[Jewish-Zionist Hollywood continues its strangling of Mel Gibson. All bow to the Jewish Lords of Sacred Innocense. May they bless us with another Porno Movie sacrament and guide us down the Kosher Path about them: See no Evil. Hear no Evil.]
Thanks Mel Gibson, Just What We Needed,
by Jack Engelhard, Israel National News, February 5, 2004
"Now we can talk about Mel Gibson. I can't jump all over the guy because I don't know him, or his movie (timed to open Ash Wednesday, February 25), though given his family ties (parents increasingly on display as clear and present Holocaust deniers), perhaps this is one apple that didn't fall far from the tree. I may have spotted him in LA while Paramount was filming my book Indecent Proposal. We were doing lunch at Toscano's (I think it was) and someone gushed, "Oh, there's Julia Roberts, and oh, there's Mel Gibson. He's so cool!" That's lunch in Hollywood. I do know this, the damage has already been done. We don't even need the movie. The mobs have been alerted. We can't underestimate the star power Gibson uses to bring on these mobs. Hey, Justin Timberlake says that moment with Janet Jackson was a "wardrobe malfunction," so that's what it was, right? He's a star, so he must be right. Gibson says that's the way it was 2,000 years ago, so that's the way it was. He's a star. (Routinely voted number one.) So it's okay to blame the Jews because who says so? Mel Gibson, and he's cool. Gibson (as quoted in the New York Times) says we should share love "despite our differences." What differences, Mel? There weren't any, as of late, until you brought it up. Gibson is guilty of setting a new standard for Jew-hatred, his own, which now goes out to the generations young and old with his undisputable Hollywood stamp and zip code. What's the real crime? A Hollywood icon trading on his fame to yell "Christ-killer!" in a crowded theater. (More than 2,000 of them for the opening in this country alone.) Supposedly he's making late scratches and additions to stop the bleeding. Will any of that make a difference in Europe and throughout the Arab world? I don't think so. The prequel damage? One email exchange tells the story, wherein a leading American Catholic, who claimed that Gibson had the Pope's support, told an Israeli to "take a walk" when the Israeli noted that the Vatican itself came out and said no such blessing had been given. The Israeli asked for a retraction. "Got your message," wrote back Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, "Take a walk." Take a walk? That hasn't been part of our Christian-Jewish dialogue for quite some time. We were starting to make amends. But open this door and all kinds of old goo comes gushing out. That much Gibson has already achieved, and that is near unforgivable. It is tough being Jewish. We've already got a billion and a half Muslims at our throats, and now this business all over again? Sometimes life is one bad hair day after another. I'll let the theologians go back and forth on the Biblical merits of Mel's Passion, which, for the sake of authenticity, is supposedly spoken in the language of the times, but also comes with music. (I doubt that a Hollywood soundtrack came with those events of 2,000 years ago.) The finest book on (and against) anti-Semitism was written by a Catholic priest (I wish I could remember his name) who documented Jewish history year by year, pogrom by pogrom, and so much of it sparked by the Passion. Those were only plays. Imagine what a movie can do! I caught a snippet of it on Fox's O'Reilly, when Gibson came on to lament that he was being crucified. (The Jews are doing it again, and to me!) ... I don't know Mel Gibson's substance. He does have, the girls tell me, a pretty face. But I suspect that deep inside there is another Picture of Mel Gibson." Jack Engelhard is the author of the novel Indecent Proposal and the award-winning memoir Escape From Mount Moriah. His novel The Days of the Bitter End is being prepared for movie production."

ADL Insults Millions of Christian Victims of Communist Genocide,
SupportMelGibson.com
"Mr. Gibson was correct to put the Jewish holocaust in its proper perspective: as but one example of man's inhumanity towards man from a tragic century of death. Curiously, this well-balanced response has attracted the ire of Jewish leaders- Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center responded: "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." Abe Foxman of the ADL attacked as well: "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." Foxman's comments have drawn me out and it is time that some more cards be layed on the table in regards to the historical record. Jews want a monopoly on being victims; if any other suffering group of people, whether they be Christian Russians, sub-Saharan Africans, or Armenians, claims to have suffered an equivalent injustice, they are quick to defend the "unparalleled evil" of the Jewish holocaust. I happen to believe that one human life is one human life. I can think of several examples that far exceed the Jewish holocaust in depravity: The Red Chinese murdered over 50 million to secure their hold on the government against nationalist forces. The Soviet Union systemically murdered over 20 million people, including millions of Ukrainian Christians who were deliberately starved to death. In America alone, over 30 million unborn children have been murdered at the hands of abortionists. This Jewish claim of unique suffering is ridiculous, and yet another example of the "victim mentality" complex that seems to afflict them as a people. Let us consider Foxman's statement that "dying in a famine" is different than "being cremated for who they are." In a November 16, 2003 article for the Toronto Sun, Eric Margolis detailed the "forgotten" Holocaust of 1932-3 that killed over seven million Ukrainians: Stalin declared war on his own people in 1932, sending Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch and NKVD secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization. Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot. During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Abe Foxman claims that the millions of Christians who were deliberately starved by Stalin's government merely "died in a famine." This is like saying that Jews who were shot in the Jewish holocaust were "died due to inhaled poison." Foxman has insulted the survivors of the Ukrainian Holocaust and has insulted Christians everywhere by claiming a Jewish monopoly as victims of the evils of atheistic regimes. However, there may be a darker reason for Foxman's comment. The article goes on to mention that, "Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish..." Foxman could be signaling a most hateful insult, that Gentile suffering is of no consequence compared to that of Jews, dismissing the deaths of Ukrainians as if they were a herd of cattle. When I think of all of the innocent blood that has been spilled in the name of equality and atheism in this century, I cannot help but rise up in anger at Foxman's insensitivity to the sufferings of Christians. Dare I notice that this is the same group of people that killed Christ and persecuted early Christians? Dare I notice that this group of people was primarily responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions of Ukrainians? Dare I notice that the preferred response of this group is not respectful dialogue, but lies, propaganda, and character assassination? Dare I notice that this group continues to seek to shut off the kingdom of God by attempting to censor this movie? All Christians must at some point conclude that the assumption of mutual and reciprocal goodwill with the leadership of the Jewish community is flawed. As Christ warned, they hate us because they hated Him. May God be with Mel Gibson during this trying time and may God guide the hearts of Christians to stand up to these endless insults to their faith and religion."

[Here's a guy whos very job is to kiss Jewish Butt. Restating "rules?" "Ancient errors?" Then all of the Jewish Old Testament is "an ancient error," subject too to revisionist "rules." This Judeocentric sycophant has had too many expensive dinners with the rich Jewish Lobby as Palestianian children were being slaughtered beneath his fine fork. Protecting Jewish Power and Racism isn't the job of the Church: it is the task of well-paid mercenaries. Christianity and Judaism aren't the same. Christ revolted against Israelite dictate, and that is the foundation of Christianity. The last sentence in this article is the veritable definition of propaganda: the declaration that Jews must be portrayed in a "positive" light -- as if this is the moral purpose of the entirety of the Christian world: not only forgiving, but erasing every Jewish sin in history. Why is the modern day Church so incredibly weak? Because it doesn't stand up for anything -- including itself against intensive Jewish demand and revisionism.]
Church Expert Restates Rules for Passion Portrayal,
Yahoo! News (from Reuters), February 7, 2004
"As interfaith temperatures rise before Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" film opens, a U.S. Catholic expert recalled on Friday the Vatican's strict rules on depicting a Jewish role in Jesus Christ's death. Eugene J. Fisher, the Church's top U.S. expert in relations with Jews, said "ancient errors" in interpreting the Gospels had given rise to the "unjust and unjustified view" that Jews were collectively responsible for the crucifixion. He did not directly mention The Passion, which U.S. Jewish leaders have loudly denounced as a damaging film portraying Jews as Christ-killers, but the timing and tone of his article in the U.S. Jesuit weekly America made the link clear. Fisher also said the American bishops would stress this message by issuing a book of official Catholic guidelines about portraying Christ's death just before Ash Wednesday, February 25 -- the day Gibson's film is to be released. "It is impossible to overstate the importance of the church's call to Catholic preachers and teachers to exercise an 'overriding preoccupation' with getting the Gospel accounts of Jesus's arrest, Passion and death just right," he wrote. "Both Christians and Jews involved in (interreligious) dialogue rightly understand that removing once and for all the ancient charge of 'deicide' is the litmus test of the integrity of all our efforts." Catholics involved in dialogue with Jews have said privately that Gibson's film was complicating their work because of its apparently harsh depiction of Jews. "I hope it all blows over quickly," one Midwestern priest told Reuters. Jewish leaders who have seen the latest version of the film say it depicts Jews as sinister and includes a line from Matthew -- "His blood be on us and our children" -- which has been used for centuries to blame Jews for Christ's death. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said last month the film made Jews look evil and sinister "like dark-eyed Rasputins." Fisher said Church guidelines set down that any depiction of Christ's Passion must stress the Christian teaching that Jesus died for mankind's sins and not because of "the particular Jews or Romans who were historically involved." Passion plays must put the story in context because the four Gospels differ in style and substance. "It is not enough simply to say that a given passage is 'in the Bible'," he said. Gibson has said his screenplay was based faithfully on the Gospels. "The presentation of Judaism must be nuanced," Fisher wrote. "Positive images of Jews and Judaism from Scriptures should be as or more plentiful than negative ones."

'Passion' spoof sparks spat, [in "Breaking News" section at home page]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 14, 2003
"A Jewish magazine and its publicist parted ways over an upcoming satire about a Mel Gibson movie on Jesus. Celebrity publicist Susan Blond told JTA a photo spread about the movie "The Passion of the Christ" in the Feb. 25 issue of Heeb magazine, a client of hers, insulted her. Blond, a ba'al tshuvah, or recent adherent to Orthodoxy, said she dropped the account because of pictures depicting Jesus wearing a tallit, or prayer shawl, as a loin cloth, and of the Virgin Mary with pierced nipples. "I couldn't live with myself," she said. Joshua Neuman, Heeb's editor-in-chief, called Blond's descriptions of the photos "inaccurate," saying that the feature, "Back Off, Braveheart," tackles "a really important issue that many young Jews in America today are talking about."

[JTR Contibutor's Comment: "Make sure you watch the interview on ABC's Primetime Special Edition tommorrow, Monday, February 16 (airs 10 pm EST here on the East Coast) which is Diane Sawyer's interview with Mel Gibson about the movie Passion of Christ. Remember of course that Diane Sawyer's husband, Mike Nichols (born Michael Igor Peschkowsky), a bigshot Hollywood movie director and producer, is Jewish. All this raucous about a movie that is being true to the Gospels. If it were a movie mocking Christianity, Catholicism or the Pope (the Jews love attacking the Holy Father), the Jews would be applauding it and Hollywood's Jews would be funding it down to the last penny. But make a movie about how the Jews persecuted someone they saw as a threat to their ways, well documented in the Gospels as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and you've got B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups screaming "anti-Semitism"!"]

[Note the Judeocentric spin here: it is GIBSON who is the schemer. The ADL's critique of "The Passion" has apparently been in 22% of media stories about the movie. Not quite completely omnipresent, but not bad for a leech. In other words, every fifth article about the film has the ADL sucking the Passion's blood. Imagine if 22% of all media articles about Judaism also contained criticism that the entire religion is racist and a threat to Gentiles! Won't happen. Wonder why.]
Anti-Defamation League plays into Gibson's hands,
By David Klinghoffer, Seattle Times, February 6, 2004
"Mel Gibson's film about the death of Jesus, "The Passion of the Christ," opens this month, critics contend that it may spur anti-Jewish bigotry. Those critics have been led by the Anti-Defamation League, arguably America's most prominent Jewish organization. If the ADL is right that the film "could fuel latent anti-Semitism," whom should we hold responsible if any Jews get hurt as a consequence of its release? Mel Gibson, you say? How about the Anti-Defamation League? This film will be seen by lots and lots of people, thanks largely to the controversy around it, and nobody has done more to fan that controversy into a roaring blaze than the ADL. Fears about Gibson's "Passion," which apparently depicts Jews egging on Christ's crucifixion, were heightened when it was reported that audience excitement is running so strong that the distributor will open it on 2,000 screens nationwide. Church groups are clamoring for blocks of tickets, and one Dallas-area multiplex will show it on all 20 screens starting at 6:30 a.m. of the release date, Feb. 25. Why is "The Passion" likely to be the year's big event movie? ... A Lexis-Nexis search of articles in newspapers that mentioned "The Passion" over the past six months shows that 22 percent also cited the ADL and its critique — an impressive statistic. The ADL was more often mentioned than the film's star, James Caviezel, who plays Jesus. The whole atmosphere of debate, worry and accusation has been invaluable to Gibson in generating anticipation of his work, on which he is personally spending $25 million. Lucky for him the Anti-Defamation League was on the case. If one of the organization's chief purposes is to minimize the impact of negative depictions of Jews in the media, then it has succeeded here in doing the exact opposite. As the ADL states in its latest fund-raising mailer, referring to bigotry in general, "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.' " For every individual who sees the Gibson film, the odds of some other individual being attacked because he's Jewish are, presumably, increased. So what did ADL think its relentless criticism of "The Passion" would accomplish? Gibson is the last person in all of Hollywood to bow to hostile pressure to edit his work. A news story this week suggested that the filmmaker may have cut an inflammatory verse from Matthew's Gospel — but this was due to reactions of friendly screening audiences, not thanks to the ADL, which continues to attack the film. As the Seattle-based interfaith activist Rabbi Daniel Lapin observes, Gibson is the guy who made "Braveheart" and identifies with its hero, William Wallace, a 13th-century Scottish warrior who gladly accepts disembowelment rather than submit to intimidation and tyranny. The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, genuinely cares about the Jewish people, but his group is inevitably affected by the pressures of funding a large, nonprofit organization. The imperative to convince donors that you fight an urgent fight is overwhelming. The ADL has a $40 million yearly budget to raise. The perilous logic of the anti-defamation business demands that the ADL find "dangers" to denounce, even when those dangers, if left alone, would have been neutralized simply by their own nature — in this case, by the eccentricity of a Latin-Aramaic screenplay. Gibson's purposes positively required that he be denounced. He played the ADL as William Wallace played the bagpipe. The relationship between anti-defamation watchdogs and alleged defamer is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. What dangers it has unleashed for the rest of us remain to be seen." David Klinghoffer, who lives on Mercer Island, is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of the forthcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In Search of the Turning Point in Western History" (Doubleday)."

[Mel Gibson is a hero. A man who stands up for his moral and religious convictions in Hollywood (or, for that matter, anywhere these days) is as rare as a diamond in the sewer system. Rabbi Lapin below writes honestly (awesome!), except for one thing. Widespread Jewish hatred for Christ and Christianity is the norm, and it is not just "Jewish organizations" (where do these many multi-million dollar fascistic groups come from? --Jewish Amercan support everywhere). Jews have been central in destroying religion in America. Lapin's view is extremely rare among Jews. Where are all the rabbis and mainstream Jews who line up behind him? They do not exist. Lapin -- well known for this honesty below -- is an anomaly, as always. Note that this article is posted at Rabbi Lapin's own organization, Toward Tradition, not throughout the Judeocentric mass media. Or even the Jewish ethnic media.]
Why Mel Owes One To The Jews,
By Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition, February 12, 2004
"Two weeks before Mel Gibson's Passion flashes onto two thousand screens, online ticket merchants are reporting that up to half their total sales are for advance purchases for Passion. One Dallas multiplex has reserved all twenty of its screens for The Passion. I am neither a prophet nor a movie critic. I am merely an Orthodox rabbi using ancient Jewish wisdom to make three predictions about The Passion. One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. Those distributors who surrendered to pressure from Jewish organizations and passed on Passion will be kicking themselves, while Newmarket Films will laugh all the way to the bank. Theater owners are going to love this film. Two, Passion will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made. It will be one of the most talked-about entertainment events in history, it is currently on the cover of Newsweek and Vanity Fair. My third prediction is that the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them. Passion will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening. Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them. Here I digress slightly to exercise the Jewish value of "giving the benefit of the doubt" by discounting cynical suggestions growing in popularity, that the very public nature of their attack on Gibson exposed their real purpose-fundraising. Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d'être. But let's assume they were hoping to help Jews. However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity, in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt, and resentment. Hosting the Toward Tradition Radio Show and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling. Fearful of attracting the ire of Jewish groups that are so quick to hurl the "anti-Semite" epithet, some Christians are reluctant to speak out. Although one can bludgeon resentful people into silence, behind closed doors emotions continue to simmer. I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel. From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture "really means." Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, "We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in." He happens to be a respected rabbi and a good one, but he too has bought into the preposterous proposition that Jews will reeducate Christians about Christian theology and history. Is it any wonder that this breathtaking arrogance spurs bitterness? Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews' best (and perhaps, only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that Passion is revealing startling new information about the Crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators. Christians are baffled by Jews who don't understand that President George Washington, who knew and revered every word of the Gospels, was still able to write that oft-quoted beautiful letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, offering friendship and full participation in America to the Jewish community. One of the directors of the AJC recently warned that Passion "could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that's going on in this country. We're not allowing the film to do that." No sir, it isn't the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so. Jewish organizations, hoping to help but failing so spectacularly, refutes all myths of Jewish intelligence. How could their plans have been so misguided and the execution so inept? Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that nothing confuses one's thinking more than being in the grip of the two powerful emotions, love and hate. The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews. Today, peril threatens all Americans, both Jews and Christians. Many of the men and women in the front lines find great support in their Christian faith. It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate. A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood. For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers. God help us."

