I haven't seen Mel Gibson's movie, although I have heard enough about it for five lifetimes. However, this Ann Coulter column zeroes in on the peculiar dhimmi tendency of American liberals to practice theological equivalence: to assert or assume that Christianity and Islam have the same capacity to inspire violence. I discuss the absurdity of this in Islam Unveiled. And here is Coulter's take:
William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" – who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives – was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize.With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)
The "passion play" has been put on in Germany since at least 1633. I guess 1633 would be "pre-Hitler." In addition, Moses walked the Earth "pre-Hitler." The wheel was invented "pre-Hitler." People ate soup "pre-Hitler." Referring to the passion play as "pre-Hitler" is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!
Despite repeated suggestions from liberals – including the in-house "conservative" and Clinton-supporter at the Times – Hitler is not what happens when you gin up Christians. Like Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine killers and the editorial board of the New York Times, Hitler detested Christians.
Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an "invention of the Jew" and vowed that the "organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed" so that the state would "remain the absolute master." Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century – all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade, vs. seven abortion providers killed. Yeah – keep your eye on those Christians!
But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. (And don't get them started on Zionism.) Like their Muslim friends still harping about the Crusades, liberals won't "move on" from the Spanish Inquisition. In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast.
But Safire argues that viewers of "The Passion" will see the Jewish mob and think: "Who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?"
Let's see: It was a Roman who ordered Christ's execution, and Romans who did all the flaying, taunting and crucifying. Perhaps Safire is indulging in his own negative stereotyping about Jews by assuming they simply viewed Romans as "the help."
But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? (Besides people who go around putting up nativity scenes that have to be taken down by court order?) The religion that toppled the Roman Empire – anyone?
Jesus' suffering and death is not a Hatfields-and-McCoys story demanding retaliation. The gist of the religion that transformed the world is: God's only son came to Earth to take the punishment we deserved.
If the Jews had somehow managed to block Jesus' crucifixion and He had died in old age of natural causes, there would be no salvation through Christ and no Christianity. Whatever possible responses there may be to that story, this is not one of them: Damn those Jews for being a part of God's plan to save my eternal soul!
Gibson didn't insert Jews into the story for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the Left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way.
Of course, the original text is no excuse in Hollywood. The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of.
Coulter is largely correct in her assessment, but misses an important element in interpreting the Gospels.
St. Matthew, for example, identifies clearly that Jesus foretold of his own death. The event was ordained divinely- whether it was at the behest of the Jews, at the hands of the Romans (for that matter, it could have been Pharisees or Sadducees that committed the murder) or in a different location is irrelevant. The point of Christ's terrestrial life is that Jesus dies in atonement for the sins of humankind, as a result of being a part of a greater plan being implemented by God.
So, logically and theologically, it would be impossible for the Jews to have killed Jesus- they, like the Romans, were only bit players in a vast, divine undertaking in which God sacrifices his only Son to the benefit of all humankind. To infer anti-Semitism from the Crucifixion is to fundamentally misunderstand the Gospels.
Only those who hate Christianity and/or do not understand it say that this film incites anti-semiticism......amazing - it hasn't happened although the number of people seeing it is over the top - where are these killing Christians?
I haven't seen any!
jihan
I also can't help but notice that the people suddenly so worried about anti-semitism are largely the ones that have no use for Jews anyway. They'll compare Sharon to Hitler and Jennin to Auschwitz all day, then have the nerve to be "offended" by the portrayal of Jews in a movie!
Ann Coulter is an unbearable polemicist. Her book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, is really a demeaning experience in rhetoric; angry, sloppy, and juvenile. (“Liberals are always against America”; “[Democrats] vote whichever way would best advance Communist interests”; Senator McCarthy not only didn’t act inappropriately, but his critics were “traitorous”, and the Democrats are called the “Treason Party” and accused of “treasonous stupidity”.)
Yet she is right about several things in this instance.
-William Safire is not a “conservative”, but rather more of a libertarian than a conservative, or traditional Republican. (And he might be a traitor.)
