[Fight the Jewish Media Network and their efforts to censor:]
Jewish leaders say Gibson's `Passion' could lead to violence,
By RICHARD PYLE, Newsday, August 28, 2003
"Jewish leaders said Thursday a major film distributor has decided not to release Mel Gibson's "The Passion" and urged others to follow suit, saying it could trigger anti-Semitic crimes by suggesting Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. But like much of the debate around the film, the claim itself became immersed in controversy and confusion. In Los Angeles late Thursday, Gibson spokesman Alan Neirob said there was never any distribution agreement between Gibson's production company, Icon, and 20th Century Fox. Dov Hikind, a Democratic state assemblyman and Jewish community activist, had raised the issue in a sidewalk news conference outside the midtown headquarters of News Corp., the parent company of Fox. "This film is dangerous for Jews all over the world ... and takes us back to the Dark Ages," Hikind said. "I am concerned that it will lead to violence against Jews." Hikind read an e-mail saying the company's 20th Century Fox subsidiary would not join with Gibson's Icon in putting the film in theaters. "Icon has indicated to us that it has a number of alternative distribution options that it is pursuing. In light of that, Fox and Icon have agreed not to partner on this project," said the e-mail. It was signed by Juda Engelmayer, a vice president of Rubenstein Associates Inc., a New York public relations firm that represents News Corp. Hikind said Miramax, Paramount and other distributors should also reject the picture because of the "potential for violence" generated by its portrayal of Jews. "The Passion," which actor and Academy Award-winning director Gibson spent nearly $30 million to produce, has spawned controversy well ahead of its scheduled spring release. The Catholic church formally rejected Jewish culpability in Christ's death nearly 40 years ago. Many conservative Christians say the film powerfully depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. Gibson has defended it as faithful to the Gospels and said it is intended "to inspire, not offend." The film's dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic. Hikind, joined by City Council members Simcha Felder and David Weprin, noted that Gibson and his father, a "Holocaust denier," belong to an ultraconservative Catholic movement that rejects Vatican authority, including its 1965 edict absolving Jews in Jesus' death. Although Gibson has shown the "The Passion" to selected audiences, Hikind said he had seen only a seven-minute clip, which he called "graphic beyond description ... enough to scare the daylights out of me." He said Gibson had a right to make the film and he was not trying to censor it, but he was asking distributors and others to recognize Jewish "sensitivity" on the subject. "It's not a question of censorship," Hikind said. "I am expressing my feelings, my right of freedom of speech, and others are doing what they think is right. ... Mel Gibson is doing precisely the same. Others will have to make their own choices as to what they do or not do."

[God Bless MEL GIBSON. The Jewish mass media relentlessly weaves the "antisemitic" spin on any article about Gibson's new film, THE PASSION. And note that the threat of Jewish-inspired violence forced a major Hollywood film star to change his movie to suit Jewish dictate:]
Mel's 'Passion'-ate defense gives offense,
New York Daily News, September 6, 2003
"The holy war over "The Passion," Mel Gibson's movie on Jesus Christ, is raging on all fronts. The Anti-Defamation League is condemning Gibson's latest defense of his movie, made in an article by Peter Boyer in the new New Yorker. Part of the brouhaha stems from Gibson's interest in Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century Augustinian nun in Germany who recounted visions of Christ's Crucifixion that some regard as anti-Semitic. Gibson, who carries a piece of her habit as a relic, asks: "Why are they calling her a Nazi? Because modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it's revisionism. And they've been working on that one for a while." "To me, this [comment] is classic anti-Semitism," ADL National Director Abraham Foxman told us. Foxman, who survived the Holocaust because Catholic clergy baptized him to shield him from the Nazis, added, "I think [Gibson] is on the fringes of anti-Semitism." Gibson also lays his lash on New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Responding to remarks about the Holocaust made in The Times by Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, Rich accused the actor's camp of using "PR spin to defend a Holocaust denier." Mel Gibson says of Rich, "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. ... I want to kill his dog." (Rich told us, through a Times spokeswoman, "I don't have a dog.") The article says Gibson reluctantly took out a scene in which Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest, says of Christ, "His blood be on us, and on our children." The passage, from the Gospel of Matthew, has been interpreted by some as implicating the Jewish people in Jesus' Crucifixion. "I wanted it in," Gibson tells Boyer. "But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." The film, played entirely in ancient languages, has yet to find a distributor. But Gibson sees a halo around the controversy. "Inadvertently," he says, "all the problems and the conflicts and stuff - this is some of the best marketing and publicity I have ever seen."

[There's another film coming out about Jesus. But no controversy here. This one's kosher: it's Jewish created and controlled. Literally, a Jewish fraudster is running the show, so nobody cares much about it. But a Catholic actor out from under the Jewish thumb? Danger!]
Jesus film causes stir,
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, Missoulian (from Associated Press), September 6,. 2003
"Mel Gibson take note: There's another new film about the life of Jesus that also depicts Jews' involvement in the events leading to the Crucifixion. But this one has several Jewish producers and has attracted much less controversy. While Gibson's "The Passion" won't be released for months, Jewish and Christian commentators already are debating whether its gory treatment of Jesus' death will rouse anti-Semitism. By contrast, there's no advance acrimony surrounding "The Gospel of John," which premieres at the Toronto International Film Festival on a symbolically chosen Sept. 11 ... Garth Drabinsky, the Canadian producer who heavily shaped "John," is Jewish. He thinks John's Gospel, which most scholars believe was written around the end of the first century, is an inspirational masterpiece in which one of the themes is the conflict over Jesus among Jews. The John film "will illuminate understanding of both religions, and make a stronger Christian-Jewish relationship," declares Drabinsky, a colorful impresario who is fighting U.S. and Canadian fraud charges in an entirely unrelated matter. (That case stems from the 1998 bankruptcy of Livent, a firm he co-founded, that turned out a string of hit Broadway shows.) ... The scholars [hired to advise on the film] provide words of explanation that scroll down the screen before the action begins, noting that crucifixion was a Roman punishment not sanctioned by Jewish law and that Jesus and all his early followers were Jewish. The scholars' words also tell viewers that John was written "two generations after the Crucifixion" and reflects a period of growing friction between early Christians - who were living within Jewish communities - and Jewish leaders ... In another film-making choice that may reduce Jewish objections, the scholars decided the script should use the American Bible Society's 1966 "Good News Bible." They say the main reason was the accessible language, but it's also significant that, in the original Greek, John used "Ioudaioi" ("the Jews") 67 times, suggesting collective Jewish involvement in opposing Jesus. The "Good News Bible" routinely translates the word as "the Jewish authorities," thereby avoiding the idea that all Jews conspired against Jesus. Some academics have said it's wrong to change John's wording for the sake of political correctness ... The film crew isn't done with the subject. Two days after the Toronto premiere, Drabinsky's team will assemble to mull a draft script for their next word-for-word biblical flick, "The Gospel of Mark."

ADL SEEKS TO POISON CATHOLIC-JEWISH RELATIONS,
Catholic Lgue for Religious and Civil Liberties, September 18, 2003
"In the September 18 edition of the Jewish Week, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) director Abraham Foxman accuses Mel Gibson of being anti-Semitic. Foxman also attacked Gibson’s father for saying that fewer than 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust; the ADL leader imputed guilt to Mel Gibson as a result of his father’s remarks. In addition, Foxman notes that after Gibson reluctantly removed from the movie the passage from Matthew that says, “His blood be on us and on our children,” Gibson sounded off against the ADL. Foxman was upset with Gibson’s remark that had the comment from Matthew not been excised, the ADL and others would be coming after him. Foxman also objects to Gibson’s comment to Peter Boyer in The New Yorker that “modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church.” For Foxman, this amounts to “classic anti-Semitism.” Catholic League president William Donohue sharply disagrees: “Abe Foxman is seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews. His attacks on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do with waging a frontal assault against all those people—Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al.—who have seen ‘The Passion’ and love it. “To attack Gibson’s 85 year-old father shows that the ADL knows no bounds of decency. Moreover, if Gibson’s father, and by implication Mel himself, is guilty of anti-Semitism for questioning the figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, then that makes Jewish historian Raul Hilberg an anti-Semite as well: he puts the figure at 5.1 million. “Similarly, it is no secret that extremely secular Jews have teamed up with profoundly alienated Catholics to blame the Catholic Church for the Holocaust. Quite frankly, most Catholics are fed up with the lies of Goldhagen and Cornwell. Finally, in the September 15 New Yorker, Foxman said, ‘Per se, I don’t think that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite.’ Foxman was right then and is wrong now. The fact that he suddenly did a 180 shows that his game is now in sudden death overtime.”

[Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League are doing what must be done: they're drawing the hard line between free speech and the right to believe what you want VERSUS Jewish censorial totalitarianism. This be our prayer then: may Foxman's wildly slanderous and indiscriminate use of the term "antisemitism" quickly destroy its use as a political tool. Oh, people. Look at see. Seize back the moral ground from the moral imposters.]
Foxman: Gibson Spewing ‘Anti-Semitism’ ADL leader says statements by ‘The Passion’ director ‘paint the portrait of an anti-Semite,’
by Eric J. Greenberg, Jewish Week, September 18, 2003
"Mel Gibson’s mouth has turned into a lethal weapon. So suggests Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, following a series of published and oral comments made by the award-winning Hollywood actor and director concerning his controversial upcoming movie about the death of Jesus of Nazareth. “Recent statements by Mel Gibson paint the portrait of an anti-Semite,” Foxman told The Jewish Week Tuesday. While the debate has been raging for months over “The Passion” and its negative portrayal of Jews, no mainstream Christian or Jewish community leader has until now made such a direct charge against Gibson, who is directing and financing his $30 million labor of love ... But Foxman says it is clear now that the 47-year-old Gibson, an ultra-conservative Catholic who does not accept the Vatican reforms, is spouting “classic anti-Semitism.” Foxman adds that it is clear the actor doesn’t fall far from the tree. Gibson’s 85-year-old father, Hutton, has been quoted as saying far fewer Jews died in the Holocaust than 6 million, and is a conspiracist who says Jews are behind recent Vatican reforms. “There’s no longer a debate where [Mel Gibson] is coming from,” Foxman said Tuesday. “He is a true believer that the true story of the suffering [of Jesus] is that the Jews made him suffer.” Foxman cited Gibson’s statements at an interfaith screening of “The Passion” in Houston last month, and in the Sept. 15 issue of The New Yorker magazine. In the latter, the Oscar-winning director of “Braveheart” portrays himself as being persecuted like Jesus for making the film, and as a victim of a murderous cabal who forced him to make changes in the film that could end his career. Foxman notes that in the magazine, Gibson regrets excising a scene in which the high priest recites the curse from the Gospel of Matthew proclaiming that the blood of Jesus is upon him and his children. Said Gibson: “But, man, if I included that in there, they’d be coming after me at my house, they’d come kill me,” referring to the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among other critics, correspondent Peter J. Boyer writes. Later, Boyer reports that Gibson accuses “modern secular Judaism” of blaming “the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it’s a lie. And it’s revisionism. And they’ve been working on that one for a while.” “When you put those things together,” said Foxman, “that is a portrait of an anti-Semite. To me this is classic anti-Semitism.” Gibson’s spokesman Alan Nierob said this is the first time he’s heard a charge of anti-Semitism directed at Gibson. “It’s an irresponsible statement,” Nierob said. “I won’t even dignify it with a response.” Foxman’s declaration comes on the heels of several significant developments about the movie, slated for release next spring. Two senior Vatican officials publicly endorsed the film and made ominous statements about its critics.

BILL MAHER BRANDS MEL GIBSON ANTI-SEMITIC,
Catholic League for Religous and Cvil Liberties, September 23, 2003
“I do think Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic.” According to NewsMax, this is what comedian Bill Maher told radio talk-show host Don Imus today. Responding is Catholic League president William Donohue: “The character assassins will not stop trying to malign Mel Gibson. Not that Bill Maher is any stranger to the subject of bigotry—in recent years he has consistently been listed in the Catholic League’s Annual Report on Anti-Catholicism. Indeed, we have criticized him so many times for his Catholic bashing that just two months ago Maher—in a rare display of Catholic guilt (he is half Catholic, half Jewish)—confessed to Larry King, ‘The Catholic League has condemned me as an anti-Catholic bigot. I am not an anti-Catholic bigot.’ Who’s he trying to convince? “The crusade against Gibson is immoral and Christians are increasingly losing patience with it. For the last quarter century, virtually every movie out of Hollywood that has depicted Christians has sought to malign them; the movies that Catholics have had to endure are particularly obnoxious. Finally, along comes a film that all Christians can be justly proud of, ‘The Passion,’ and wham—we’re told we’re the bigots. “Take Abe Foxman of the ADL, for example. When he was recently interviewed for a story in The New Yorker, he was asked if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic and he said no. Then last Thursday it was reported in the Jewish Week that Foxman branded recent remarks by Gibson as painting ‘the portrait of an anti-Semite.’ We immediately accused Foxman of seeking to poison Catholic-Jewish relations by labeling Gibson (and by extension all those who love his movie) anti-Semitic. Then Rachel Zoll of AP asked Foxman to comment on his charge against Gibson: he said, ‘I’m not ready to say he’s an anti-Semite.’ So what changed? “Foxman can dance all he wants but the damage he has done is real. As for Bill Maher, his own deep-seated bigotry against Catholics gives him no moral authority to call anyone a bigot.”

[Jews DID kill Christ, if we are to believe JEWISH religious tradition. The cat's out of the bag, in public forum. It's a few honest Jews versus the massive, totalitarian, censorial Jewish Lobby who reshape the whole of history to suit the myth of sacred Jewish innocense. Bottom line: telling the truth is controversial in the Jewish community.]
Jesus’ Death Now Debated By Jews. AJCommittee scholar cites Talmudic passage; others question views and timing in light of Gibson furor,
by Eric J. Greenberg, The Jewish Week, November 3, 2003
"The controversy over Mel Gibson’s upcoming film about the death of Jesus has spurred painful exchanges between Jews and Christians and progressive and traditional Catholics in recent days. To date, the debates have centered on the “proper” interpretation of the role of Jews in Jesus’ Crucifixion, as presented in the four New Testament Gospels. But this week, Gibson’s $25 million biblical epic, which the director insists is about love and forgiveness, has triggered a new squabble — among Jewish scholars. The texts in question are not New Testament but rather passages long censored (by Christian authorities) about Jesus from the Talmud, the encyclopedia of Jewish law and tradition considered sacred by traditional Jews. Raising the issue is an article by Steven Bayme, the American Jewish Committee’s national director of Contemporary Jewish Life, which declares that Jews must face up to the fact that the Talmudic narrative “does clearly demonstrate ... fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus.” “Jewish apologetics that ‘we could not have done it’ because of Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic account,” Bayme said. He contends that Jewish interfaith representatives are not being honest in dialogue if they ignore the explicit Talmudic references to Jesus. His article was posted on the AJCommittee’s Web site last week, then removed after a Jewish Week reporter’s inquiry. Ken Bandler, a spokesman for the AJCommittee, said the article was taken down to “avoid confusion” over whether it represented the organization’s official position. AJCommittee officials now refer to the article as “an internal document.” Some Jewish scholars and interfaith officials were upset with the article, either questioning Bayme’s scholarship or his timing — saying this was a particularly delicate time to call attention to Jews’ role in Jesus’ death — or both. But Bayme was unswayed. Citing the continuing controversy over Gibson’s “The Passion,” which has reignited concern over Christianity’s ancient charge against Jews as “Christ killers,” he wrote that it is also important “that Jews confront their own tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus narrative.” Bayme cites a passage from the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, which relates the fate of a man called Jesus who is hanged on the eve of Passover for practicing sorcery and leading the people of Israel astray ... he says the passage is significant because the Talmudic text “indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been execute ... Bayme told The Jewish Week he wrote the piece for two reasons: to educate Jews and promote honest dialogue with Christians. He cited the Catholic Church’s 1965 statement that Jesus’ death “cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today" ... Bayme is concerned that Jews know nothing about the censored texts. “Whenever I talked about the origins of Christianity with fellow Jews, I discovered massive ignorance of Jewish narratives concerning the death of Jesus. It’s something I thought Jews ought to confront fairly,” he told The Jewish Week ... But some disagreed with Bayme’s analysis and policy suggestion. His own organization pulled the piece only a couple of days after it was posted. Rabbi David Rosen, the group’s director of interreligious affairs, said Bayme’s views were not the “official AJC position” concerning the trial of Jesus. He called the Talmudic text historically “dubious” and questioned Bayme’s connecting the text with the Gospel stories, noting the actual charge against Jesus and the nature of the court “is in conflict.” Some outside specialists also refuted Bayme’s article ... But Dr. David Kraemer, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary, supported Bayme’s call for honesty about Jewish texts and Jesus. “I think it’s very relevant to bring up evidence of the difficulty of our relationship with Christianity,” he said, contending that it is indeed Jesus of Nazareth in the [Talmudic] text."