[Abe Foxman is like an incessantly nagging pimp on a streetcorner for a giant Jewish Mafia whorehouse. He personally maintains the hustling Shylock image as a Jewish icon, tugging on the sleeve of everyone who goes by: "Wanna buy a kosher Catholicism?" Hey, Jews. The Pope says he's tired of YOU deciding what Catholics believe. He says get out of his face and Go to Hell. How the Jews stole Catholicism, here.]
Jewish Leader Wants Vatican Stand on Gibson Film,
by Philip Pullella, ABC News, Feb. 17, 2004
"One of the world's most prominent Jewish leaders urged the Vatican Tuesday to instruct Catholics around the world that Mel Gibson's controversial film on Christ's passion was "Mel's gospel" and not Rome's gospel. Many Jews have expressed great concern that the film "The Passion of the Christ," based on gospel accounts but also on the visions of a 19th century mystical nun, may inflame anti-Semitism and set back Jewish-Catholic dialogue. In an interview with Reuters Television after he met Vatican officials, Abraham Foxman, U.S. director of the Anti-Defamation League, an independent Jewish pressure group, said the film portrayed Jews as bloodthirsty and vengeful. He also challenged Gibson to add a post-script to the film and tell audiences it should not be seen as anti-Jewish. "It's Mel Gibson's version of the gospel, it's Mel's gospel. He's entitled but he's promoting it as the gospel truth," Foxman said in the interview in the shadow of Rome's synagogue, just across the Tiber River from the Vatican. "He's promoting it as biblical, historical truth and I believe the Church has a responsibility to its teachings, its interpretation, and this is at variance with what the Church is all about." Foxman, who met several Vatican officials, urged them to instruct bishops around the world to issue statements locally telling their faithful that the film is an artistic work and not a pure portrayal of gospel accounts ... Foxman said the violent film, which depicts the last 12 hours in Christ's life, betrayed a landmark Second Vatican Council statement in 1965 which repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for his death. "It is the old, medieval, classical interpretation of deicide which blames the Jews and it will be seen by millions of viewers," he said. The film opens in the United States on February 25, Ash Wednesday. "I would hope that the Vatican and the Catholic Church would stand up to defend its teachings because in fact what the film is an interpretation that challenges what the Church has been teaching for the past 40 years," he said. "If the Church reminds those viewers of its interpretation of history, its interpretation of the Gospel, its understanding of Biblical history...it will act in a large measure to inoculate against the possibility of anti-Semitism."

[More Jewish "hate." What is a Christian in Jewish lore? An animal. And by the way. If the New Testament is "myth," then the Old Testament (Torah- the origin of Jewish identity) is no less myth -- as real as the faded parchment of a Superman comic book. Super-ancient Abraham and Moses are better documented than Jesus? Sorry. If Christian identity is "myth," then the entirety of Jewish identity itself is founded upon illusion -- the Talmud was invented thousands of years after the original "mythological" Jewish characters. Jesus was born last week in comparison. But the greatest "myth" in modern Jewish identity (MYTH among myths) is that of "anti-Semitism." Reality says this: Jews (or anybody) reap what they sow. If you truly need "pogroms" to maintain your identity, sooner or later you will provoke them -- literally or figuratively.]
Mel Gibson's fake "Passionate" effects,
By Emanuel A. Winston, Israel Insider, February 18, 2004
"Mel Gibson has let his Hollywood imagination get carried away with special effects as he inflated his "Passion" film. ... They will have to use special effects because the problem with that depiction is that nails or spikes through the palms cannot hold the weight of a human body before it tears through the flesh of the palms or tears longitudinally through the fingers. Spikes must go through the bones to hold but, the myth of bleeding palms has been firmly established in Christian mythology. Remember, these stories were created by the Four Gospels which were written separately, between 40 and 75 years after the death of Jesus. The four Gospel writers based their Gospels on hearsay - stories or myths long after the facts. As each one was written later than the last, it became further removed from the real history. So the last, was the most mythical. If those myths are challenged as historically incorrect, it causes Christians to have problems with the faith they base their religious beliefs upon. That challenge to their faith cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Jewish religion, if it stands as authoritative, is too great a challenge and must, therefore, be denigrated, diminished and demonized. This is the basic source of root anti-Semitism. Islam must be viewed as a similar hostile challenge to the faith of Christians, because strict Muslims consider Christians (as all non-Muslims) to be infidels ... Hollywood special effects stirred liberally with misconceptions of real crucifixion, can make for such an exciting, gory Gibson film that it is rated R - but, it is a fake. Testimony from several Jewish academicians, trained to look at details regarding anti-Semitism and the torture instruments of both the past and the Holocaust periods have made their observations plain. The Gibson film is inciteful and provokes anti-Semitism. This story has been told in churches during Lent and Easter, leading to Christian mobs launching murderous pogroms against Jews. It is part of their up-bringing. This film will make their church-taught hatred more real because the film is so realistic. Tickets are being purchased now in large blocks by various Christian churches to inspire more participation by their laymen. The Jews in Gibson's film were made to look grim and threatening, all in accordance with Christian literature of what they call "the perfidious Jew." Gibson was very careful to follow early Church doctrine in demonizing the Jews which recommended murder as a solution to their "Jewish Problem" ... This is a rabble-rousing film by Gibson, sure to exacerbate violent anti-Semitism. When (not if) synagogues are torched and Jews assaulted due to Gibson's incitement, dust off the law books and sue Gibson, the film distributors, theaters and all connected with this Hollywood travesty."

Mel Gibson's father says Holocaust exaggerated,
Yahoo! News, Feb 18, 2004
"One week before the US release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the filmmaker's father has publicly reiterated claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated. Hutton Gibson's comments, made in a telephone interview with New York radio talk show host Steve Feuerstein, come at an awkward time for the actor-director who has been trying to deflect criticism from Jewish groups that his film might inflame anti-Semitic sentiment. In his interview on WSNR radio's "Speak Your Piece", to be broadcast Monday, Hutton Gibson, argued that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had in fact fled to countries like Australia and the United States. "It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is," he said, adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people. "Do you know what it takes to get rid of a dead body? To cremate it?" he said. "It takes a liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million of them? They (the Germans) did not have the gas to do it. That's why they lost the war." Gibson's father had made similar claims in remarks published in a New York Times article in March last year. In a television interview with Diane Sawyer that was broadcast Monday on the ABC network, Mel Gibson accused the Times of taking advantage of his father, and he warned Sawyer against broaching the subject again. "He's my father. Gotta leave it alone Diane. Gotta leave it alone," Gibson said, while offering his own perspective on the Holocaust. "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion." During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican , among others."

Falling into the 'Passion' pit,
By MICHAEL MEDVED, Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2004
"Every day, Israel faces new attacks from terrorists determined to murder Jewish children. In France, synagogues burn, cemeteries face desecration, and leading rabbis urge their followers to shun kippot in public. In every part of the globe, the militantly secular, America-hating Left makes incongruous common cause with Islamic fundamentalism in circulating poisonous anti-Semitic canards, including ludicrous charges of Jewish conspiracies behind banking, media, "neo-conservative" foreign policy, and even the devastating attacks of 9/11. In the midst of this alarming eruption of anti-Jewish sentiment, some usually level-headed commentators have reached the preposterous conclusion that this is the perfect moment for a ferocious new debate with our Christian neighbors on the eternal question "Who really killed Jesus?" The fact that my otherwise savvy friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach believes that we have any chance at all of winning this debate reflects appallingly poor judgment. And the determination by Boteach and many others to conduct the argument in an aggressive and ultimately insulting way at this precarious moment in history represents a far greater spur to anti-Semitism than any mere motion picture from Hollywood – even a sure-bet box office blockbuster like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. For the record, let me make clear that I agree with Boteach that the Christian scriptures provide an often unreliable, occasionally contradictory account of the persecution and execution of Jesus of Nazareth ... The enthusiastic embrace of this movie by leaders of every Christian denomination, including the leading Catholic authorities, provides a definitive answer to that question and renders the specific attacks by Boteach largely irrelevant. In fact, all of the most controversial scenes and lines of dialogue stem directly from the Gospels, chapter and verse. This means that critics of the movie inevitably train their fire on Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John rather than "Saint" Mel. Of course, Jewish observers retain a perfect right to challenge sacred Christian texts or to denounce the altogether conventional interpretation of those texts by a major filmmaker, but one might reasonably inquire what possible purpose such arguments can serve. By what right do Boteach and his many outspoken allies in the Jewish community demand that Mel Gibson and his innumerable supporters among Protestant and Catholic clergy should reject their own religious tradition to accept a Jewish version of the death of their savior? After many centuries of Christian persecution of Jews, we have finally won the unquestioned right to reject the Gospel claims and yet live in peace with our gentile neighbors. But this precious right to deny the accuracy of New Testament texts does not somehow empower us to insist that our Christian fellow citizens must join us in that denial. For reasons that defy rational explanation, Boteach insists upon picking an ugly public fight with believing Christians who view their own sacred books in the same way the rabbi views the Torah – as the inerrant word of God. To characterize elements of the Gospels as "fabrications" and "cheap frauds," as Boteach does in one of his columns, hardly helps the cause of Jewish-Christian cooperation ... The most pressing issue regarding the current controversy is what exactly Mel Gibson's attackers hope to accomplish with their sky-is-falling denunciations of his work. He paid for the film himself (to the tune of $25 million) precisely because he wanted to realize his own religious vision without compromise. This commitment hardly represents an act of hatred or fanaticism but a statement of the highest artistic aspiration. Having seen the film, it's obvious that he's succeeded in creating a cinematic work of undeniable immediacy and power. It is not, by the way, about "the Jews" but rather about one particular Jew worshiped by Gibson (and two billion others) as the messiah and the deity incarnate. As I have written in numerous venues (including Christianity Today, in a current article), Jews will not enjoy this movie, but we ought to recognize it wasn't made for us and it doesn't focus on us. The Passion of the Christ counts as a project of the Christians, by the Christians, and for the Christians. It will open on more than 2,000 screens on February 25 and will draw literally tens of millions of eager filmgoers, regardless of calls for a boycott by Shmuley Boteach and others. The inevitable success of the film makes it an especially foolish strategy for Jewish organizations and individuals to continue expending energy and credibility in denouncing it. This posture makes us look both mean-spirited and, finally, powerless and irrelevant. We also fall into the devastating trap of "crying wolf." When anti-Semitic depredations fail to materialize as predicted in response to this movie, it will make it far more difficult to mobilize concern over genuine dangers in the years to come. Above all, the misguided agony over The Passion of the Christ serves as a tragic distraction at a time when we need unity and allies more than ever before. Let us never forget that the menacing recent wave in anti-Semitism in the Middle East and around the world arises from the Islamic community and the anti-religious Left, not (so far, at least) from traditional Christians. In this context, the challenge to Christian orthodoxy implicit in the more intemperate attacks on Mel Gibson's movie serves no constructive purpose and works to foment, rather than deflect, anti-Semitic attitudes. When facing an onrushing express train (like this sure-to-be-popular movie), it makes little sense to stand on the track in the middle of a railroad trestle holding up a hand and pleading, "Stop!" Or, to put it in even more commonsensical terms, when you've already placed yourself in a deep hole, it's a good idea to stop digging. The writer, a film critic, author, and nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the US, is co-founder and former longtime president of the Pacific Jewish Center in Venice, California."

Challenge the New Testament,
By SHMULEY BOTEACH, Jerusalem Post, February 18, 2004
"Lovers of God and country, raisers of refined and spiritual children, stalwart defenders of the State of Israel, and deeply committed to combating the moral decay of the popular culture in America, evangelical Christians are people to whom all Jews can look for brotherhood and inspiration. Which makes it all the more painful to see a sharp area of disagreement erupting between our two communities. Several high-profile Jewish co-admirers of Christianity – my dear friends national radio host Michael Medved and Orthodox scholar Rabbi Daniel Lapin, in particular – have made the case that the Jewish community dare not alienate the evangelical community over something as insignificant as a movie. This is a point that Michael Medved made to me in a debate we had recently on his radio show, which is curious because Michael is at the forefront of arguing, as do I, that TV and movies have a huge impact on how people think and behave. I believe Medved and Lapin – both phenomenally committed and profoundly knowledgeable Jews – are forgetting that notwithstanding the Jewish community's deep gratitude to Evangelicals for their unflinching support of Israel, we still remain two distinct communities that at times have vastly different agendas. ... [Rabbi] Lapin says that he'll give the Jewish leaders the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of falsely inflaming Jewish fears simply for the purposes of fundraising: "Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d' tre." But even by mentioning this gratuitous insult against organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, he unwittingly reinforces the most negative stereotype of Jews being prepared to sell out their interests for cash, a stereotype based on Judas's betrayal of Christ for 30 pieces of silver in the passion narrative. Surely Lapin agrees that there is still plenty of anti-Semitism to combat even in the US, as one who simply googles the word "Jew" will discover (the very first website that pops up is "Jewwatch – keeping an eye on Jewish terrorists, Jewish atrocities, and Jewish banking and financial manipulations" ... Lapin further accuses the Jewish community of hypocrisy because "Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum" insulted Catholics by agreeing to display a "dung-bedecked Madonna." He adds that Jewish record company executives "produced obscene records that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women," which were not protested by the Jewish community. In addition, he says, the Jewish community never protested Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ, even though it insulted Christianity. ... I am much more forgiving of Jewish officialdom not having done so, given they have their hands full combating an all-out assault on Jewish life and the Jewish state from Islamic terrorists. I pray the intimate bond and deep respect forged between the Christian and Jewish communities over the past few decades will not be impaired by this film. But notwithstanding how much I love my Christian brethren, I will still not allow the lie that the Jews killed Jesus to go unchallenged."

