tackles Outreach,
ABC NEWS, April 4, 2004
" It was another tough conversation for David Elcott, whose job is full of them these days. Speaking to a group of Christian clergy over a chicken dinner, he tried to explain why many of his fellow Jews don't trust them. Mel Gibson's epic "The Passion of the Christ" had just been released, and for Elcott and others, it was yet another sign of the gulf that has grown between the faiths. Elcott had seen the movie at an Illinois church with thousands of pastors. He was disturbed by how Jews were depicted, but saw that his Christian colleagues were visibly moved. "I realized, with pain, that I didn't understand the people next to me," he said. "For Jews, it's particularly frightening. It taps into, `If we don't really know them, what's beneath all this?'" Elcott's concern is more than personal. Just over six months ago, he became the national head of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, a leading advocacy group based in New York. The job involves representing the Jewish community to everyone from local pastors to the pope and it has never been easy. But in the last few years it has become a minefield of old resentments and present-day policy disputes, eroding relations long before this latest debate over Gibson's true intentions. Bitter differences over Israeli policy toward the Palestinians have been partly to blame, but so, too, has a drop in support for interfaith dialogue as Jews felt more established in the United States, experts say ... When Elcott took the job last September, relations with the Roman Catholic Church were strong, even though some tensions arose soon after over the response to the film by some church leaders. But dialogue with mainline Protestants had suffered over Israel. Jews have always had a complex relationship with moderate and liberal Protestants. The two sides agree on many domestic issues including civil rights, and Protestants support Israel's right to exist. But they part ways with many Jews over the Palestinians, often viewed by progressive Christians as victims of unjust Israeli government actions backed by an unethical U.S. foreign policy. Elcott said relations were so poor when he was first hired, that he had to spend weeks badgering international policy officials in mainline denominations before they would return his calls. He said part of the difficulty was a perception that some Jewish leaders had become so hawkish in their defense of Israel that dialogue would not be productive. Many Christians were also angry at being labeled anti-Semitic for expressing concern about the Palestinians, he said. "It was rupturing a historic relationship," Elcott said. Working with evangelicals poses a different challenge. Conservative Christians, for their own theological reasons, are among Israel's staunchest supporters, but they also consistently evangelize American Jews who find proselytizing offensive. Top American evangelical and Jewish leaders generally disagree on domestic issues and have little formal dialogue, even as the Israeli government honors religious right figures such as Pat Robertson for their support. The Jewish willingness to work with Christian conservatives on Israel has further alienated liberals. Still, when the controversy erupted over Gibson's film, most U.S. Christian leaders, including the Rev. Franklin Graham, put aside any differences with Jews and responded to their concerns. They told their members that Jews could not be collectively blamed for killing Jesus. Elcott likes to raise this point in his meetings with Jews. He contends they focus too much on anti-Semitism in interfaith dialogue, making prejudice the main issue instead of religion no matter how much their Christian counterparts denounce past wrongs and apologize. Klenicki agrees, calling this tendency "the theology of pointing fingers." He says it leaves Jews dangerously ignorant about Christianity. "All the churches bent over backwards to say it's a sin to say Jews killed Jesus," Elcott recently told a group of Jewish community leaders in New Haven, as they discussed Gibson's movie. "If Christians say, `We are not anti-Semitic any longer,' can we believe them?" Elcott thinks the answer should be yes, otherwise fear however well-founded will cost Jews a historic chance for reconciliation."

Palestinians love Mel Gibson's film,
Al-Jazeerah, April 4, 2004
"Mel Gibson's controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, is all the rage among Palestinians, curious about complaints by Jews that it is anti-Semitic. Meanwhile, local distributors in Israel are shunning the film, which Jewish groups say demonises Jews by depicting them as pressuring the Romans into crucifying Jesus. The film has banked more than $315 million since its release in February. Only one per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Christians while the other 99% are Muslims, who revere Jesus as a prophet but do not believe he was crucified. The portrayal of a prophet in a film is forbidden under Islam. Pirated copies "People are calling me from everywhere in the West Bank –from Bethlehem, Hebron, Ram Allah and Nablus - to ask for copies of the movie," said the owner of a Gaza city video shop, which sells pirated copies of new release movies. The Passion of the Christ has outsold other Hollywood blockbusters in Gaza and the West Bank's pirated video market, including Matrix Revolutions and The Last Samurai. Israel cold In Israel, the local agent for the film's international distributor Icon Entertainment said it passed on its option to show The Passion of the Christ, but declined to specify its reasons other than to say the movie was "sensitive". Industry insiders in Israel say local distributors are not interested in the film because of allegations it is anti-Semitic and for expected lukewarm audience response."