[Traditional Christian conviction that "Jews killed Christ" is vehemently declared by most of modern Jewry to be erroneous, hateful, "anti-Semitic," and fraudulent. But Jewish religious tradition parallels the Christian version of religious history, placing responsibility for the death of Christ in Jewish hands. Note: the original link address to the following American Jewish Congress article is here, but the AJC apparently got cold feet and thought better of keeping this article online for "anti-Semites" to find as an authoritative source. Telling the truth isn't kosher, in the long term. The link below is thereby directed to this article's uneraseable "cached" version:]
Jesus in the Talmud,
by Steven Bayme, National Director, Contemporary Jewish Life Department, American Jewish Committee, September 24, 2003
"[Mel] Gibson's movie [The Passion], intended to tell the story of the Gospels, has alienated many Jewish leaders, who correctly worry whether the movie's graphic description of the crucifixion and its alleged overtones of a Jewish conspiracy to kill Jesus may ignite long-dormant Christian hostilities to Jews. For this reason, the account of the Gospels, and its associations with anti-Semitism, needs to be honestly confronted, including the question of the relationship of church teachings to acts of violence against Jews. Yet it is also important that Jews confront their own tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus narrative. Pointedly, Jews did not argue that crucifixion was a Roman punishment and therefore no Jewish court could have advocated it. Consider, by contrast, the following text from the Talmud: On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a) This text, long censored in editions of the Talmud, is concerned primarily with due process in capital crimes. Standard process requires that punishment be delayed for forty days in order to allow extenuating evidence to be presented. However, in extreme cases, such as seducing Israel into apostasy, this requirement is waived. The case of Jesus, according to the Talmud, constituted an exception to this rule. Although one who enticed Israel into apostasy is considered an extreme case, the Jews at the time waited forty days because of the close ties of Jesus to the Roman authorities. However, once the forty days elapsed without the presentation of favorable or extenuating comment about him, they proceeded to kill him on the eve of Passover. Three themes emanate from this passage. First, the charges against Jesus relate to seduction of Israel into apostasy and the practice of sorcery. According to the Gospels, the charges against Jesus concerned his self-proclamation as a messiah. The Talmud seems to prefer the more specific charges of practicing sorcery and leading Israel into false beliefs. One twentieth-century historian, Morton Smith of Columbia University, argued on the basis of recently discovered "hidden Gospels" that the historical Jesus indeed was a first-century sorcerer (Jesus the Magician, HarperCollins, 1978). In the eyes of the Talmudic rabbis, the practice of sorcery and false prophecy constituted capital crimes specifically proscribed in Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 and 13: 2-6. Second, the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus' political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction: The Jews waited forty days, in a departure from the usual practice, only because Jesus was close to the ruling authorities. Lastly, the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed. To be sure, historians can not accept such a text uncritically. For one thing, the Talmudic text, as noted, was written some 300 years after the event it reports. Secondly, it makes no acknowledgement of intra-Jewish tensions in first century Palestine in which Jewish sects proliferated, and Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots competed for Jewish allegiances. Jesus's antipathy towards the Pharisees, of course, is well known from the Gospels, and the Talmudic rabbis, who presumably read these accounts, defined themselves as the intellectual heirs of the Pharisaic teachers. By contrast, the High Priest was, in all likelihood, a member of the Sadducee faction, which generally consisted of more aristocratic elements. What the Talmudic narrative does demonstrate is fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. What, then, are the implications of this reading of Jesus through the eyes of rabbinic sources? First, we do require honesty on both sides in confronting history. Jewish apologetics that "we could not have done it" because of Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic account. However, the significance of Vatican II, conversely, should by no means be minimized. The Church went on record as abandoning the teaching of contempt in favor of historicizing the accounts of the Gospels and removing their applicability to Jews of later generations."

[Mel Gibson's movie is a must-see. It appears that this "anti-Semitic" movie has gotten cosmic sanction. Lightening never stikes twice?]
Jesus actor struck by lightning,
BBC (UK), October 23, 2003
"Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ. The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome. It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot. Neither of them was badly hurt, according to the film's producer Steve McEveety. Michelini had previously been struck during filming in Matera, Italy, when he suffered light burns to his fingers after lightning hit his umbrella. Describing the second lightning strike, McEveety told VLife, a supplement of the trade paper Variety: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears." The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way. Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax [owned by the Jewish Weinstein bothers] claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel. The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US."

[The ADL is fast becoming one of the world's foremost creators of "anti-Semitism." The dam is about to break. The cracks are there. It's just a matter of how long we have to wait. William Donohue of the Catholic League virtually calls the ADL head, Abraham Foxman, insane. So, of course, Donohue must be "anti-Semitic" too. The whole Jewish Thought Police convention that "anti-Semitism" is an irrational disease is truly crazed and it's on the verge of imploding. Foxman is obsessed; he's lost touch. He's a Christian-hating bigot. History will expose him and his censorial train of Jewish millionaires as the frauds that they are.]
ADL's Foxman: Mel Gibson 'Infected' With Anti-Semitism,
by Marc Morano, CNSNews.com, Nov. 8, 2003
"A prominent Jewish leader declared that movie actor and director Mel Gibson was "seriously infected" with anti-Semitic views, based on recent comments the Hollywood star has made regarding his movie "The Passion of Christ." Abraham Foxman, the national director of Anti-Defamation League, said, "I think he's infected, seriously infected, with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views." Foxman made the remarks at a panel discussion titled "Mel Gibson's The Passion: A Conversation on Its Implications for Jews and Christians." The discussion took place during the 90th annual national meeting of ADL Thursday. In an interview with CNSNews.com after the discussion, Foxman reiterated his comments about Gibson. "[Gibson's] got classical anti-Semitic views. If he can say that there is a cabal out there of secular liberal Jews who are trying to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church, that's a classic anti-Semitic canard, that Jews operate in cabals to get their way. "If he can say that somebody will not permit him to make another move - who? Jewish Hollywood? The ADL? When he can say that he now understands how Jesus felt now - not before he made the film, not because the gospel inspired him, but now - because he has been criticized and attacked. That's anti-Semitism," Foxman told CNSNews.com. 'People in an Asylum' But William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, repudiated Foxman's comments about Gibson being "infected" with anti-Semitic views. "I would regard this as the most singular irresponsible statement we have heard yet from any one of Mel Gibson's critics," Donohue told CNSNews.com. Donohue said the comments about Gibson and his movie at ADL's panel discussion are what you would "expect from people in an asylum." Donohue, who has seen the movie, noted that none of the three panelists featured at the ADL meeting on Thursday had yet to see the film. Conservative media critic Michael Medved also lambasted Foxman for his comments about Gibson. "I respect the ADL, but what [Foxman] is doing is marginalizing himself," Medved told CNSNews.com. Medved, the author of the book "Hollywood vs. America" and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, said it was "ridiculous" to say that Gibson holds anti-Semitic views. "I think it's very sad, I really do. Sad and unnecessary," said Medved, an orthodox Jew. Foxman did attempt to qualify his assertion regarding Gibson's views toward Jews. "I don't think [Gibson is] the type of person who gets up in the morning and says 'I want to get the Jews.' But does he have attitudes that are anti-Semitic? Yes," Foxman said ... Foxman claimed that "hate crimes [against Jews] go up Easter week worldwide" because in many Christian churches, "the sermon is given about the passion," the suffering of Christ. Foxman noted that the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which Gibson reportedly opposes, responded to centuries of anti-Semitic interpretations of Christ's crucifixion by issuing a document in 1965 called Nostra Aetate ... Foxman vowed that he would not give up his public criticism of Gibson's film. "After [the] Holocaust, I don't have the luxury to keep quiet about concerns about" anti-Semitism, Foxman told reporters following the panel discussion. ... Steve Lyons, an ADL member from California who watched the panel discussion, said that Gibson might very well be an anti-Semite. "From what I have read, it appears that way," Lyons told CNSNews.com ... Kenneth Jacobson, the associate national director of ADL, said the solution to ending the film controversy was for Gibson to alter the film and present the story "in a way that could be pleasing to Christians and not offend Jews." Medved, who has seen the film, said, "Mel Gibson is obviously uninterested in Foxman's input on the film, and the movie will come out, win critical praise and become a box-office hit in spite of any ADL fulminations." Medved said the ADL's criticisms of Gibson's film were not helping Jews. Medved: ADL Fuels Anti-Semitism "My concern is that the campaign against 'The Passion' is provoking far more anti-Semitism than the movie itself ever could," Medved said. "It's a battle, frankly that the Jewish community doesn't need." Jennifer Giroux, the foundation director of the group Women Influencing the Nation (W.I.N.) and founder of the Web site See the Passion, called the ADL panel's rhetoric "intellectually reckless and irresponsible." 'Hate Crime' "I think [Foxman] has now defined what a verbal hate crime is, because he just committed it against Mel Gibson," she told CNSNews.com."

[It is important to note that this "Jewish Leader" below is a profound anomaly. Even before I read who the "Jewish Leader " was, I knew it had to be Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He is an EXTREMELY unusual voice in the Jewish community. The Jewish mold IS Abe Foxman and his Thought Police Anti-Defamation League.]
Jewish Leader Denounces ADL's 'Attacks on Christianity' and Gibson,
by Marc Morano, Newsmax, Nov. 10, 2003
"A conservative Jewish leader has blasted Anti-Defamation League for its "hysterical rantings" over Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of Christ." Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the Seattle-based Jewish group Toward Tradition, said ADL's panel discussion last week criticizing "The Passion of Christ" could jeopardize relations between Jews and Christians. ADL's Abraham Foxman had alleged that Gibson was "seriously infected with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views" for directing and producing the movie about Jesus' crucifixion. 'Agenda of Secular Liberalism' "In a way that has been unprecedented in 2,000 years, there is an atmosphere of friendship and mutual respect between Jews and Christians in America, literally of the kind that has not been seen in 2,000 years, and this is being jeopardized - flagrantly jeopardized by Abraham Foxman in a cynical attempt to promote the agenda of secular liberalism," Lapin told CNSNews.com. Lapin's group seeks to promote harmony between Christians and Jews. ADL, Lapin charged, does not seek to promote or defend the Jewish faith. "They are merely preaching secular fundamentalism," he said. Christians viewing Gibson's movie also will have trouble understanding the objections voiced by ADL, according to Lapin. "Millions of Christians are going to be uplifted by the movie, find themselves moved by Gibson's movie, by the obvious fervor and sincerity of the man who made the movie." He said Christian moviegoers would not forget ADL's attacks on the film. 'Attacks on Christianity' "I believe that many of them will remember Abraham Foxman's hysterical rantings and think of them as attacks on Christianity," Lapin said. "What [Foxman] is doing is actually attacking core beliefs in Christianity." Foxman made the controversial remarks about Gibson at a panel discussion titled "Mel Gibson's The Passion: A Conversation on Its Implications for Jews and Christians." The discussion took place during ADL's 90th annual national meeting Thursday in New York City. In an interview with CNSNews.com after the panel discussion, Foxman further explained his views about Gibson. "[Gibson's] got classical anti-Semitic views. If he can say that there is a cabal out there of secular liberal Jews who are trying to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church, that's a classic anti-Semitic canard - that Jews operate in cabals to get their way," Foxman said. "If he can say that somebody will not permit him to make another move - who? Jewish Hollywood? The ADL? When he can say that he now understands how Jesus felt now - not before he made the film, not because the Gospel inspired him, but now - because he has been criticized and attacked. That's anti-Semitism," Foxman told CNSNews.com."

[Who might the undisclosed bad guys in the following story be? Possible hint: here. Jews have been successfully lobbying against Christian tradition that "Jews killed Christ" for decades now, despite the fact that even Jewish traditions accepted that notion.]
"O'REILLY: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight: The actor Mel Gibson has been in Italy for months shooting a controversial film that graphically depicts the execution of Jesus. The movie is being financed by Gibson's production company. It's being shot in Aramaic and Latin, the languages used at the time. Mr. Gibson is a religious man and believes there are some in the media who want to discredit him personally because he's making a pro-Christian film. And, indeed, THE FACTOR has learned that there is a print reporter trying to dig up nasty personal dirt on Gibson. And the guy has even approached his 85-year-old father under questionable circumstances. And, in the interest of full disclosure, Mel Gibson's production company has optioned my novel, 'Those Who Trespass.' So, I do have a working relationship with him. But I believe this situation is troubling. I spoke with Mel Gibson yesterday from Rome.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) O'REILLY: Mr. Gibson, I understand the movie you're shooting right now about the death of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty graphic, pretty explicit.
MEL GIBSON, ACTOR/DIRECTOR: It is, yes. I've never seen a rendering that equals this for reality. It's usually either -- the versions I've seen either suffer from bad hair, inaccurate history, or not just being real. And somehow, because of that, I think I think you're distanced from them somehow. They're more like fairy tales. And this actually happened. It occurred. I'm exploring it this way, I think, to show the extent of the sacrifice willingly taken.
O'REILLY: You're going to make it in Aramaic and Latin, all right, so that no one is going to even understand what's said. The images are going to be explicit and powerful. What is the point?
GIBSON: Well, the point is that I think you can transcend language with the message through image. And I'm very happy with what we're getting.
O'REILLY: Is it going to upset some people to see the person they believe is God brutalized in this manner?
GIBSON: Well, I think anybody that is in the know about Jesus as God and they believe in that realize that he was brutalized and that I'm exploring it this way, I think, to show the extent of the sacrifice willingly taken. But I don't think people -- I think it's going to be hard to take, but I don't necessarily know that people are going to be upset by it.
O'REILLY: Is it going to upset any Jewish people?
GIBSON: It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability. It's time to sort of get back to a basic message, the message that was given. At this time, the world has gone nuts, I think. And this film speaks -- well, Christ spoke of faith, hope, love and forgiveness. And these are things I think we need to be reminded of again. He forgave as he was tortured and killed. And we could do with a little of that behavior. I mentioned what I was going to do to Night Shyamalan. And he thought: 'Oh, great. You have the ultimate opportunity to make the perfect anti-date movie'" And I said: 'No, no, that's not true at all. I think I refer to it as the career-killer film.' And I was only half joking at the time. But it's interesting that, when you do touch this subject, it does have a lot of enemies. And there are people sent. I've seen it happening. Since I've been in Rome here, for example, I know that there are people sent from reputable publications who -- they go about, while you're busy over here, they start digging into your private life and sort of getting into your banking affairs and any charities you might be involved in. And then they start bothering your friends and your business associates and harassing your family, including my 85-year-old father. And I find it -- it's a little spooky.
O'REILLY: We have heard that there is a reporter trying to dig up dirt on you, and who has bothered your 85-year-old father, trying to get provocative statements from him, and trying to portray you as a fanatic and perhaps a bigot, that this guy is operating right now. He's trying to dig up dirt on Mel Gibson. And do you believe it's because you're making this movie about Jesus?
GIBSON: I think it is, yes. I think he's been sent. So, that's the way it is. You got to deal with these things. I'm a big boy and I can take care of myself. And you can say what you like about me. I'm a public person, I suppose, although I don't ever remember signing the paper that I said I had no rights to privacy. But you can pick on me. But if you start picking on my family when I'm out of town, get ready.
O'REILLY: But I'm surprised that someone would go after somebody as well-liked as you are and as powerful as you are. And you really believe it's because you're making this movie about Jesus?
GIBSON: Yes, I think so. Yes, I think there's a lot of things that don't want it to happen. But, hey, as I said before, it's a film that speaks about faith, hope, love, and forgiveness. That's the basic message. And that's what we need to get back to, I think. And if everybody practiced a little more of that, there would be a lot less friction in the world.
O'REILLY: So, if this guy writes something terrible about you and your father and family, you are going to forgive him?
GIBSON: Yes. You've got to. I already did. But it's just perplexing.
(END VIDEOTAPE) [ALSO: Mel Gibson Under Attack for Jesus Film? World Net Daily ]

Mel Gibson Takes Up Traditional Catholicism,
rense.com (from Pravda.ru / Reuters), March 7, 2003
"After waging war against what they see as radical changes made by the Vatican, Catholic traditionalists have a new weapon: star power in the person of actor Mel Gibson, according to an article to be published on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine. Gibson, a follower of traditional Catholicism with its Latin mass and rejection of Vatican II reforms, helped finance construction of a new traditionalist church near Malibu and is completing a self-financed film in two dead languages -- Aramaic and Latin -- on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ, the article said. A friend of the Gibson family is quoted as telling the article's author, freelance writer Christopher Noxon, that Gibson will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, 'perhaps as no film has done before.' Gibson is directing the film. The friend, Gary Giuffre, a traditionalist Catholic, also said that the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belong -- a reference that some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial, the article said. A spokesman for Gibson had no comment, saying he had not seen the article. Sources close to the actor said Gibson's religious views and those of his family were known. In January, Gibson told television host Bill O'Reilly that Noxon was doing a 'hit piece' on him and digging into his private life and harassing his father, Hutton Gibson, an opponent of the Vatican for 30 years and author of such books as 'Is the Pope Catholic?' In an interview with Noxon, the elder Gibson is quoted as saying that Vatican II was 'a Masonic plot backed by the Jews.' Sources who know the actor say that he and his father have many differences of opinion. In his interview with O'Reilly, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, `It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.'''

[The Jewish totalitarian, censorial Thought Police Lobby dictates to other people everywhere what to believe about them. Jews THEMSELVES have always believed that Jews crucified Christ.]
LA Rabbi Asks Mel Gibson to Reconsider Jesus Film,
ABC News, March 7, 2003
"A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson to make certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed to the reforms of Vatican II. Heir said, 'Obviously, no one has seen 'The Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by Vatican II.' He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. 'If the new film seeks to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate,' he said ... Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.'"

[In Jewish eyes, virtually EVERYONE is a hidden anti-Semite, including some other Jews. There's so many that they're going to need some time before get around to listing you too. History will mark omnipresent Rabbi Marvin Hier as one of the great hucksters of the century.]
Gibson Family Under Fire for Anti-Semitism,
ABC, March 9, 2003
"Mel Gibson and his parents are under fire today from a leading Jewish group for reportedly anti-semitic impulses in the former's new film and the latter's denial that Al Qaeda executed the Sept. 11 attacks. The actor's father, Hutton Gibson, told The New York Times he flatly rejected that the terrorist group led by Usama bin Laden had any role in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Sept. 11 ... He and the actor's mother, Joye Gibson, also told The Times that the Holocaust was a fabrication manufactured to hide an arrangement between Adolf Hitler and 'financiers' to move Jews out of Germany to the Middle East to fight Arabs ... Rabbi Marvin Hier, head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, shot back. 'To bigots and antisemites, no amount of evidence of scientific proof is ever enough. In their world, only hate matters.'"

[The long-awaited Jewish-owned New York Times hack job on actor Mel Gibson. It's a crime to believe in traditional Catholicism. Jews are beyond criticism. Will Gibson ever find work again in censorial Jewish Hollywood?]
Is the Pope Catholic ... Enough?
by Christopher Noxon, NY Times Magazine, March 9, 2003
"Gibson's Catholicism has never been a secret, and in fact gives him a sort of reverse-exoticism in a town where other stars dabble in Buddhism, kabala and Scientology. An avowed family man still on his first marriage, with seven children to show for it, Gibson smokes, raises cattle, publicly shuns plastic surgery and seems wholly unmoved by most of the liberal-left causes favored by industry peers. Recently, however, something beyond the impulse to entertain has been showing up in Gibson's work. Last year he played a former minister who rediscovers religion amid an alien invasion in 'Signs' and a reverent Catholic lieutenant colonel in the war drama 'We Were Soldiers.'' In these films, but especially in a new movie, a monumentally risky project called ''The Passion,' which he co-wrote and is currently directing in and around Rome, Gibson appears increasingly driven to express a theology only hinted at in his previous work. That theology is a strain of Catholicism rooted in the dictates of a 16th-century papal council and nurtured by a splinter group of conspiracy-minded Catholics, mystics, monarchists and disaffected conservatives -- including a seminary dropout and rabble-rousing theologist who also happens to be Mel Gibson's father. Gibson is the star practitioner of this movement, which is known as Catholic traditionalism. Seeking to maintain the faith as it was understood before the landmark Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965, traditionalists view modern reforms as the work of either foolish liberals or hellbent heretics ... In another conversation, [Mel Gibson's father] told me that the Second Vatican Council was 'a Masonic plot backed by the Jews.' The intrigue got only murkier and more menacing from there. The next day after church, over a plate of roast beef at a buffet joint off the highway, conversation turned to the events of Sept. 11. Hutton flatly rejected that Al Qaeda hijackers had anything to do with the attacks. 'Anybody can put out a passenger list,' he said. So what happened? 'They were crashed by remote control,' he replied. He moved on to the Holocaust, dismissing historical accounts that six million Jews were exterminated. 'Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,' he said. 'It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?' Across the table, Joye [the elder Gibson's wife] suddenly looked up from her plate. She was dressed in a stylish outfit for church, wearing a leather patchwork blazer and a felt beret in place of the traditional headdress. She had kept quiet most of the day, so it was a surprise when she cheerfully piped in. 'There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe,' she said. Anyway, there were more after the war than before,' Hutton added. The entire catastrophe was manufactured, said Hutton, as part of an arrangement between Hitler and 'financiers' to move Jews out of Germany. Hitler 'had this deal where he was supposed to make it rough on them so they would all get out and migrate to Israel because they needed people there to fight the Arabs,' he said. Whether any of this has rubbed off on Hutton's son Mel is an open question ... Gary Giuffre, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says Gibson told him about his plans for 'The Passion' on a recent visit. 'It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before.' Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified. In his conversation with Bill O'Reilly (who prefaced the interview by disclosing that Gibson's production company has optioned the rights to O'Reilly's mystery novel), Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. 'It may,' he said. 'It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons why Christ came, why he was crucified -- he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.'"