'Passion' Attacks,
by James Hirsen, Newsmax, Jan. 27, 2004
"It all started January of last year. Mel Gibson appeared on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” The famed actor-producer-director let the world know that a print reporter was nosing around his family and friends trying to dig up dirt. The reporter was freelance journalist Christopher Noxon. He wrote a hit piece that focused on Gibson’s 85-year-old father. The article mischaracterized Mel’s beliefs and those of his dad. It also tried to label the film as fringe propaganda. Noxon’s dirt-digging expedition might have been related to his family’s interest in the same Malibu site where Mel Gibson was building a church. The plot thickened as another group planned a full Gibson assault. Unscholarly Conduct With the help of an individual dubbed in an e-mail “our Deep Throat,” a group of academics, who are part of what’s known as the interfaith movement, got hold of a stolen early draft of a confidential script. Using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, the group generated a so-called confidential report, which twisted the film’s message. Somehow the report landed in the hands of the news media. A number of its authors appeared delighted to have their criticisms aired in public, despite the fact that the report was based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material. In addition to theft, it seems that falsification was also part of the unscholarly game. The group tried to pawn itself off as an official body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but the USCCB subsequently issued a statement denying a connection with the anti-Gibson group. Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen has been a particularly high-profile player in the anti-Passion drama. She has referred to Scripture as “a kind of religious advertisement.” She has promoted the idea that the Gospels “proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist’s position.” On Dec. 22, 2001, the Washington Post delivered a sort of un-Christmas present from Fredriksen in the form of a comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The Post quoted her as saying, “I can’t think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth] to be historically reliable,” adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem. It appears as though Fredricksen and friends could be on a mission to deconstruct the Gospels. They prattle on about “progressive interpretation” and “historical context” when it seems that what they really want is a rewrite of the Good Book. Could it be that their real beef with Mel has to do with the fact that he based his movie on the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? “The Passion” saga continued as film-snuffing sights were set on a potential distributor. Suppression of Expression In an effort to get Rupert Murdoch’s 20th Century Fox to decline to distribute Gibson’s film, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind scheduled a press conference and demonstration. The event was supposed to take place in front of News Corp.’s Manhattan headquarters. 20th Century Fox usually distributes Gibson’s movies, but gave a thumbs down on “The Passion.” As the New York Daily News reported, other Hollywood studios were also less than enthusiastic about taking on the project. Additionally, the New York Times rubbed salt into Icon Productions’ wounds by describing the film as chronicling “in bloody detail” the last hours of Jesus’ life. It also called it “potentially inflammatory” and “not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox.” In typical Gibson fashion, Mel and the crew gripped the wheel, rode out the bumps and were successful in finding distribution. Unfortunately, more trouble lay ahead. The Piracy In November of last year, the New York Post illegally obtained a pirated videotape of the Gibson film. Although this revelation is extraordinary in its own right, it’s what a major newspaper did with the tape that made ignoble cinematic history. Months before the film’s scheduled release, the Post displayed the grainy second-generation videotape to its own assembled panel of critics. Four of the five reviewers who were present slammed the film in the pages of the paper. Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack put feelings into words in this way. He told E! Online News, “If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped.” Evidently the shenanigans weren’t just outrageous, they were also illegal. The Los Angeles Times reported that federal authorities launched a probe. Gibson and the folks at Icon had more head and heartache to endure. Virtual Hate Also in November, Anti-Defamation League held its annual meeting in New York. ADL National Director Abraham Foxman let loose with one of the ugliest assaults on Gibson that had occurred to date. He said, “I think he’s infected – seriously infected – with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views.” These words spewed forth from the leader of an organization that purportedly stands for tolerance. Ironically, instead of modeling a virtue, Foxman ended up demonstrating exactly what hate speech sounds like. In January 2004, uninvited ADL officials registered for a Christian pastors’ conference where Gibson’s film was set to be shown. They used the fabricated name “The Church of Truth” to gain entrance to the event. After seeing the film, ADL denounced Gibson’s picture as a “painful portrayal” and a “commercial crusade to the church community.” Most recently, Foxman requested that Gibson attach a disclaimer (drafted by Foxman) to the film denouncing any bigoted interpretation of his narrative. No similar disclaimer has yet been submitted by Foxman for the spurious and insulting remarks he made about Gibson. At the same time Mel and his mates were dealing with ADL matters, they were also experiencing an insidious print blitz. Poison Pens It seems that New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich felt the need to gear up the sleaze machine several times over to generate innuendo. In his Aug. 3 column, Rich got stuck in sludge-slinging overdrive. He wrote that Gibson and his organization had been “baiting Jews,” Matt Drudge was a “token Jew,” traditionalist Catholics were a “fringe church,” Rupert Murdoch was a “conservative non-Jew,” Peter J. Boyer’s article “sanitizes” Mel’s father, Bill O’Reilly was “being paid” to defend Gibson, and Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob “plays bizarre games with the Holocaust.” (Rich evidently missed the fact that Nierob is a second-generation Holocaust survivor and a founding member of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.) ... Enter once again Frank Rich of the New York Times. On Jan. 18, Rich tossed more journalistic mud pies. He accused Gibson and Steve McEveety of using the pope to make money."

Leaders of Christian and Jewish Organizations Issue Dialogue Guide to "The Passion",
U.S. Newswire, February 19, 2004
"News Advisory: Representatives of the Jewish community and several Christian denominations in the Greater Washington Area have created a dialogue guide to Mel Gibson's new film "The Passion of the Christ." The guide, offering a constructive approach for Christians and Jews in discussing the film, will be sent to hundreds of clergy in area congregations. The authors of the guide encourage clergy to reach out to a Christian or Jewish congregation nearby and to use the guide as a resource for discussion. "The hope is that the film can become a catalyst for positive instruction and dialogue," said the Rev. Ken Howard, an Episcopal minister who worked on the guide on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. "Inter-religious dialogue is one of the greatest antidotes to prejudice and polarization," stated David Bernstein, Washington Area Director of the American Jewish Committee."

[Another sordid pro-Jewish sycophant (or real name Goldberg?) on the Judeocentric Hollywood/Media dole, whose aim to protect Jewish Power, Hypocrisy and Racism by trashing Mel Gibson precludes all other considerations.]
'The Passion of Christ'. Holier than Mel Mel Gibson says he isn't an anti-Semite. Maybe not. But he can't disguise a disturbing truth: that he's not a very moral man,
BY CHRISTOPHER KELLY, Star-Telegram Film Critic, February 19, 2004
"Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ opens Wednesday, on more than 2,000 screens. It could very well be the most accomplished, unforgettable, powerful, breathtaking, fill-in-your-own-superlative movie in a century. But that no longer matters. Because there is an indelible black mark on The Passion of the Christ, and on its creator, that cannot be excused. Wearing a cloak of piety, Mel Gibson -- who has been quoted as saying the Holy Spirit "was working through me on this film" -- has fanned the flames of anti-Semitism into a marketing bonfire. He's turned what by all evidence would have ended up being an art-house curiosity -- a bloody, subtitled movie, in two dead languages, starring mostly unknown actors -- into a likely blockbuster. And he's done it by preying on Jewish people's very legitimate fears that the film will reignite old prejudices that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. That marketing has been canny and relentless -- a classic illustration of a megalomaniac's micromanagement. Just a year ago, Gibson was whining to the press that no one wanted to distribute his self-financed $25 million movie ... For Gibson, it's about keeping the debate one-sided, making certain he cultivates a tsunami of support, so that challenging questions from objective viewpoints will be all but drowned out. Is The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic? That's an argument that will likely carry on for decades. But this much cannot be disputed: Gibson's actions thus far have been rooted in utter disdain for Jews ... He turned the question of just how anti-Semitic the movie will be into a parlor game. And, while proclaiming in the press that he is not anti-Semitic, one of his comments, made to The New Yorker last fall, suggests otherwise: "I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened; it was said. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." (His apparent solution -- the line is reportedly still in the film, but Gibson eliminated the English subtitle -- smacks of the worst sort of lip service.) ... What's most troubling is that Gibson could have quelled so many of those concerns, by bringing more Jews into his very public editing process. In Monday's interview with Diane Sawyer, he emphasized that he wanted the film to spark debate, saying, "Let's get this out on the table and talk about it." But why does he suggest we start the debate only after facing a firestorm of controversy -- not to mention the wrath of Hollywood -- when suddenly it's looking like his next $20 million paycheck may not be so easy to come by? Perhaps because being honest and forthright simply isn't Gibson's way. This is a man who has spent a career taking the low road, while holding the Bible out in front of him -- a modern-day Elmer Gantry recast as a $20-million-a-movie superstar ... Even if The Passion of the Christ turns out to be the greatest rendering ever of the greatest story ever told, it will still mark a dark day for anyone who values humanity."

Gibson's father: Holocaust was mostly 'fiction',
Days before the release of Mel Gibson's film about the death of Jesus, which some critics say could fuel anti-Semitism, his father has told an interviewer that the Holocaust was mostly "fiction." In the latest interview, Mel Gibson's father said Jews want to take over the world,
By Corrado Giambalvo, USA Today, February 20, 2004
"Steve Feuerstein — host of Speak Your Piece!— said he interviewed Hutton Gibson for a segment of his show to be broadcast Monday by the small Talkline Communications Network. According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, "It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is," when asked about his views on the Holocaust. He added: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles." The interview comes at a sensitive time for Mel Gibson, whose epic The Passion of the Christ is due to open Wednesday. Some Jewish leaders say the movie could fuel anti-Semitism for its portrayal of Jews' role in the crucifixion, while conservative Christians have praised it as a moving depiction of Christ's death. Gibson, who produced, directed and co-wrote the film, has said repeatedly that he is not anti-Semitic and that the project was a deeply personal expression of his own faith. Hutton Gibson has an unpublished phone number at his home outside Houston and could not be reached for comment. Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Mel Gibson, declined to comment on the interview. Hutton Gibson follows a tiny wing of traditionalist Catholicism that views the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council as a conspiracy between Jews and Masons to take over the church. The elder Gibson has stirred controversy in previous interviews with remarks on the Holocaust and Judaism, but had kept quiet in the months leading up to the release of The Passion. In this latest interview, Gibson said Jews want to take over the world.A He did not know why Jews would want to achieve that, but said "it's all about control. They're after one world religion and one world government." sked in media interviews whether he shares his father's views, Mel Gibson has said that he loves his father and will not speak against him. Zev Brenner, owner of Talkline, which he calls a Jewish network, has been calling for a boycott of all of Mel Gibson's movies."

Interview: Hutton Gibson. Major excerpts of telephone Interview on Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, 8 p.m. between Hutton Gibson, father of Mel Gibson, and Steve Feuerstein, executive producer and talk show host, "Speak Your Piece!" WSNR-620AM. The two-part feature on The Gibson Family: Offspring of Hate? will air on "Speak Your Piece!" on Monday, Feb. 23 and Wednesday, Feb. 25 from 10 p.m. to midnight on WSNR-620AM and live on the Internet at SpeakYourPiece.net. Transcript courtesy of Steve Feuerstein,
Newsday, February 21, 2004
"...IV. THE JEWS & MONEY
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHY DO THE JEWS CONSTRUCT HOLOCAUST MUSEUMS?
GIBSON: There are too many survivors. It's just a gimmick to collect money. They have to go where there is money. There is no way they would come to West Virginia. They have to have some place to go that has money. They didn't work in the mines, you can bet your boots...no, they don't work anywhere where they can out of it. They're great pencil pushers, they are the superior people and therefore they are entitled to the top jobs, supervisory stuff and so on, because they hire each other. They have so much influence in the banks for instance. They all look out for one another you got to give them that. They are at the same time willing to sacrifice a few of theirs if it helps ...
VI. JEWISH WORLD DOMINATION
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHAT DO THE JEWS AIM TO ACHIEVE?
GIBSON: I don't know what their (the Jews') agenda is except that it's all about control. They're after one world religion and one world government. That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine and make one world religion and one world government.
VII. RABBI MARVIN HIER
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT MEL'S HEALTH? GIBSON: "The rabbi for hire" that's even what the Jews refer to him as. He had one of these snarley voices. These people are vengeancebound. They will chase down people like [John] Demjanjuk [cleared in Israel of charges of being a Nazi guard]. They almost got him killed and eventually it was proved innocent of all charges. Yeah, Ivan the Terrible, they said.
VIII. ADL
STEVE FEUERSTEIN: WHY DID THE ADL OPPOSE THE FILM?
GIBSON: This is part of their deal ... they don't want this movie shown, they don't care if the movie is anti-Semitic or not, or if it is straight history. Mel says he absolutely couldn't buy PR like this. And (thanks to the ADL) everybody knows the line now: Let the blood be upon us and our children ...

[Who is the culprit here? Where is the relentless, coordinated attack upn Mel Gibson and Christianity coming from? Who is it the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights cannot name openly, for fear of their power and because the censorship has become internalized? Jews. Even as they spit in you face, you dare not name them.]
ATTACKING MEL’S DAD,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, February 19, 2004
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on news reports regarding an interview that Mel Gibson’s father granted to a radio show: “The attack on ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is unprecedented in its ruthlessness. The script was stolen and given to those who could be counted on to slam it; tapes of the film were stolen and distributed to those who also could be relied upon to bash it; Mel’s faith has been impugned; charges that violence against Jews will occur after the movie has been shown are commonplace; attempts to bully Gibson into changing the film have been ongoing; demands for a postscript have been made by those who seek to put Gibson on the defensive; bishops have been badgered to get Mel’s friends in line; the Vatican has been lobbied to criticize the movie; accusations that the movie is being kept away from Jewish neighborhoods have been made; fears that the movie will damage youngsters who see it have been expressed; demands that Gibson vet his script for approval to officials of the Catholic Church have frequently been made; critics have deceitfully gained admission into screenings of the film; highly personal questions about Gibson’s life have been raised; sneering comments that the film may make a profit have been voiced; the way the movie has been marketed has been raised in a derisive way; demands that the film be censored have been made at public rallies; Catholics who defend the movie have been insulted by foes of the film; disrespect for Gibson’s artistic rights has been voiced many times; and so on. “Now they’re going after Mel’s 85-year-old father. As I have already told reporters, I will have none of it. The search-and-destroy operation being conducted by the movie’s critics knows no boundaries. Make no mistake about it, those obsessed with killing this movie will not manipulate Bill Donohue into berating Hutton Gibson. Nor will they push me to ask for information on how I can contact their fathers, though the thought is tempting.”

FIRST PERSON: 'The Passion' & the Talmud,
By Terry Mattingly, Baptist Press News. February 17, 2004
"The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel. Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a "T." The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "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." If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures. At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks. The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled "Why the Jews Rejected Christ" -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic. The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead. It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as "enticed and led astray" indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods ... What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts. "If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?' then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him," Klinghoffer said. "Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides [the famous Jewish theologian]." Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews. It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said. "I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said. "To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?"

[Another rabbi tells Christians what to think. More Jewish dissimulation, evasion, and anti-Christian hatred. Aish is an Orthodox Jewish group. Rabbi Blech, open up what's in the Talmud for us.]
Mel Gibson, and the Jews, His latest lethal weapon? Mel's film promises spiritual inspiration but instead evokes the kind of rage that for centuries past resulted in ruthless acts of retribution,
by Rabbi Bejamin Blech, Aish.com
"Soon we'll find out who is more powerful, Mel Gibson or Pope John XXIII. Shortly before his death in 1963, the spiritual leader of Catholics round the world composed this prayer: "We realize that our brows are branded with the mark of Cain. Centuries long has Abel lain in blood and tears because we have forgotten Thy love. Forgive us the curse which we unjustly laid on the name of the Jews. Forgive us, that with our curse, we crucified Thee a second time." It was an awesome admission that reversed almost 2000 years of unjustifiable hatred. Christian anti-Semitism, rationalized as fitting punishment for the Jews guilty of the heinous crime of deicide, killers of Christ, was officially declared "a great sin against humanity." Jews dared to hope that the distortions of ancient history which prompted Crusades, pogroms and perhaps -- as many scholars suggest -- even the world's silence during the Holocaust, were finally put to rest in the dustbin of grievously outdated theological errors. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. How strange then to now have the 21st century witness the re-birth of a monumental lie. What the Pope declared a sin, Mel Gibson has resurrected as the definitive story of the death of Jesus. Once again the world is told that it was the fault of "the perfidious Jews." In a movie that reeks with gruesome violence unbearable even by Hollywood standards, "The Passion of the Christ" weaves the contradictory threads of the Gospels' accounts describing the last hours of the life of Jesus into a tale that portrays a reluctant Pontius Pilate decreeing crucifixion for "the son of God" at the mad urging of a Jewish mob led by Caiaphas, the High Priest ... This is a film that makes the Gospels seem almost tame in their depiction of Jewish evil. Which is why it's so irrelevant to ask the question, "Is Mel Gibson really anti-Semitic?" I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews. Those who wonder whether Gibson hates Jews simply don't get it. It doesn't matter. Take Gibson at his word, if you want to, and accept his profession of friendship. He may like us. But that isn't the issue. What matters is what the film is going to accomplish. Simply put, I am told it is almost impossible to walk out of the theater without hating the villains -- and the villains are clearly identified as Jews ... Movies create mindsets far more than any other medium. Ingmar Bergman was right. "No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls" ... Let me make clear to Mel Gibson: I did not kill Jesus and neither did my ancestors. Responding to criticism, Gibson denies his intent is to blame the Jews. "It's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it'. That's not so. We're all culpable. We're all guilty. We all killed Jesus." Let me make clear to Mel Gibson that for myself, I deny any personal involvement. I didn't kill Jesus. Neither did my ancestors. Ironic, isn't it, that the same Gibson who willingly accepts universal guilt for the crime of deicide chooses only the Jews to be singled out as the real perpetrators. "We all killed Jesus," he claims -- but it's just Jews whom the movie clearly depicts as the scoundrels. Do Jews have a right to share their concerns with those who choose to believe in a different version of history? Can Jews object to an ultraconservative Roman Catholic Hollywood icon producing a movie that reflects his personal bias? ... As Holocaust memories fade and scholars note the resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism, the one thing worse than the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in our times is a mass-marketed appeal to religious passion against Jews in the guise of the Gospels. Regrettably, its very notoriety may well make this movie highly popular. That's why I pray viewers understand the reason "The Passion of Christ" so strongly fails as a spiritual message. Not only is it anti-Jewish and indifferent to the harm it will surely bring in its wake to relations between gentiles and Jews, it is so profoundly un-Christian."

