Now it's really getting confusing

Now The Passion is reducing anti-Semitism? At this point, I'd say you've got a better chance of pouring the ocean into a hole than you have of comprehending all the wondrous works of Mel.

Comments

[bruce]

This reeks of a survey done with highly-suggestive questioning.

[kmw]

"Susan Perlman is associate executive director of Jews for Jesus, whose mission is "to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue" for the Jewish people."

If that's not a prime example of anti-Judaism, I don't know what is.

If you're a Christian, you're not practicing Judaism, that's all there is too it. Calling Judaism inferior to Christianity is religious bigotry.

[Pavel]

Uhm...this newspaper seems to have a real passion for The Passion. They seem to do a story about it every single day.

And they've made no mention of the offensive Passion product endorsements.

[Jean Bart]

Pavel,

*LOL*

[Jean Bart]

kmw,

Its something similar to those nutty Christians who believe supporting Israel means getting to the apocalypse faster; many Israelis, including my wife's brother, are rather wary of such support. Or as he says, "When the apocalypse fails to appear, will they blame us?"

[Isaac Bartram]

"This reeks of a survey done with highly-suggestive questioning."

bruce, old boy,

Are "surveys" done any other way?

[Jean Bart]

Isaac Betram,

Well, one has to wonder if even the "change" that they "measure" is statistically significant.

[Pollster]

> This reeks of a survey done with highly-suggestive questioning.

[JC]

> If that's not a prime example of anti-Judaism, I don't know what is.

[Jean Bart]

JC,

Well, according to religious Jews, the Messiah has yet to come; so if he did come (for the first time), they would follow him. His name just wouldn't be Jesus Christ. 🙂

[kwais]

Isn't Chistianity by definition anti Jew and Moslem, as Judaism is anti Islam and Christianity, and Islam anti Christianity and Judaism.
The point of all three of those religions is that they alone understand the word of God.

[Eric]

JB,
I didn't miscontrue anything and you know it. Remember, I was there for the endless H&R arguments? The movie was going to do all sorts of terrible things, and none of those have happened.

[kmw]

garym,

I appreciate your concern for my potentially hyperbolic use of the word bigotry, but I really must insist it?s accurate in this case.

I don?t think mere disagreement constitutes bigotry. Making thinly-veiled threats against another person because of a perception of inferiority is bigotry.

[kmw]

Also, garym, I think we can both agree that the word bigot is overused, especially in the current culture wars.

Would "Fanaticism" be a less contentious substitute?

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Yes, you have misconstrued them; and now you are lying. Apparently your so-called religious scruples do not hinder you from that particular "sin."

[Eric]

No, JB, in this case you are lying, and it's pathetically obvious. For example, I asked a similar question some time ago, about the lack of evident anti-semitism since the movie was released, and you responded with two ridiculously silly examples in defense. Any effort to claim otherwise well after the fact is dishonest CYA.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"For example, I asked a similar question some time ago, about the lack of evident anti-semitism since the movie was released, and you responded with two ridiculously silly examples in defense."

Which is of course BESIDE THE POINT. Your evidence is no evidence at all, in other words, because these are not similar question, they are very different questions.

"Will the Passion of the Christ cause an anti-semitic backlash?"

"Has the Passion of the Christ caused an anti-semitic backlash?"

I never claimed that it would; I claimed that it might. When asked the second question I answered that it in at least two circumstances that it had. Nevertheless, my answer to the second question does not require that I have answered the first question in the affirmative; a little logical thinking on your part - from time to time - would help. Of course the lack of logical thinking is why you are a religionist in the first place, so I suppose I am asking too much from you start with.

[Andrew]

The survey was not conducted by Jews for Jesus. The Institute for Jewish and Community Research only got me one hit on Google-- a reference to a 2003 survey finding that most Americans think Arab states (including the PA) are NOT reconciled to the existence of Israel, and not doing enough to stop terrorism.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Indeed, Abe Foxman - the man that Mel Gibson attributed all sorts of conspiracies too - also argued that it was the potential for problems that was the problem, not that they would neccessarily come to fruition. Now you can continue to misrepresent this position the rest of your life; but the fact remains that no one ever stated (that I know of at least) that the film "would" cause anti-semitic backlashes, only that it "might," and that this was the basis for their concern.

[Eric]

Such hair-splitting would make any politician proud, JB. CYA away, and be happy.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Actually, its not hairsplitting. They are clearly different positions; and different in very significant ways. If you are such a lying sack of shit as to not appreciate that, well, that's fine; but its still nonetheless contemptible on your part.