Mel Gibson to sue religious groups? Actor reportedly threatened to file suit over criticism of Jesus film, World Net Daily, June 9, 2003
"Actor-director Mel Gibson is preparing to fight back against religious groups that have criticized his portrayal of Jews in his new film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, reports the Melbourne Herald Sun. According to the paper, Gibson has threatened lawsuits against both the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League. The groups have been critical of Gibson's film portrayal of Jewish complicity in the execution of Christ. The actor reportedly is part of a traditionalist Catholic movement that holds to the belief that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. The movement rejects changes made in Catholic doctrine in the '60s that eliminated the emphasis on Jewish guilt, the Herald Sun reports. Gibson's film, 'The Passion,' finished shooting in Rom last month. The dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, but no subtitles will be included. According to the paper, Sister Mary Boys, professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said, 'The Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reviewed the script and we wrote a report that was sent to Mr. Gibson's company. 'We have concerns about the role of Jews in the movie and we were hoping to get some changes. Mr. Gibson's company has retaliated by threatening a lawsuit.'As WorldNetDaily reported, Gibson has lashed out against those he says were planning to 'dig up dirt' on him and his family. "Whenever you take up a subject like [Christ's crucifixion] it does bring out a lot of enemies," he said."

ADL ATTACKS MEL GIBSON,
Catholic League for Religous and Civil Liberties, June 25,2003
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) yesterday issued another attack on Mel Gibson for his yet unseen movie, “The Passion.” Catholic League president William Donohue answered the ADL as follows: “In its news release of June 24, the ADL seriously misrepresented the position of the Catholic bishops regarding ‘The Passion.’ It said that it had ‘joined with the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in April, 2003 to assemble Jewish and Catholic scholars to evaluate an early version of the movie’s screenplay.’ It then said it welcomed the remarks by the Catholic scholars. But what it didn’t say is telling. “The ADL did not say that the Catholic panel was unauthorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Nor did it say that the USCCB has since apologized to Mel Gibson for reviewing a movie it hasn’t seen. Nor did it say that the script was stolen. Nor did it say that both the ADL and the USCCB have returned the stolen screenplay to Gibson’s Icon Productions. “One person who has seen the movie, and has translated it into Aramaic and Latin, is Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, a National Endowment for the Humanities professor of ancient Mediterranean studies at Loyola Marymount University. He not only insists that the ADL has nothing to worry about—‘there is no hint of deicide’—he also says that the specific concerns raised by the ADL are baseless. Is there brutality in the film? Yes. Indeed, it would be historically dishonest to portray the crucifixion in a non-violent manner. “Every Sunday Catholics recite the 1,700 year-old Nicene Creed, and every time they do they mention that Jesus was ‘crucified under Pontius Pilate.’ They do not say Jesus was killed by the Romans. Nor do they say He was killed by the Jews. They individualize the guilt. That anti-Semitic Christians have sought to blame ‘the Jews’ deserves condemnation. But fairness dictates that Gibson not be put in that camp. As he has said, ‘Neither I nor my film is anti-Semitic.’ That’s good enough for the Catholic League and, we trust, for fair-minded Americans of every religion.”

[More Jewish Thought Patrol:]
Gibson's Jesus Pic Faces More Anti-Semitism Charges,
Washington Post, June 25, 2003
"Continuing to raise concerns over "The Passion," the Mel Gibson-directed film about the last days of Jesus Christ, the Anti-Defamation League of America (ADL) charged Tuesday that, based on a study of an early version of the screenplay, the project could be 'replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism.' The ADL embraced the findings of an interfaith committee of scholars that has raised objections to the unreleased film -- even though the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has distanced itself from the same group. In its statement, the ADL contended that Gibson and his collaborators 'must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as 'The Passion' could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.' 'To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic,' Gibson said in a previously released statement, which his spokesman provided in response to the latest allegation. 'Nor do I hate anybody -- certainly not the Jews,' continued Gibson, who is a devout Catholic. "They are my friends and associates, both in my work and social life. Thankfully, treasured friendships forged over decades are not easily shaken by nasty innuendo. Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie.' Gibson directed 'The Passion,' which he also co-wrote and produced through his Icon Entertainment banner, in Italy earlier this year. Filmed in Aramaic and Latin, the project stars James Caviezel as Christ and has not yet been shown to potential distributors. The ADL first began to raise concerns about the film in March, in both a letter to the New York Times and a letter addressed to Gibson that the organization posted on its Web site. The controversy erupted again earlier this month when a report was leaked to the media that had been prepared by scholars, associated with both the ADL and the USCCB, based on a study of an early version of the script and containing a long list of objections. The USCCB, however, quickly dissociated itself from the report, with Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, saying: 'We regret the situation has occurred and offer our apologies. ... When the film is released, the USCCB will review it at the time.' In its current statement, the ADL says it 'fully stands behind' the scholars' report and raises a series of questions such as, 'Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray Jews as bloodthirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?'"

[The Jew Republic is Jewish-owned and edited.]
THE NEW REPUBLIC LIBELS MEL GIBSON,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, July 21, 2003
In the July 28-August 4 edition of The New Republic, Paula Fredriksen has a lengthy article on the controversy surrounding the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion.” Commenting on it today is Catholic League president William Donohue: “Working with an unauthorized script of ‘The Passion,’ Paula Fredriksen has declared the movie to be anti-Semitic. Neither she, nor any of her friends who read an early draft of the screenplay, have seen the movie. Nor have they explained how they obtained the purloined script. But that doesn’t matter—what matters is that she has libeled Mel Gibson. “Fredriksen maintains there are historical inaccuracies in the script. Having seen the film, it would be more honest to say that ‘The Passion,’ like other renditions of the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life, has elements in it that some scholars might question. But this is not her point. Her point is that Gibson has not acceded to her request to ‘revise his script substantially.’ As if he should. Her arrogance is evident again when she says that she and her colleagues ‘functioned with a naiveté that is peculiar to educators: the belief that, once an error is made plain, a person will prefer the truth.’ How reassuring it must be for Mel to know that if he wants the truth, all he has to do is give Paula a ring. “Fredriksen is a demagogue. For only a demagogue would write, ‘When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.’ Note she does not say if violence breaks out, but when. How disappointed she will be when none occurs. For the record, James Shapiro, in his work, Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World’s Most Famous Play, has written that the Passion play has never been directly linked to anti-Semitic violence. Never. “I would agree with Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, a professor of ancient Mediterranean studies and translator of the movie into Aramaic and Latin, that ‘there is no hint of deicide’ in the film. But this will obviously not do for those bent on discrediting it: they will ‘find’ anti-Semitism. They don’t even have to see it to hate it—they have truth on their side.”

Mel Gibson's Washington Power Play,
By Lloyd Grove, Washington Post, July 22, 2003
"Movie star Mel Gibson -- under fire from Jewish groups and religious scholars for his still-unreleased film that graphically portrays the crucifixion of Jesus -- yesterday screened a two-hour rough cut of "The Passion" for a select group of Washington pundits, clergymen, cybergossip Matt Drudge and Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti, and at least one White House staffer. "I've heard people talking about how I can't get a distributor," the casually dressed Gibson -- sporting sweat pants, sandals and white socks -- told the four dozen audience members. "Believe me, I can get a distributor." A vocal conservative and devout Catholic, the 47-year-old Academy Award winner has weathered accusations of anti-Semitism for the movie, which is being produced by his company, Icon Productions. The influential Anti-Defamation League, which monitors incidents of anti-Semitism, has been especially critical, pointing out on its Web site the long historical relationship between passion plays and attacks on Jews: "ADL has serious concerns regarding Mr. Gibson's 'The Passion' and asks: Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus? Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus?" Yesterday's secret screening at the Motion Picture Association of America included columnists Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas and Kate O'Beirne; conservative essayist Michael Novak; President Bush's abortive nominee for labor secretary, Linda Chavez; staff director Mark Rodgers of the Senate Republican conference chaired by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former Republican House member Mark Siljander of Michigan; and White House staffer David Kuo, deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. "I find this sad," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see the movie. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes. My request still stands: I would like to see the movie, and if it turns out I was wrong, I'll be the first to say so." Yesterday when the lights came up, many in the audience -- who were required to sign a confidentiality agreement before being admitted to the screening room -- were in tears. Some were sobbing, we hear. "Heartbreaking," Michael Novak told Gibson. "The Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty called the movie "a tremendous depiction of evil." MPAA President Valenti was perhaps the most enthusiastic. "I don't see what the controversy is all about," he told fellow audience members. "This is a compelling piece of art. I just called Kirk Douglas and told him that this is the movie to beat."

[Compare this story to the way Mel Gibson's alleged "antisemitic" "The Passion" is being pre-emptively crucified by the Jewish-dominated media, including the New York Times. Miramax is a company owned by the Jewish Weinstein brothers.]
New film resurrects charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood,
By Angela Aleiss, Salt Lake City Tribune (from Religion News Service), August 2, 2003
"The Magdalene Sisters," the story of several "fallen women" who were incarcerated at church-run Magdalene laundries in 1960s Ireland, has resurrected charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood and incurred the wrath of conservative church leaders. The film, which took home the top prize at the Venice and Toronto film festivals last year, is being released in select cities this month by Miramax Films, which earlier angered Catholic leaders with films such as "Priest" in 1994 and "40 Days and 40 Nights" last year. Controversial religious themes in movies are nothing new. Since the relaxed censorship rules of the late 1960s, Hollywood has been freely carping at religion, especially the Catholic Church and its institutional dogma. At other times, today's movies seem to play religion for all its mystery and thrills, like "Stigmata." But now the Catholic Church has received a whacking in a few recent movies ... Here in the United States, the outspoken Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights criticized Miramax's long-standing record for distributing what it believes are anti-Catholic films. Louis Giovino, director of communication for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, believes a general animus exists in Hollywood against the Catholic Church, or against any orthodox religion for that matter."

[More Jewish crucifixion of Mel Gibson, who is becoming a modern American hero! Shut up, Jews, who cares what you think? Your neurosis is suffocating.]
Mel must act to stem rise of anti-Semitism,
by Richard Z. Chesnoff, New York Daily News, August 8, 2003
"I was about 7 the first time a bunch of kids at Public School 78 in Queens informed me that I was "a Christ killer." My mother advised fighting back with words: "Tell them Jesus was Jewish, the Romans crucified him and you weren't even born then." Next day, I tried this trinity of historic logic on the chief taunter. His retort was ironclad: "Baloney! My priest told us it was the Jews, Jew-boy!" So, like many other people, I was pretty relieved when the papal order known as Vatican II proclaimed in 1965 that "the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God." Since then, we've come a long way in Christian-Jewish relations. But now Hollywood's Mel Gibson threatens to set it all back - maybe 2,000 years. The otherwise brilliant actor recently completed work on what sounds like a daring idea - "Passion," a multimillion-dollar feature film in Latin and Aramaic (the Hebraic dialect of Jesus) about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. Trouble is, Gibson belongs to and finances a splinter group of revisionist Catholics who reject Vatican II and still insist those wicked Jews were behind Christ's passion. Gibson's father, writer Hutton Gibson, one of the breakaway church's stalwarts, condemns Vatican II as a Jewish-backed Masonic plot and fervently denies the Holocaust. Gibson keeps saying "Passion" will tell "the truth." But whose? The result: Many - Jews and non-Jews alike - fear his film will rekindle the fires of religious hatred ... Gibson has been strangely secretive about his film. While he screened a rough cut for journalists and some public personalities, all were sworn to secrecy and none who have seen it are active leaders of the Jewish community. He has refused to show it to officials from Jewish organizations or discuss it with them. Ominously, some of his defenders openly imply that he's just up against "Jewish interests in Hollywood" - an old anti-Semitic canard. I hope that before he releases his film, Gibson displays more sensitivity to history - not to mention accuracy. Mostly, Gibson, an enormously popular figure, must decide whether he wants to be responsible for reviving the kind of hate-filled passions that will send other 7-year-olds running home from school, taunted by gangs calling them "Christ killers."

Web site in support Mel Gibson's film "Passion."

[The Jewish crucifixion of Mel Gibson continues. The Jewish Thought Police is relentless. Jews hate Christ -- that's the beginning, middle, and end of it.]
ADL Voices Concerns on Gibson's 'Passion',
Earthlink (from Associated Press), August 11, 2003
"The Anti-Defamation League expressed concern on Monday that Mel Gibson's "The Passion" will fuel anti-Semitism by reinforcing a belief that Jews were guilty for Jesus' death. An ADL representative, Rabbi Eugene Korn, the head of the group's office on interfaith affairs, attended a private screening of the film - about the final hours in the life of Jesus Christ - at Houston's Museum of Fine Arts on Friday. The ADL previously had not been allowed to see it. "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson," Korn said. "Many theologically informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations." Said Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director: "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." A spokesman for Gibson, Alan Nierob, said his client's intent was to combat hatred, not fuel it. "Neither he nor his film are inspired by anti-Semitism, and he will continue to do whatever he can to combat hatred and bigotry," Nierob said. "Mel Gibson, for his whole life and career, has been vehemently opposed to anti-Semitism and hatred of others." Others who have seen the film have praised its beauty and accuracy. Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, has called it "the most authentic portrayal I've ever seen."

ADL ATTACK ON “THE PASSION” IS UNFAIR,
Catholic League for Religous and Civil Rights, August 12, 2003
"A representative from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Rabbi Eugene Korn, attended a private screening of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion,” on August 8 in Houston. On August 11, Abraham Foxman, ADL national director, issued a news release on the film. He said the movie “will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism.” Foxman also charged, “The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus.” He is asking Gibson to modify the movie so that it will be “historically accurate, theologically sound and free of anti-Semitic messages.” Catholic League president William Donohue responded as follows: “Mel Gibson would be wise to ignore the ADL’s politicized attack on ‘The Passion.’ Scores of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Orthodox Christians have seen the film and have had nothing but praise for it. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said it best when he said, ‘I don’t see what the controversy is all about. This is a compelling piece of art.’ “The controversy began in April when it was reported that the ADL and the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) assembled Catholic and Jewish scholars to address the movie. Working with an unauthorized script, the scholars—none of whom had seen the film—denounced it. “On June 11, the USCCB issued a statement that embarrassed the Catholic scholars: ‘Neither the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, nor any other committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, established this group, or authorized, reviewed or approved the report written by its members.’ Subsequently, Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, issued an apology. The ADL has yet to apologize. “The movie is not anti-Semitic and does not need to be changed. Revisionist history is dishonest history and must be resisted.”

Gibson Says He Has 'Softened' Crucifixion Story in New Jesus Movie. Rabbis who have screened 'The Passion' say it threatens to undo decades of progress between Christians and Jews,
By Kevin Eckstrom, Belief.Net (from Religion News Service)
"Director Mel Gibson, under heavy fire from Jewish groups for his $25 million movie on the death of Jesus, has "softened the story" and made changes to make "The Passion" more palatable to critics, according to a spokesman. Scheduled for release next year during Lent, "The Passion" has some Jewish groups nervous it will resurrect old beliefs that Jews were responsible for the death of the Christian savior. Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said Gibson has edited the film to show more "sympathetic" Jewish characters who were not calling for Jesus to be crucified. "We believe we have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it," Lauer said in an interview. He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film." In addition, Lauer said the character of Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry the cross for Jesus, will be clearly labeled a Jew in the film. A shouting mob will include voices opposing the execution, Lauer said. Faced with vocal Jewish opposition, Gibson is mounting a pre-emptive public relations offensive to counter his critics -- all for a film that is still being edited. After regional screenings, Gibson has lingered with his audiences to listen to their advice. In an effort to soothe concerns, Gibson is also hoping to launch "The Jewish Initiative" to recruit Jewish and Christian leaders to discuss the film's effects on Christian-Jewish relations. "We've gone out of our way to accommodate this process because we felt it was necessary and important, and to show that we care and that we're not callously sitting back saying, `Screw you, we're going to make the film we want to make,"' Lauer said. Jewish groups, however, remain unconvinced. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Gibson has been unwilling to preview his film for anyone but "pre-screened audiences." "The fact that Mel Gibson says this is a work in progress is something we welcome. I don't make light of it," Foxman said. "We respect his creative rights, but we also believe that creative rights come with a certain responsibility." Invited Christian leaders who have seen the film offer near-universal praise."

WIESENTHAL CENTER URGES MEL GIBSON TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PASSION; Jewish Human Rights Group Receives Flurry of Phone Calls and Hate Mail Accusing Jews of Killing Jesus,
Simon Wisenthal Center, August 12, 2003
"Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said that the controversy over Mel Gibson’s yet-to-be released film, The Passion, has generated an unprecedented wave of hate mail and calls to the Jewish human rights group over the Center’s endorsement of changes to the film proposed by Christian and Jewish scholars. Included in one of the letters that the Wiesenthal Center received soon after the film was screened in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the writer said in part, “…What this tells me is that you do not want the real truth to be shown on a public setting that will remind millions of Americans that the jews were in fact totally responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.” The letter continued, “I don’t endorse terrorism of any kind but the odds are that some of these enlightened folks will go for the throat of you jews and some of your offices of hate such as the ADL main office in New York, or maybe even the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Every time I hear of a suicide bomber killing jews in Israel I think to myself YES!”