[Mel Gibson is obviously now on the Jewish Hollywood and Jewish Media BLACK LIST, far deeper than any McCarthyist censorship. It is necessary now to create a new "Hollywood," separate from Jewish whim and censorship. Maybe Gibson has the power to shake free of them?]
Is 'Passion' a destroyer? Image shift may ruin his career, industry pros say,
By TRACY CONNOR, New York Daily News, February 21, 2004
"With the opening of "The Passion of the Christ" this week, Mel Gibson is casting himself in a new role - and the movie industry is wondering if he'll ever recover. In a matter of months, the 47-year-old actor-director has gone from heartthrob to holy roller before the public's eyes. Gone is the lovable rogue of "Lethal Weapon," the regular-guy action hero, the sex symbol who melts women with piercing blue eyes and a raffish smile. Now he's the wild-eyed fringe Catholic who risked his reputation and the wrath of Jews to bring the Gospel according to Mel to the big screen. It's a transformation that has some insiders whispering that Gibson has lost it, committed Hollywood heresy, turned box office gold into radioactive waste. "I think this whole thing is going to be quite harmful to his career," said Lloyd Leipzig, a 50-year veteran of the film business and retired studio executive. "I don't think you can put him in the same roles anymore. All of a sudden he's a different person and, accordingly, you're not going to find a lot of people who will take chances with him." Gibson poured $25 million of his own money into "The Passion," but the gamble could cost him - and the studios - far more than that. In the past decade, films starring Gibson, including blockbusters such as "Signs," have grossed more than $100 million each on average. If he kept up his pace of at least one big production a year, the industry could expect to rake in a billion bucks from him in the next 10 years. Gibson, who commands a top-end salary of $25 million per picture, would collect a quarter of a billion dollars himself. But while some pundits think "The Passion" will crush the Mel money machine - there are big shots who say privately they'll never work with him again - others aren't so sure. "Hollywood is not the most religious society on Earth," said James Ulmer, author of the "Hollywood Hot List." "Their faith isn't in God, it's in money. It's profits over prophets." "If Mel brings home over $100 million at the box office for a film in Aramaic and Latin - believe me, he will get hired again" ... Early odds on the movie - starring unknowns and shot entirely in dead languages - were that it would tank. But the debate over Gibson's theology, particularly whether he blames Jews for the Crucifixion, stirred interest. When his father mouthed off about Holocaust myths and Jewish conspiracies, Gibson lashed out at the media. He talked about divine signs that told him make the movie, and gave interviews about how the New Testament rescued him from the brink of suicide. The publicity, combined with a tireless Christian-geared marketing effort, now has "The Passion" poised to break records. With theaters sold out for opening weekend, there's no doubt Gibson will make money from his pet project, but the question is: Can his career survive the success? In the past, Gibson has been attacked by gays and feminists for impolitic comments, with no repercussions, but filmdom's discomfort this time is different. "I was sitting with someone in the Sony commissary who got very upset when Mel Gibson walked by," said Premiere writer Anne Thompson. "A lot of the sentiment runs very deep."

[Jewish mass media trashing of Mel Gibson and Christianity continues. The mass media is theirs to mold public opinion: trying to steer the audience away. This below is "hate." Jewish hate. Jews hate Christianity. It's time to start trashing Jews and Judaism in the mass media too. Equal time? Never. The mass media is a Jewish game.]
Is `The Passion` anti-Semitic?,"
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, February 24, 2004
"THE PASSION of The Christ" is violent, bloody, and sadistic. Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus' last day has to be the most graphic and brutal death ever portrayed on film. It is being described as a masterpiece -- soul-stirring and beautiful. I found it stomach-turning and deeply troubling. I am not a Christian, but I tried to view "The Passion" the way a Christian might view it. I tried to experience it as a message of God's love and mercy, as a depiction of self-sacrifice so complete and all-embracing as to transform human history. I tried to imagine believing that all that blood -- and "The Passion" is drenched with blood -- was shed to wash away my sins. I tried to understand this grim nightmare as an enactment of mankind's redeemer being tortured and killed, to accept that this was the purpose for which he was born, to feel that I, no less than the howling mob on the screen, was responsible for -- and the beneficiary of -- his death. I tried -- but I failed. I failed in part because I am not a Christian but a believing Jew. I don't believe that Jesus was God come to earth in human form -- I believe that God is one, incorporeal and indivisible. To me, the Passion is not a manifestation of divine love but a vicious and evil ordeal inflicted on a victim who didn't deserve it. As a Jew I cannot look at the savage murder of an innocent man as anything but a grievous sin. And as a Jew, I could not watch a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus and not be aware of all the other Jews, scores of thousands of them, who also died on Roman crosses. Most of the prerelease publicity about "The Passion" has focused on its depiction of the Jews and its potential to fuel anti-Semitism. In truth, Gibson's film barely acknowledges that the majority of its characters are Jewish. If you didn't know that Jesus of Nazareth was born and died a religious Jew, you certainly wouldn't learn it from "The Passion." Almost nothing in this movie connects him with the Jewish people. He does not refer to himself as a Jew or take part in any recognizable Jewish ritual. His reason for being in Jerusalem was to celebrate Passover, but there is never any mention of that Jewish holiday. When he is glimpsed praying or teaching, it is always outdoors, never in a synagogue. Only once is Jesus identified as a Jew: when Judas, about to betray him, greets him with, "Hail, Rabbi." ... Is "The Passion" anti-Semitic? That depends on whether it is anti-Semitic to reenact the story told by the Christian Bible. To be sure, there is a good deal in Gibson's movie that is not in the New Testament. In one scene, for example, Judas is driven to commit suicide by a gang of demonic Jewish children. In another, Pontius Pilate, beholding a shackled Jesus who has already been beaten bloody by Jewish guards, chastises the High Priest: "Do you always punish your prisoners before they are judged?" But there is no getting around the fact that the parts of "The Passion" that are the most unflattering to Jews -- the bloody-minded and hateful Temple priests, the Judean mob howling for Jesus' death -- come straight out of the Gospels. I shudder at those depictions and reject them as historically false, but I cannot call a Christian anti-Semitic for believing in the truth of his Bible. I will not smear Gibson as a Jew-hater. But neither will I pretend that he is unaware of the long and horrid history of Passion plays or of the millions of Jews who died at the hands of killers demonizing them as "Christ killers."

[In Jewish lore, Jesus is a blasphemer, a traitor to the "Chosen People."]
Canadian Jewish leaders divided on Gibson's The Passion of the Christ,
by GREG BONNELL, The Province (from Canadian Press), February 23, 2004 "Several prominent members of the Canadian Jewish community got their first look at Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ on Monday, but opinion on whether the work is anti-Semitic remains divided. "I think it's a thousand times worse than what I anticipated... in terms of depicting the Jewish community in an evil manner," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada. Although Dimant was reluctant to make specific criticisms in advance of the film's theatrical release, he wasn't impressed by its violent imagery and its treatment of Jews. The film, which opens in 138 Canadian theatres on Wednesday, has been hailed by numerous Christian leaders as a powerful telling of the last hours of Jesus Christ and not at all anti-Semitic. At issue is the blame placed on the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ, a belief which formed the basis of two millennia of persecution in Europe. That teaching was renounced by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s. Further adding to the controversy are questions surrounding Gibson's faith - he adheres to a strict interpretation of Catholicism that predates the reforms of 40 years ago. "When one wants to call something anti-Semitic there has to be there an intent to attack," said Manuel Prutschi, national executive director of Canadian Jewish Congress. "The purpose of this film is to move Christians, not to attack Jews," said Prutschi, who attended the same Monday screening as Dimant. How Christians digest the information presented is key. "We feel fairly confident that Christians, certainly in Canada, are quite sophisticated now to understand what anti-Semitism is all about and the evil that it is. "That's not what they're going to be coming away with." The message imparted to moviegoers is of concern to Adele Reinhartz, dean of graduate studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. "It's not intended to make people hate Jews," said Reinhartz, who saw the film last week. "But I think if you go in there with preconceived negative notions about Jews, if you already have a latent anti-Semitism, then it will just reinforce that." Having done her PhD dissertation on the Gospel of John, Reinhartz was keenly aware of the source material from which director Gibson was drawing. "All the Gospels, to a greater or lesser extent do place moral responsibility on the Jews." But scenes in which Jewish children transform into demons and Satan walks among the Jewish crowds as they clamour for Jesus's death were "over the top," said Reinhartz. "Gibson didn't have to do that" to tell the story of the crucifixion. The film also presents a very narrow depiction of the Jewish community, said Prutschi. "Basically you have two types of Jews, the priestly class and the Jews who were following Jesus," he said. "You certainly don't get a picture of the broad Jewish community."

[Kicking bigoted, hypocritical Jewish Butt. Things are getting hot. This article appears in Joeph Farah's World Net Daily, usually a bastion of Judeocentric pro-Israelism. People are getting sick of Jews telling them what their religion says. Jews hate Christianity, here.]
It's all about hating Catholics,
by Barbara Simpson, World Net Daiily, February 23, 2004
"I am furious! No, I'm livid! I've had it and I'm finally going to vent! It's a good thing I was alone when I read the latest Catholic insult by Abe Foxman. The steam from my ears and the sparks from my eyes would have been shocking! It's a good thing Abe wasn't there or more than his ears would have burned from my wrath. Abe is Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Nice title. Nice perks. It gets him nice headlines and fawning media attention. He shows up for interviews with a serious demeanor, wearing his yarmulke, and pretends to be concerned and thoughtful, fair and wise. The truth is, he's engaged in nothing more than dirty, street fighting. It's an insult to his targets and to good Jews who allow him to speak for them! In his role as "defender" of all things Jewish, Foxman gets warm media reception even though his words and actions lately have not only been out of order, they've been mightily insulting to another religion and one particular member of that group. The religion is Roman Catholicism and the man is producer-writer-actor Mel Gibson. Gibson has a new movie set to open on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, one of the holiest days of the year for Catholics. The film is "The Passion of the Christ," a graphic and explicit portrayal of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus, the last 12 hours of His life, from His trial to His death. In Catholicism, that period of time is called the "Passion" and it refers to Christ's suffering. Gibson bases the film on the four Gospels in the Bible, using the words in the original Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles. It's not a sanitized version. It's graphic and bloody, based on what is known of that form of capital punishment. Mel Gibson admits it's brutal and says that if people don't want to see violence, don't see the movie. Foxman's problem is that he thinks the movie will incite anti-Semitism. He objects that the words of the Bible are spoken in the film. He says it appears that Jews encouraged the killing of Jesus. Many in the secular media voice the same accusations, most often without having seen the film. I doubt they've read the Bible. But they don't let the absence of facts keep them from attempting to destroy something they despise. Abe Foxman's in that group Ultimately, what they despise isn't necessarily Mel Gibson or his film. They hate his religion, the Bible, the story it relates and, they especially hate the Catholic Church because it's founded on intrinsic right and wrong, good and evil. Foxman not only rails against the film, he actually met with Vatican officials this week, urging them to challenge Gibson and tell him that the film contradicts Catholic teaching. Can you imagine? He thinks he knows more about Catholicism than the Vatican! How contemptible. Talk about chutzpah! He has it in spades. He ought to be ashamed and Catholics should be angry. I'm afraid, though, they've been so busy turning the other, but wrong, cheek that they're getting kicked in the rear again and don't even know it. Interesting, isn't it? Foxman and others who are so concerned with protecting the opinion of moviegoers about Jews, are consistently silent when Catholics, their rituals or their beliefs are ridiculed and demeaned. Where were they when a crucifix submerged in urine was called art? A picture of the Virgin, smeared with elephant dung was also called art. Where were the demands for script changes in movies portraying Jesus as homosexual, or married, or promiscuous? How about books or theatricals depicting priests or nuns in the most insulting and fabricated situations that pretend to reality? Where was their outrage in artistic desecrations of the Sacrament of Communion, the invasion of Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral by condom-tossing "gay" activists, the radio stunt of a couple having sex in that same Cathedral during mass. I'm also fed up with denigration of Catholics who are shocked and offended by the excesses of Vatican 2 and prefer the traditional Latin Mass. Mel Gibson is one of them, and he practices those traditions. That's his choice and his prerogative. To hear the critics, you'd think that was heresy. It isn't, and Gibson isn't alone. There are thousands of Catholics like him, furious at the changes in their Church over which they have no apparent control. They hate the revised rituals of Catholicism that have nothing to do with the religion. The so-called reforms reflect a zealot clergy anxious to force on everyone 'Catholic-Lite' and create 'Cafeteria Catholics.' The recent scandals, diminishing vocations and smaller congregations are visible results of this attack on the Church from within, spurred on by hateful non-Catholics and fallen-away Catholics who delight in dragging down what they once believed. It disgusts me. I'm tired of it being socially acceptable to dump on Catholics and blatantly suggest how the religion should be changed. It's done without compunction yet if the same were done to Jews or Muslims or any eastern religion, it would be denounced. How about a movie joke about Islam or one with a Muslim murderer? I dare you to produce a movie about an adulterous rabbi or a slapstick Torah. Anyone for criticizing Orthodox Jews for discriminating because men and women worship separately? How about suggesting a revision of Islam because of its treatment of women, to say nothing of "non-believers," the infamous infidels. It wouldn't happen – and we all know why. Catholics, indeed Christians, are fair game. At the least, it's discriminatory. But, in and of itself, it's a sin."

[Jews hate Jesus. Palestinians love him. Behind which would Jesus stand?]
Jesus of Palestine & the 'Passion' of Israel,
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz (Israel), February 25, 2004
"Israel's Channel 10 television station screened a recent ABC interview in which ABC's Diane Sawyer asks Gibson - who has strongly condemned anti-Semitism as a "sin" - to comment on those who fear that "in a world in which horrible things have been done to the Jewish populations, simply looking at these events will once again incite people toward if not violent animosity, [then] prejudice, vindictiveness." Gibson, nodding in agreement to the first part of the sentence, then replied, in a parallel that grated on Israeli ears: "I don't think you can say that. I watched Schindler's List, and what the Germans do in that is horrible, you know. But I don't hate Germans, or want to hurt them or anything. I mean, if you go by that rationale, any story where one group of persons does something to another group of persons - you shouldn't put any of it on film." In recent years it has become axiomatic, if in many cases less than accurate, that Israel's policies have inflamed anti-Semitism in Europe, the United States and throughout the Muslim world. But when Gibson's Jesus of Palestine finally makes his way home, could the world's oldest form of anti-Semitism, the charge of Christ-killing, take the opposite route, helping to fan the flames of Palestinian anger against Israelis? When it finally reaches the Holy Land, could "The Passion of Christ" add new fuel to an already intensely volatile conflict? 'Jesus was a Palestinian' Certainly many Palestinians, even among the strongly Muslim majority, identify with Jesus. The concept of the holy rebel waging a hopeless, ultimately victorious fight to the death against authorities of overwhelming power, has been long used by Arab cartoonists and editorial writers to represent the Palestinian struggle. Gibson's "Passion" may ultimately be used by some Palestinians in marshalling anger against Israel, says Haaretz commentator Danny Rubinstein. In some respects, Palestinian identification with Jesus renders irrelevant the Gospels-driven debate over whether the Jewish establishment or the Romans bore ultimate responsibility for the death of Jesus. In the Palestinian national metaphor, with an American empire believed to be under the influence of Jewry, Jewish Israel can easily play a simultaneous dual role: that of the armor-clad iron-fisted Roman occupier, and that of the hard-line Tz'doki [Sadducee] Jewish leadership of Roman-ruled first century Judea, a territory which imperial authorities would only after Jesus's death begin to call Palestine ... Christian Palestinian clergymen, taking radical Latin American churches as a rough model, created a Palestinian Liberation Theology based in part on the figure of Jesus. "Jesus was a refugee and lived under occupation," the movement's founder Dr. Naim Ateek, a canon at St. George's Anglican Cathedral in Jerusalem, told Reuters in 1999, as the Holy Land prepared to celebrate the millenium of Jesus's birth. "If he's interpreted in this way he becomes a model for faith. So I can learn from him and how he coped with a life under occupation like me," said the U.S.-educated Ateek, who said that when he was 11 in 1948, Jewish soldiers forced his family to flee their home near Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. The figure of Jesus, known in Arabic as Issa, also resonates for Muslims as a prophet and saint in Islamic tradition."