Arabs flock to 'anti-Semitic' Passion movie,
By Miral Fahmy Dubai, IOL, April 6, 2004
"Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ is flouting Islamic taboos and making history in the Arab world, largely thanks to a Jewish uproar that heightened interest in the controversial movie. Film critics said the Jewish outcry at the film seems to have encouraged conservative Arab governments to break their strict censorship rules and allow The Passion to be aired uncut. The graphic film about Jesus Christ's crucifixion has been packing theatres since it was released last week in a region where Jews have become synonymous with Israel and anger at Israel's occupation of Arab land runs deep. "It is clearly a backlash to the claims by Jewish lobbies that this film is bad," said Alfred Mutua, a Dubai film director and university professor. "And anything Jews say is bad becomes interesting in this part of the world, it sells easily." Egyptian film critic Mahmoud Darwish agreed. "The censors think the film is anti-Semitic, that's why they're treating it differently," he said in remarks published in Arab newspapers. Large Christian minorities in Egypt and Lebanon have helped make the film a box-office smash but Muslims too are flocking to the cinema as Muslim clerics remain surprisingly uncritical. Islam prohibits the flesh-and-blood portrayal of holy figures - Muslims, Jewish or Christian - and says Jesus was not crucified nor is he the Son of God. The region's powerful Islamic clergy also make sure their governments ban books and art seen as blasphemous. Yet despite these restrictions, only a few countries such as Kuwait and Bahrain have banned The Passion. In Egypt, Qatar, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, the film has broken box office records, according to its distributor. Even in Saudi Arabia, where cinemas do not exist, Riyadh newspapers reported bootleg copies of The Passion were selling fast in the kingdom which practises an austere version of Islam. Egypt's Al Azhar, Sunni Islam's top religious institution, has not spoken out against the film even though it often makes authorities ban literature and films it deems unholy. "We don't agree with the film, but Al Azhar is not a censorship body," said Ali el-Samman, vice president of committee of dialogue with monotheistic religions. Palestinian priest Iyad Twal said the Jews' rejection of The Passion had made Palestinians want to see it. Palestinians are waging an uprising against Israeli occupation and their battle is a highly-emotive issue for Arabs. Jewish groups in the United States and Europe had tried to ban the film, charging that the graphic depiction of Jesus' suffering and death unjustly portrayed Jews as his killers and could whip up anti-Jewish hatred. But many Arabs said they did not think the film was anti-Semitic, but just an accurate portrayal of Jesus' death. In Kuwait, a top Shi'a Muslim cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Mohri, urged his government to lift the ban on the film saying it exposed the role of Jews in killing Jesus. And at a cinema in Jordan, which has a large Palestinian population, many viewers left the film angry and in tears. Government officials adamantly deny their decision to allow the screening of The Passion had anything to do with politics but analysts say it would probably not have been released if Arab-Israeli tensions were not running high. "The film contradicts Islam but if it had come at a different political climate, it would not have been showed," said analyst Moghazy al-Badrawy."

[Condemn The Passion? Condemn the Talmud, Israel, and Jewish racism.]
ORTHODOX JEWS CONDEMN FILM THE PASSION,
Agenzia Gioralistica Italia (AGI) - Rome, April 6, 2004
"Mel Gibson's film "The Passion" which will hit the Italian screens tomorrow "is full of historical inconsistencies and subtle anti-Semitism remarks". Rabbis Shlomo Bekhor and Ariel Bar Tzadok have condemned the movie and in a radio interview on RTL 102.5 during the "Viva l'Italia" show, they explained that, a part from people's personal opinions, the film contains some very serious inaccuracies. The rabbis reckon that these "inaccuracies feed new disagreement and rekindle old hatred, which are the result of wrong interpretations of history which have generated only death and destruction". In the movie Gibson allegedly used elements which refer to modern Jews, such as clothes which did not exist when Jesus lived: the Priests and Rabbis wear shawls with long black strips, which resemble talli't (religious Jews wear these during morning prayers) which are common in Eastern Europe. The torturers of Jesus, have the typical Jewish curls hanging at the sides of their faces and very much resemble Orthodox Jews in Eastern Europe. Hence the Jews in Gibson's movie, who beat Jesus without a reason and who generate anger and resentment in moviegoers are directly linked to modern-day Jews. The rabbis added that "the personal motives of the director prevail over any real desire to be historically accurate and correct."