-Hitler was no Christian, though he did manage to get millions of Christians to aid and to tolerate him.
-Critics of Gibson assumed that Americans would respond to blood libel appeals (and assumed that these would be in the movie).
-Christianity--the essence of this faith--does not seem anti-Semitic.
However Christendom is, or at least was for most of its centuries. Just because Americans are ignorant of history and exist in an ahistorical bubble, does not obliterate history, or the very tragic and bloody tradition of Jew-hating and murder by Christians. (Yes, Stalin killed far more people, but that is a sad defense indeed!)
Thankfully things have changed in the West, and in much of Christendom.
There are no Henry Fords (he the avid publisher of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), no widespread religiously-sanctioned animus (post Vatican II), no banning of Jews from golf clubs, etc. There are problems (Eastern Orthodox position on Jews, critics of Israel moving beyond criticism towards anti-Semitism, etc.) but compared with the way things were, it’s a different world.
Critics of Gibson’s movie were over-wrought with worry, and it looks as if nothing will come of the film vis-à-vis anti-Semitism. (We’ll soon see how the film is received in the rest of the world.) I think concern and reflection were warranted, but an order of magnitude less anxiety.
Personally, I was concerned about the film in that it might engender anti-Jewish feeling, especially because Gibson rejects Vatican II (also his father does not help!), and his known penchant for blood (i.e., how would he employ this?). Still, I wasn’t worried about rioting, vandalism or mayhem.
Troy
I think everyone's misunderstanding why the film got labeled anti-semitic: the film is not only well-done, but unashamedly Christian, in all of its gore and glory. It presents the fundamental message that Christians have been believing for 2000 years right there, in your face, and does so with cinematic expertise.
That's why liberals hate the film. They hate it because it's a giant slap in the face to all the hard work they've done to tear down the ancient religion and make something new out of it. The "anti-semitism" label is just a wanton act of propaganda by people wishing to keep the central event of the most important religion in Western history out of sight and out of mind. No one was really afraid of pogroms and Kristallnacht. They simply loathe the subject entirely and will say anything to keep it out of art, theater, and film.
Ok, let me point out a few things.
I have nothing but respect for the uncountable millions of Christians who read the Gospels and consider themselves sinners, as responsible for the Death of Jesus as the Jews and Romans of the time. I fully understand why such Christians would be grateful to Mel Gibson and I, a Jew, have no fear that "The Passion of the Christ" will instigate any anti-Semitism amongst such good people.
Unfortunately, there was a reason that Vatican II came out with a proclamation that the Jews were not guilty of Deicide. And a straightforward reading of the Gospels is easily misinterpretable as blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus.
There is a difference between forgiveness and forgetting. I consider Christians to be friends of the Jews and most Jews have no good reason to dwell on the past. But when the Passion is transferred with such power to the Silver Screen, I feel that we Jews have earned the right to worry that not all viewers of this movie will interpret it in the true Christian way.
Josh and A Berman, I, too, am against Vatican II, and I'm not even a Roman Catholic. Vatican II is an atrocity against the Church (not just the Roman Church) because, not only does it dispense with the Latin mass (minor matters) but, more significantly, Vatican II undermines Christianity thoroughly. Vatican II promulgates the heresy of the "anonymous christian." THis bit of nonsense basically holds that whether or not one has heard the Gospel, the very fact of one's being born is enough to make one a christian. Not so. Baptism is requisite. Christianity is faith informed by reason. Vatican II brings Christianity close to Islam -- which also believes that everybody is born a muslim but is led astray. The statement of Vatican II on deicide pales before that on the anonymous christian because that article guts Christianity altogether. Thus, when Gibson says he rejects Vatican II, one must read all of the document -- and it is a horrible, horrible document. A. Berman, I'm sorry, but Rome does not speak for all Christians. The rest of Christianity did not need Vatican II to know that Jews were not guilty of deicide. The Gospels themselves tell us, "I lay down my life and no man takes it from me" and "you have no power over me except that which has been given you from above." Those are Christ's own words. Next time you run across a nut who accuses Jews of deicide, tell him that, based on his accusation, he should be thanking Jews for the favor of salvation. No death, no resurrection. I'm just glad Jesus died for me so I don't have to live under the law. Friday, yes, but Sunday's coming! Dag! That's a West Bank & Gaza threat, "after Shabbat comes Sunday."