[More Jewish treachery in the quest to crucify The Passion. Abe Foxman of the ADL calls himself a priest to get into a Passion screening and then this Jewish scamster deceives and sets up Mel Gibson's 80-year old grandfather. Ethics don't matter. Scruples are irrelevant when Jews go out on an "Anti-Semite" Hunt.]
Gibson's Family: Father Tricked Into Interview,
by Carl Limbacher, See The Passion (from NewsMax) February 20, 2004 "When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview... When Mel Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton, told a New York radio interviewer Wednesday that the Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Jews were trying to rule the world, he had no idea he was speaking on the record, let alone being recorded for broadcast, Gibson family sources tell NewsMax. When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Hutton Gibson says the caller claimed his mother maintained a Web site devoted to "The Passion of the Christ." Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview. With no idea that his comments were being taped, Gibson's father made no attempt to disguise his views. He told Feuerstein that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust had been fabricated. "It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he told the radio interviewer. According to the account obtained by NewsMax, the elderly Gibson talked to Feuerstein for almost an hour before asking for further identification. The talk host promised to call back with more details, but never did. Feuerstein did not return calls for comment. So far, Hutton Gibson has not publicly apologized for the explosive remarks. But in previous interviews, first with the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, Mel Gibson noted he didn't share his father's revisionist views on the Holocaust. The actor-director said he had friends who had survived the death camps. "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely," Gibson told ABC's Diane sawyer. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion." Asked about an earlier interview where Gibson senior offered similarly offensive views, the Hollywood star complained: "Their whole agenda here, my detractors, is to drive a wedge between me and my father. And it's not going to happen. I love him. He's my father." Gibson's father's comments were the topic Thursday night of Alan Colmes' national radio show. James Hirsen, a NewsMax columnist, was interviewed and said that Hutton Gibson's "statement is indefensible, but it is also irrelevant. Mel's dad didn't make the movie; Mel Gibson did."

[The Passion struggle pits decadent, money-grubbing, cocaine addict Jewish Hollywood and the manipulative Jewish Mass Media against human dignity, integrity, hope, and spirtuality. Hollywood means "Jew."]
The firmness behind 'The Passion',
by Brent Bozell, Town Hall, February 18, 2004
"The mass unveiling of Mel Gibson's cinematic vision of "The Passion of the Christ" on 2,000 screens -- a massive debut for a foreign-language film with subtitles -- has the entertainment elite a bit frightened. After all, how many decades have elapsed since Hollywood has been in any way associated with Christian orthodoxy? The one who is not frightened is Gibson. He is a man who has made his own brave and generous sacrifice, putting tens of millions of dollars and his own film career on the line for a daring and controversial cultural event. He is a man who can sit in front of Diane Sawyer as she looks like she's sucking on a lemon and honestly proclaim his humble Christian beliefs, to be a "fool for Christ" before the world. He has dared to make a film that focuses only on the last hours of Jesus, leaving the gentle preachings and healings that some like to imply are the whole of the New Testament behind, honing in just on the cruel and yet necessary crucifixion of the Christ. For many months, media outlets have promoted controversy over this film, suggesting it might be anti-Semitic, and even if it isn't anti-Semitic in intention, it could have an anti-Semitic effect. One might argue all this controversy has been good for the film, but that doesn't mean the entertainment press has been fair or accurate in its coverage of it. Our cultural elites are worried not about how the film is "anti," but how the film is "pro." They know how this film has the potential to light a fire under traditional Christianity in America and around the world. They are worried because millions of Americans are enthusiastic. As the media boomlet picks up this growing phenomenon, it seems to overflow with secular alienation and dread that some might be using this film to evangelize, that the filmmakers are "marketing Jesus." To the bad-taste specialists that dominate our culture, there is no dirtier word than "proselytize." That, to them, is a very "divisive" act. To the secularists, it is offensive to believe that one creed, one faith is absolutely correct, and therefore the others must be in error. But why is it not offensive to suggest, as Hollywood so often suggests, that all religions are basically fairy tales for creepy, superstitious people who need the "crutch" of faith to deal with the natural world? And why it is not offensive for Hollywood to serve the country as a sort of 24-hour Temptation Channel for exotic sex, filthy language and pornographic violence? The entertainment factories are proselytizers -- for the lowest in human behavior. They are evangelists -- for empty sensationalism. And isn't it odd now to see, in the wake of this powerful film, cultural critics trying to curdle its impact by suggesting that the movie, with its body count of one (not counting the Resurrection), is a gorefest? "Mel's 'Passion' for Gore 'Extreme,' He Admits," claimed the New York Daily News, mangling his words out of his ABC interview. He said he wanted people to be struck, shocked by the physical pain and suffering endured by Jesus to save each believer. The spectacle wasn't for blood-loving jollies, like the choreographed mass murder of a Quentin Tarantino film. It was intended for Christian inspiration. The Los Angeles Times wrote that Gibson made "one of the most brutally graphic and violent depictions in modern cinema" of the last hours of Jesus. But Hollywood has almost no depictions of Jesus in "modern cinema," other than Martin Scorsese's Jesus-trashing "The Last Temptation of Christ," and that's 16 years old. To show your children explicitly Christian films requires a walk through the oldies section: "Quo Vadis" (1951), "The Robe" (1953), "Ben-Hur" (1959), or "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965). Don't worry, film critics: It should be safe to assume that the crowds flocking to this R-rated movie will not be dragging their kids to see the pain inflicted in "The Passion." How wonderful it would be if Hollywood had such tender hearts for the well being of vulnerable children routinely sneaking into R-rated films with little resistance. The secular cultural elites have reason to be frightened. Millions of Americans will be dazzled in the multiplexes watching a cast of non-stars speak in non-English about what Hollywood has seen for eons as a non-story. The hubbub should send a powerful message to Hollywood: Our culture could use more of this kind of artistic vision and exploration, and less of your nihilistic nonsense. There might be a new fad in town."

[The millionth Jewish journalist trashes the Passion. Objective journalism? Jews run the mass media. Jews own it. Jews even dominate the movie review scam. Jewish Hollywood vomits out so many degrading, violent trashy movies it's beyond belief. But the Jewish Media doesn't care about that. Its intent is to crucify Mel Gibson -- and Christ again. ]
Critic Calls Gibson Movie Anti-Semitic,
By Arthur Spiegelman, Reuters, February 24, 2004
"While preview audiences are leaving theaters deeply moved by Mel Gibson's controversial new film "The Passion of the Christ," critics are slamming it for excessive violence, questioning its spiritual message and wondering aloud if it is anti-Semitic. With the film opening in 2,800 theaters on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times ran a rare front-page review warning that the movie was certain to divide people and the New York Daily News called it an anti-Semitic work with violence that was "grotesque, savage and often fetishized" in slow motion."

[Christian-hating dual-loyalist Jewish politicians take to the streets. These professional "haters" foment "hate" with their Judeocentric intolerance.]
‘Passion’ protesters rally in Times Square. Assemblyman calls movie a ‘blood libel against Jews’ Assemblyman Dov Hikind leads about three dozen Jewish demonstrators rallied in front of a Times Square movie theater to protest the depiction of Jews in the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ."
MSNBC, Feb. 24, 2004
"About three dozen Jewish demonstrators rallied in front of a Times Square movie theater Tuesday to protest the depiction of Jews in the Mel Gibson film “The Passion of the Christ.” A New York state assemblyman and member of the City Council led the crowd, which carried signs reading “The Passion is Dangerous,” “To incite violence is to commit violence” and “The Passion is a Lethal Weapon,” the latter a reference to Gibson’s series of violent action movies of the same name. “I was horrified. It was beyond anything that I imagined prior to seeing the film,” said Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat from Brooklyn who said he attended an advance screening of the film in New Jersey Monday night for an audience of black Baptist church groups. The film opens Wednesday. “I don’t have any doubt this film will cause anti-Semitism. I don’t have any doubt that this film will result in violence,” said Hikind. David Weprin, chairman of the City Council’s finance committee, said: “This is not the type of film we need in New York. It brings back ancient divisions.” The film, which depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life, has been assailed as “savage” and “gory” by some critics of the graphic violence in the movie, and hailed by others as a “great film.” “I don’t know the purpose of the extent of violence,” Hikind said. “But why create hate? That’s what the movie does. Nobody says, ’dirty Jew’ in the movie, but boy is the message clear. It really is a blood libel against Jews."

Gallery of [Jewish] Hate,
Support Mel Gibson

[Rabbi Michael Lerner is a Left-wing, anti-Christian Jewish bigot. He's such a fraudster he was exposed to be publishing his own "Letters to the Editor" to Tikkun under fake names. Jews are the quintessential "haters." They have always sought to destroy Christianity, founded by renegade Jews.]
A Misguided Attack The Passion, Rabbi Lerner and the Gospels,
By GARY LEUPP, CounterPunch, Febraury 23, 2004
"I'm included, for some reason, on the email list of Tikkun Magazine, edited by Rabbi Michael Lerner, whom I respect for his involvement in the antiwar movement, including the Not In Our Name Coalition. On the other hand, I sometimes find his pronouncements bizarre, and his February 19 statement on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ particularly so. I myself commented on this film, (or rather, since I haven't seen it, the controversy surrounding it) six months ago; I tried to be dispassionate in my discussion, whereas the rabbi is riled up indeed. And not just about Gibson. Lerner begins his piece by quoting Gibson as telling a television audience "the Jews' real complaint isn't with my film but with the Gospels." Thus, the rabbi avers, "Mel Gibson unlocked the secret of why Americans have never confronted anti-Semitism" I expected Lerner to develop that point, and to identify that "secret" as the irrational essentialization and vilification of whole ethnic groups or other communities that pervades American culture. I thought he might note that, if Gibson indeed said that, he deserves criticism for conflating all Jews. Gibson knows that the film actually has won applause from some Jewish critics, and so "the Jews" are certainly not issuing a collective complaint against it. If he suggested that they were, he is encouraging polarization. There are indeed folks out there who would like to believe that "the Jews" are conspiratorially obstructing the presentation of God's truth to the people, and Gibson should not play to that audience. If Gibson had in his remark replaced "the Jews" with "some Jews" or "some critics, including some Jews," he would have accurately expressed reality. But rather than chide Gibson for positing a uniform response of Jews to the gospels, the rabbi proceeds to fuel Gibson's argument by actually urging Christians to reject those books, or at least the content therein he finds offensive. Of course he doesn't see himself as anti-Christian. He welcomes the "Christian spiritual renewal movement which rejects the teaching of hatred in the Gospel by allegorizing the story" (generously suggesting that Christianity is acceptable, if allegorized). He gives honorable mention to the "few Christians [following World War II] willing to take responsibility for the devastating impact of the hateful representations of Jews that suffused the Gospels" And he even expresses "hope Christians will take the lead in organizing people of all faiths to leaflet every public showing of Gibson's film with a message that runs counter to the anger at Jews that this film is likely to produce" Couldn't Mel validly observe that Lerner's complaint is indeed less with his film than with the gospels themselves? Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to subject those four humanly authored works to criticism. On the contrary! As a non-believer, secular humanist, and historical materialist, I see these texts as products of the human imagination, reflecting all kinds of religious influences (from Babylonia, Persia, Greece, etc.) that we can objectively identify. I find literal belief in scriptures (of any tradition) both foolish and dangerous. But I find religious intolerance, and the deliberate insulting of religious sensitivities (such as calling texts revered by maybe one-third of humanity in any sense "hateful"), dangerous as well. In my comments on the Passion controversy, written six months ago, I suggested that those protesting the film "clarify whether [or not] they find the New Testament itself anti-Semitic, and hence dramatic treatments of it inherently objectionable," adding, "Some scholars have effectively made that case." My unstated point was that even if that case against Christian scripture is valid, trashing a film and trashing a religion are two different things. Politically speaking, the latter is of course far more serious. Seems to me that religion---something so deeply touching the human mind, often sentimentally imprinted on it at a very early age, its inculcation never the fault of the child inheriting it---has to be treated very carefully. It's one thing to write an article in an academic journal examining the treatment of Jews in the gospels, and alleging (as many such articles do) "anti-Semitism," especially in the Gospel of John. It's another to undertake a mass campaign to tell Christians that writings that, for better or worse, they have been raised to regard as the Word of God "teach hatred" of Jews, whether or not the believers realize it. When you do that, you call Christians (most of whom, in this country, are fundamentalists) to either rethink their relationship to the Bible or, accepting Lerner's thesis, to more closely embrace the hatred of Jews that the rabbi finds integral to Christian scripture as the price for maintaining their faith. In my own view, the whole question of the gospels' "anti-Semitism" is highly problematic. The gospels were of course written by Jews, suffused with contemporary Jewish concepts. ... So back to the question: should this death be made into a very graphic movie, following the gospel script? Lerner thinks it shouldn't. But isn't his rejection of the depiction also an appeal to the Christian not to believe the story as rendered in the gospels? And isn't that an appeal to the Christian not to be Christian? Not, in this case, because Christianity is a flawed approach to reality, like religion in general, but because Lerner thinks those sections of Christian scripture "focused on cruelty and pain" threaten both Jews and (inexplicably) "all those decent, loving, and generous Christians who have found in the Jesus story a foundation for their most humane and caring instincts." One has a feeling the latter are thrown in merely for good measure, to suggest that not only Jews but all humanity is threatened by those gospels. ... Lerner in contrast is in effect telling the Christian: to be "decent, loving, and generous," you must abandon your religion, as you know it. You must not only repudiate the notion that Caiaphas and the Jerusalem mob, as depicted in gospels, obliged a reluctant Roman to kill the Savior, but reject the broader theological idea that the ancient Judeans, by failing to generally enlist in the Jesus movement and accept Jesus as the Messiah, resisted God's plan. But who is Lerner (or my atheistic self for that matter), to tell Christian believers how they must reform their own religion? It's one thing to say: "You shouldn't believe in Christianity, period." This is a very reasonable position. It's another to say, "I don't mind you being Christian, in fact, I acknowledge lots of good things about you folks. But please change your Christianity by rewriting those texts that are at the very heart of your belief system, because they spread hate." This has to strike the sincere, decent, loving, believer as supercilious."

[The struggle continues to pull Christianity from the suffocating Jewish stranglehold. A Jew physically censors a sign she doesn't like at a Christian church. Why isn't this defacement, and a "hate" crime? Church, press charges! Or does this mean it's free reign to start tearing down racist "Chosen People" pro-Israel signs at synagogues? The trumpet call is this: take back your religion from the Jewish censorship system. Jesus either stands for something real or he doesn't. He fought Jewish censorship too.]
Pastor Creates Furor With Sign Blaming Jews For Crucifixion,
WFTV (Denver, CO), February 26, 2004
"A pastor displayed the message "Jews Killed The Lord Jesus" in front of his church on a busy Denver thoroughfare Wednesday, prompting outrage from Jews and Christians alike. The sign in front of Lovingway United Pentecostal Church upset one passer-by so much she bought a ladder that afternoon to remove the first word. Church members later took down the rest of the words. Pastor Maurice Gordon said he was inspired by the intense discussion leading to Wednesday's release of the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ," which some have criticized as anti-Semitic and others have hailed as powerfully portraying the Crucifixion of Christ. Gibson has said the movie does not blame Jews for the death of Jesus. "I had been listening to debate back and forth on talk radio about who really did it," Gordon told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "What I did, right or wrong, was to give a citation from the Apostle Paul." "You only want to do this maybe once in a lifetime," Gordon said. "At least hopefully it will get people to go back and read the fine print in the Bible." The woman who altered the message board said she drove to the church after hearing about the sign at a Jewish education class. Ami Ship said she knocked on the doors and called the church's number on her cell phone. "No one would answer," said Ship, who is Jewish. "I just wanted to talk to them and see if they would take the sign down." She decided not to wait, buying the ladder and a tarp at a store across the street, intending to cover the sign. When that didn't work, she removed the word "Jews" from the message board. "I'm raising four Jewish little girls, and I would like the community to be a safe place for all religions," Ship said. "I felt it was anti-Semitic, incorrect, and a cowardly thing to do." Gordon's sign prompted a response Wednesday night from the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that urged Christian leaders in Denver to rebuke the church for posting the sign. "The Jewish people has suffered from the libel of deicide for nearly two thousand years," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the center. "We continue to look to our Christian neighbors and friends to rebuke those who would pass off this canard as theology."

[More Jewish dictates. What do you believe? First let the Jews screen it to make it kosher. Jews demand a Jewish Christianity that genuflects when a Jew walks in the door. We think the Pope should tell these Jewish propagandists to go fix their own racist religion -- the one Jesus rebelled against. And the Chief Rabbi of Israel "must" declare that non-Jews are "not to blame" for "anti-Semitism." Jews are. Jews "killed Jesus" once, and now they're doing it again. It's the same attitude, just new tools. There are even calls from politicians in Israel to actually BAN the movie. Organized World Jewry = Thought Police.]
Metzger urges Pope to say Jews not to blame for crucifixion,
Haaretz (Israesl), February 26, 2004
"Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger on Thursday urged the pope to reiterate in public that Jews are not to blame for the death of Jesus, saying he fears Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" could revive such beliefs. Metzger said he is sending a letter to Pope John Paul II with the request. Metzger said he wants the pope to reiterate a key church decision from the 1960s that reversed the centuries-old doctrine that Jews were behind the crucifixion. "The Vatican and the Pope must explain today ... that the Jewish nation, the Jewish people didn't kill Jesus," Metzger told The Associated Press in an interview. Gibson's film, a bloody depiction of Christ's final 12 hours and his death, opened in American movie theaters on Wednesday. Jewish leaders have criticized the movie, saying it will fuel anti-Semitism through an unfair portrayal of Jews as being the main force behind Jesus' death. Gibson, who directed, funded and co-scripted the film, has denied those charges. Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League also asked the Vatican to restate its view on the crucifixion, but a Vatican official at the time said no such statement was planned ... An Israeli lawmaker on Wednesday called for Gibson's movie to be banned from Israeli cinemas. But it's unlikely the Israeli film board, which has rarely banned movies in the past, would bar "The Passion."