[joe]

Jean Bart (Bigot),

Leonardo DaVinci. Thomas Acquinas. Gallileo. Copernicus. The designers of the pyramids. Newton.

"Religionists" all.

[Eric]

JB,
Methinks thou doth protest too much.

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Newton went insane latter in his life (when he was religiously fervent); indeed, he spent the last years of his life working on foolish things like determining the age of the Earth using the Bible (his masterful works on prisms, etc. occurred prior to his mental breakdown and turn towards occultism and what can only be described as "arianism").

Copernicus worshipped the sun; indeed, his theories were based on sun worship and in many ways he was more "lucky" that his theory turned out correctly than anything.

Galileo was of course persecuted by Christians for his "heresies"; oh yes, the wonders of religion.

The designers of the Pyraminds massacred tens of thousands (millions?) (at least according to Herodotus) of people to create their edifices to Egypts "god-kings."

Thomas Aquinas was an unrepentant anti-semite, despised women as the spawn of satan (as most church scholars during the early church and the middle ages did - St. Jerome is a perfect example of this), and defended the church's many abuses against the poor, etc.

As to da Vinci, well, the man was a practical atheist; as is evident by his irreligion. Certainly he created religious works, but for the money. That he lived into the reign of the fascist, corrupt Medici Pope Leo X, is a sign of the times he lived in.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Methinks you have no backbone when it comes to acknowledging error.

[joe]

Way to switch charges when the "illogical" point went out the window, JB.

What's next? The Wright brothers (who demonstrated a certain level of logical thinking, and were devout Christians) dipped girls' pigtails in inkwells when they schoolboys?

You got heated, dropped an indefensible smear, and got called on it. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[Ron Hardin]

Emmanuel Levinas, ``Messianic Texts'' in _Difficult Freedom : Essays on Judaism_ p.89

``We have just seen that the Messiah is the just man who suffers, who has taken on the suffering of others. Who finally takes on the suffering of others, if not the being who says `Me'?

``The fact of not evading the burden imposed by the suffering of others defines ipseity itself. All persons are the Messiah.''

[Jean Bart]

joe,

"Way to switch charges when the "illogical" point went out the window, JB."

I haven't switched charges at all; belief in a deity is illogical. I merely demonstrated that these people succeeded (if you call murder of thousands or millions in the case of pyramids success, well so be it), if they succeeded at all, despite their irrational religious beliefs.

"What's next? The Wright brothers (who demonstrated a certain level of logical thinking, and were devout Christians) dipped girls' pigtails in inkwells when they schoolboys?"

Well, you are making the rather silly assumption that people can't compartmentalize; clearly they were illogical in one area, but overcame this in another.

"You got heated, dropped an indefensible smear, and got called on it."

Its not an indefensible smear; sorry, but it simply isn't.

[garym]

Pity there isn't a way to killfile flamers like Eric...

[Eric]

garym,
So let's get this straight. I get called a "sack of sh*t," and I'M the flamer.

Riiiight.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

You started this encounter by misrepresenting what I and others said; then you denied it; then you posited a very lame defense for your denial that I gutted like the toothless tiger that it was. I apologize though; I should be more kind to assholes who lie about my statements.

[garym]

kmw:
Interesting definition of "bigotry" you've got there. A "bigot" is someone who says he's right and people who disagree with him are wrong?
Judaism holds that the Messiah hasn't come yet, implying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Thus, Judaism is engaging in "anti-Christian bigotry" by your definition.
dictionary.com defines "bigot" as "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." If telling people that they're wrong is intolerance, then we should close this forum down immediately.

[speedwell]

"If telling people that they're wrong is intolerance, then we should close this forum down immediately."

And what's wrong with a little intolerance in the cause of conversation? 😉

[Eric]

Still waiting for the apology from those of you who whined that The Passion would increase anti-Semitism.

[Eric]

JB,
I was going to offer you a reasoned, polite response, until I read your final few words and realized you're not worth it. Your juvenile name-calling and cowardly backtracking deserve no attention.

When you're ready to grow up, let me know.

[Eric]

Actually, JB, that's a bit harsh - I admit it. Shouldn't have said it. I now will offer a polite response, in the hope that it actually may do some good.

We've experienced for several months now dire warnings, accusations, and predictions about this movie. That should be obvious. Many predicted outright that anti-semitism would increase or get worse as a result of this movie, because they considered it anti-semitic. Some judged this movie based on ancient history about past passion plays, as if that automatically applied here. Others said it would inflame current anti-semitism. So far, there is little to no evidence of that having happened. I think it's important to acknowledge that, because with the financial success of this movie, Hollywood just might decide to produce similiar movies, and the reaction and backlash to this film might prove instructive should that happen.