My Passion About 'The Passion',
by Steven Greenhut, lewrockwell.com, August 16, 2003
"As someone who writes commentary for a living, I have learned to not get too emotional about most political issues, to take stinging criticism in stride, to not let disputes get personal. If I didn’t keep a little distance, I’d probably already have dropped over from a stroke. Yet once in a while an issue angers me so much that, try as I might, my eyes pop out of my head, my blood pressure rises, my hands start trembling. The debate – if that’s what you want to call it – over Mel Gibson’s forthcoming movie "The Passion" is such an issue. I’ve even lost my cool at a local representative of the Anti-Defamation League. But I cannot help myself for a simple reason. Organized Jewish groups are demanding that Christians change their religion to suit their sensibility. It’s as simple as that. Gibson is presenting a straightforward account of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Gospels. Jewish organizations can’t dispute that the movie is striving to be an accurate presentation of the Gospel account, but argue that such an account will lead to anti-Semitism. The ADL and other groups demanded an early screening of the movie. Even Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, who lobbed puff questions at Rabbi Marc Gellman, who was criticizing the film, questioned the demand that the film’s critics should have a right to an advance screening. As O’Reilly pointed out, he doesn’t let his enemies view the draft of his books, so that they can spend months trashing and distorting its content. That seems simple enough. But totalitarians such as ADL National Director Abraham Foxman don’t grasp simple concepts of property rights (it's Gibson’s movie, not Foxman’s) or artistic freedom. "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus," he said in a statement, as reported on WorldNetDaily. "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." Thankfully, the Christian community has Foxman to tell them which churches are responsible, and which ones are not. Surely, Foxman would consider an Orange County evangelical congregation to be irresponsible for its recent airing of a segment of the film. What’s next? Previews of sermons? Two key factual points the ignoramuses ought to consider before continuing their campaign of censorship and harassment: First, the Gospels do suggest that Jewish authorities were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus. It’s not that hard to find ... Although I am a practicing eastern Orthodox Christian, I come from a Jewish background. My dad was a Nazi concentration camp survivor. My mother still displays on her wall a piece of wood from the family’s synagogue in Germany that was torched on Kristalnacht. The ADL should deal with those who distort the Christian message, not insist that the message be changed just in case some idiot might interpret it in the wrong way. It’s frustrating also, that some Christians and even a group associated with the Catholic bishops, have been critical rather than supportive of Gibson’s act of faith. They are far too busy promoting "tolerance" to spend any time advancing their faith."

Present Is Where The Danger Is,
by Charley Reese, King Features Syndicate, August 20. 2003
"Right now some Jewish groups are attacking a movie Mel Gibson has made that depicts the last day of Jesus' life. They claim it is anti-Semitic because it shows that certain Jews in that day were behind Christ's crucifixion. Well, according to the Gospels, they were, but so what? Why should anyone in the year 2003 look with disfavor on somebody else living in the year 2003 because of something someone else did in 33 A.D.? That's nonsense. You might as well say you don't like Italians because the Romans were so cruel. Besides, all the "good guys" in Gibson's movie are also Jews. How can a movie be anti-Semitic when both the heroes and the villains are Jewish? For that matter, how can criticism of Israel's bad treatment of Palestinians be anti-Semitic since the Palestinians are also Semitic people? There are way too many people abusing history to achieve their own contemporary political goals these days. History ought to be approached like any other subject — with logic, common sense and an open mind."

[Jews detest Christians. Follow your Christian faith and dump Israeli racism.]
'Passion' testing Jewish-Christian links Israel relationship, in particular, under pressure,
CNN, August 26, 2003
"The uproar over Mel Gibson's upcoming film on Jesus' death is testing the unusual partnership between American Jews and evangelical Protestants, who have recently become among the staunchest supporters of Israel. Many conservative Christians have called "The Passion" the most powerful depiction they've seen of Christ's final hours. But groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have argued that the portrayal of Jews in the events leading to the crucifixion will promote anti-Semitism. The Rev. Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, upset some Jewish leaders by mentioning support for Israel in a recent statement defending Gibson's movie, set for release next year. "There is a great deal of pressure on Israel right now and Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel," Haggard said, after a private viewing of the film for top evangelicals. "For the Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems shortsighted." Haggard said in an interview that his comments were not meant as a threat, but as a "word of caution" that Jewish complaints "may come across to some average people as them being against a movie about Jesus." Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Haggard's comments "sad and offensive." "You don't achieve interfaith relationships by being tolerant of anti-Semitism," Foxman said ... [S]ome leaders say the dispute is forcing both sides to confront the uncomfortable theological differences between them. The reasons evangelicals back Israel vary -- ranging from a sense of shared spiritual heritage to support for a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust. The strongest pro-Israel sentiment comes from a subset of evangelicals known as Christian Zionists, who see the existence of modern Israel as a precondition for the second coming of Christ, which is to be preceded by a period of extreme violence and the death of millions, including Jews. Many Jewish leaders have been uneasy about accepting this support. Even so, conservative Jews and evangelicals have been working together for Israel more closely than ever. Last year, American Christians donated $20 million to help Jews resettle in Israel, said Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews ... Foxman said he has already received calls from Jews who had opposed working with evangelicals. They are pointing to Haggard's remarks as evidence that the partnership is unworkable."

BEWARE THE BIGOTED KIBITZERS,
By Dr. Ted Baehr, Movie Guide, July 7, 2003
"Recently, our friend Robert Knight took another friend David Horowitz to task for an article in which Horowitz said that Christians are theologically wrong for declaring that homosexuality is a sin. Knight pointed out that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin both in the Old and New Testament, and that it was religious bigotry for Mr. Horowitz to be lecturing Christians on their theology. David may not have considered the implications of his article, but, regrettably, he reacted to Mr. Knight’s criticism with a more strenuous broadside demeaning Christian theology. Another kibitzer in the Los Angeles Times Book Review stated that Christians must remove all references to Jews in the New Testament. In a USA Today opinion piece, Rabbi Gerald Zelizer complained that Christian leaders “are too facile in generalizing their criticism about Hollywood’s portrayal of God and faith” while taking Christian comments out of context and denigrating biblical theology. He then continues by prescribing what Christians should believe. Surely this contributing writer in USA Today would be upset if Christians started criticizing Talmudic theology. Furthermore, it’s hard to believe that he would take statements by renowned Christians out of context, and then criticize them on theological grounds that he does not understand since he is not a Christian. Not only is the Bible clear that only people of faith can understand the things of God, but the matters that Rabbi Zelizer is talking about concern a movie made by Christians treating issues from a redemptive perspective. Shortly after the Rabbi’s column ran in USA Today, the Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece by two people from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a worthy Jewish organization dedicated, in part, to helping people remember the evil slaughter of millions of Jews in the Holocaust by Hitler’s Germany in World War II. The two men cautioned Mel Gibson about the possible depiction of Jewish leaders in his new movie about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, THE PASSION. Apparently, these men get very upset, as we have and they should, whenever someone tries to revise the holocaust history by questioning even minor historical details about Hitler’s horrible genocidal program. But then, they contradict themselves by wanting to revise the historical record by hiding the truth about the religious leaders who were historically involved in the trials which resulted in the death of Jesus Christ. As these men say, it was Pontius Pilate who crucified Christ, but they seem to ignore the fact that it was many of the religious leaders in Jerusalem who incited the angry, bloodthirsty mob into demanding the crucifixion. Telling Christians what to think about their own faith has become the fashion in the media, but that does not make it right. In fact, it is a base form of religious bigotry and snobbish arrogance, and it exposes the raw agenda of the anti-Christian bigots who want to eliminate Jesus Christ, the New Testament, and Bible-believing Christians from the marketplace of ideas ... Now in the United States, some intolerant people of influence are effectively calling for the exclusion of all things Christian from public discourse. These revisionists want to remove all the voluminous historical evidence about Jesus Christ from schools, government, and the mass media of entertainment. For these intolerant people, all speech is acceptable, except references to Jesus Christ and the Bible, which they have strictly forbidden in their politically correct purge of all public discourse. In their attempt to revise history and erase the historical record, they are effectively crucifying Jesus Christ once more, though slightly more subtly than their counterparts who incited the mob before Pilate to yell, “Crucify Him!” To which Pilate replied that Jesus’ crucifixion was upon their heads. If we fail to remember this history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Don’t let the bigoted kibitzer take away your freedom to think about God in an orthodox, historically accurate way. If they can let Martin Scorsese defame Jesus Christ by producing THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST in the name of the First Amendment, surely they can let Mel Gibson release the kind of movie about Jesus he wants to make."

[In-house problems for the Anti-Defamation League's hatred of Christianity, from an unlikley quarter. Jewish Communal Question: Should the ADL continue to nakedly assault and trample Christianity to raise more money from Jews fearful of growing "anti-Semitism?" Look carefully. The Anti-Defamation League is the modern Jewish community in microscosm: it is in the business of CREATING "anti-Semitism." Jews don't risk embarassment over their hysteria about the Mel Gibson movie. They risk being exposed as frauds and the entire accusation of "anti-Semitism" being revealed as a tool of manipulation and exploitation.]
ADL Interfaith Official Quits, Stance on Film Questioned,
By NACHA CATTAN, FORWARD,Novmeber 14, 2003
"A leading critic of Mel Gibson's controversial film about the death of Jesus has resigned from his post at the Anti-Defamation League. Eugene Korn, the ADL's director of interfaith affairs, told the Forward that his resignation last week represented a "mutual decision" resulting from his need for "a more reflective and contemplative environment." Korn's departure has some Jewish communal observers suggesting that a more diplomatic approach is needed in dealing with Gibson's upcoming film, "The Passion of Christ." Though the organization's strong rebuke of Gibson and his film was hailed by officials at several Jewish organizations, it has been criticized as counterproductive by an increasing number of communal experts. "We have to ask questions in the Jewish community about the approach taken to this film," said Elan Steinberg, the senior adviser to the World Jewish Congress. "Have we really examined the question of whether bringing greater publicity to the film, broad charges of antisemitism and perhaps disenchanting those who are our allies in many struggles should be done in such a cavalier way?" Some sources familiar with the situation say that Korn was uncomfortable with the aggressive style of the ADL's longtime national director, Abraham Foxman, on several interfaith issues, including the Gibson movie. Korn, who has been at the ADL for less than two years, declined to comment on the dynamic between himself and the group's charismatic leader, though he acknowledged a "difference in style" between himself and the ADL. He did, however, insist that he agreed with the organization's handling of "The Passion." "Personally I think the strategy is correct," Korn said. "I was one of the leaders of the strategy." The ADL did not return calls seeking comment. Some critics argued that the ADL strategy might be backfiring. "I'm not sure if we're not playing into [Gibson's] hands," said Gilbert Rosenthal, director of the National Council of Synagogues, a partnership run by the Reform and Conservative movements dedicated to interfaith dialogue. "He said he's got millions of dollars in free publicity. I'd like to see statements from the Christian community on this." At the Reform movement's biennial convention in Minneapolis last week, Hebrew Union College professor Rabbi Michael Cook warned that the Jewish community needed to abandon the strategy of loudly criticizing the movie or risk embarrassment when it hits theaters. According to Cook, who served on an interfaith panel of scholars co-convened by the ADL that drafted a critical assessment of a screenplay for the movie, Gibson is in the process of altering the film, and it will be less offensive than many have been predicting. Instead of acknowledging the degree to which he responded to his Jewish critics, Cook said, Gibson will point a derisive finger, asking what all the shouting was about. These are just the latest statements from a growing list of critics who claim that defense organizations, including the ADL, are mistakenly attempting to discredit and strong-arm Gibson. Other critics include Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president and founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews; Michael Medved, a conservative film critic and Orthodox Jew; and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, a conservative group dedicated to forging better relations between Jews and Christians. The ADL, and to a lesser extent the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have been at the forefront of the battle against Gibson's film, which they say blames Jews for the death of Jesus and could stoke antisemitism."

[Recall: the Anti-Defamation League started waving the stolen screenplay.]
Feds Probe Post's 'Passion' Review,
Movie and TV News (imdb.com),. November 21, 2003
"The FBI and the U.S. attorney's office have launched an inquiry into how the New York Post obtained a print of Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ, which it screened for a panel of five persons earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported today, citing three sources familiar with the matter. In its report, the Times described the print as "a bootlegged copy" and quoted a lawyer for Gibson as saying that a civil suit may be filed in the matter. The lawyer, George Hedges, told the newspaper: "Our biggest concern here is that a major media organization would become involved with pirates to concoct a news story to sell newspapers. ... For someone to feel the license to do this is just outrageous." Paramount COO Robert Friedman was also sharply critical of the Post, which is part of the News Corp family and therefore a corporate sibling of 20th Century Fox. "This is vigilante journalism," Friedman railed. "To get anybody's [movie] ... in a formative stage and steal it to review it is unconscionable."

A Gentler Tack On ‘The Passion’,
by David Berger, The Jewish Week, November 21, 2003
"The passions swirling around “The Passion” have the potential to poison Jewish-Christian relations — and to a lesser degree even intra-Jewish relations — in an entirely unanticipated fashion. In light of the fact that the film has not yet been released, so the majority of participants in this debate — myself included — have not even seen it, the trajectory of the controversy is probably still very much ascending. We would do well to take a deep breath and assess as coolly as possible the complex factors that bear on the decisions that need to be made. In this essay, I assume for the sake of argument that assertions of the film’s fidelity to the Gospel account will turn out to be correct, but I need to note that reliable viewers of preliminary versions assert that there is in fact additional material — and that it is damaging to Jews. Many Jews have framed the issue in terms of the film’s uncritical acceptance of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. There are, to be sure, contradictions among the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels, as well as historical difficulties that emerge from a study of non-Christian sources. But it is a serious error to pursue the discussion by urging Mel Gibson and other Christian fundamentalists to subject the accounts in their Scriptures to skeptical historical analysis. Scholars can and should say what they believe, but the Jewish community has no more business telling Christians to reject the historicity of their own sacred texts than a Christian organization has to tell Orthodox Jews to reject the historicity of Jewish narratives that it considers morally problematic. I would tell the spokespeople for such an organization to mind their own business and let me decide the parameters of my deepest faith commitments on my own. The Jewish interest is very badly served by urging the rejection of what many Christians, among them avid supporters of Israel, reasonably see as core elements of their religion."

[For every Jew who speaks openly and honestly like this, there are 10,000 who seeks to veil.]
'Passion' Follows the Scripture. Gibson's controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish writings,
By David Klinghoffer, Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2004
"Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, "The Passion," has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics who charge him with anti-Semitism. It's a controversy that will continue to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion. According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide. But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides. We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around the year 30, but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said about Jesus' execution. The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions. A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin, which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." The passage indicates that Jesus' fate was entirely in the hands of the Jewish court. The last two of the three items on Jesus' rap sheet, that he "enticed and led astray" fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T -- in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4). These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts. The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter. Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud's Jesus is the one who founded Christianity. In his great summation of Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court." In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides states that "Jesus of Nazareth interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." It's unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson -- Paula Fredriksen, a professor of religious studies at Boston University -- is the author of a meticulously researched book, "Jesus of Nazareth," that suggests it was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities. Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal. The best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death and clear the anger from the air. Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do."

[So how come virtually every rabbi on the planet is out whoring piles of gold foreskins for racist Israel and Jewish narcissism, and this Jewish author in the Jewish-owned, Jewish-edited New York Times trashes the Pope for merely saying something good about Mel Gibson's depiction of Jesus? And Gibson is the huckster? Look at yourself, Frank Rich, another Jewish con-man playing God from the national forum your Jewish Network bestowed upon you. You shit here on the Pope, Mel Gibson, Jesus, and anyone who wants to see a film about Jesus lift off from the strangling grasp of your band of suffocating, anti-democratic Jewish Media Thieves. A movie not created by yet another Jewish pornographer, a film that might elevate one borderline kid out of the anti-religious, Nihilistic Swamp your Jewish Buddy-System has created -- "Buy me! Fuck me! Buy me!" as the very lifeblood of Jewish Filmic Being. Some people think there might be something more to that in a movie. And you have the obscene audacity to complain about Gibson as a reflection of corrupt media? Look in the mirror, Mr. New York Times, but beware it might shatter into smithereens at the stone-cold ugliness you suddenly see there: your declaration of Jewish War.]
The Pope's Thumbs Up for Gibson's 'Passion',
by Frank Rich, New York Times, January 18, 2004
"Pope John Paul II, frail with Parkinson's at age 83, is rarely able to celebrate mass. In recent weeks, such annual holiday ceremonies as the ordination of bishops and the baptism of children in the Sistine Chapel were dropped from his schedule. But why should his suffering deter a Hollywood producer from roping him into a publicity campaign to sell a movie? In what is surely the most bizarre commercial endorsement since Eleanor Roosevelt did an ad for Good Luck Margarine in 1959, the ailing pontiff has been recruited, however unwittingly, to help hawk "The Passion of the Christ," as Mel Gibson's film about Jesus's final 12 hours is now titled. While Eleanor Roosevelt endorsed a margarine for charity, John Paul's free plug is being exploited by the Gibson camp to aid the movie star's effort to recoup the $25 million he personally sank into a biblical drama filmed in those crowd-pleasing tongues of Latin and Aramaic ... What can be said without qualification is that the marketing of this film remains a masterpiece of ugliness typical of our cultural moment, when hucksters wield holier-than-thou piety as a club for their own profit. For months now, Mr. Gibson and his supporters have tried to slur the religiosity of anyone who might dissent from his rollout of "The Passion." (And have succeeded, if my mail is any indication.) In The New Yorker last fall, the star labeled both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times "anti-Christian" newspapers for running articles questioning his film and, in this vein, accused "modern secular Judaism" of wanting "to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church," a non sequitur of unambiguous malice."