[The Mel Gibson movie is a catalyst to flush Jewish bigotry out in the open. It is not Gibson's depiction of Christ that is "disgusting;" it is Jewish dictatorial chauvinism. As always, Jews demand that Christians believe in a religion acceptable to Jewish standards. Some Jewish leaders in England want the film BANNED, in the way Jews censor so much else.]
Mel Gibson Film Provokes Furious Jewish Response,
By Anita Singh, Scotsman, February 26, 2004
"The first UK screening of Mel Gibson’s controversial new film The Passion Of The Christ provoked a furious response from Britain’s Jewish community today. Representatives of the Jewish faith were invited to see the film a month before its nationwide release. Many left the cinema branding it “disgusting”, “deplorable”, and likely to incite racial hatred. Depicting the last 12 hours in the life of Christ, Gibson’s blood-drenched epic has been accused of anti-Semitism. It shows the Jewish high priests demanding Christ’s crucifixion, then looking on as he is tortured and put to an agonising death. Neville Nagler, director general of the Jewish Board of Deputies, said: “It would have been better if this film had never been made. “The glorification of violence and bloodshed and the reinforcement of medieval stereotyping of the Jewish people are extremely dangerous. “At a time when we are trying to develop co-operation and dialogue within our diverse and multi-cultural society, this film overturns the recent teachings of the Church and is completely unhelpful in fostering closer Jewish-Christian relations.” Lord Janner, former president of the Board of Deputies and now vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, said after the screening: “I hated it. I think it extraordinary that anyone would voluntarily go to see this film. “The Jews come out of it as a pretty nasty lot and I believe it could cause very great harm in relations with the Jewish community.” Leading rabbi Yitzchak Schochet said: “The cinematography was fantastic, the acting was brilliant – but the content was deplorable in the extreme. “It is filled with grotesque blood-letting. Much of it is based on hearsay. The idea of the priests standing there smiling as Jesus was crucified is fatally flawed. “This film should not be shown. I hope they ban it, or at the very least edit out some of the scenes, but I am sure they won’t. “It will certainly generate racial hatred. No Christian will walk out of this film without bad feeling towards Jews. It is saying, ‘the Jews were behind this’.” Rabbi Schochet demanded: “After 9/11, a number of films were shelved because they were deemed insensitive to the times. These are also sensitive times, so why should this film be shown?” ... A number of Catholic priests were also among the audience at the Odeon West End in London’s Leicester Square, and their take on the film was markedly different. Father Mark Hackeson, from Poringland, near Norwich, said: “I thought it was an excellent and very moving film. “I do not believe it is anti-Semitic – Jesus himself was Jewish. “Of course it is violent, but the crucifixion was a very violent event. “The important thing is that the message behind the violence is one of love and forgiveness, not of condemnation.”

[Yet another bigoted anti-Christian Jewish media attempt -- in the avalanche of them -- to crucify Mel Gibson and The Passion. Jews dominate not only the media per se, but the movie review game. Start checking authorship names in your newspaper and on TV. It is a concerted ATTACK upon the principles of Christianity. Why does every Jew think they know what Christianity represents? Because they want to mold it to their own world view. In Jewish eyes, being a Christian means kissing Jewish Butt. Whether "Jews killed Jesus" or not, Jesus revolted against Jewish religious hegemony of his day, and that's the origin of modern Jewish hate for him: he left the chauvinistic tribe and broke their insular rules about blasphemy.]
Bashin' of the Christ Jesus whipped -- and beaten, gouged and crucified -- in Mel Gibson's gawdawful gorefest. Don't bring the kids!,
By LIZ BRAUN SPOILER, Toronto Sun, February 25, 2004
"ALERT! Don't read this if you don't want to know what happens to Jesus at the end of The Passion Of The Christ! He dies, but ... He's not really dead! Omigawd! Those who already know how the story goes might want to skip The Passion Of The Christ, Mel Gibson's entirely bloody and lugubrious account of the last hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Despite all the carefully orchestrated controversy around the film, The Passion Of The Christ is just more of the same, only more so. Even a cursory knowledge of the scriptures upon which the film is based means a viewer is in the sad position of knowing exactly what happens next, a problem this film tries to solve by bullying scenes of violence and bloodshed. It's just bad storytelling. In his version of the Greatest Story Ever Told, Gibson concentrates on a very small portion. The death of Christ entails much whipping, beating, stabbing, bone crunching, nailing and heavy lifting; dude, that is so Old Testament. It is Mr. Gibson's business if he wants to dwell on the crucifixion, but without any of the spiritual or redemptive details about Jesus, the film can only leave the uninitiated wondering why millions follow the teachings of someone who appears to be a big wuss. Jim Caviezel stars here as Jesus, which maintains a certain oogy-boogey element the actor established with roles in such putrid fare as Angel Eyes, Pay It Forward and Frequency. This portrayal of Jesus involves much groaning and flinching and only two facial expressions: Suffering big or beatific calm (mostly the former), so Caviezel's performance is hard to assess. He bleeds well. Also in the cast are Maia Morgenstern as Christ's mother Mary, Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene and Luca Lionello as Judas Iscariot. All the characters speak Aramaic or Latin. The film has subtitles. The Passion Of The Christ is rated 18A (those under age 18 must be accompanied by an adult) because it involves obscene violence, brutality and torture that children should not see. It also has enough creepy devil stuff and images of small, misshapen, evil beings to guarantee years of nightmares and perhaps a class-action suit from midgets. Here's what you see: Jesus is sentenced, beaten, flogged, crowned with thorns, given his cross to carry, falls, gets up, falls, gets up, falls, gets up and finally gets nailed to the cross, and all in crunchy, disgusting detail. On historical, political, humanitarian and theological levels, there is plenty not to like about The Passion Of The Christ. But never mind. We are qualified only to comment on what sort of movie it is, and it is a lousy movie. It is clumsy in its presentation of drama, with Gibson using slow motion the way a child's thank-you note uses the exclamation key!!! Music is used to underline! and reiterate! the narrative in an unimaginative and depressing fashion, the acting is wooden and the pacing leaden. Much has been written already about potential anti-Jewish sentiments in the film; indeed, the Jewish characters come off badly, most of them squinting at Jesus like they're about to ask for the bar mitzvah gifts back, but they do get the best costumes. Everybody comes off badly in The Passion Of The Christ, but Christians above all. The film sends a violent message that is exactly opposite of the Christian message of peace, love and understanding. That's just weird."

[Lots of links and articles about The Passion posted here:]
New Testament Gateway Weblog

[JTR Contributor's comment: "The Toronto Star is the "liberal" variation of Jew butt-kissing, and apologetics for judeo-imperialistic policy... Note: when you click on the link, on the bottom right side of the page that will come up is a quote concerning the film from the VP of Binai Brith Canada, Frank Dimant. To put things in perspective, Mr Dimant is a regular contributor to the far right, B'nai 'B'rith publication The Jewish Telegram. Among others things, he has advocated the expulsions of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and is firm supporter of Likud party in Israel. Here is his take on the "peace maker" Ariel Sharon." At the Toronto Star article link below: "I think it's a thousand times worse than what I anticipated ... in terms of depicting the Jewish community in an evil manner." - Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada"
[This guy says the suffering of Jesus as depicted is PORNO. Is he Jewish? We don't know, but he's at least an honorary one, kissing up to the Klan that dangles him out to do their bidding as a "movie critic."]
A dark and bloody spectacle. As sex is to the body in hardcore porn, violence is to the ruin of the body of Christ in The Passion,
by GEOFF PEVERE, MOVIE CRITIC, Toronto Star, February 27, 2004
"The brute piety informing Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ insists not only that there is something spiritually uplifting in witnessing the meticulous, lash-by-lash and nail-by-nail re-enactment of the Messiah's physical torture and crucifixion, but that we share in the experience as closely as contemporary movie technology makes possible. Every inch of Jesus' earthly flesh is ripped in this movie in full surround sound, and every drop of blood spilled with digital realism. Because the film so lavishly — I would even call it perversely — relishes in the real-time spectacle of inflicted pain and ripped flesh, His pain and ours are unavoidably and mercilessly synched. But for what purpose? As unavoidably deliberate as this strategy of shared on- and off-screen torture is — the movie opens with a quote from Isaiah 53 that concludes "By his wounds we are healed" — the sheer systematic brutality of its unfolding will also act as the axe by which responses to this singularly blunt viewing experience will be split. If yours is a spirituality, as Mel Gibson's must certainly be, based in the presumption that salvation is only possible after suffering, you might well find something like grace lurking in Mr. Gibson's dark and bloody spectacle. If not, you're in for one of the most unremittingly cruel movie experiences this side of the (considerably less pious and certainly more fun) remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. While the subject of Christ's Passion has attracted moviemakers of varying spiritual inclination dating back to Edison, it took more than a century for Mel Gibson to come along and render it as a spectacle of pure, concentrated brutality ... Even from my position of relative spiritual impoverishment, I have no doubt that Gibson believes completely and utterly in the divinity of his mission. From precisely the same position however, I also believe, just as completely and utterly, The Passion Of The Christ to be a work of fundamentalist pornography. What graphic sex is to the use of the body in hardcore porno, graphic violence is to destruction of the body of Christ in this Passion. ...Because Gibson is so uninterested in providing anything like a larger political or deeper psychological context for his characters' actions, the inescapable conclusion to be reached by the movie's blunt expositional technique is that Christ died because the Jews demanded it. It might have been for our sins, but it was at their command. Lest this point prove too understated for his audience, Gibson nails even it home with his recurring use of an androgynous, black-hooded Satan: Although first seen tempting Christ in Gethsemane, this spooky, Bergmanesque figure is subsequently seen lurking only among the movie's crucifixion-crazy Jewish mob. But if it's the absence of anything but the most basic of dramatic elements that considerably helps reduce the movie's Jews to a pack of bloodthirsty hounds — in one sequence, Judas is even hounded by Yarmulke-wearing Jewish children who morph into Satanic sprites — Gibson's film, for all its vaunted "authenticity" doesn't really offer anyone much of an opportunity for characterological depth. Indeed, everything here is offered as a form of symbol, as heavy and oppressive as the cross itself. Additionally, Gibson's much-publicized use of the dead language Aramaic does little to add flesh to his wooden cast of characters. As a filmmaker, Gibson's hardly a touchy-feely soft touch anyway. If anything, he's a blockbuster-baptized brute who feels on firmest footing when he's springing sudden jump-out-go-boo scares, staging slow-motion fight sequences, or devising new ways in which to ratchet up his Saviour's excruciation ..."

[Mel Gibson the "anti-Semite?" Please! Jews are everywhere, as always! Including his film. The Passion's Jewish casting director selected a Jewish actress to play the Virgin Mary, for God's sake!]
Story of a mother's grief. No audition for role of Mary Maia Morgenstern defends Gibson,
by SUSAN WALKER, Toronto Star, February 27, 2004
"How do you audition for the role of the Virgin Mary? The short answer is, you don't. Casting director Shaila Rubin presented Romanian theatre actor Maia Morgenstern for the role of Mary in The Passion Of The Christ. When she met with director Mel Gibson in Rome — the film was partly shot in the Cinecitta studios — "it was actor to actor," says Morgenstern. Mary doesn't have a lot to do in The Passion beyond watching, with increasing alarm and pain, the suffering of her 33-year-old son during his relentless torture and crucifixion. Asked whether she thought a mother could have watched such brutality, Morgenstern becomes a passionate defendant of Gibson's direction ... Morgenstern has three children, a son of 20, also an actor, and two daughters, 5 and nine months. The 42-year-old Jewish actor is known for her stage work with three Romanian theatre companies and her appearances in dozens of European films, including Theo Angelopoulos's Ulysses' Gaze ... The international brotherhood on the production stands in contrast to the hatred some say the film will stimulate. "The film is not against Jews. It is not against Romans," says Morgenstern. "The film says that a human being can turn into a beast whenever he has a weapon in his hands and is in front of a helpless person." For all her artistic commitment, Morgenstern said it was quite simple to disengage from the horror show going on during shooting. The Christ on the cross who looks so real in the movie, was often a product of the props department. "It was a puppet," she says, matter-of-factly."

[More smug media trashing of The Passion.]
Passion makes divine box office,
Toronto Star, February 27, 2004
"Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ took in $23.6 million (all figures U.S.) on opening day, positioning it as the biggest religious-themed movie since The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur. The film also took in an estimated $3 million in private screenings for church groups Monday and Tuesday in advance of the official opening Wednesday. The $26.6 million in U.S. and Canada was well above distributor Newmarket Film's preliminary estimate of $15 million to $20 million a day earlier. "We wanted to be a little strategically conservative," said Rob Schwartz, head of distribution for Newmarket, which Gibson hired after no Hollywood studio would handle the film because of its divisive subject matter. The movie is well on its way to the $100 million mark, Schwartz said ... The release may have suffered a setback in Quebec, where the province's film classification board raised the age to view Mel Gibson's movie to 16 years and older from 13 and older. "It's a very violent movie," said France Dionne, spokesperson for the board ... The film, starring Jim Caviezel as Jesus, is a bloody depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion. The movie's box-office prospects benefited from months of debate as Gibson built support by screening it for church groups and excluding potential critics, while some Christian and Jewish leaders complained that it could fuel anti-Semitism by implying Jews were collectively responsible for Christ's death."

[This article is sick. It's Jewish McCarthyism. Jews dominate Hollywood: they own the Temple of Decadence and its incessant moral garbage. Hollywood is a vast Jewish nepotistic network and those who don't fall on their knees to Kiss Jewish Butt are ostracized. And Jews detest Christianity. Nihilistic Hollywood Jews mostly worship their penis, money, and cocaine. A non-Jew decides to follow his spiritual path and the Jews -- from Hollywood to the mass media to the Anti-Defamation League -- gang up on him, seeking to destroy his career. And here yet another bigoted Jewish journalist at the Jewish-owned Jew York Times defines reality. People wake up. The Jewish Wall crushes free dissent to anything but their ethnocentric Will. Jews want to beat Gibson into MUSH, like they do everyone else. Support the Liberator, Braveheart, against massive Jewish Repression. The Last of the genuine American Heroes.]
New Film May Harm Gibson's Career,
By SHARON WAXMAN, New York Times, February 26, 2004
"Mel Gibson's provocative new film, "The Passion of the Christ," is making some of Hollywood's most prominent executives uncomfortable in ways that may damage Mr. Gibson's career. Hollywood is a close-knit world, and friendships and social contact are critical in the making of deals and the casting of movies. Many of Hollywood's most prominent figures are also Jewish. So with a furor arising around the film, along with Mr. Gibson's reluctance to distance himself from his father, who calls the Holocaust mostly fiction, it is no surprise that Hollywood — Jewish and non-Jewish — has been talking about little else, at least when it's not talking about the Oscars. Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men. The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release. Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do." The chairman said he was angry not just because of what he had read about the film and its portrayal of Jews in relation to the death of Jesus, but because of Mr. Gibson's remarks defending his father, Hutton Gibson. Last week in a radio interview the elder Mr. Gibson repeated his contention that the Holocaust was "all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is." Asked about his father's Holocaust denial in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC, the movie star told her to "leave it alone." The other studio chairman, whose family fled European anti-Semitism before the Holocaust, was less emphatic but said, "I think I can live without him." But others said there would be no lasting backlash against Mel Gibson ... Many in the relentlessly secular movie industry see his recent religious conversion — he practices a traditionalist version of Roman Catholicism — as another form of addiction. Last Friday the media billionaire Haim Saban, former owner of the Fox Family Channel, sent a concerned e-mail message to friends about Mr. Gibson and his father. The message forwarded an article by the journalist Mitch Albom calling on Mr. Gibson to repudiate his father's denial of the Holocaust. Mr. Saban sent the article to, among others, Roger Ailes, who heads Fox News; Norman Pattiz, who runs the Westwood One radio network; and Michael R. Milken, the securities felon turned philanthropist. Amid the daily dealings of Hollywood, the film and the star have been fodder for unfavorable gossip. Dustin Hoffman has talked to friends about what he called Mr. Gibson's "strangeness" during the ABC interview. The producer Mike Medavoy said Mr. Gibson's religious zealotry made him feel uncomfortable. Mr. Hoffman is Jewish; Mr. Medavoy is the child of Holocaust survivors. "One question is, `What propelled him to make the movie about the passion of Christ?' " Mr. Medavoy said. "It makes me a little squeamish. What makes me squeamish about religion in general is that people think they have the answer: `I think my God is the right God.' How do you argue against that?" But many non-Jews in Hollywood have also been unhappy about the religious divisions that the movie has exposed and could deepen. ... Alan Nierob, Mr. Gibson's publicist, is himself the child of Holocaust survivors. "I think Hollywood appreciates good art and will embrace the talent of a filmmaker," Mr. Nierob said. "I don't see a negative reaction."