[Pop quiz. Who is French Catholic archbishop Jeanne-Marie Lustiger, who below dismisses Mel Gibson's movie about Christ as "ridiculous?" Lustiger is a Jew. Note that this BBC article ignores this crucial fact. Lustiger "converted" to Catholicism but remains, by his own definition, a Jew (an identity which he refuses to leave, even as a Catholic archbishop) and is pals with Holocaust propagandist Elie Wiesel. Here's what Wiesel wrote about Cardinal Lustiger: "He insists that having been born a Jew, he will die a Jew ... [WIESEL, E., 1999, p. 170] ... 'I feel Jewish,' the archbishop responds. 'I refuse to renounce my roots, my Jewishness' .... He goes on to make the point that his Jewishness annoys anti-Semites and that this does not displease him. Why should he make them happy by turning his back on the people they execrate?' [WIESEL, E., 1999, p. 171] ... [He] is determined to remain a son of the Jewish people ... He acts accordingly; anyone who requests his assistance in defending a Jewish cause can count on his support ... During the scandalous affair of the Carmelite convent a Auschwitz [the 'scandal' was that nuns wanted to keep a cross at their convent next to the former concentration camp, against international Jewish demands to take it down] , for example, his interventions [on behalf of Jews] must have raised a few eyebrows in Rome. As must his sympathy for the State of Israel, of which he is the most devoted defender inside the Catholic Church." [WIESEL, E., 1999, p. 171-172] ]
Gibson film opens in Middle East. The film has opened to controversy around the world Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ, which has been accused of anti-Semitism, has opened in some Middle East countries,
BBC (UK)m April 4, 2004
"The film has had a global release as Jews prepare to celebrate Passover and Christians Easter. The movie has opened in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon - but not in Israel. "Given the damage he's done to Christian-Jewish relations, I wouldn't want to be Mel Gibson on Judgment Day," said one writer in an Israeli paper. Shapira Films, the company which has the Israeli distribution rights to the film, "decided this was not the appropriate time to screen it," a spokeswoman said. The film opened in France this week, as commentators warned it could add to a recent wave of anti-Semitic feeling in the country. Mixed feelings In Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, vice-president of the Central Council of Jews, said The Passion of the Christ's "suggestive power ... will give a further push to the current resurgence of anti-Semitism". Vatican officials have praised the film, with the movie due to open on 7 April in Italy. But not all church officials have greeted the film warmly. Roman Catholic archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, saw the film and described the violence in the film as "ridiculous". His comments were echoed by Norwegian bishop Gunnar Staalsett in a TV interview. "It is downright gruesome. It made me out and out nauseous," he said. The film is also due to open in Russia on Tuesday. It has already proven to be a box-office hit in the UK and the US."

[Rabbi Lapin asks the right question, but provides an incomplete answer. Indeed, why does the Jewish communty hate Mel Gibson and Christianity so much? Lapin delineates secular Jews (who he believes to be astray from Jewish values) as the bad guys, versus Lapin's own idea of the good guys: represented by the religious "Torah" Jew. Unfortunately, Rabbi Lapin is wrong. The proof in the pudding is that he himself is a stark anomaly. Merely by publicly supporting Mel Gibson like this (almost alone in the Jewish community), he underscores how far he stands outside the modern Jewish "hate" identity. Jewish "hate" is indeed to be found in the Torah and Talmud, and secular Jewish expression of it is merely the same core baggage following variant Jewish worldviews, religious or secular.]