[The Jewish Lobby is declaring war on Christians, pure and simple. They are drawing lines in the sand. Tit for tat: this web site -- the factual size of a giant warehouse-- says Jews better start evaluating their own chronic xenophobia, hypocrisy, racism, and bigotry because it's spilled like blinking neon cream pie splashed in their faces. The Jewish Lobby is itself a "disturbing setback," to say the least. JEWISH RELIGIOUS TRADITION HAS ALWAYS ACCEPTED JEWISH CULPABILITY FOR THE DEATH OF CHRIST.]
Gibson Film 'A Disturbing Setback to Christian-Jewish Relations,' Says AJC,
PR Newswire, January 22, 2004
"The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's soon-to-be released film about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, represents a disturbing setback to the remarkable achievements in Christian-Jewish relations over the past 40 years, the American Jewish Committee said today. AJC's interreligious experts viewed the film earlier in the week and emerged deeply troubled by its anti-Jewish elements and potential for polarization among people of different faiths. The film is offensive to all Americans dedicated to the betterment of society through interreligious understanding and initiatives. "The film reasserts offensive stereotypes about Jews that Catholic and Protestant leaders have overwhelmingly rejected," said David Elcott, AJC's U.S. director of interreligious affairs, who viewed the film in Chicago. "The movie undermines the sense of community that has existed between Jews and Christians for decades in its unnecessary and destructive imagery of Jews. This film makes it more important than ever for like-minded Christians and Jews to reassert their dedication to promoting interfaith harmony, the hallmark of U.S. religious life," he added. Foremost among problems with the Gibson film is the inclusion of verse 27:25 from Matthew, the verse that blames Jews for Jesus' death and was repudiated by Vatican II in 1965. The deicide charge was not present in an earlier version of the film, viewed by Rabbi James Rudin, AJC's senior interreligious adviser. AJC urges Gibson and others working on the film to reconsider this addition before the movie is released on February 25. "The presentation of alleged culpability of Jews -- and their 'primary responsibility' for the crucifixion of Jesus -- has been the core problem of all Passion Plays since their inception during the Middle Ages," Rudin said."

[We repost the following article to underscore the profound LYING and UNDERHANDED SCAMMING that that is the foundation of all these Jewish Lobby organizations. Note the American Jewish Congress' complaint above. Then read the article below that was taken down off THEIR OWN WEB SITE after about a week, last September. Why should the dual loyalist, pro-racist Israel, American Jewish Congress be trusted for anything, if they so stupidly try to guilt trip Christians into feeling bad about something Jews have always believed too?! And the Jewish American Congress ITSELF blatantly censors this fact from public view off their own web site and lobbies throughout mass culture to veil the facts of this issue?! AND they still have the sordid audacity to merciless crucify Christians for believing what Jews have always accepted about who killed Christ!! Note: the original link address to the following American Jewish Congress article is here, but the AJC apparently got cold feet and thought better of keeping this article online for "anti-Semites" to find as an authoritative source. Telling the truth isn't kosher, in the long term. The link below is thereby directed to this article's "cached" version (and reproduced also at http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/ajcarticle.html )]
Jesus in the Talmud,
by Steven Bayme, National Director, Contemporary Jewish Life Department, American Jewish Committee, September 24, 2003
"[Mel] Gibson's movie [The Passion], intended to tell the story of the Gospels, has alienated many Jewish leaders, who correctly worry whether the movie's graphic description of the crucifixion and its alleged overtones of a Jewish conspiracy to kill Jesus may ignite long-dormant Christian hostilities to Jews. For this reason, the account of the Gospels, and its associations with anti-Semitism, needs to be honestly confronted, including the question of the relationship of church teachings to acts of violence against Jews. Yet it is also important that Jews confront their own tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus narrative. Pointedly, Jews did not argue that crucifixion was a Roman punishment and therefore no Jewish court could have advocated it. Consider, by contrast, the following text from the Talmud: On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a) This text, long censored in editions of the Talmud, is concerned primarily with due process in capital crimes. Standard process requires that punishment be delayed for forty days in order to allow extenuating evidence to be presented. However, in extreme cases, such as seducing Israel into apostasy, this requirement is waived. The case of Jesus, according to the Talmud, constituted an exception to this rule. Although one who enticed Israel into apostasy is considered an extreme case, the Jews at the time waited forty days because of the close ties of Jesus to the Roman authorities. However, once the forty days elapsed without the presentation of favorable or extenuating comment about him, they proceeded to kill him on the eve of Passover. Three themes emanate from this passage. First, the charges against Jesus relate to seduction of Israel into apostasy and the practice of sorcery. According to the Gospels, the charges against Jesus concerned his self-proclamation as a messiah. The Talmud seems to prefer the more specific charges of practicing sorcery and leading Israel into false beliefs. One twentieth-century historian, Morton Smith of Columbia University, argued on the basis of recently discovered "hidden Gospels" that the historical Jesus indeed was a first-century sorcerer (Jesus the Magician, HarperCollins, 1978). In the eyes of the Talmudic rabbis, the practice of sorcery and false prophecy constituted capital crimes specifically proscribed in Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 and 13: 2-6. Second, the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus' political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction: The Jews waited forty days, in a departure from the usual practice, only because Jesus was close to the ruling authorities. Lastly, the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed. To be sure, historians can not accept such a text uncritically. For one thing, the Talmudic text, as noted, was written some 300 years after the event it reports. Secondly, it makes no acknowledgement of intra-Jewish tensions in first century Palestine in which Jewish sects proliferated, and Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots competed for Jewish allegiances. Jesus's antipathy towards the Pharisees, of course, is well known from the Gospels, and the Talmudic rabbis, who presumably read these accounts, defined themselves as the intellectual heirs of the Pharisaic teachers. By contrast, the High Priest was, in all likelihood, a member of the Sadducee faction, which generally consisted of more aristocratic elements. What the Talmudic narrative does demonstrate is fourth century rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. What, then, are the implications of this reading of Jesus through the eyes of rabbinic sources? First, we do require honesty on both sides in confronting history. Jewish apologetics that "we could not have done it" because of Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic account. However, the significance of Vatican II, conversely, should by no means be minimized. The Church went on record as abandoning the teaching of contempt in favor of historicizing the accounts of the Gospels and removing their applicability to Jews of later generations."

[Who the Hell cares what the bigoted ADL says about anything anymore? America is supposed to be democracy, where people express their art to their OWN understanding, not the Anti-Defamation League's Thought Control imprint. No kosher certificate is necessary for American movie-making. At least not yet. OK, OK. Who killed Christ? Little green aliens masquerading as Jews, even down to carrying the Torah. Repeatedly, the Anti-Defamation League frames itself as a nemesis to the very principles of free speech and the foundations of democracy. Mel Gibson is FREE TO BELIEVE WHATEVER HE WANTS. This premise continuously eludes the Jewish Thought Police who insist upon dictating what other religious faiths are allowed to believe.]
ADL Screens Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ'; Says Film's Portrayal of Jews 'Painful to Watch,
U.S. Newswire, January 22, 2004
"After two of its representatives attended a screening of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of The Christ" at a religious gathering in Florida, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today renewed its concerns about the film's potential to promote anti-Semitism through its "painful portrayal of Jews" as being responsible for the death of Jesus. The film is scheduled for national release on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25. Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, who attended the screening at the Beyond All Limits Conference in Orlando along with Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Interfaith consultant, issued the following statement: "We were saddened and pained to find that "The Passion of the Christ" continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus. There is no question in this film about who is responsible. At every single opportunity, Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion. "It is shocking that Mel Gibson has not fulfilled his promise to remove the most troublesome aspects of this film and has ignored the warnings of Jewish and Catholic interfaith scholars about the explosive nature of the traditional Passion Play narrative. Despite Gibson's repeated statements that the film was "a work in progress" and that he was continuing to make changes, the promised changes do not appear in the film. In the film, the Jews and a group of sadistic Roman soldiers are the only ones portrayed as evil. The Jews make blood-thirsty calls for Jesus' death on a continuous basis, and by the end, the group of Roman soldiers feels compassion, whereas the Jews never feel compassion for Jesus and his suffering. "Will the film trigger pogroms against Jews? Our answer is probably not. Our concern is that "The Passion of The Christ" could fuel latent anti-Semitism that exists in the hearts of those people who hold Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, which has always been the source of Western anti-Semitism."

[The Jewish Lobby's perpetual credo is deception, lying, and fraud, as we find below. The Anti-Defamation League is one of American Jewry's principle domestic spy agencies in America. They settled accusations of spying on a wide variety of organizations in San Francisco, out of court. The ADL embodies the "stereotype" of the arrogant, skulking Jewish immoral hustler and charlatan who will do anything to serve his bigoted Klan.]
Jewish leaders pan Gibson film after posing as pastors,
WALB News (Albany, GA), from Associated Press
"Leaders of two Jewish groups are giving negative reviews after posing as pastors so they could attend an advance screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbis James Rudin and David Elcott of the American Jewish Committee paid their way into the Global Pastors Network conference in Florida. They sat unnoticed Wednesday evening among thousands of pastors, who had been addressed earlier in the day by Gibson himself. Foxman and the rabbis told The Washington Times they registered for the conference under a fabricated church name and signed a non-disclosure agreement regarding contents of the film. But afterwards, they called reporters to complain that the movie includes a verse from the Gospels that historically has been used to blame the Jewish people for killing Jesus. In Matthew 27:25, Jews calling for Jesus' crucifixion say, "His blood be on us and on our children."

[Journalistic objectivity? Abraham Foxman is afforded the unchallenged right to play God? The Los Angeles Times gets a copy of the Mel Gibson letter sent to Abraham Foxman, and it gets funneled to (seized by?) the obligatory Jewish reporter for proper spin. The LA Times journalist below, Tom Tugend, is Jewish. His piece here is for the Jerusalem Post and he also writes regularly for the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Such a story as this must go through the proper interpretive channels. No bias?When was the last time you saw a Palestinian LA Times staff reporter regularly write on subjects of social and political interest to the Palestinian community?]
Gibson seeks olive branch from ADL,
By TOM TUGEND, Jerusalem Post, February 1, 2004
"As the controversial movie "The Passion of the Christ" nears its Feb. 25 opening, director Mel Gibson has sent a conciliatory letter to his sharpest critic asking for a halt in the volley of recriminations. As in some latter-day Cold War, in which the sides alternate sniping with pleas for d tente, Gibson asked Abraham Foxman to join him in "setting an example for all our brethren" by following the path of respect and "love for each other despite our differences." Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, could not be reached for comment on the letter, which Gibson sent Friday (Jan. 30). The Los Angeles Times, which obtained a copy of Gibson's letter, said that although the director did not address fears that the film might reignite anti-Jewish religious prejudices, Gibson assured Foxman that "I do not take your concerns lightly." For almost a year, Foxman and other Jewish spokesmen have warned that "The Passion," by graphically dramatizing Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, could revive old anti-Semitic libels and set back Catholic-Jewish relations. Gibson has turned a cold shoulder to Foxman's repeated requests to preview the film and discuss its content. However, the ADL leader and a colleague managed to infiltrate a screening of the unfinished film for a group of Protestant ministers on Jan. 21 in Orlando, Fla. Afterwards, Foxman issued a statement charging, "at every single opportunity, Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion." Despite this criticism, two days after viewing the film, Foxman dispatched a letter to Gibson in a distinctly milder tone. "We would like to sit with you to discuss our fears concerning the unintended consequences than might be unleashed when your film is presented to the public," wrote Foxman. He closed the letter by saying, "We can only hope that your Passion will move all people in a positive way and we again hope that we can be your partners in this critical enterprise." In another change of tone, however, on Jan. 25 the Palm Beach Post in Florida ran a sharply worded op-ed commentary by Foxman and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL's interfaith consultant. The op-ed accused Gibson of producing the film "with willful disregard for the opinions and outreach efforts of mainstream Jewish organizations and many Catholic and Jewish scholars." In addition, "The Jews are portrayed continually as bloodthirsty and vengeful," the op-ed continued.

Why Do Jewish Leaders Want to Censor Mel Gibson?,
Support Mel Gibson.com

[The Jewish Thought Police and their lackey mercenaries take aim in a new Propaganda War. Jews hate Christianity, they loathe Jesus, and cannot function as "Jews" in good standing without condemning the rest of the world for Jewry's OWN moral failings.]
Jews, Christians to campaign against Gibson's Jesus film,
Haaretz (Israel), February 2, 2004
"Jews and Christians who fear Mel Gibson's epic on the crucifixion of Jesus will fuel anti-Semitism are planning lecture series, interfaith talks and other programs to try to mute the film's impact. Gibson has insisted that "The Passion of the Christ," set to be released Ash Wednesday, February 25, does not malign Jews. However, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, whose representatives saw a version the movie last week, said it contained destructive stereotypes about the Jewish role in Christ's death. Critics of the film hope to explain how dramatizations of the crucifixion, called Passion plays, were used in the Middle Ages to incite anti-Jewish violence, and emphasize that many Christian denominations now reject the idea of collective Jewish responsibility in the slaying of Jesus. "Do I think there will be pogroms (massacres) as a result of this movie? No," said Rabbi David Elcott, the American Jewish Committee's interfaith director. "It's part of something larger, which is a hardening of religious conversation. It is such an absolutist movie. It undermines the progress that we've made in this country toward mutual respect and religious pluralism." Opponents do not plan boycotts or protests outside theaters. "Artists have every right to create any kind of movie they want, but an audience has the absolute right to pass judgment on that," said Rabbi James Rudin, a longtime interfaith adviser for the committee, a public policy organization based in New York. The campaign is being undertaken in the face of a massive evangelistic effort by many American churches in conjunction with the movie's release. Several prominent conservative Christians, including the Rev. Billy Graham, said the film was among the most powerful depictions they'd seen of Christ's last hours. Evangelical supporters of the film agree with Gibson that it does not blame Jews for Christ's death but instead follows biblical teaching that Jesus died because of the sins of each individual ever born. They plan sermons and lectures related to the movie, and have even produced special Bibles that contain images from the film. In response, the American Jewish Committee is sending a 40-page resource guide to its chapters nationwide on how to explain Jewish concerns about the film. Rudin also is urging Christian colleagues not to use the movie as an education tool

[Shitting on Mel Gibson, etc. : the propagandistic creation of "news." It is impossible for a person with the requisite media credential at this ADL circus to ask any questions of real substance because the prerequisite to become a journalist in the mainstream media is to be a happy slave to Judeocentric propaganda.]
Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ," Global Anti-Semitism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Top Agenda for ADL National Meeting,
U.S. Newswire, February 2, 2004
"News Advisory: WHAT: ADL National Executive Committee Meeting WHO: Anti-Defamation League (ADL) WHERE: The Breakers, Palm Beach, Fla. WHEN: Thursday, Feb. 5 - Friday, Feb. 6 Note: Press credentials required DETAILS: The National Executive Committee Meeting brings together Jewish community leaders from around the country and is the highest policymaking body of ADL. --- The following events are open to the media: ... Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ:" Could It Trigger Anti-Semitism? Speaker: Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and Author of "Never Again? The Threat of The New Anti-Semitism" 10:30 a.m. Will Mel Gibson's "Passion" Damage Christian-Jewish Relations? Catholic and Jewish Scholars on the Danger of Passion Plays -- Rev. John Pawlikowski, director of Catholic-Jewish Studies, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago -- Rabbi Robert Levine, Congregation Rodeph Sholom, New York City -- Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL consultant, Interfaith Affairs 11:30 A.M. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Where Are We Going? -- Tzipi Livni, Israeli Minister for Immigration and Absorption ... Presentation of the Joseph Prize for Human Rights by Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, to Dr. Johnnetta B. Cole, president, Bennett College for Women, Greensboro, N.C. ... and Tommy Hilfiger: "Prejudice Is Never In Style" The Success of Public-Private Partnerships in Combating Hate -- Tommy Hilfiger, principal designer, Tommy Hilfiger Corp. ... Anti-Semitism in Europe: Responding to the Threat -- Amb. Alvaro Ozores of Spain, special ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- Amb. Jacques Huntzinger of France, special ambassador to Jewish Communities"

[Jews dominate the mass media and have molded it to herald themselves and defame others. America's Judeocentric culture routinely slanders and toxifies its traditional European religious enemy: Christianity, and particularly Catholicism. Today the Jewish Wall shifts its power of defamation to include Islam as well, enemy of racist Israel.]
MEDIA SPIN OVER “THE PASSION”,
Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, January 30, 2004
"Here is what Catholic League president William Donohue said today about the way the media are spinning the furor over “The Passion of the Christ”: “In today’s Los Angeles Times, it says there are ‘some conservative Catholics’ who like ‘The Passion.’ The next sentence describes me as the ‘president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.’ This, I guess, is an improvement over what happened on January 24 when the Los Angeles Times called us ‘the conservative Catholic League (which is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church).’ Really? Yet we are listed in the Official Catholic Directory, and our brochure lists endorsements from Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Egan, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop O’Malley and Father Benedict Groeschel. Not exactly what one would expect from a schismatic group. “The ADL is leading the fight against the movie. But no one in the secular media calls it the ‘liberal ADL’ when writing about its objections. Indeed, a Nexis search of U.S. news for all available dates for the term ‘conservative Catholic League’ turns up 136 hits (135 of which have come since I began as president in 1993); the number of times the ADL has been called the ‘liberal ADL’ is zero. This is called being neutral. “A.O. Scott in today’s New York Times lists three anti-Christian movies, ‘Hail Mary,’ ‘Last Temptation of Christ’ and ‘Dogma.’ Not only does Scott refuse to call them anti-Christian, he says there was ‘an ugly undercurrent of anti-Semitism [that] ran through some of the attacks on those supposedly sacrilegious movies.’ Scott also says that anti-Semitic ‘insinuations bubble beneath the surface of some of the defenses of Mr. Gibson’s reportedly pious picture.’ (Twice my emphasis.) “In short, there are no liberal critics of ‘The Passion’; there are only ‘conservatives’ who like it. Similarly, those who complain about anti-Christian films are anti-Semitic, and those who like good Christian films are also anti-Semitic. The upshot is that most Americans are anti-Semitic. Either that or those who hate Christians have no problem getting a job in the media.”

[The Jewish War on Christianity is everywhere. Is Kremble Jewish? We don't know, but Jews around him carry this crap to the fore.]
HOLLYWOOD PLAY ATTACKS GAY PRIESTS,
Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, January 29, 2004
“A Comfortable Truth: The Story of a Boy and His Priest” opened January 24 in the West Hollywood Lee Strasberg Creative Center; it runs through February 22. The play’s website says the work addresses “the controversial subject of juvenile molestation in the Church.” Written and directed by Mark Kemble, and produced by David Lee Strasberg, the play was reviewed favorably by Joel Hirschhorn in Daily Variety. Hirschhorn credits the actor who plays the boy for delivering “each church-crucifying zinger masterfully,” and takes particular note of the scene where the boy screams “eat my brains.” To demonstrate that the boy has been traumatized by the molesting priest, the kid is depicted playing in a rock group by the name “Fourth Reich Vatican Nazis.” Thus do Kemble and Strasberg take another shot at the Catholic Church. William Lobdell of the Los Angeles Times said, “The play’s set looks like a cross between a church and a bombed out train station with a few religious icons, including a busted Madonna fallen to the floor…a crucifix disguised as a piece of junk—scraps of wood and metal topped by an upside-down milk pail with the spout serving as Christ’s nose.” Here’s what Catholic League president William Donohue said about it: “When asked about his work, Mark Kemble said the play was about ‘the danger of blind faith in the leaders of any religious organization.’ But this is not true—there is no disparagement of any religion save Catholicism. Of the homosexual scandal in the Church, he says, ‘I don’t think it’s an aberration.’ Nor do I think it’s an aberration that the people responsible for this play are from Hollywood. “In a time when Catholic and Jewish elites are about to suffer cardiac arrest over Mel Gibson’s film, it is instructive to note that none has said a word about this portrayal of a gay molesting priest. Nor will they—they are too busy instructing Mel how to portray Jews in ‘The Passion.’”