Our complete Passion coverage/ Tired of Passion coverage? Well, sorry. This area is reserved for people who just can't get enough of Mel and his movie,
Jewsweek, February 26, 2004
"Jewsweek feature articles on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: The Jewsweek Review: Jesus Christ, Superstar? by Benyamin Cohen February 25, 2004 Despite the hype and hoopla, Mad Mel makes an emotionally bankrupt 'Passion' play full of hatred, ignorance, and poor storytelling. The passion of the crisis By James Shapiro February 25, 2004 Think Mel Gibson corners the market on Passion plays. Think again. Here's your exclusive excerpt from the new book Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play. The yada blog: Special Passion edition by The Yada Blog Team February 26, 2004 All Passion all the time. The Jew who would be Mary by Alana Newhouse February 26, 2004 She's been called 'Bloody Jew,' for her role as the Virgin Mary in The Passion of the Christ. Now hear straight from Maia Morgenstern herself. Mel Gibson's father: Holocaust was mostly 'fiction' by Reuven Koret February 22, 2004 Hutton Gibson claimed Jews are the enemy of all humanity: "Is the Jew still actively anti-Christian? He is, for by being a Jew, he is anti-everyone else." The passion over the Passion by Benyamin Cohen February 16, 2004 Mel Gibson has done the unthinkable. He's made a non-English film that is poised to become the most popular film in America. Oh yeah, and it's about some guy named Jesus. The Passion crib notes by Dr. Charles Patterson February 16, 2004 Forgot what they taught you in Sunday School? Too lazy to read the subtitles? We've got your Passion primer right here. The state of hate by Leonard Zeskind February 16, 2004 A quick overview of the new anti-Semitism. Be afraid. Be very afraid. In defense of Mel Gibson by Kevin Eckstrom August 14, 2003 In response to scathing critics, Mel Gibson says he has softened the crucifixion story in his new Jesus biopic. But is it too little too late? Jewsweek opinion pieces on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: Answering The Passion with passion by Gavriel Aryeh Sanders February 26, 2004 An evangelist-turned-Orthodox Jew responds to Mel Gibson's Passion with some passion of his own. When in Rome...? by Ellen W. Horowitz February 26, 2004 The transformation of Hollywood into Holywood can only be described as obscene and should offend the moral sensibilities of everyone. Fundamentalist cheerleading for Gibson's Passion -- an oxymoron by Rabbi Marc Howard Wilson February 26, 2004 If Gibson is a devout Catholic, why are the Fundamental Protestants his biggest supporters? Mel Gibson and the Jews by Rabbi Benjamin Blech February 26, 2004 His latest lethal weapon? Mel's film promises spiritual inspiration but instead evokes the kind of rage that for centuries past resulted in ruthless acts of retribution. The thorny line between art and propaganda by Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D. February 26, 2004 When fact becomes fiction and when faith becomes falsified. What we can learn from Gibson's Passion. Passion is about internalized anti-Semitism by Suzanne Selengut February 26, 2004 Amidst The Passion culture American Jews are feeling the effects of their own religious estrangement. Boycott The Passion of the Christ by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach February 26, 2004 Why aren't people like Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand protesting a movie that portrays their people as deicidal villains? How not to choose your battles by Daniel Barenholtz February 26, 2004 The Passion of the Christ was set to be a flop until Abe Foxman and company started criticizing its anti-Semitism. They'd have been better just to keep quiet. Mel Gibson is closing Jewish hearts to Jesus by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach February 20, 2004 This whole Passion of Christ controversy is only doing a disservice to Jesus himself. Why Mel owes one to the Jews by Rabbi Daniel Lapin February 16, 2004 Jews are upset with the utter ineptness and ridiculousness of Jewish groups claiming to represent them. And Mel Gibson is the squabble's benefactor. Anti-Semitism is not about Jews by Leonard Zeskind February 16, 2004 For Jews, it is hard not to take anti-Semitism personally. It matters little to us whether it is the supposedly "new" variant that infects anti-Israel Arabists, or the older racial-nationalist type. The passion of the Kesselman by Jonathan Kesselman February 12, 2004 I killed Jesus and I'm sorry. Passionless passion by Rabbi Marc Howard Wilson November 23, 2003 Next time you hear someone talking about Mel Gibson's Passion, say the following: "No big whoop." The hunk principle by Debra Nussbaum Cohen November 15, 2003 Actors should keep their mouths shut. I'll never be able to watch another Mel Gibson movie again. Point: Not so 'Passion'ate by Rabbi Tovia Singer October 3, 2003 Will Mel Gibson's film The Passion crucify the Jews? Counterpoint: Stop bothering Mel Gibson by Rabbi Daniel Lapin October 3, 2003 These protests against The Passion are not only morally indefensible, but they are also stupid, for three reasons. Jews, Jesus, and German cars by Micha Ghertner August 25, 2003 Why we should finally buy German cars and be happy with Mel Gibson. Gibson's gaffe by Lewis Regenstein July 31, 2003 Mel Gibson needs to take a history class. It was the Romans, not the Jews, who were the Christ killers. Jesus gets his closeup by Rabbi A. James Rudin July 3, 2003 Mel Gibson must be careful with his 'Passion' film. It has the capacity to resurrect old anti-Semitic views. Misc. For the last year, almost every installment of our popular Yada, yada, yada blog has had some juicy nugget on Mel Gibson getting his Jesus freak on."

The yada blog: Special Passion edition Forget Britney and Madonna. This yada blog is all Passion all the time,
by The Yada Blog Team, Jewish Week, February 26, 2004
"Prisoners with a 'Passion': The award for the most off-color reaction to Mel Gibson's Jesus biopic goes to Amcha. The unpopular Jewish organization plan on holding a protest of the film by protesting with demonstrators dressed in concentration camp uniforms. "This film is born of the same theology that gave rise to the Holocaust. I am deeply concerned by this film and what may lie in store for Jews around the world following its release," says Amcha's Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld. Yeah, but Holocaust couture? C'mon, that's a little insensitive. Quote, unquote: "If [Mel] Gibson's movie about Christ is anything like Braveheart, this is going to be a really important movie! It's impossible to make a movie based on the Bible and not upset the Jewish people" -- David Carradine in Videoscope magazine. Rooney's roast: 60 Minutes' Andy Rooney dissed Mel Gibson and Rev. Pat Robertson by calling them "wackos". Robertson actually took it as a compliment. He responded to Rooney's comments by saying, "Mel Gibson has, without a doubt, created the finest motion picture on the life of Christ of all time," Robertson said. "I am very happy to be linked by Andy Rooney to a talented genius of the order of Mel Gibson." What a schmuck. Post 'Passion' paradise: If The Passion of the Christ does as well as everyone thinks it will at the box office, Mel Gibson's Icon Productions is poised to start an entire division devoted to religious films. Oy vey."

[Read this closely. Read between the lines. Even though Limbaugh is an apologist for Israel and steers clear of commentary about the Jewish foundation of the mainstream mass media he so loathes, if he tells the truth too bluntly about the (Jewish) "liberal" lock on the media system, his career -- like Mel Gibson's -- is also threatened by the Jewish Lobby. Here Limbaugh precariously flirts with the "J" word. Nothing has changed. Jesus Christ fought Jewish censorship. Why don't you?]
Blacklisting of Mel Gibson Should've Outraged Me,
Rush Limbaugh, February 27, 2004
"BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 1:12 PM EST RUSH: Now, I mentioned in the last hour that there was a story in the New York Times yesterday, and I read it, and it did not -- I mean it stood out, but I didn't think enough of it to even print it to bring it to you to discuss on the radio, and I realized there's a story in the Washington Times today that references the New York Times story of yesterday and it jogged my memory, and I almost feel like I need to apologize to you all for not bringing this to your attention yesterday, but the reason it didn't is even a greater danger sign. The story in the New York Times was all about how Mel Gibson will never work in that town again because of his movie. The New York Times quoted, unnamed Hollywood executives saying he's ruined his career; he doesn't have a chance here, and the story. The story mentioned that Hollywood is "mostly Jewish," and Gibson has produced a movie that they're not going to like, and this is going to ruin his career. Now, the question -- or the thing I want to explain to you is why I didn't bother mentioning this to you yesterday, and it's my fault, and it's my error, and I want to explain the error not excuse it. I didn't think that was anything new. I didn't think when I read that, I didn't think that was odd. I did not think it odd whatsoever that the Hollywood intelligentsia would blacklist a guy and would say so, quoting without attribution. We don't know who it was that said -- two big muckety-muck producers, studio heads or whatever, said that he doesn't have a chance of working in this town again. He's really damaging his career. This movie is damaging Gibson's career because of the subject matter. And, frankly, folks, it didn't surprise me. That's why it didn't register to me to even mention to you, because that has been something that I seem to have just accepted as the reality of political life in America. And I will admit to you that in my case, maybe I've personalized it too much because I know full well where I'm not going to be allowed, where I can't go. I'm talking about career-wise. I know full well what I'm not going to be allowed to do because of what I believe. I know full well. We've seen it happen. I've seen it happen. I know full well where I can go say whatever I want to say and where I can't. I know full well what's -- and not just me, but other conservatives. We've all heard the stories of how conservatives in Hollywood have to stay quiet. They will not go public unless they're a huge box office because they don't want to ruin their chances of getting work. So I read this and it frankly didn't surprise me. So it didn't register. It just seemed to me, "Well, this is the way it is." You know certain people run certain areas of business, and if you don't agree with them politically or if you're not what they want you to be, you don't have a chance of entering that business and scoring well. That's been a reality for me for the 15 years I've been doing this program. And so it didn't stand out, and I apologize because it should have outraged me. My reaction should not have been, "Ho-hum. This is just more of the same," and the reason it wasn't is simply because I personalized it. I did not stop to think of it in the terms of what it meant for Mel Gibson, because again it didn't strike me as news, even though it was flat out, right there in print. I should have been outraged. Well, I was outraged. I should have brought it to your attention. I should have told you about it. I'm sure some of you have heard of it by now anyway, because it further helps to establish the point. It further helps to establish the dividing lines that exist that we have been trying to discuss and tell you about for the whole 15-plus years that I have been doing this program. Well, the Washington Times story today sort of adds fuel to the fire. This is even better, in a way. "Early detractors of Mel Gibson's movie are backing away from their critical remarks now, after the movie grossed a record-setting $26.6 million on its first day." And I have read stories today from movie experts and all these trade publications who were asked if they were surprised it did this well, and they were all saying that they were stunned. They were literally stunned. They couldn't believe it would do this well. Nobody in Hollywood thought this movie would rate anything. Nobody thought anybody would be interested in it. Nobody thought anybody would want to go see it, not in any great numbers, and they're all stunned, and they're not just making it up. They generally are stunned. Now, you talk about flyover country and the East Coast and the West Coast being out of touch. I'm telling you, folks, there is a whole segment of this population that not only is denigrated, looked down upon, impugned, laughed at and made fun of, it's basically been ignored now and it's thought not to exist, and that is a traditional conservative Christian population -- which is a very, very, very, very very large segment of this country. It's just assumed they're not there. It's just assumed that they don't do things. They're not worth marketing to. They just don't exist, and these people are stunned! These experts, these Hollywood journalists and these producers, they are stunned that people have an interest in seeing this movie ... The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) retracted critical remarks made about the film last April by its ecumenical and interreligious committee, which suggested that the film might be anti-Semitic." Now, this really steamed me. Who is this group? the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Now, we know they're a bunch of liberals. But still, take that away. They're Catholics. This is a movie about what these people profess to be experts in! This is a movie about what these people teach others to believe and learn -- and these are the experts! These are the fathers, if you will, and they are so scared. They are so scared of a movie they didn't even see that they had to run with the critics and say, "Anti-Semitisc! We don't want to be..." They didn't even have the guts to stand up for this, and it's about them! It's about who they are, and they didn't have the guts to stand up -- and now they want to get back in. Now that the American people are going to see the movie in droves, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ah, forget it, forget it. We want to be back in. "In remarks released Wednesday on the Catholic news service, three staff members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops office fulfillment broadcasting is the film might be overly violent but it's not anti-Semitic now." What business did you people have saying it was anti-Semitic anyway? You know that there's no anti-Semitism in the story of the crucifixion. That's not what it's about. Why did you join the chorus of detractors of a movie made by a man of your faith about what you do? Because you're gutless. These are gutless people. Now, if gutless people are standing up, how can gutless people stand up for Jesus Christ? They ran away from this, and now of course, "Can we come back in? Can we come back in? I guess there's no anti-Semitism now." I saw this movie in July. I've been telling anybody who's asking me: "There's no anti-Semitism in the movie. I know anti-Semitism when I see it. It's all over the Middle East. That's where anti-Semitism is. It's all over France. It's all over Germany. I know it when I see it. It isn't here." Anti-Semitism is not in Georgia. It's not in Mississippi. It's not in New York. It's not in Wisconsin or wherever. This is just mind-boggling to me. "The Hollywood film company, DreamWorks, also back away from remarks published in yesterday's New York Times suggesting that Hollywood producers will blacklist Mr. Gibson. Quoting unnamed studio execs, the article said 'some of Hollywood's biggest producers were angry over Gibson's refusal to repudiate remarks made by his father.'" His father had nothing to do with the movie! Anyway, Jeffrey Katzenberg was the one of the people mentioned in the New York Times but not quoted, and he's put out a statement saying [paraphrased], "No, we didn't feel this way. The Times story got us wrong." Which is fine. But there were a bunch of them that spoke without attribution, and this business of dumping this on his dad is BS, anyway. That's not why they opposed Gibson and that's not why they opposed this movie. The dad, Gibson's dad, just gave them a convenient thing to lean on. They didn't like Gibson because they didn't like the subject matter of the movie. That's all it is, and this is why the story in the New York Times yesterday did not move me, because it's not a surprise to me. How many times have we discussed here how conservatives can't work in Hollywood? Okay, how many blacklist stories over the years have there been about Hollywood people? So, okay, here's another one, yip yip yip yip yahoo! I apologized for not bringing it to your attention but I'm telling you, folks: it's nothing new. This may be the most glaring, gutless example of it -- and also I would say the most panicked. You've got a movie here that's going to outdo 90% of the trash that comes out of that town, and not one of those people in that town had anything to do with it. Mel Gibson did it all himself. It's his money; it's his production company. There's not a person in that town can lay a hand of credit on this thing. No agent, no studio, nothing. And they thought it was going to bomb. Now it's going to be bigger than 90% of the stuff that they make. So I read a story they're going to blacklist him. Yeah, so what? Who's surprised? I'm sorry I didn't bring it to your attention yesterday. (COMMERCIAL BREAK 1:23) I realize, ladies and gentlemen, we're only into our second day of showings of "The Passion of the Christ," but I want to know: Where are the roving bands of hateful Christians throughout the streets of America wreaking havoc and violence on the innocent and harmless people of this country? Where is this happening? Remember all of these predictions? You know, all of this panicked outcry: "Why, why, anti-Semitism! Why..." This movie doesn't create any anti-anything. This movie, you've talked to people who have seen it. I hope you have. This is unlike any movie experience anybody's ever had. There's no agenda. There's no call to action. There's no nothing here, folks. This is one of the most personal experiences a moviegoer will ever have, so personal it is going to be difficult for you to tell people what you felt. It's going to be difficult to tell people what you thought. You'll be able to, but it's going to be difficult. But this is, this whole thing, it just continues to boggle the mind in a way. The presumptions that are made about people who are law-abiding, peaceful, don't cause anybody any trouble, about how they're the ones that are going to causing all the trouble. The people that are causing all the trouble, the people causing "civil disobedience," the people blowing up buildings, they're always excused. They're always explained. We're always told, "We have to take into account their socioeconomic and psychological circumstances so we understand why they're doing what they're doing." And then people who don't engage in destructive, harmful behavior at all are pointed to and warned that they'd better keep their place. In the meantime, the guy that makes the movie is being told the industry in which he is an overwhelming financial, professional success may not want him anymore. Blacklisting? Blacklisting communists was wrong, but blacklisting conservatives is okay. Yeah. I'm not even -- forget the blacklisting in the past. I'm just saying Hollywood is famous for it. I don't care who got blacklisted. That's all I'm saying is when I saw that story yesterday, "Yeah, ho-hum. What's new?" I've apologized, what do you want me to do? Want me to spank myself? What have I got to do?"