A lot of slandering has occured about Christians because of this movie, as well, and I think that was wrong.

I think it's important for this to be acknowledged. Fair enough?

[Ruthless]

Is anyone surprised this "poll" story originated in Texas versus, say, Massachusetts?

[erf]

I think we have a better chance of emptying the ocean into the little hole than working out the jew, xtian, and muslim thing.

[joe]

Unpopular prejudices are always underreported in surveys, and rejection of racism overreported. So those 9% and 2% look pretty suspect.

As for the overwhelming majority, when you get to 83% of the sample giving you the same answer, it's a safe bet that people with vastly different opinions are checking the same box. People who walked in the theater convinced that Jews are responsible for deicide came out with their bigotry intact, and people who've never had any contact with antisemitic ideas "read" the Jews on the screen as representing everyone (as is modern Catholic teaching, though not Mel's), and came out with the same lack of antisemitism they went in with.

A pretty worthless poll, if you ask me.

[J C]

"So, if the Messiah comes and Jews follow him, they are going to be called anti-judaism??--JC,

"...according to religious Jews, the Messiah has yet to come; so if he did come (for the first time), they would follow him.----Jean Bart

But, the ones who do not recognize him, do not follow him, will remain Jews, will they not? Why would they change their names? You can NOT assume all will accept the Messiah as the Messiah, not at once. The new ones will get a new name.

[joe]

JB, I'm pretty sure the Pharoh's engineers didn't kill thousands or millions of people.

But what I was responding to was "the lack of logical thinking is why you are a religionist in the first place." So why were the extremely logical people I've listed "religionists?"

You may find this hard to believe, but people who disagree with you can be capable of thought, too.

[joe]

"A lot of slandering has occured about Christians because of this movie, as well, and I think that was wrong."

As someone who finds himself regularly defending Christians from slander on this site, I don't know what you're talking about. Example?

"Many predicted outright that anti-semitism would increase or get worse as a result of this movie, because they considered it anti-semitic." In TNR's piece that set off the controversy, the fear was not that the moview would inflame antisemitism in the US, where medieval myths about Jews are all but forgotten, but in other countries where "deicide" and "manipulating the government from behind the scenes" beliefs are still common.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

I and others argued that it had the potential to do so; indeed, that's why many insisted that changes be made to the script (which Gibson made I might add). So you are misconstruing at least the arguments of some of us.

joe,

I agree; the poll is worthless.

[Jean Bart]

"JB, I'm pretty sure the Pharoh's engineers didn't kill thousands or millions of people."

Sure they did; they worked them to death - slaves you know. See Herodotus. Of course being a slave to Egypt's "god-kings" is an honor in your eyes.

"You may find this hard to believe, but people who disagree with you can be capable of thought, too."

Certainly; but illogical nonetheless.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Its simple really; you misrepresented my position; and then you lied about that misrepresentation. I am in the right; you are in the wrong. Quit whining.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Yes, violence and gore does sell well, so I am sure that they will do more; probably with a Jesus meets Freddy theme.

[Eric]

Joe,
Examples abound on H&R - check out the recent discussion (last week, I think) over the photo by Hubble showing the vast extent of the universe.

[joe]

JB, your understanding of pyramid construction is obsolete. They were not slaves, they were a specialized workforce of craftsmen and laborers. The first strike in history took place among pyramid laborers, and management capitulated. Studies of bodies in one pyramid worker cemetery show that high quality (for the day) medical care was provided to injured workers. The homes in this "pyramid city" were comparable to those of the rest of the Egyptian populace. There were slaves in Egypt, Egyptologists know slaves when they see them, and these people were not slaves.

You really shouldn't get your history from Cecil B. DeMille movies, or unsupported guesswork (Heroditus, when writing about cultures that were foreign and ancient to him).

Eric,

Of course Christian bashing is common among the wanna-be atheists at H&R. (Damn you, God, you don't exist! You don't! The nuns were mean in school, so I'll show you! So there!) But your claim was that Christian bashing increases as a result of this film, and I don't see a connection.

[Eric]

Joe,
I didn't claim that Christian bashing increased because of the film. Here's my statement:

"A lot of slandering has occured about Christians because of this movie, as well, and I think that was wrong."

Perhaps I didn't word it very well, but I meant that those who slandered the movie also took the opportunity to slander Christians at the same time. I think that's a fairly obvious statement of fact.