[The "critics" herein are Christian-hating bigots -- "Jews." And playing "dirty" is their "chosen" calling. Rolling in mud doesn't stop here.]
CRITICS OF “THE PASSION” PLAY DIRTY,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, January 27, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue spoke today about some of the critics of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ”: “It is one thing to criticize a movie, quite another to engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on the person behind the film. To be specific, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is quoted in today’s Daily Variety saying that ‘No responsible Jew has made the accusation that Gibson is an anti-Semite.’ Wrong. On September 19, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, said Gibson is ‘painting a portrait of an anti-Semite.’ On the same day Foxman added that Gibson ‘entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.’ And on November 7, Foxman said the following: ‘I think he’s infected—seriously infected—with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views…. [Gibson’s] got classical anti-Semitic views.’ Sounds like an indictment to us. “Then there are the smear merchants who attack Mel’s father. In an interview that appeared last March in the New York Times Magazine, Hutton Gibson questioned the figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, something many Jewish scholars have done. He did not deny the Holocaust, though it has often been reported that way. But why do the comments of a man who is in his mid-80s, and who has nothing to do with the film, matter so much? Unless, of course, the name of the game is to brand both Mel and his father as bigots. Even as recently as January 23, we were questioned by a producer at CBS about Mel’s father. We were asked whether he is a Holocaust denier; what his reaction to the film is; and whether he is a member of the Catholic League. “And consider this: when Rabbi Hier was asked on MSNBC to comment on the film, he directed his comments at Mel, not the movie. Referring to the Times Magazine piece, he said, ‘Gibson made it very clear that he wants to go back to the good old days, before, he says, the Catholic Church was spoiled by Vatican II.’ In short, beware of Latin Mass Catholics—they don’t like Jews. “This movie should be subjected to the same kind of artistic scrutiny that accompanies any film. But the ad hominem attacks must stop.”

ADL INSULTS CHRISTIANS OVER MEL GIBSON FILM; APOLOGY REQUESTED,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, January 26, 2004
"The following letter was faxed to ADL National Director Abraham Foxman today: Mr. Abraham Foxman National Director ADL 823 United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017 Dear Mr. Foxman: Regarding the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” you were quoted on January 23 in the Los Angeles Times saying, “[Gibson is] hawking it on a commercial crusade to the churches of this country. That’s what makes it dangerous.” This is very disturbing. To say the film is dangerous because the people who are previewing it are church-going Christians is an insult to practicing Christians. The subtext of this remark is that church-going Christians are latent anti-Semitic bigots ready to lash out at Jews at any given moment. As president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, I am requesting that you make a public apology immediately. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, William A. Donohue, Ph.D. President"

MEL GIBSON VS. THE PHARISESS FILM HIGHLIGHTS CHRISTIAN JEWISH DIFFERENCE,
By Henry Makow, Etherzone, February 2, 2004
"Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ (opening Feb 25) has the potential to become a major cultural turning point by focusing attention on the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism. Since the Holocaust, Christians have blurred their beliefs for fear of seeming anti-Semitic. But Jesus and the Pharisees had a deadly enmity. This antagonism is the essence of Christianity and cannot be denied. At the same time Gibson's film might inspire Jews to take a hard look at Judaism. Gibson's graphic depiction of the Crucifixion apparently evokes an intense religious experience. It comes at a time when millions are awakening to the fact that a malignant force controls the U.S. and casts its shadow across the world. People will recognize this power as the same one responsible for the Crucifixion. This is a combination of worldly and spiritual control, "Roman" and Pharisee respectively. Nothing has changed in 2000 years. If Christ were alive today, he would be assassinated. Indeed, the same force would love to crucify Mel Gibson. They will do so financially by "sandbagging" his movie. They will spin it as "anti-Semitic" or as a Christian curiosity. There will be few Oscar nominations ... For many Jews, Israel and the Holocaust have become a substitute for religion. The reason is that Judaism is flawed. Most Jews like myself are not attracted to it. Judaism has been hijacked. Judaism was originally based on Moses' vision of God as a universal moral force. The Sadducees upheld this view but the Pharisees overthrew them in a civil war in 79 BC. The remnants of the Sadducees, "Torah Jews" still cling to Moses and the Old Testament but they are a minority. Phariseeism is based on the Talmud, which consists of the interpretations of "sages" during the Babylonian exile 586 BC to 1040 AD. Generally speaking, the Talmudists contradict the spirit of Moses and take precedence over the Torah ... More than the Protocols of Zion, the Talmud is proof that the Pharisees have a secret agenda. No one can claim this is a forgery. Elizabeth Dilling, (1894-1966) is a courageous Christian whose visit to Soviet Russia in 1931 prompted a 20-year study of Judaism. In her book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today (1964) she reproduces 300 pages from the Talmud and Jewish Encyclopaedias. You can examine it on line and form your own opinion. What follows is very distasteful and shocking. I take no pleasure in presenting Dilling's conclusions. However, if they are true, they are too important to ignore. The devil operates by deceiving and corrupting good people. According to Dilling, the Talmud is founded on the assumption of Jewish superiority. "The non-Jew ranks as an animal, has no property rights and no legal rights under any code whatever... "Milk the Gentile" is the Talmudic rule but don't get caught in such a way as to jeopardize Jewish interests. Summarized, Talmudism is the quintessence of distilled hatred and discrimination, without cause, against non-Jews." (16) The Talmud is characterized by "obscenity and more obscenity, a setting up of laws seemingly for the purpose of inventing circumventions, and evasions; delight in sadistic cruelty; reversal of all Biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents; insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every phase of Christianity." (4) It characterizes the Virgin Mary as a "harlot" and adulteress and Jesus as a "bastard" and sexual pervert who was crucified as a "blasphemer of Pharisee Judaism." Jesus' punishment was to be" lowered into dung up to his armpits" and then strangled. Christians in hell are punished by "hot boiling excrement." (14) The Talmud rejects Moses' vision of God as a moral force. Its basic doctrine is that "God is the "En Sof" a nature essence which has no attributes and can neither know nor be known. That is atheism..." ... The Talmud is undoubtedly the answer to the riddle of anti-Semitism ... CONCLUSION  I wish everything Dilling says were untrue. It makes me heartsick to think that Pharisee Jews play a leading role in establishing the New World Order. Unfortunately we cannot tailor the facts to fit our wishes or amour propre. I am going to be called an anti-Semite or self-hater. I think it's obvious that I subscribe to the authentic Jewish tradition, that of Moses, Isaiah and Jesus. It's obvious that "anti-Semitism" is used to disarm and stigmatize opponents of Pharisees' evil hegemony. Hopefully Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ will inspire both Christians and Jews to re-examine their beliefs and prompt a much needed religious revival. We all must follow Jesus' example and resist evil."

[The giant Jewish Lobby Attack Dog is incessant in its scheming and relentless in bending the world to its Will. Censorship about anything Jewish is the Order of the Day. World War II? Only Jewish deaths count because they were/are SPECIAL. The NYT reporter below is also Jewish, of course, to frame this story with the Correct Judeocentric Spin.]
Gibson to Delete a Scene in 'Passion,'
By SHARON WAXMAN, New York Times, February 4, 2004
"Mel Gibson, responding to focus groups as much as to protests by Jewish critics, has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, "The Passion of the Christ," a close associate said today. A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, "His blood be on us and on our children," will not be in the movie's final version, said the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The passage had been included in some versions of the film that were shown before select groups, mostly of priests and ministers. "It didn't work in the focus screenings," the associate said. "Maybe it was thought to be too hurtful, or taken not in the way it was intended. It has been used terribly over the years." Jewish leaders had warned that the passage from Matthew 27:25 was the historic source for many of the charges of deicide and Jews' collective guilt in the death of Jesus. Mr. Gibson's decision to remove the scene could indicate that he was being responsive to concerns of Jewish groups that the film will fuel anti-Semitism. Mr. Gibson was the co-writer, director, producer and financier of the $25 million film, which will be released in more than 2,000 theaters on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday. Mr. Gibson also responded to a letter from Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who had requested a meeting and asked Mr. Gibson to consider a postscript that would "implore your viewers to not let the movie turn some toward a passion of hatred." Mr. Gibson did not respond to those requests directly, writing only: "I hope and I pray that you will join me in setting an example for all of our brethren; that the truest path to follow, the only path, is that of respect and, most importantly, that of love for each other despite our differences." Mr. Foxman responded in turn on Monday that "your words do not mitigate our concerns about the potential consequences of your film — to fuel and legitimize anti-Semitism." This reporter was shown a two-hour version of the R-rated movie this week. The film features agonizing passages as Jesus, played by Jim Caviezel, is mercilessly beaten by Jewish and then Roman guards, and jeered and hounded by a Jewish mob on his way to his Crucifixion. It is unclear how close this version is to Mr. Gibson's final film. In this version, the Roman leader Pontius Pilate is depicted as being reluctant to harm Jesus, who Pilate's wife warns is holy. Largely to mollify a restive Jewish mob outside his window, Pilate agrees to a severe lashing and scourging of Jesus, but the crowd and the high priest demand more. Pilate says in Latin: "Ecce homo" — "Behold the man" — displaying the broken and bleeding Jesus to the crowd. But the high priest insists, in Aramaic, "Crucify him." Pilate responds, "Isn't this enough?" The mob roars, "No," and only then does the Roman leader agree to the Crucifixion. Because passion plays historically preceded outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence in Europe, the film passage is a particularly sensitive matter with Jewish groups at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise in parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia. But Mr. Gibson further raised hackles among Jewish leaders in an exclusive interview by the writer Peggy Noonan published in the March issue of Reader's Digest. Rabbi Marvin Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, accused Mr. Gibson of insensitivity when he compared Jewish suffering in the Holocaust to that of millions of others who died in the war. Ms. Noonan, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, asked Mr. Gibson about his father, a conservative Catholic who was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article last March as denying that Holocaust took place. Mr. Gibson answered that he loved his father. Ms. Noonan insisted: "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Mr. Gibson responded: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union." In a letter to Mr. Gibson, Rabbi Hier wrote: "We are not engaging in competitive martyrdom, but in historical truth. To describe Jewish suffering during the Holocaust as `some of them were Jews in concentration camps' is an afterthought that feeds right into the hands of Holocaust deniers and revisionists." Mr. Gibson's spokesman, Alan Nierob, denied that the director was looking to further inflame those leaders. "There's no doubt in my mind that not only does he know the Holocaust and acknowledge it, he has shed tears over it, with me," he said. Rabbi Hier responded that Mr. Gibson missed a chance to reduce the tension with Jewish groups. "I think he was lobbed an easy question. He could've used the occasion to take us on a different road, instead he marginalized the Holocaust, he diluted its significance, and it's a lie," he said. "Either he is very ignorant of sensitivities in Jewish communities of riling survivors, those who have lost loved ones, or he is doing it deliberately." Mr. Foxman also protested Mr. Gibson's remark on the Holocaust. "At the very least it was ignorant, at the very most its insensitive. And you know what? He doesn't get that either. He doesn't begin to understand the difference between dying in a famine and people being cremated solely for what they are."

Ad Timed to Gibson Film Release Refused,
By BOBBY ROSS JR, Yahoo! News, (from Associated Presss), February 3, 2004 "AMC Theatres is refusing to accept a 30-second ad produced by the Baptist General Convention of Texas and timed to coincide with the Ash Wednesday opening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Like many evangelical Christian groups throughout the nation, the 2 million-member Baptist convention hopes to take advantage of the publicity generated by Gibson's R-rated epic about the last hours of Jesus. Rick King, spokesman for AMC Entertainment Inc., based in Kansas City, Mo., said he couldn't address the specific situation. In general, King said, "Screen advertising is a pretty sensitive area and we have a pretty tight set of guidelines for what we will place on our screens and what we won't." Regal Entertainment Group of Knoxville, Tenn., whose holdings include United Artist theaters, has accepted the ad. "The advertisement meets all of our standards and guidelines," Regal spokeswoman Lauren Leff said. "There's no reason why we wouldn't run it." Becky Bridges, communications director for the association of 5,700 Texas Baptist churches, said the black-and-white ad is designed to "spark some interest and questions on the part of younger viewers about the story of Christianity." The ad opens with a young man asking: "You want to see the most scandalous story ever?" Words then flash on and off the screen: "Betrayal. Sin. Adultery. Greed. Envy. Weakness. Poverty. Torture. Murder." "Redemption," the actor says. The ad ends with the message "Now playing at a Baptist church near you" above a Baptist General Convention of Texas logo. AMC has been "very vague about why" it declined the ad, Bridges said, with company officials describing it variously as "too dark" and "too Christian." "We followed all their regulations: not using Jesus, Bible or any other overt God talk," she said. "We do not use religious symbols or icons. We do not attempt to use guilt or other things that might appear to be judgmental or proselytizing. "In my opinion, it is a good teaser which is edgy enough that audiences will find it intriguing, but not offensive," she added, noting that the ad's art director was Catholic and the director Jewish. Texas Baptists plan to run the ad on about 200 Regal theater screens in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio, Bridges said. At a cost of about $40,000, the ad will run for four weeks starting the Friday before the Feb. 25 opening of Gibson's movie. The convention also had hoped to show the ad on about 150 AMC screens in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Bridges said the convention approached theater chains that it knows accept regional advertising and don't require a national contract. King said ads accepted by AMC must be appropriate for all audiences — those coming to see a children's film such as "Finding Nemo" as well as someone expecting the graphic nature of a drama such as "The Passion of the Christ." "In general terms, we don't allow any kind of negativity," King said. "We do run ads for a number of churches and organizations, but this particular one would need some modifications to meet our guidelines." Bridges said the Baptist convention offered to soften its ad, including taking out references to "murder" and "torture," but that did not appease AMC, she said. Gibson's movie, with dialogue in Latin and Aramaic and English subtitles, is set to open on 2,000 screens nationwide — an unusually large release for an independent religious film made in dead languages. Some critics of "The Passion of the Christ" worry that its depiction of the role of Jewish leaders in Jesus' final hours will revive the idea that all Jews are to blame for his death. Gibson has repeatedly denied that his film maligns Jews. It has won praise from many prominent Christians including evangelist Billy Graham."

[The absolutely amazing thing is how Jews are so omnipresent -- everywhere, anything. Surprise! Here one pops out of her Virgin Mary costume in the "Passion" film to defend Mel Gibson against the Jewish Lobby.]
'Passion' actress: Film not anti-Semitic Maia Morgenstern plays Mary in controversial Gibson film,
CNN, February 4, 2004
"The actress who plays Mary in Mel Gibson's passion-stirring biblical epic "The Passion of the Christ" says her parents were Holocaust survivors but she does not consider the film anti-Semitic. If there is a message, it's more about how people can be manipulated by their leaders, Maia Morgenstern said Tuesday. "Mel Gibson is an artist, a director. He never imposed his religious convictions on anyone," Morgenstern, who is Jewish, said in an interview with The Associated Press, rejecting criticism that the film will fuel anti-Semitism. The film is to be released Ash Wednesday, February 25. Gibson, who directed, co-wrote and financed the $25 million film, has denied that his movie maligns Jews. However, it has drawn complaints from those who say it blames Jews for Christ's death. "When people go and see the film, they will (primarily) see a work of art," Morgenstern said. Muslims, atheists, Christians and Jews worked on the film but race and religion were never an issue, said the 42-year-old actress ... Morgenstern, known both for her outstanding work in theater and film, is Romania's most renowned actress, but her popularity has been generally restricted to Europe. She has starred in about 30 movies, the best known being "The Oak Tree," a Romanian-French production, and "Ulysses' Gaze," a Greek film. Morgenstern, whose grandfather died in the Auschwitz death camp, spoke glowingly of Gibson, praising his professional abilities and the kindness he showed when her daughter became ill in Romania. Gibson sent her home to spend time with the child, and then allowed the 3-year-old to join her on the set."

[Why does the Christian Science Monitor need a Jew, "conservative" radio talk host Michael Medved, to state the obvious? Because in our Judeocentric World all fear the taint of "anti-Semitism" for daring to tell the truth. The game is that a Jew, as a Jew, is afforded more credibility -- and more instrinsic power -- in standing up to the Jewish Lobby. The offending paper can say, "Oh. Look. It is a Jew standing up to -- and blatantly criticizing, the Jewish Lobby -- not us."]
Gibson's right to his 'Passion'. Overreaction will cause more anti-Semitism than movie itself,
By Michael Medved, Christian Science Monitor, February 2, 2004
"Any honest discussion of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" must begin with recognition of a few undeniable facts: The movie has been made and will open in thousands of theaters worldwide this month. It will draw eager audiences and become a box office hit - due in part to prerelease controversy, the "must see" factor has reached an almost unprecedented level of intensity among both committed Christians and the cinematically curious. Mainstream Christian leaders of every denomination will embrace the film as the most artistically ambitious and accomplished treatment of the crucifixion ever committed to film. Some critics and scholars will criticize Mr. Gibson for his cinematic and theological choices in shaping the film. But any attempt to boycott or discredit the movie will, inevitably and unquestionably, fail. No one who has actually seen the movie, as I have, would seriously challenge these conclusions. All the debate about allegedly anti-Semitic overtones misses the point: The organized Jewish community and its allies in interfaith dialogue may not welcome "Passion," but overreaction will provoke far more anti-Semitism than the movie itself. Gibson financed the film on his own precisely due to his determination to realize his own traditionalist Catholic vision of the Gospel story without compromise to the sensitivities of profit-oriented accountants or other religious perspectives. Jewish leaders feel wounded that he never consulted them on the script or historic details, but he also left out Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions. The possibility of anti-Jewish violence in response to the film has been irresponsibly emphasized and has become, self-fulfilling prophecy. In parts of Europe and the Islamic world, anti-Semitic vandalism and violence occur daily, and hardly need a film by a Hollywood superstar to encourage them. In this context, Jewish denunciations of the movie only increase the likelihood that those who hate us will seize on the movie as an excuse for more of hatred. The problem with traditional "passion plays" was always the unmistakable association of contemporary Jews with the staged oppressive Judean religious authorities. The high priest often appeared with anachronistic European prayer shawls, skull caps, and side curls. Gibson avoids such imagery - costumes and ethnicity of the persecutors make them look far less recognizable as Jews than do the faces and practices of Jesus and his disciples. The words "Jew or "Jewish" scarcely appear in the subtitles to his movie, spoken in Aramaic and Latin. By agonizing so publicly about the purportedly anti-Semitic elements in the story, the Anti-Defamation League makes it vastly more likely that moviegoers will connect the corrupt first-century figures with today's Jewish leaders. Of course, rabbis and teachers will feel an almost irresistible urge to respond to interest inspired by "Passion," and will comment on ways in which the Gospel probably distorted the execution of Jesus. Many Jews understand that the canonized accounts were created at a time when early Christians had begun to despair of converting Jews, and instead focused their attention on proselytizing Romans. Hence, orthodox Jews come out looking very bad, while Pilate and other Roman authorities receive less blame. Putting the New Testament account into this perspective may make sense with Jewish audiences, but insisting on this approach with our Christian neighbors is outrageous arrogance. We may not welcome the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but Christians have cherished the record for 2,000 years. The fact that anti-Semites have used these accounts as the inspiration for their depredations may prove that those stories can be dangerous, but it doesn't prove them untrue. Jewish organizations must not attempt to take responsibility for deciding what Christians can and cannot believe. If they do, they force a choice between faithfulness to scripture and amiable relations with Jew ... From a Jewish perspective, the most unfortunate aspect of the dispute involves the renewed focus on Christian scripture when most Americans - including most Jews - remain ignorant of the most fundamental Jewish teachings - other than a general sense that Jews respect Moses and refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah."