[CBS is headed by Leslie Moonves: Jewish. Parent company? Viacom, headed by Sumner Redstone. Jewish.]
Your Outrage at CBS Heard, Not Reported,
Rush Limbaugh, February 26, 2004
RUSH: Tim in San Diego, welcome to the EIB Network. It's our pleasure to have you on the program. CALLER: Hi, Rush, good morning. I don't know if you saw yesterday on the Drudge Report, he had a link about a quote from Andy Rooney where Rooney apparently had said to -- I thought it was a news anchor; I forget who it was, but he said when asked if he was going to see "The Passion," he said, "Well, I don't want to spend nine dollars just for a couple of laughs." Did you happen to see that? RUSH: Yeah, I saw those quotes. CALLER: And when I saw that, I thought to myself, "You know, if this had been a movie about say a civil rights issue where black people were getting lynched instead of a movie about crucifixion where Jesus was crucified then there would have been a furor over those comments." RUSH: See, this is the thing. There is a furor. You're just not hearing about it because it's not being reported in the mainstream press. If you don't think there's a furor, you don't know the kind of reaction CBS is getting. CBS is being inundated with e-mails and phone calls in record numbers. Nothing CBS is outdoing the Janet Jackson business by proportion, in terms of audience size. You're just not hearing about it because the mainstream press isn't reporting it but this is the same old thing. It's just like Hollywood doesn't think there's a whole lot of Christians out there to make up the audience. Lo and behold, here's Andy Rooney. CBS is finding out just how many people were offended by this. CALLER: Where are you hearing that, through the grapevine or what? RUSH: Yes. CALLER: Okay. RUSH: I'm a, you know, powerful, influential member of the media. I hear these things. CALLER: (laughter) Okay. RUSH: These people are being -- I mean, Black Rock -- is being inundated and it started Sunday night. It started with what he did in his commentary. CALLER: Yeah. In fact he said, "Well, I wonder how many millions Mel Gibson is going to make off the death of Jesus?" And I thought a good response would be to say, "Well, hopefully as many millions as Michael Moore made off of the death of the kids at Columbine." RUSH: Yeah, somebody else said... That's good. Somebody else said, "Why didn't anybody criticize Spielberg for profiting on the Holocaust?' ... I know ideology counts for a whole lot in Hollywood, but so does dollars, and it's a tight race. It's tight. Ideology wins a lot. These people will damage themselves, but at the same time they're going to see the dollars here, and Mel will be okay. But he won't need 'em anymore."

[Jews trash Christ and Gibson: Case #58,398,223. The Jewish qualification for "Holocaust denial" continues to get lower. Dare to call a World War II era Jew a "war victim" and now you're a bigot. Take this Jew's word of for it: Jews are more important than anyone else and do not fit other human categories. But hey. Jews definitely killed Christ. What is the evidence? They continue to do so.]
Mel Gibson's Astonishing Film,
By M.J. Rosenberg, Israel Policy Forum, February 27, 2004
"Watching Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” the mind is bound to stray. It is almost impossible to keep one’s eyes on the screen as it depicts suffering and torture so graphically that the viewer must either look away or mentally block what he is seeing. ... My father-in-law would not spend too much time deliberating over whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic. As one who lost dozens of friends and relatives in the Shoah, Gibson’s characterization of the Holocaust would have been quite enough for him. Asked if he believed that the Holocaust took place, Gibson told the New Yorker magazine, “Yes, of course. Atrocities happen. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps.” “Some of them were Jews in concentration camps….” That response, a classic statement of Holocaust denial -- which relegates the systematic killing of six million Jewish civilians to the category of war victims -- would have told my father-in-law everything he needed to know about Mel Gibson, despite his supposedly reassuring statement on the Today show last month that “I don’t want to lynch any Jews" ... And that is precisely what the “The Passion of the Christ” represents: European-style anti-Semitism based on the ancient charge that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. The “Passion of the Christ,” which I saw yesterday, is in that tradition. The film is so full of anti-Semitic stereotypes that it is impossible to catalogue them ... Perhaps Mel Gibson deserves credit for reminding us of the roots of history’s deadliest strain of anti-Semitism. This is not to dismiss the significance and danger posed by Muslim attacks on Jews whether on a street corner in France or a bus in Jerusalem, but it is to say that they do not derive from the phenomenon known in the west for 2000 years. As Jonathan Jacoby (a founder of IPF and director of the IPF Institute) and Rabbi Michael Paley (Scholar-in-Residence at UJA-Federation New York) wrote in a column in last Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, “Islamic Judeophobia differs in significant ways from European Christian anti-Semitism.”

[JTR Contributor's note: "Executive Director of the Avalon theatre, the oldest in Wash., D.C., is Jill Bernstein." Every time anything is publicly presented abut Jews, we think there should be a "panel discussion" about Talmudic racism and the Jewish destruction of Palestine. Why not?]
THE PASSION THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST,
Avalon Theater
"Showtimes: 1:00 4:00 7:00 9:45 10:00 AM shows on weekend of Feb. 28-29 and March 6-7. Tickets now on sale at the box office for all shows. Due to the controversial nature of this film, the Avalon is showing it in a constructive, educational context. We are presenting several panel discussions with Jewish and Christian leaders (see below). We are also displaying viewing guides and other material developed by religious organizations to help set the context for the film. PANEL DISCUSSIONS -- all follow 7:00 PM shows Wednesday, Feb. 25: INTERFAITH CLERGY/INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE -- SOLD OUT Rev. Roy Enquist, retired Lutheran pastor Rev. David Freshour, Chevy Chase Baptist Church Father Paul Lee, Our Lady of Victory Rabbi Ethan Seidel, Tifereth Israel Pastor Charles Updike, First Baptist Church of Gaithersburg moderator: Rev. Clark Lobenstine, InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington Monday, March 1: THE CHALLENGES OF PORTRAYING RELIGION ON FILM Filmmaker Martin Doblmeier ("Bonhoeffer") Filmmaker Frank Frost (“The Other Holy Land”) Filmmaker Aviva Kempner ("The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg") Producer Ed Murray, Faith and Values Media (The Hallmark Channel) Moderator: Dan Raviv, CBS News Weekend Roundup Wednesday, March 3: INTERFAITH CLERGY/INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE Bishop John Bryson Chane, Episcopal Diocese of Washington Rabbi Bruce Lustig, Washington Hebrew Congregation Father Francis Martin, John Paul II Cultural Center Moderator: Dan Werner, MacNeil/Lehrer Productions Thursday, March 4: THE PASSION AND THE BIBLE A. Katherine Grieb, Virginia Theological Seminary Carmen Nanko, Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States Marc Saperstein, Director of Judaic Studies at George Washington University Moderator: Cheryl Kravitz, National Conference for Community and Justice Further details on these and other dialogues will be posted as they are finalized."

[All the Christians going to see The Passion are "sickoes?" The author of this trash, Christopher Hitchens, heralds a partial Jewish heritage and an obvious ideological allegiance to its victimhood obsession. And he's very busy trashing The Passion (see another of his articles further below on this page). A reviewer who finds homosexual sado-masochism in the suffering of Christ tells us a lot more about what turns Hitchens on than it does Mel Gibson, don't you think? Remember: perverts like this movie reviewer are the ones with the mass media reins. They define the world for you: Christ's suffering = a gay pervert party.]
I DETEST THIS FILM ..WITH A PASSION,
by Christopher Hitchens, Mirror (UK), Feb 27 2004
"A FEW years ago, Mel Gibson got himself into an argument after uttering a series of crude remarks that were hostile to homosexuals. Now he has made a film that principally appeals to the gay Christian sado-masochistic community: a niche market that hasn't been sufficiently exploited. If you like seeing handsome young men stripped and tied up and flayed with whips, The Passion Of The Christ is the movie for you. Some people used to go to Ben-Hur deliberately late, and just watch the chariot race while skipping the boring quasi-Biblical stuff. Alas, that isn't possible with this film. Along with the protracted torture comes a simple-minded but nonetheless bigoted version of the more questionable bits of the Gospels. It's boring all right - much of the film is excruciatingly tedious - but it also manages to be extraordinarily nasty. Gibson claims that the Holy Ghost spoke through him in the directing of this movie, and that everything in it is from the Bible. I very much doubt the first claim, and I can safely say that the second one is false. The Bible does not have an encounter between Jesus and a sort of Satanic succubus figure in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Bible does not have a raven pecking out the eye of one of the crucified thieves. The Bible does not have Judas pursued to his suicide by a horde of supernatural and sinister devil-children. Moreover, whatever the Bible may say, the Roman authorities in Jerusalem were not minor officials in a Jewish empire, compelled to obey the orders of a gang of bloodthirsty rabbis. It was Rome that was boss. Indeed, Pontius Pilate was later recalled by the Emperor Tiberius for the extreme brutality with which he treated the Jewish inhabitants (and you had to be quite cruel to get Tiberius to raise his eyebrows). YET Gibson is evidently obsessed with the Jewish question, and it shows in his film. It also shows when he's off-screen. Invited by Peggy Noonan - a sympathetic conservative interviewer - in Reader's Digest to say what he thought of the Holocaust, Gibson replied with extreme coldness that a lot of people were killed in the Second World War and no doubt some of them were Jews. Shit happens, in other words. He doesn't seem to grasp the point that the war was started by a political party which believed in a Jewish world conspiracy. He doesn't go as far as his father, who says that the Holocaust story is "mostly fiction" and that there were more Jews at the end of the war than there were at the beginning, but he does say that his old man has "never told me a lie". And he does say that he bases his film on the visions of the Crucifixion experienced by a 19th-century German nun, Anne-Catherine Emmerich, who believed that the Jews used the blood of Christian children in their Passover rituals. (In case you have forgotten, the setting of the film is the Jewish Passover.) Yesterday, as the movie opened, a Pentecostal church in Denver, Colorado, put up a big sign on its marquee saying: "Jews Killed The Lord Jesus." Nice going. In order to keep up this relentless propaganda pressure, Gibson employs the cheap technique of the horror movie director ... He went to some trouble to spread alarm in the Jewish community, which rightly suspected that the film might revive the old religious paranoia. HE showed the film at the Vatican, and then claimed that the Pope had endorsed it - a claim that the Vatican has flatly denied, but then every little helps. Then he ran a series of screenings for right-wing fundamentalists only, and refused to show any tapes to anyone who wasn't a religious nut. (It took me ages to get around the ban and get hold of a pirated copy, and I was writing for the Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair.) Having secured a huge amount of free publicity in this way, and some very lucrative advance block bookings from Christian fundamentalist groups, Gibson now talks self-pityingly about how he has risked his fortune and his career, but doesn't care if he "never works again" because he's done it all for Jesus. The clear message I get from that is that he'll be boycotted by sinister Hollywood Jews. So it's a win-win for him: big box office or celebrity martyrdom. With any luck, a bit of both. How perfectly nauseating ... So when the film is later shown, in Russia and Poland, say, or Egypt and Syria, there will be a ready-made propaganda vehicle for those who fancy a bit of torture and murder, with a heavy dose of Jew-baiting thrown in. Gibson knows very well that this will happen, and he'll be raking it in from exactly those foreign rights to the film. So my advice is this. Do not go. Leave it to the sickoes who like this sort of thing, and don't fill the pockets of the sicko who made it."

[The 14 millionth Jew in a position of editorial power to shit on Christ and Mel Gibson. Consistently, the subtexts of these assaults are aimed at Christianity itself. The Passion is "propaganda? What on Earth does your average Jew say about The Passion that is not grotesquely biased "propaganda?"]
Gore's the crime of 'Passion',
by Jami Bernard, New York Daily News, February 24, 2004
"No child should see this movie. Even adults are at risk. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon." The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful. Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate? Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda. But is it any good? "The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar. That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles). Is Gibson devout, or is he mad? Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director. But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience. Is it anti-Semitic? Yes. Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes. Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene. He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context. Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner. Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment. The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed. "Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers. Oh, does He suffer. The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured. The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill." The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern). Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history. Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?"

[It has begun. We are entering an age of world totalitarian Jewish fascism. Anything the Jewish Lobby doesn't like is actually BANNED from view. Even if it's just a depiction of Jesus. This is the provenance of fascists, dictators, Kings, and self-decreed Chosen People who know know best how they may be represented. Understand what this is, at root: Christians in France are EXPLICITLY censored by Jewry.]
French theaters won't show 'Passion',
by Kim Willsher, Chicago Sun-Times, February 29, 2004
"French cinema chains are refusing to distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" because of fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism. France is the only European country where there is still no distribution deal for the film, which depicts the last days of Jesus Christ in graphic detail and is accused by critics of stoking anti-Jewish sentiment. The film was released in America last week, but French distributors are wary of its impact on audiences and want to gauge its reception elsewhere in Europe, where it is due to open next month. "We don't want to be on the side of those who support such anti-Semitism," a veteran film industry figure said. "When we distributed 'It's a Beautiful Life' by [Roberto] Benigni, we were worried about the risk of making a comedy about the Holocaust, but that was different. There's enough anti-Semitic stuff circulating here already without us throwing oil on the fire." The debate over the film is highly sensitive in France, where a spate of firebombings of synagogues and Jewish schools and attacks on rabbis over the last year has led Israel to denounce it as the most anti-Semitic country in Europe. Anger with Israel among France's large and growing Muslim population, combined with the strength of right-wing parties in some French districts, have contributed to an atmosphere that has alarmed political and Jewish leaders. Last year, Paris police were forced to set up a dedicated unit to deal with anti-Semitic crimes. Schoolteachers complain they face a hostile reaction among Muslim students when trying to teach the history of the Holocaust, which some equate with Israel's actions against Palestinians in the occupied territories. Many in France fear "The Passion" will stir up angry reaction of a different kind. The newspaper Liberation described Gibson's faith as "a Shiite version of Christianity . . . imbibed with blood and pain" which "reduces the message of Christ to his death by torture."

Jewish actor traded role in ‘Fiddler’ to play a high priest in ‘The Passion’,
By Ruth E. Gruber, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 8, 2004
"Olek Mincer has not yet seen the finished version of “The Passion of the Christ.” But he has a take on the controversial Mel Gibson film that is somewhat different from that of other Jewish observers: It’s from the inside. “I gave up the role of a Russian boy, Fiedka, in an Italian version of ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ to play the Jew Nicodemus in Mel Gibson’s version of the Gospels,” said the lanky 46-year-old actor with a wry smile. Mincer, who grew up in Poland and now lives in Rome, was one of several Jews in the cast and crew of “The Passion,” which garnered record box-office receipts when it opened last month in the United States. It is now opening across Europe. Most notably, the Romanian Jewish actress Maia Morgenstern plays Mary, and the Rome-based Sephardi singer Evelina Meghnagi served as dialogue coach for the Aramaic used in the film. Meghnagi, who was born in Libya, recently described to the Rome Jewish monthly Shalom her growing uneasiness with the production as it progressed. She said she felt so strongly about it that she refused to allow the use of some of her music in the soundtrack. “As I instructed the actors how to speak in Aramaic,” she said, “I began to understand from the screenplay that not only would this be a blood-soaked and violent film, but also that I found myself facing a story in which the director, Mel Gibson, restored the responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ to us Jews.” Morgenstern, on the other hand, has told interviewers that she does not think the film is anti-Semitic. The daughter of Holocaust survivors, Morgenstern told The Associated Press that any political message the film offers is “about the responsibility and impact political and military leaders can have in manipulating the masses and interfering in people’s conscience, particularly at a moment of crisis as it was then.” Mincer, also the child of survivors, agrees with Morgenstern. Mincer said he doesn’t believe Gibson is anti-Semitic, and he hopes that the controversy around the film could ultimately have a positive effect. “I realize that this film has come out in a crucial moment for the relations between the world’s religions, political powers and economies,” Mincer told JTA. “Everyone seems to be taking rigid sides; the desire not to offend others is no longer a characteristic of our times,” he said. “From this point of view, I think the controversy around the film can be very useful, as it underscores problems that are still unresolved regarding the importance of the changes in the church vis-a-vis its roots and the Jewish people.” ... Mincer said that he had experienced some qualms while performing in “The Passion of the Christ,” but in the end — like Morgenstern — he concluded that “this was a film, a work of art; we are actors and we serve art; this is our profession' ... “I have to tell you that during the long periods of waiting off the set, I would sing songs in Yiddish with one of the American actors,” Mincer said. “I felt a little clandestine in doing so, but at the same time not alone; it gave me a sense of belonging,” he said. “And watching the bravura and professionalism of Maia Morgenstern filled me with pride for Yiddishkeit.”