Helen,
I certainly understand that Rome does not speak for all Christians. I did not mean to imply that all Christians believed in Deicide before Vatican II, either.
Speaking as a Jew, I'm rather glad the Vatican declared us innocent of the death of Jesus. I'm not particularly worried that the vast majority of American Christians will see the Passion and rush out to kill Jews -- I think the message of Vatican II has really been internalized by most Catholics, and since WWII most American Protestant churches have also rejected the deicide charge (which isn't to say that there is no anti-semitism among some American Christians). It reveals a real lack of knowledge of the history of Christian anti-Judaism to claim that Vatican II wasn't necessary to teach Catholics that the Jews weren't responsible for the death of Jesus. While the Catholic church was by no means responsible for the Holocaust, it's nonsense to separate Nazi racial anti-semitism entirely from previously existing Christian anti-Judaism. See any reputable history of anti-semitism to learn about the linkage between them.
I'm much more worried what might happen when the movie is shown in other countries -- what stereotypical images of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion will it reinforce? When Jesus appears before Pilate the second time and the crowd howls for his blood, one of the things they are yelling is "his blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). In the American version of the movie, this line in Aramaic is not translated in the subtitles, but it certainly could be added back in when the film is shown in Europe, the Arab world, and other countries.
Listen Guys,
We are all missing the point here,
The question isn't "who killed Jesus"
But rather "Why did Jesus die?"
When we can answer this question the answer is obvious..."We all did."
To my Jewish friends I would point them towards reading 'The Prophet Isaiah' chapter 53.
Good grief - someone should NOT make a movie because "it might inflame the masses" in other countries?
Hey, George Lucas, hold off. Spielberg, stop the filming. You MAY make some people angry.
Oh wait, that a valid reason ONLY if the film is made by a so-called conservative.
Sorry for interrupting, but all this talk about Christianity not being anti-semitic in its core is a bit too much for me as a Jew. Don't take me wrong, I appreciate the modern understanding of Chrsitianty that tries to and has largely succeeded in presenting a new look on the religion, but Christianity has been an antisemitic religion for most of its history. The claim that Jews' killing Jesus was part of the divine plan is not relevant to the fact that Jews must be despised. I can take the role of the devil's advocate and speak as a medieval Christian authority and answer back that "...pests are also part of the Divine plan in the order of things, that Pilate was also part of God's plan. Does it mean we should not despise pests ot Pilates atrocities?"
Let's face the truth people. Christianity parted from Judaism, because Jews, WHO WERE THE AUTHORITY, didn't accept jesus as the Messiah because he did not fulfill any of the requirements for it. That's why Jewish refusal to accept Jesus shakes the grounds under the foundations of Chrsitianity. Let a pagan not accept 'the good message of Christ Jesus' and it is a sad fact but perhaps understandable, but let a Jew not accept it and the whole of Chrsitianity goes under authenticity crisis. That's why Chrsitianity HAD TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC to justify itself. That is ultimately the reason for Islaimc anti-semitism as well. Both hate us beacuse we don't accept their version of things and we should have, if they were authentic. Sorry to burst the bubbles for you guys, but here is
'The First Epistle of Paul to The Thessalonians' verse 14-16, in your New Testament, which shatters all doubt as to the true nature of Christianity:
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 WHO BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and THEY PLEASE NOT GOD, AND ARE CONTRARY TO ALL MEN:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: FOR THE WRATH IS COME UPON THEM TO THE UTTERMOST.
One can see echoes of Hitler and Auschwitz in it already!
Asher:
Your argument is particularly noxious and unfortunate coming at a time when Jews and Christians are both targeted by Islamic jihadists, but most importantly it is false.