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY,
by William A. Donohue, Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, February 4, 2004
"I have seen the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” on two occasions and consider it to be the most moving dramatization of the death of Jesus Christ ever made. It is magnificent beyond words. I stand with those Catholics, Protestants and Jews who have seen the film and do not find it to be anti-Semitic. If I thought it were, I would not hesitate to condemn it. Not everyone has, or will, agree with this assessment. That’s fine. What is not fine is the sheer demagoguery that has accompanied some of the criticism. Last summer, Boston University theology professor Paula Fredriksen said in The New Republic, “When the violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” Fredriksen is a self-described “raised-Catholic, Marxist-feminist convert to Orthodox Judaism.” She did not say “if violence breaks out”—but “when.” More disturbing than Fredriksen has been Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL. Foxman recently gained admission to the film when it was previewed in Orlando; he did so by identifying himself as executive director of The Church of the Truth. In a news release, he wrote, “Will the film trigger pogroms against Jews? Our answer is probably not.” Which means it may. And who exactly is it that Foxman has in mind? On January 23, he was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “[Gibson is] hawking it on a commercial crusade to the churches of this country. That’s what makes it dangerous.” I wrote to him on January 26 asking for an apology, but none has been forthcoming. “To say the film is dangerous because the people who are previewing it are church-going Christians,” I wrote, “is an insult to practicing Christians.” I added, “The subtext of this remark is that church-going Christians are latent anti-Semitic bigots ready to lash out at Jews at any given moment.” This is not an unusual reaction for the ADL. In 1993, when the Passion Play “Jesus Was His Name” was performed in 23 American cities, Rabbi Leon Klenicki, director of the ADL’s interfaith department, warned that the “presentation does not contribute to peace.” The record will show that not one act of violence occurred in any city ... In the late 1960s, a report was submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. The commission, headed by Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, released its findings in a book titled, The History of Violence in America; it was edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr. The principal victims of violence identified in the book are Native Americans, African Americans, Roman Catholics and labor. The worst urban riots occurred in the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s. “Among the most important types of riots,” the report says, “were labor riots, election riots, antiabolitionist riots, anti-Negro riots, anti-Catholic riots, and riots of various sorts involving the turbulent volunteer firemen’s units.” Except for the Civil War draft riots, things settled down after this period. But the point to be made is that the Jewish community, albeit small, was not then, or later, among the most likely to be victimized. Violence against Jews in more recent times has either been waged, or encouraged, by such groups as the Aryan Nation, Christian Identity, National Alliance, National Socialists, Posse Comitatus and Church of the Creator. None of these organizations is remotely Christian and many are indeed hostile to Christians (e.g. Christian Identity and Church of the Creator). The Nation of Islam is another group that is hostile to Jews; it is also hostile to Catholics. Arguably the worst anti-Semitic violence ever to occur—it was certainly in the worst in New York City’s history—was the Crown Heights riots of 1991. That this riot had absolutely nothing to do with a Christian animus toward Jews is disputed by no one. The idea that Christians will attack Jews in the streets after seeing “The Passion of the Christ” is pernicious."

[Catholic Rights crusader Bill Donohue kicks bigoted Jewish Butt on CNN. Note: This transcript below was passed along to us, with its link, by a JTR contributor. It appears to have been censored off the CNN site. Rabbi Hier was indeed scheduled to appear on the Paula Zahn CNN show on February 4, as noted by his Simon Wiesenthal Center. But, alas, it appears the transcript below has disappeared from that day's Paula Zahn transcripts. NOTE: As of February 10, the CNN transcript is again posted.
Paula Zhan Now, [Transcripts]
CNN, February 4, 2004
"Just three weeks before its release, the controversy swirling around Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" continues to rise. For months, critics have warned that the film is anti-Semitic. Now the issue is not what's in the movie but what Gibson is cutting out of it. According to reports, he is deleting a scene that some believe blames Jews for Christ's crucifixion. Paula Zahn talked about the movie with Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Gentlemen, welcome. Delighted to have both of you with us this evening. Bill, I'm going to start with you tonight. If the final cut has this deletion, does that mean Mel Gibson is admitting that that scene was anti-Semitic?
BILL DONOHUE, PRES., CATHOLIC LEAGUE: No, what it means is that Mel Gibson had the common sense not to allow his critics an opportunity to try to attack him on one line. The fact of the matter is, I've seen the movie twice. It wasn't in either version. Rabbi Hier has seen it once. It wasn't in his version. This is not a matter of pressure, it's a matter of Mel Gibson simply saying it's not that critical to the movie. And if people want to make a big deal about that one line, I'm going to take it out. The fact of the matter is, the people who really hate the movie and are out to destroy Mel Gibson on this are still not going to be satisfied.
ZAHN: Rabbi Hier, are you satisfied if this scene goes?
RABBI MARVIN HIER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: First of all, I saw the movie twice. On both occasions, that line was not in there. And the movie is absolutely horrible, as far as Jews are concerned.
COLLINS: Why?
HIER: Because it entirely blames Jews, all of the Jews, not only the high priests but everyone in the mob, hundreds of people. They all look -- their presentation is negative. They have these Rasputin- like features. They never say an intelligent word in a two-hour movie, which is unbelievable. The only Jews that come off as moderates and sensitive are the Jews who follow Jesus. And so there's only one conclusion. Who created all this inhumanity against Jesus? And the answer would be a resounding, The Jews.
COLLINS: All right, let me ask you this, Bill. Did you think the characterizations of all the Jews Rabbi Hier just mentioned that he saw in the film are fair characterizations? DONOHUE: No, I think he's living in la-la land. As a matter of fact, he's going to be thoroughly embarrassed when the average person looks at this movie and they're going to say, What was the fuss about? As Jack Valenti said, What is the fuss about? This is not an anti- Semitic movie, unless you have a need, a deep-seated need to find anti-Semitism and then to attack Christians, which is what Abe Foxman and others have done. This is not an anti-Semitic movie. The pope has endorsed it. People from the Vatican have endorsed it, most Catholics who have seen it, including Jews and Protestants. So are we all a bunch of bigots, Rabbi Hier?
HIER: Excuse me, this is not about Catholics and Jews, nothing to do about Christianity, even though that's the line you're pushing. This has all to do with Mel Gibson. And the pope did not endorse this film. The pope never said, It is as it was. DONOHUE: He did say that, but the Vatican is backtracking! But I'm telling you, Rabbi, you've contributed to it! Do not poison relationships between Christians and Jews by acting like as if there's going to be pogroms in the street! You know it's a lie! There have never been pogroms in the United States! Let's stop with the incendiary language!
COLLINS: All right, Bill, let's let the rabbi respond to that. But I know you have a six-page letter that you will release publicly tomorrow for the first time. Are you essentially saying if there is violence after this film is released that it has something to do with the critics of this film, that it's the Jews' fault?
DONOHUE: No, what I -- just the opposite. I'm saying that the charge of violence is coming from people like Foxman and Paula Friedrickson (ph) and Rabbi Hier bringing up the Holocaust and everything to make Christians feel on the defensive. ZAHN: Rabbi Hier?
HIER: That is absolute nonsense. It's the kind of rhetoric that Mr. Donohue has been...
DONOHUE: What's nonsense?
HIER: Total nonsense that anybody is anti-Christian. What we said is, this film portrays Jews, all Jews, horribly. This was a Mel Gibson choice, nothing to do with the New Testament, nothing to do with the church. There have been other films on Jesus. No one has portrayed Jews as negative as this.
ZAHN: All right, Rabbi Hier, are you suggesting...
HIER: And that is... (CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: ... that this will spark violence against Jews in the United States?
HIER: Not at all. What I'm saying -- this negative portrayal in Europe, in the Arab world, will contribute to negative feelings against Jews. When a 16-year-old sees a film like this, it doesn't have to register that he goes off and firebombs a synagogue now. It's just that in his mind, he said, Gee, that's the way the Jews are, because of his negative portrayal of all Jews, which contributes again to the DSI (ph) charge that it was the Jews collectively that were responsible for the death of Jesus.
DONOHUE: You won't get that from this movie! If, in fact, they were showing collective guilt of Jews then, or even in a more demented sense, to fast-forward to blame Jews today, I'd be the first one to condemn it, Rabbi. But the fact of the matter is, it is wrong to suggest that Mel Gibson is portraying most Jews as responsible. He's talking about a select segment of the Jewish authorities who clamored for the death of Jesus. Now, you will not rewrite the New Testament for Christians in this country! ZAHN: You don't think, in any way, it will contribute to increased hated of Jews? DONOHUE: I will stake my reputation on it right now! People will be paralyzed when they see this movie. They will be breathless. It will bring people back to the church, and it will be a good thing for Catholics and Jews. And the people who are clamoring this -- this rhetoric, this cacophony against Mel Gibson, boy, are they going to have to pay for it when it's all over! (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was Paula's conversation with Bill Donohue and Rabbi Marvin Hier.

[More awakening: We need more mainstream non-Jewish journalists like this directly facing decadent, Christian-hating Jewish Hollywood and the self-veiling Jewish Propaganda Wall squarely. The movies' message is always the same: Catholics are perverts. Jews are saints and you -- as a moral person -- must protect their image.]
Join the clubbed: Catholics know pain of being bashed,
BY RICHARD ROEPER, Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2004
"Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" won't be released until Feb. 25, but it's already one of the most controversial films in history. For months Gibson has been showing rough cuts of the movie to religious leaders in an effort to stem mounting criticism that his interpretation of the last hours of Jesus' life will foster anti-Semitism. I'm not sure the plan is working. Last week I received a 47-page packet from the Chicago chapter of the American Jewish Committee. Titled "The Passion: A Resource Manual," it's filled with background information, essays, biblical passages and even "talking points" about the film. From the cover letter: "As the controversy over Mel Gibson's forthcoming film 'The Passion of the Christ' continues to escalate, [we're] taking this opportunity to provide you with the enclosed resource material on the film and the concerns of the AJC toward it. It is AJC's view, after having viewed two versions of the movie, that the Gibson film represents a reassertion of hurtful and discredited anti-Jewish elements. The film is a disturbing setback to the remarkable achievements in Christian-Jewish relations over the past 40 years . . ." I've seen the version of "The Passion of the Christ" that will play in theaters starting on Ash Wednesday -- and I'll soon share my views on the film. In the meantime, I've been pondering some other religious-themed movies I've seen in my four years on "Ebert & Roeper." Catholicism has been represented far more frequently than any other faith. I've probably seen more films about the Catholic Church (and movies with nuns or priests as supporting characters) than all other religions put together. Just from the last four years, I could easily put together a Catholic Film Festival -- but I don't think too many Catholics would be pleased with the entries. Crooked priests, cruel nuns Last year we had "The Order," a laughable thriller with Heath Ledger as a rebellious Catholic priest investigating the supposed suicide of his mentor. Turns out the elderly priest died after a ritual known as "sin eating." Peter Weller plays a ruthlessly ambitious and sinister cardinal. Then there was "The Magdalene Sisters," an excellent but unforgiving film about the real-life Magdalene laundries in Ireland. In 1964, three young women are sentenced to a convent that is nothing more than a glorified slave labor camp. For years, the girls are subjected to abuse from nuns who are no more sympathetic than Nazi guards. Equally horrible is the priest who sexually abuses a mentally impaired young woman. In "The Affair of the Necklace" (2002), Hilary Swank is an 18th century woman determined to restore her family's good name. She has to contend with Jonathan Pryce's Cardinal de Rohan, a lecherous, despicable schemer. The terrific "Evelyn" (2002) tells the true story of Desmond Doyle, an impoverished single father in Ireland who fought to regain custody of his three children, who by law had been placed in Catholic orphanages. The priests and nuns treat young Evelyn and her sisters with utter cruelty. Catholic-bashing, Part II: In "The Crime of Padre Amaro" (2002), an older priest, Father Benito, has been having an affair with a local woman for years, and he has ties to leftist guerrillas and drug peddlers. When young Father Amaro (Gael Garcia Bernal) arrives, it seems like mere days before he takes up with the 16-year-old daughter of the older priest's mistress. When the girl is impregnated, the young priest takes her to get an abortion. Another 2002 film, "The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys," stars Jodie Foster as the stone-faced, one-legged Sister Assumpta, who torments her young students and calls William Blake "a dangerous thinker." (Movie priests and nuns often rail against thought. In "The Order," a cleric says, "Knowledge is the enemy of faith.") In the leering comedy "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002), Josh Hartnett swears off all sexual contact for 40 days and 40 nights, and if you don't get that subtle biblical reference, Hartnett's brother is a priest, and they often meet in the confessional to gab about sex. Antonio Banderas is a combat soldier-turned-archeologist-turned- priest in "The Body" (2001), and Olivia Williams is the Jewish archeologist who discovers a skeleton that may be the body of Jesus Christ, proving that he was a mere man. (Of course, there's smoldering tension between Banderas and Williams.) Derek Jacobi is an older priest who commits suicide. In these movies, priests are suicidal, corrupt and/or lascivious. Nuns are heartless and sadistic. Before you run to your keyboard: yes, I'm aware of scandals, past and present, involving the church. And yes, some of the films listed above are powerful, important works based on true stories. But a lot of this stuff is just exploitative garbage. And no other religious group gets bashed with such frequency. Can you imagine a similar number of films with Jewish leaders playing villains and moral weaklings? Me neither."

Father Feeney
["Traditionalist" Catholicism. Doesn't shy from the "J" word.]