Why Jewish groups passionately hate Mel Gibson,
By Rabbi Daniel Lapin, World Net Daily, April 10, 2004
"Surely it is now time to analyze the vitriolic loathing demonstrated by various Jewish groups and their leaders toward Mel Gibson over the past six months. This analysis might help forestall some similar ill-conceived and ill-fated future misadventure on the part of self-anointed Jewish leadership. At the very least it might advance human understanding of destructive group pathologies. As the whole world knows by now, Mel Gibson, his movie, his father, his church and anything else even remotely associated with Mr. Gibson have been smeared as anti-Semitic. From the immoderate assaults, you might have thought that the target was a thug with a lengthy rap sheet for murdering Jews while yelling "Heil Hitler." From the intensity of the rhetoric you would have thought that from his youth, Gibson had been hurling bricks through synagogue windows. Yet until "The Passion," he was a highly regarded and successful entertainer who went about his business largely ignored by the Jewish community; so why now do they hate him so? Even assuming for the moment that Jewish organizations had a legitimate beef with "The Passion," which assumption I have refuted in earlier columns, they should have hated the movie rather than its creator. After all, Judaism originated the calming idea of hating the sin rather than the sinner. Yet from the pages of The New York Times to Jewish organizational press releases and from rabbinic rantings to synagogue sermons the personal hatred for Mel has been palpable. The key insight, vital to understanding their hatred, is this: Just because an organization has either the word "Jewish" or some Hebrew word in its title does not mean that its guiding principles emanate from the document that has been the constitution of the Jewish people for 3,500 years – the Torah ... Similarly, many Jewish organizations and even many individuals of Jewish ethnicity who possess the title "rabbi" are not guided by the principles Judaism found in the Torah. Instead, like the NAACP and NOW, they are guided chiefly by the principles of secular fundamentalism. Nothing else can explain their dogmatic and ideological commitment to causes such as homosexuality and abortion, both of which are unequivocally opposed by the Torah-based guiding principles of Judaism. How revealing it was last November, when one such Jewish organization saw fit to publicly applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court on their ruling in favor of homosexual marriage. In choosing between courageously defending Judaism's unequivocal opposition to homosexual marriage and obsequious obeisance to the doctrines of secular fundamentalism, this "Jewish" organization made its choice and in so doing, proved my point. Paradoxically, these so-called Jewish organizations are virulent secularists because of belief – the belief that religion poisons the world and that we would all be better off living in an eternal utopia of secular democracy. In their belief system, serious Christianity, which they recognize to have founded Western civilization, must be confined to the home, synagogue and church. It must never be allowed to influence our culture or our political lawmaking apparatus. In their belief system, religion, when practiced by professional religionists like priests, pastors and rabbis, is acceptable because these professionals, doing what they are expected to do, are unlikely to influence significantly the public perception of faith as a refuge for the uneducated, the unsuccessful and the miserable. However, religion when practiced seriously by influential public figures such as presidents and movie producers is totally unacceptable because it might lead to upsetting the current religious-secular cultural balance. Thus, President Bush also merits hatred. Here is Whoopi Goldberg musing in the pages of The New York Times, "Wait a minute, is this man leading this country as an American, or is he leading the country as a Christian?" Just try to imagine the outcry from the Jewish groups I describe herein were Mel Gibson to have asked during the 2000 presidential elections, "Will Joe Lieberman lead this country as an American or would he lead this country as a Jew?" Once Mel Gibson revealed himself to be, like the president, a person of serious religious faith, the gloves came off. Mel Gibson has done a major favor for serious faith, both Jewish and Christian, in America. He has made it "cool" to be religious, but in so doing he has unleashed the hatred of secular America against himself personally, against his work and against his family. God bless him."

[The following represents one of the stupidest articles we've ever seen about the subject of Jews. Jewish narcissism and hatred of Christianity know no limit: here we have a rabbi who declares that Mel Gibson isn't really terribly interested in Christianity because Gibson's main focus is, of course, "Jew-baiting." And that's good business. And here too Jewish obsession with "anti-Semitism" and massive self-delusional neurosis is blamed on Mel Gibson. Displacement of blame is a pillar of Jewish identity. "Anti-Semitism has always been big business?" For "anti-Semites?" Please, get real. "Anti-Semitism" only stirs the money pot for Jews (keep those tens of millions flowing into the Anti-Defamation League) and, yes, JEWISH whining (like this guy) created the marketable sensation around Mel Gibson's movie. The author of this garbage is, by the way, the weird rabbi who wrote "Kosher Sex" and who's hung out with Madonna and Michael Jackson. No self-hustling "business" there.]