Your supposed crowning summation from St. Paul (the correct citation is actually I Thessalonians 2:14-16) destroys your argument utterly when one realizes that St. Paul was himself a Jew. He was therefore quite obviously not speaking of all Jews in this passage, but of the sect to which he was opposed. Otherwise who is the "us" who is forbidden to speak to the Gentiles in verse 16?
Also, one could only legitimately travel from this passage to Hitler if other portions of the New Testament enjoined killing those with whom one disagrees. But there is no such passage.
No doubt Christian history is full of anti-Semitism, but among Catholics anti-Semitic readings of the New Testament were definitively condemned by the Second Vatican Council, and (contrary to popular belief) condemnations of anti-Semitic attacks can also be found from Church authorities throughout history.
Today Christians and Jews need to unite in defense against a threat dedicated to destroying or subjugating us both. Instead of exaggerating threats from Christianity, I invite you to direct your attention to a thorough study of jihad ideology.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I don't agree about your view of Paul. He was no longer 'just a Jew'. He is talking now as a Christian. It is true that AT THAT TIME, Chrsitians mostly continued to follow Mosaic law, such as keeping Kosher, or keeping the Jewish festivities ..., but they were 'Christians', and as Christians this was Paul's opinion on those who were not ready to accept Jesus, that is the 'Jews'. Later Chrsitians stopped following the Mosaic Law altogether so that this distinction could clearly be seen, but it existed from the moment they considered themselves as Christians 'under love , not under law' and parted ways with Judaism. It is exactly the poeple Paul meant in that piece that form the lineage of Jews today. This kind of argumentation is reminiscent of Arabs claiming they can't be anti-semitic because they are 'semites' as well.
Sorry, that didn't work.
As for killings, it didn't take that long when that followed as well.
And keep in mind that it was Christianity that opened the way for Islam. With an already established Chrsitianity that claimed to follow the Jewish traditions and monotheism but considered itself better and guided versus the 'old' Israel and its 'old' Testament and the natural vilification of Jews that followed this, Islam needed just to follow the flow and bring this mentality one or more steps further. It was Chrsitianity that opened this gate to Hell!
And I agree that today Jihadist Islam is the biggest threat, and that Jihad is unfortunately in the very basis of Islam, and that TODAY'S Christianity, in the West at least, is not even comparable with mainstream Islam and its violence. But claiming Christianity was not antisemitic from its origin is not going to help the situation, because in these dire times we need to stick to the truth more than ever.
If you are worried I think you should be saying this to Mel Gibson. Showing High Priests, the Kohanim, the holiest people in Judaism, as sadists calling for more torture is not going to help any one of us. It is a great tribute to the success of the dominance of reason in the Western world, that there was no rioting after this film. But it had more to do with the level of civilizedness and intelligence of the viewers,than the film itself. 100 years ago something like this would cause pogroms.
Moreover I am not happy with your 'Islam is worst so accept whatever we say of Christianity' picture at all. I'm afraid this will only add fuel to those Islamists' calim of 'Jews and Crusaders against us' propaganda tool. The real line is between logical people and religious fanatics. Today the real problem are moslem fundamentalists, but excuse me for not supporting Christian "fundi"s trying to take advantage of the situation. The main reason the Christian West is now a bastion for humanity and reason is the renaissence and the enlightenment period and the success of secularism. That is the real weaopen against the terrorists and Islamists, not this religion versus that. Islam, with all its faults is what many people believe in today. You can not realistically expect a billion people to stop believing in it like that. The key is to secularize it, not to add more fuel to it by siding as Christians against it!
After all this talk, I am happy that the Jews never impose their religion on others. We believe that rightousness is what a person should be judged against, not a religious dogma be it Christian or Islamic or anything else.
So Sane and Secular forces of the world, unite! ;-)
Sir, you have clearly not read anything I have said. I never said "Islam is worst so accept whatever we say of Christianity." In any case, you can secularize all you want, but that will not stop the jihadists from coming after us as Jews and Christians.