[It is always Rabbi Daniel Lapin who speaks with dignity and fairness from the Jewish community. EXTREMELY FEW others.]
Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy,
by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Lew Rockwell, September 22, 2003
"Never has a film aroused such hostile passion so long prior to its release as has Mel Gibson's Passion. Many American Jews are alarmed by reports of what they view as potentially anti-Semitic content in this movie about the death of Jesus, which is due to be released during 2004. Clearly the crucifixion of Jesus is a sensitive topic, but prominent Christians who previewed it, including good friends like James Dobson and Michael Novak who have always demonstrated acute sensitivity to Jewish concerns, see it as a religiously inspiring movie, and refute charges that it is anti-Semitic. While most Jews are wisely waiting to see the film before responding, others are either prematurely condemning a movie they have yet to see or violating the confidentiality agreements they signed with Icon Productions. As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson's film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent. I address myself to all my fellow Jews when I say that your interests are not being served by many of those organizations and self-appointed defenders who claim to be acting on your behalf. Just ask yourself who most jeopardizes Jewish safety today, Moslems or Christians? For an explanation of why I believe that those Jews protesting Passion lack moral legitimacy we must take ourselves back in time to the fall of 1999. That was when Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum presented a show called Sensation. It featured, from the collection of British Jew Charles Saatchi, several works which debased Catholicism including Chris Ofili's dung-bedecked Madonna. You may wonder why I highlight the Jewish ethnicity of the players in the Brooklyn Museum saga. My reason for doing so is that everyone else recognized that they were Jewish and there is merit in us knowing how we ourselves appear in the eyes of those among whom we live. This is especially true on those sad occasions when we violate what ancient Jewish wisdom commends as the practice of Kiddush HaShem, which is to say, conducting our public affairs in a way best calculated to bring credit upon us as a group. Maintaining warm relations with our non-Jewish friends is a traditional Jewish imperative and the raison d'être of the organization I serve, Toward Tradition. This was not the first time that Arnold Lehman had chosen to offend Catholics. While he was director of the Baltimore Museum, in a display of gross insensitivity to that city's Catholics, he screened Hell's Angel, a film denouncing Mother Teresa as a religious extremist and depicting her in obscenely uncomplimentary and ghoulish terms. I am sorry to have to tell you that no Jewish organizations protested this gratuitous insult of a universally respected Catholic icon. Almost every Christian organization angrily denounced the vile bigotry sponsored by the Brooklyn Museum. Especially prominent was 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 with elephant feces. 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. Here are a few of the names that were prominently defending the Brooklyn Museum's flagrant anti-Christianism during fall 1999. Norman Siegel and Arthur Eisenberg of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Steven R. Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union, and lawyer Floyd Abrams, cousin of Elliot Abrams who holds the position of top advisor on Israel-related matters in President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Although at synagogues and around dinner tables revulsion at the Sensation exhibit was widespread, not very many Jews publicly supported our Catholic friends in the time of their pain. You may also remember Martin Scorsese's 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ. Then too almost every Christian denomination protested Universal's release of a movie so slanderous that had it been made about Moses, or say, Martin Luther King Junior, it would have provoked howls of anger from the entire country. As it was, Christians were left to defend their faith quite alone other than for one solitary courageous Jew, Dennis Prager. Most Americans knew that Universal was run by Lew Wasserman. Most Americans also knew Lew's ethnicity. Perhaps many now wonder why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman? When the Weinstein brothers, through their Miramax films (named after their parents, Mira and Max Weinstein,) distributed Priest in 1994, Catholics were again left to protest this unflattering depiction of their faith alone while many Jewish organizations proclaimed the primacy of artistic freedom. Surely Jewish organizations would carry just a little more moral authority if they routinely protested all attacks on faith, not only those troubling to Judaism. Oddly enough, Jewish organizations did find one movie so offensive as to warrant protest ... In any event, Jewish moral prestige would stand taller if we were conspicuous in protesting movies that defame any religion. Furthermore, opponents of Passion argue that this movie might cause a backlash against the Jewish community. Yet when so-called art really does encourage violence, for Jewish spokesmen, artistic freedom seems to trump all other concerns. Here is what I mean. During the nineties, record companies run by well-known executives including Michael Fuchs, Gerald Levin, and David Geffen produced obscene records by artists like Geto Boys and Ice-T that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women. In spite of Congressional testimony showing that these songs really did influence teenage behavior, only William Bennett and C. DeLores Tucker, head of the National Political Congress of Black Women, protested Time Warner. During that decade of shockingly hateful music that incited violence, our Jewish organizations only protested Michael Jackson's song "They Don't Care About Us" and the rap group Public Enemy's single "Swindler's Lust," claiming that these songs were anti-Semitic. It is ignoble to ignore the wrongs done to others while loudly deploring those done to us. In truth however, even though Catholics did kill Jews in Europe, I do not believe that the often sad history of Jews in Europe is relevant now. Why not? Because in Europe, Catholic church officials wielded a rapacious combination of ecclesiastical and political power with which they frequently incited illiterate mobs to acts of anti-Jewish violence. In America, no clergyman secures political power along with his ordination certificate, and in America, if there are illiterate and dangerous thugs, Christianity is a cure not the cause. In America, few Jews have ever been murdered, mugged, robbed, or raped by Christians returning home from church on Sunday morning. America is history's most philo-Semitic country, providing the most hospitable home for Jews in the past two thousand years. Suggesting equivalency between American Christians today and those of European history is to be offensive and ungrateful. Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today's American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn't it okay to blame today's Jews for things that our ancestors may have done? Clearly both are wrong and doing so harms our relationships with one of the few groups still friendly toward us today. Jewish groups that fracture friendship between Christians and Jews are performing no valuable service to American Jews. In any event, Jewish organizations protesting Passion are remarkably selective in their ire. It is so bizarre that the new movie Luther, which champions someone who was surely one of history's most eloquent anti-Semites, gets a free pass from our self-appointed Jewish guardians. Only Gibson is evil, is that right? Again, why would the soon-to-be-released new movie, The Gospel of John, be utterly immune to the censoring tactics of certain Jewish organizations? After all, the soundtrack includes virtually every word of the Gospel including the most unflattering descriptions of Jewish priests and Pharisees of Jesus' time, along with implications of their complicity in the Crucifixion, yet not a peep of Jewish organizational protest. Could their conspicuous silence possibly have anything to do with the ethnicity of the producers of The Gospel of John? These include Garth Drabinsky, Sandy Pearl, Joel Michaels, Myron Gottleib, and Martin Katz. So if Jews quote the Gospel it is art but if Mel Gibson does the same, it is anti-Semitism? The Talmudic distinction eludes me. It probably eludes most Christians too. These protests against Passion are not only morally indefensible, but they are also stupid, for three reasons. The first reason is that that they are unlikely to change the outcome of the film. Mr. Gibson is an artist and a Catholic of deep faith of which this movie is an expression. By all accounts, his motive in making this movie was not commercial. In addition, anyone who saw his Braveheart would suspect that Mel Gibson profoundly identified with the hero of that epic, who allowed himself to be violently disemboweled rather than betray his principles. Does anyone really believe that Gibson is likely to yield to threats from Jewish organizations? The second and more important reason I consider these protests to be ill-advised. While Jews are telling Gibson that his movie contradicts historical records about who really killed Jesus, Vatican Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos has this to say: Mr. Gibson has had to make many artistic choices in the way he portrays the characters and the events involved in the Passion, and he has complemented the Gospel narrative with the insights and reflections made by saints and mystics through the centuries. Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those Biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church. Do we really want to open up the Pandora's box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about ten seconds."

Hollywood's Hatred for God,
by Matt C. Abbott, seethepassion.com (from Michigan Nesw), February 11, 2004 --"You gotta love Hollywood. Some years ago, it was the late famed-director Elia Kazan who was being vilified for "outing" actor-communists who riddled the movie industry. Today, it is famed-actor/director Mel Gibson who is being vilified for portraying the New Testament in a positive light. His movie, "The Passion of the Christ," is anti-Semitic, they say. And they - meaning the gutless, decadent wonders who run Tinsletown - have made known their opinion(s) of Gibson and his film. Said one anonymous executive: ''[Heinrich] Himmler could have cast ["The Passion of the Christ"]. Everybody looks like they're auditioning for the part of Fagin.'' Oh, and this person is identified as a Christian. Said another: ''[Gibson has] been very shrewd. He has positioned this picture very well politically. For a movie he made for next to nothing -- in Aramaic -- Gibson and his people have done a pretty good job of creating awareness...I just don't want to see [for himself] that kind of relentlessly brutal movie." (Quotes are from a Feb. 10 story in the Boston Globe, titled "Actor's film of 'Passion' is others' fury," by Michael Paulson and Ty Burr.) Ah. I wonder if this unnamed Hollywood executive refused to see "Schindler's List" because of it being "relentlessly brutal." And I wonder if he refused to see blatantly anti-Christian/Catholic films like "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Agnes of God," "Priest," "Dogma" and so on, because they malign Christianity and the Church. I don't think it would be a stretch to answer in the negative. But we know the real reason behind Hollywood's anger at Gibson. He's made a movie that glorifies God. You're not supposed to do that. If it mocks God and organized religion, that's fine. But since "The Passion of the Christ" promotes Christianity, and because it's being used as a tool for evangelization, it's a threat to the establishment. The liberal establishment, that is. Again quoting from the Globe story: "Said David Kanter, a manager and producer for the Culver City-based production company and talent agency Anonymous Content, 'People feel betrayed, because here's a nice guy who has done the time and worked really hard in the business, creating a statement that many, many people are going to find offensive'." There you have it. "Many, many people" (anti-Christian bigots?) will be offended by "The Passion of the Christ." Why? Because it dares to promote the New Testament. It dares to promote God. And, of course, Mel Gibson is a conservative."

[Another declaration of Jewish War. This article is from the new web site See the Passion, which sometimes posts outrageous Judeocentric material the way we do. The article below is originally from The Jerusalem Post and features well-known rabbi Shumley Boteach, who has written books on "kosher sex," craved media attention by hanging out with Michael Jackson, and so forth. You'll notice that Boteach's article below includes an attack on the New Testament (i.e., Christianity) which is what Jewish hatred of Mel Gibson is really all about. The widespread Jewish attack on Mel Gibson movie is drawing the lines in the sand very clearly. Boycott "The Passion?" By exactly the same token, why not boycott Jews?]
Boycott 'The Passion of the Christ',
by Shmuley Boteach, seethepassin.com (from The Jerusaelm Post), February 11, 2004
"I have written a lengthy refutation of the New Testament's passion narratives... it is based on an anti-Semitic lie, a cheap fabrication contradicted by all serious history of the time. Has the real Mel Gibson been kidnapped by space aliens, leaving a Jew-hating, racist, body-double in his place? Remember the days when Mel was running around shooting people with Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, making us all feel warm and fuzzy about an intimate, on-screen friendship between a white man and a black man? Is this the same Mel Gibson who has now staked a huge amount of his wealth and all of his Hollywood prestige on making a movie that portrays Jews as demonic God-killers? Is it the same Mel who shockingly told Peggy Noonan, when she asked him whether the Holocaust happened, "Yes of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union" ... As a religious man, I was greatly inspired by his commitment to his Catholicism. But all that is behind me now. Because whether Mel hit his head against a rock or just decided to follow in the footsteps of his Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic father, the Mel Gibson that first charmed us as an innocent-looking Australian soldier in Gallipoli seems gone forever. In his place has arisen a kooky religious fundamentalist who seems intent on reversing the reforms of Vatican II, which officially absolved the Jews of deicide, and convincing the world that, indeed, the Jews did it. If I were a high-profile person and was asked to comment on my father's statement that the "Second Vatican Council was a plot put out by the Jews" and that the Holocaust could not have happened because "there weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe," I would shout from the rooftops that I love my dad, but that doesn't excuse his being a racist. Instead, Mel has yet to publicly distance himself from his father's Jew-hating tirades. Contrast this with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who reacted to the news of his father's Nazi past by requisitioning the Simon Wiesenthal Center to probe whether his father committed atrocities. Schwarzenegger went further and publicly denounced the Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider, who praised Hitler's SS troops. But all of this is small potatoes compared to the real meat of Mel's passion for his movie The Passion of Christ. Elsewhere, I have written a lengthy refutation of the New Testament's passion narratives, where I also emphasized that whether or not Mel's movie will excite anti-Semitism is beside the point, since the bigger issue is that it is based on an anti-Semitic lie, a cheap fabrication contradicted by all serious history of the time ... Clearly, this is a later fabrication used to justify Christian anti-Judaism, and a pathetic attempt on the part of the fledgling Christian community to suck up to the powerful Romans by portraying them as humane and innocent and the Jews as vengeful and vicious. The simple and undeniable fact is that Jesus was condemned in a Roman court on a Roman charge, and put to death by a method of execution used only by the Romans, just as the two leading historians of the time, Josephus and Tacitus, expressly maintain. While Mel may be prepared to do Jews the favor of deleting a single offensive scene, I believe that the Jews – and every decent person who hates bigotry – should go the whole nine yards and delete the entire movie by boycotting it, for the whole message is odious and offensive. Is there really a more serious charge against a people than that they killed God? I am at a loss to explain the silence on the part of Hollywood's Jewish celebrities and media moguls regarding Mel's movie. Why aren't people like Steven Spielberg protesting the horrible message of this loathsome film? Where is Barbra Streisand – so vocal in her attacks on Republicans – on a movie that portrays her people as deicidal villains? Are Hollywood's Jewish celebrities afraid to criticize the movie because it's "art" even when that art brings to life a story that has been responsible for the slaughter of our people for centuries? Calling someone an anti-Semite is about as big an insult as one can hurl, and I for one am forever careful in its usage. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If a man comes along who isn't prepared to acknowledge the special crime of the Holocaust, makes a movie that portrays Jews as wicked God-killers, and is prepared to risk his illustrious career on the making of that movie, well, quack, quack, quack."

[It is increasingly necessary for people of principle to stand up to the Christian-hating Jewish Lobby. William Donohue, unlike many, has a spine.]
IS MEL AN ANTI-SEMITE?,
Catholic Legue for Civil and Religious Rights, February 12, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the way ADL national director Abraham Foxman has handled questions on Mel Gibson’s alleged anti-Semitism: “Foxman is an Orwellian genius at having it both ways. When directly asked whether Mel is an anti-Semite, he never says he is. But then Foxman proceeds to indict him anyway. For example, on September 19 the ADL leader was quoted by the Associated Press saying, ‘[Mel Gibson] entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.’ On November 7, Foxman was quoted by Cybercast News Service saying, ‘I think he’s [Gibson] infected—seriously infected—with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views. [Gibson’s] got classical anti-Semitic views.’ “Foxman just got back from the Breakers in Palm Beach where the ADL had an executive meeting. He released a statement yesterday that was textbook doublespeak: ‘Is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? No. He’s a true believer. Is his anti-Semitism intentional? I don’t believe so.’ “Now let’s see how this magisterial logic sounds when applied to Foxman. Imagine if someone said, ‘Is Abraham Foxman an anti-Catholic? No. He’s a true believer. Is his anti-Catholicism intentional? I don’t believe so.’ “Is there any doubt that Foxman would conclude that he’s just been branded anti-Catholic? “It’s time to stop the dance. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, Foxman should not hesitate to call him one (and provide the evidence). But if he’s not—if his biggest sin is that he made a movie that doesn’t sit well with Foxman—then it’s irresponsible to suggest he is.”

[How is it that a Jew, James Shapiro, is the leading expert on the Christian Passion Play? It is the Jewish desire to dictate the Christian experience as fundamentally rooted in "anti-Semitism," towards destroying the reality of Christ's revolt against Judaism. Enough Jewish "experts," in every direction, of things that are not theirs! Let them explain in detail their own racist Talmud and murdered Palestinian babies to the rest of the world. ]
WILL JEWS BE ASSAULTED AFTER “THE PASSION”?,
Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, February 10, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue offered the following reply to the question posed in this news release: “After the Mel Gibson movie, ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ opens on February 25, some are saying that Jews may be attacked by Christians. No one has raised the specter of violence more than ADL director Abraham Foxman. On January 23, in the Los Angeles Times, he accused Gibson of ‘hawking it [the film] on a commercial crusade to the churches of this country. That’s what makes it dangerous.’ Not only has Foxman not responded to my request for an apology, he has upped the ante. “A recent ADL fundraising letter read, ‘Of great concern to the Anti-Defamation League is the possibility that individuals are more likely to be targets of attack, simply because they are ‘different.’ On February 7, in the pages of the Detroit Free Press, he was more explicit. Commenting on Passion Plays throughout the centuries, Foxman opined, ‘We know those plays rationalized anti-Semitic behavior. We fear this will, too.’ “The nation’s leading scholar on Passion Plays is Columbia University professor James Shapiro, author of Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World’s Most Famous Passion Play. I asked him last week when was the last time Jews were beaten up after a Passion Play. Aside from one Catholic convert in Nazi Germany who was attacked, we have to go back to the Middle Ages to find examples. And in the U.S., there is no record of violence against Jews following any Passion Play. In short, there is no need to call out the National Guard. “Foxman is worried about more than violence. On February 7, he was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel saying Gibson’s work ‘is not being sold as a movie. It’s being sold as a religious experience, as a pilgrimage, as a way back to faith.’ “So this is Foxman’s worst nightmare: Gibson’s film might actually inspire lapsed Christians to return to the faith. That says it all.”

Gibson's 'Passion' in Very 'Select' Theatres,
by Roger Friedman, Fox News, February 13, 2004
"Only If you live on the west side of Manhattan, on most of western Long Island, or in Beverly Hills and you want to see Mel Gibson's controversial new movie "The Passion of the Christ," you will be out of luck. When the film — which some critics are calling anti-Semitic and inflammatory — opens on Feb. 25, it will be in very select theatres only. Even though the makers of "The Passion of the Christ" are touting its 2,000 screen premiere, the movie's Web site and another Web site, moviefone.com, tell a very different story. For example, in the borough of Manhattan in New York City, the film will play in a handful of out-of-the-way-theatres — one in Times Square, two in fringe areas of the East Side, one second-run theatre at Broadway and 100th St. and one in Harlem. There will be one screen below 34th St, and none from 42nd St. to 96th St. on the West Side. This excludes all prestige venues like the Ziegfeld, the Paris, the Beekman and Sony Lincoln Square. Theater-goers will also be hard-pressed to find "The Passion of the Christ" in Nassau County, Long Island on either the south or north shore, or in affluent Westchester County, New York ... All of this seems designed to keep "The Passion of the Christ" out of neighborhoods that are considered Jewish, upscale or liberal. On the other hand, Tennessee is targeted for "The Passion of the Christ" with eight locations in Memphis and four each in Nashville and Knoxville. The number of theaters in many more states like Florida, Kentucky, Alabama and Oklahoma is high, especially in rural areas. In Florida, for example, Jacksonville and Tampa — more northern and central cities — will have "Passion" on four or more screens, while typically Jewish areas like Boca Raton will have it one screen if at all. In Miami, where there's a huge Catholic-Cuban population, "The Passion of the Christ" will play in 10 theaters. In Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas of Texas, there are the same number of theaters or more. Texas, in fact, will offer the most opportunities in the country to see the film. Newmarket Films, which is distributing the movie, seems to have picked a pattern that concentrates heavily on the south and the Midwest, focusing on the Bible Belt and locations where "The Passion of the Christ" will meet with the least resistance. ... Katie Couric: No 'Tsouris' Someone tell Adam Sandler to add another name to his funny Chanukah song about stars who are even a drop Kosher. The always charming "Today Show" host Katie Couric fessed up on Wednesday night that her mother is Jewish. Even though Katie was raised an Episcopalian, I'm sure Sandler will rhyme "Couric" with "tsouris." (That's trouble, in Yiddish.) It has to be! Katie was one of the stars at a very A-list cocktail party Wednesday night for former Bill Clinton speechwriter Mark Katz. His book "Clinton and Me" is a very amusing memoir of the last administration, and Katz pulled quite a crowd to Holly Peterson's Park Avenue apartment ..."

FOX NEWS TWISTS FACTS ON GIBSON FILM,
Catholic League for Civil and Religius Rights, February 13, 2004
"The Fox News Channel website has an article today by Roger Friedman that takes Mel Gibson to task for selectively distributing “The Passion of the Christ.” After detailing where the movie will be shown, he then says Gibson “consciously created a divisive atmosphere for the presentation of his film.” He also charges, “All this seems designed to keep ‘The Passion of the Christ’ out of neighborhoods that are considered Jewish, upscale, or liberal.” Here’s how Catholic League president William Donohue responded: “Roger Friedman says the movie will be shown in two Chicago theaters; in fact it will be shown in seven. He says it will not be shown in the L.A. neighborhood of Century City; in fact it will be shown at the AMC in Century City. He says it will not be shown in the ‘wealthier and trendier parts’ of Los Angeles; in fact it will be shown in Marina del Rey, Burbank and Santa Monica. He says it will not be shown in New York’s Upper West Side; in fact it will be shown at 86th and Broadway. He says it will be shown only in the ‘fringe areas’ of the Upper East Side; in fact it will be shown at 86th and 3rd and 64th and 2nd. He says it will be shown at one theater below 34th Street; in fact it will be shown at three. He says it will be hard to find in Nassau County, Long Island; in fact it will be shown in seven theaters there. He says that theater-goers will be ‘hard pressed’ to find it in ‘either the south or north shore’ of Long Island; in fact it will be shown in towns like Glen Cove and Port Washington on the north shore and Merrick and Seaford on the south shore. He says those who live in Westchester will also find it difficult to see the movie; in fact it will be shown in Larchmont, New Rochelle and Yonkers. And so on. “Taking a course in Geography 101 might cure some of Friedman’s problems, but it would not be enough. That’s because his forced conclusion suggests something else is at work: to say that Gibson is intentionally keeping the film away from Jews and the rich is not only flatly wrong, it smacks of malice. We look for Fox to correct itself.”

See also, The Jewish War Against Mel Gibson, pt.2

See also: The Jewish War Against Christianity

JEWISH TRIBAL REVIEW