Mel’s Secret: Jew-Baiting Good For Sales,
by Shmuley Boteach, The Jewish Week, April 16, 2004
"Now that “The Passion” juggernaut is slowing down, let’s assess what made this movie such a huge success. To be sure, America is a highly religious country and no doubt millions of religious Christians flocked to the film because of its subject matter. Such has been the contention of many who maintain that if more religious fare is offered to Americans, it too will succeed. But this explanation is dead wrong. If it were true than we would see Christian music being as popular as the garbage on MTV, which it most certainly is not. Likewise, rather than being sold in specialty bookshops, we would expect to see more Christian books skyrocketing to the tops of the best-seller lists. No, the real reason Mel Gibson succeeded with “The Passion” was that he successfully baited the Jews, and Jew-baiting is big business. Time to get real. Without the anti-Semitic controversy that surrounded this film, most Americans would barely have heard of it. Many celebrities invest their own money into pet projects, some religious, others political, and nearly all end up as major flops. Indeed, the public hardly remembers Bob Dylan’s flirtation with evangelical Christianity and the music albums he produced while a born-again. But Gibson decided that his principal marketing tool was going to be provoking the Jewish community. From his father’s public comments about how the Holocaust never happened, to the film’s substantial deviation from the New Testament script in an all-out effort to implicate the Jews and exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus, Gibson stuck the pins into the Jewish watchdogs as deeply as possible. When they barked it was music to his ears. Anti-Semitism has always been big business and is a guaranteed attention-getter. Who in the West would have heard of Mahathir Muhammad, the former Malaysian prime minister, had he not given his famous speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference about how the Jews control the world? What made Hitler the most famous personality of the 20th century if not the Holocaust? For every one biography of Stalin, there are probably 20 on Hitler, though Stalin was in power a lot longer and killed a lot more people. There have been many popes named Pius, but only one, Pius XII, is a household name, due to his refusal to protest the extermination of European Jewry. The old press adage goes that “Jews are news” is, of course, inaccurate. Jews are not news, and most people could care less about reading about Mrs. Goldberg or Mr. Weinstein. But hating Jews is big news. Although he achieved much in his lifetime, Charles Lindberg is remembered for two things: He was the first man to fly across the Atlantic, and he disliked Jews and loved Nazis. Henry Ford gave us the Model T. But he is also famous for bequeathing a legacy of anti-Semitism. Arguably, the most famous of all the UN resolutions in more than 50 years of its mostly bland existence was the anti-Semitic proclamation that “Zionism Equals Racism.” Hating Jews is good for publicity, and it’s good for business. It’s a fact that Mel Gibson, who famously told a reporter that he feared the Jews would lynch him over a particular scene in his movie, understood very well. Like everyone else, Gibson knew that Jews have died throughout history for the charge that they killed Jesus. He knew that the Jewish community would freak out upon hearing that he was making a movie graphically depicting the Jewish demand for the crucifixion of Christ. Yet rather than allay Jewish fears, he conducted a carefully calibrated campaign to exacerbate them. Where the New Testament says merely that Jesus was scourged, Gibson makes sure to place the Jewish High Priest on hand to delight in Jesus’ agony. And where the New Testament makes no mention of the Devil in the passion narrative, Gibson has Satan roaming among the Jews as Jesus is murdered. “The Passion” succeeded not by catering to people’s spiritual inclinations but to history’s most proven form of PR: good, old-fashioned Jew-baiting. So in turns out that Mel Gibson may not be an anti-Semite after all. He’s just a businessman. Not necessarily very spiritual — if he were, then he would have announced from the outset that all profits from the movie would go to Jesus — but rather just an average guy who wanted to see a good return on his buck."

[Sorry Mr. Jacobson. Jews "are ripe for satire." Ripe? Ripe? Jewish hypocrisy and fraud hangs from trees like bloated watermlelons. But a satire of, expressly, Jews? It would merit a veritable prison term in our Thought Police society. JEWS are sacred, after all -- not anyone's religion. The ADL gives this belittling of Mel Gibson and The Passion their kosher seal of approval.]