Your characterization of Christianity is inaccurate and hateful, but you will hear no more about it from me.
Cordially
RS
Asher,
Let me tell you something as one Jew to another. You are uninformed. But that can be corrected. Read some history. You will find that even before your vaunted secularism took hold anti-Semitism was not at all universal in Christianity. Medieval Popes generally stood up for the Jews. Germany (even then) was another story. And the 20th century Germans who practically wiped out European Jewry were very enlightened, secular people.
America, which was a very Christian nation, turned out to be the real Promised Land- no where else on earth in history have Jews been as safe. (And can we please be sensible. Yes, even here in America I have been occasionally uncomfortable when some one makes a joke about Jews and money. But that is a far cry from having to fear for the lives of myself or my children.)
In short, I think you need to think twice about your condemnation of Christianity. I mean, what do you want non-Jews to do? You don't want to proselytize. Okay, so non-Jews should have no religion, no God, no morals, no customs, no rituals? Do you have any idea how important such things are to human identity? Think it through, man. Where do you get your idea of righteousness that people should be judged against. A statement like "We believe that righteousness is what a person should be judged against, not a religious dogma be it Christian or Islamic or anything else" doesn’t mean anything at all.
I'm sorry if what I said sounded hateful to you. I personally have no problem with Christians and beleive that a Christian can be as rightous a person as it gets. I have also repeatedly stated that I have great respect with modern Christianity. So there is my point Mrs. S. Non-Jews should follow their religions and live a fulfilled life.
What I have a problem with is Chrsitian fundamentalism. I have also problems with Jewish fundamentalism as well. I as a Jew understand the Bible as our people's common historical document and the center of a culture, the Judeo-chrsitian culture that was one of the most important factors of maintaning morality in human history, when seen in perspective. But I am not blind to the fact that many older parts of the even our Tanakh are, by today's standards brutal and sometimes very bloody. I only excpect the same attitude from Christians to aknowledge the problematic origin of their faith. This has nothing to do with what it stands for now and the deep and loving 'interpretation' that is given to it at our time.
I think any kind of literal backing of Chrsitianity would only play in the hands of Islamists.
There are waves of hostility and receptivity among Christians to Jews. When Medieval Germany was persecuting them they found refuge in Poland. As Mrs. S. has pointed out, Popes often stood up for Jews. This was against popular frenzy against them, frequently egged on by friars. Oliver Cromwell was one of the most devout Christians of his time, indeed he is generally considered a fanatic, but he was the one who persuaded the Commonwealth government to allow Jews to settle once more in England after they had been prohibited from doing so for centuries.
I would not put too great a reliance on "secularism" to protect Jews. The secular left today often buys into the hideous lies of the Islamists against Jews. They are implacably hostile to Israel, and if they get their way the destruction of Israel will mean the genocide of five million Jews.
A recently published book called "Hitler Strikes Poland" by Alexander B. Rossino looks at the intial murder campaign of the Third Reich as the German armies conquered Poland. The SS established several special units to go in behind the troops and murder designated classes of people. Besides the Jews they included various catagories of Poles including leaders of veterans organizations and the members of the Boy Scouts. Rossino looks into the backgrounds of the leaders of these units and in almost every case, in order to advance in the SS below the lowest officer ranks, they had to renounce their religion, by a public declaration. I thought that was very interesting. you can't get more secular than that.
Part of the reaction to Gibson's film was due, I suspect, more to the hostility of liberals to its message than to Jewish worries. The objecters are liberals, as so many Jews are. There was also some remnant of the old fear of any display of Christian religiosity presaging anti-Jewish behavior or attitudes, as it so often did in The Old Country, whichever that might be. I do not share those views and thought the outcry rather silly, sepecially as it took place before anybody had seen the film. What will happen in places like Greece and Russia, with their orthodox traditions, not to mention Syria, is another matter of course. But as another commenter mentioned above, we can hardly call on Gibson to not make a picture because idiots might misinterpret it or because it might offend someone. Nobody worries about offending Christians with anti-Chrisitan movies or art, after all.