'The Passion of the Christ' Fuels Antisemitism — on 'South Park',
by Max Gross, Forward, April 15, 2004
"The Mel Gibson Fan Club's president recently fielded a call from an irate viewer of "The Passion of the Christ" who disliked the movie. "Sir," the indignant fan club president said, "apparently you don't understand what Mel Gibson was trying to do. He was trying to express — through cinema — the horror and filthiness of the common Jew." The fan club president was 8-year-old Eric Cartman, the corpulent, deadpan and hopelessly antisemitic member of the quartet of children on the animated TV series "South Park." In perhaps the most biting critique of "The Passion" to date, the Comedy Central show mused on the effect the movie would have on its potty-mouthed protagonists in last week's episode, "The Passion of the Jew." Kyle Broflovski, the show's Jewish character, was tormented by nightmares about Jesus (and Alan Alda). Stan March and Kenny McCormick were so disgusted by "The Passion" that they set out to get a refund on their tickets from a demented, half-naked Gibson. Meanwhile, Cartman was so moved that he organized fan club meetings and started goose-stepping around in a brown uniform, combing his hair in a cowlick and peppering his speech with words like "Achtung" and "Juden." "I'm happy to see all of you were affected by 'The Passion' like I was," Cartman said at a fan club meeting filled with South Park's sunny Christian residents. "Now, we all know why we're here, and I believe we all know what needs to be done... But I think it's best we don't talk out loud about it until we have most of them on the trains heading toward the camps." Although other members of the fan club did not explicitly share Cartman's antisemitic sentiments, many of South Park's Christians found their faith affirmed by the film. The town's Jews, meanwhile, complained that "The Passion" promotes antisemitic stereotypes. "Stereotyping Jews is terrible," one Jewish character lamented in a voice that would make Woody Allen squirm. Kenneth Jacobson, associate national director for the Anti-Defamation League, which has long campaigned against "The Passion," told the Forward that while he is not a "usual fan" of the show, the episode's jabs at Jews "struck me as classic 'South Park.' Everyone is a target." "The basic message of the show is: Gibson's movie is no way to teach Christianity," Jacobson added, noting that the film is ripe for satire. "The violence is so over-the-top it becomes cartoonish." According to Jacobson, many people at the ADL watched the episode and approved. In the episode's final showdown, the town's Christians and Jews face off, but when one of the Christians urged everyone to seek inspiration from Jesus' life rather than his death, Cartman begged the crowd to reconsider: "Oh come on, people. We're so close to completing my final solution...."

The Passion and Its Enemies. The campaign against the movie bespeaks deeper animus,
By Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, April 26, 2004
"Thirty million Americans have seen “The Passion of the Christ.” According to Gallup, two-thirds of the nation intends to see the film in a theater or on DVD. By Good Friday, the crowds should be enormous. For this movie is a religious experience, a masterpiece, a work of art of immense power. The images of Christ and his Mother are burned forever into the imaginations of those who see it. “It is as it was,” said the Holy Father in Rome. Though it is a Catholic film that faithfully replicates the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, the Seven Last Words, with allusions to the Eucharist and the war between Satan and the Mother of God, as Tom Piatak writes in Chronicles, evangelical Christians are as moved as traditional Catholics. It is an ecumenical moment. For once, Christians have come together, not to denounce some blasphemous filth funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, but in celebration and praise of an inspired work of art. And despite the dire warnings of the Anti-Defamation League, not one synagogue has been torched, nor one American Jew assaulted. Yet still the attacks come. Not since D.W. Griffith portrayed the Klan as heroic defenders of white womanhood in “The Birth of a Nation” has a movie been so reviled. “[A] wasted exercise in sadomasochism,” writes Al Neuharth. “A repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film” that uses “classically anti-Semitic images,” rants Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic. “A sickening death trip,” says David Denby in the New Yorker. “It is sick,” writes James Carroll in the Boston Globe, “a blood libel against the Jewish people,” echoes Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times, “Jew-baiting,” says William Safire in the New York Times, “fascistic,” agrees Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Daniel Goldhagen, author of A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair, calls “The Passion” “a sadomasochistic, orgiastic display that demonizes Jews as it degrades those who revel in viewing the horror.” Gibson, Goldhagen writes, “restores a blood-drenched Christian culture of death.” And here is the New York Times’ Frank Rich, ten days after the Ash Wednesday opening: With its laborious buildup to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, Mr. Gibson’s film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music for the money shots. Of all the ‘Passion’ critics, no one has nailed its artistic vision more precisely than Christopher Hitchens, who ... called it a homoerotic ‘exercise in lurid masochism’ for those who ‘like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time.’ That “The Passion of the Christ” is loved by Christians and loathed by such as these is a measure of the breadth of our religious divide. But why all this venom against a movie these writers knew by then that millions of Christians had taken to their hearts? To vent, to insult, to provoke? Having failed to have the film censored, banned, or boycotted, some are now crossing a forbidden frontier to commit hate crimes against Christianity. They have begun to attack the Gospels as responsible for the Holocaust. In a Washington Post column titled “Gibson’s Blood Libel,” Charles Krauthammer links the crucifixion story to “a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands.” For 2000 years, he says, the Catholic Church taught that “the Jews were Christ killers.” Only at Vatican II did Rome take responsibility for the “baleful history” that came out of the “central story” of the Gospels. The blood libel that this story [of the crucifixion] 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. But Krauthammer stands truth on its head. Not until the ideas of Rousseau, Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud had poisoned the soul of Europe and Christianity had lost the continent did Hitler and Stalin come to power to work their evil will upon Christians and Jews. Hitler learned his hatreds in Viennese gutters, not Catholic schools. Speaking of blood libels, has there been one greater than Krauthammer’s accusation that the Gospel of Jesus Christ paved the way to Auschwitz? Krauthammer echoes Richard Cohen who says the movie is “anti-Semitic ... in the way portions of the New Testament are—an assignment of blame that culminated in the Holocaust.” Both columns are of a piece with the slanders of Pius XII. Credited by one Jewish historian with saving 800,000 Jews, praised by the Rabbi of Rome, publicly mourned on his death by Golda Meir, Pius XII, too, has fallen victim to the blood libel that he was “Hitler’s Pope.” Krauthammer and Cohen have picked up the new line advanced by Eli Wiesel, that Nazis and Christians in the Holocaust were one and the same. [A]ll the Jews were victims, and all the killers were Christians. They didn’t become killers in a vacuum. They emerged from a certain civilization, teaching, and tradition of hate. They’re an example of what happens to people who learn to hate, and that’s a Christian problem. Krauthammer repeatedly invokes Nazi analogies. Mel Gibson’s defense of his film about Christ reminds him of Leni Riefenstal’s defense of her films about Hitler ... What did the Crucifixion give mankind? Salvation, the opening of the gates of heaven, Western civilization, the greatest art, architecture, music, painting, sculpture, cathedrals and churches in history, the idea that all men are children of God and that each has an innate worth and dignity, which puts limits on the power of any state—and an end to slavery. No Cross, no Christianity. No Christianity, no West. No West, no freedom, no human rights, no America. Where does Krauthammer think our civilization and culture came from? In her column “Hating the Jews,” Mona Charen accuses Gibson of seeding “his film with images of Jewish guilt and perfidy.” But how can one tell the story of how Christ was betrayed by Judas for 30 pieces of silver, how the scribes and Pharisees and high priest plotted against Him, how the crowd cried “Give us Barabas,” and “Let Him be crucified!”, how Pilate cravenly capitulated—without having a touch of “guilt and perfidy”? What is the attachment of columnists in 2004 to a high priest of the first century A.D.? ... My film is anti-Semitic only if the Gospels are anti-Semitic, says Gibson. Exactly the point, says Stanley Kauffmann of the New Republic: “‘The Passion’ is anti-Semitic, because the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic—in the sense of fixing Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion.” Abe Foxman agrees: “the Gospels, if taken literally, can be very damaging.” But what if the Gospels “taken literally” are true? To Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen, an apostate Catholic and convert to Judaism, “anti-Semitism has been integral to Christianity.” In the Toronto Globe & Mail, Donald Akinson writes, “To film a literal version of the Gospel of John is like filming a faithful version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” With folks who believe this, dialogue seems pointless. For they are saying that Christianity is anti-Semitic at its root and either we rewrite the Gospels to eradicate any “perfidy” by the Jewish authorities who delivered Christ to Pilate, or we are colluding in anti-Semitism and responsible for its consequences. If being faithful to the Christian imperative to tell the Gospel truth about the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ is, to non-Christians and post-Christians, to spread anti-Semitism, our conflict is irreconcilable. Yet a point bears repeating. Though Jewish leaders did conspire to put Jesus to death, this does not mean, has never meant, that all Jews were or are culpable in his death, or even that the Jewish establishment knew Christ was the Son of God. Common sense suggests they did not believe it—as does Christ himself from the Cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”