Coming
in October
From Common Courage Press
Today's
Stories
August 29, 2003
Lenni Brenner
God
and the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party
Bister, Estrin and Jacobs
Howard Dean, the Progressive Anti-War Candidate? Some Vermonters
Give Their Views
August 28, 2003
Gilad Atzmon
The
Most Common Mistakes of Israelis
David Vest
Moore's
Monument: Cement Shoes for the Constitution
David Lindorff
Shooting Ali in the Back: Why the Pacification is Doomed
Chris Floyd
Cheap Thrills: Bush Lies to Push His War
Wayne Madsen
Restoring the Good, Old Term "Bum"
Elaine Cassel
Not Clueless in Chicago
Stan Goff
Nukes in the Dark
Tariq Ali
Occupied
Iraq Will Never Know Peace
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Behold, My Package
Website of the Day
Palestinian
Artists
Recent
Stories
August 27, 2003
Bruce Jackson
Little
Deaths: Hiding the Body Count in Iraq
John Feffer
Nuances and North Korea: Six Countries in Search of a Solution
Dave Riley
an Interview with Tariq Ali on the Iraq War
Lacey Phillabaum
Bush's Holy War in the Forests
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Website of the Day
The Dean Deception
August 26, 2003
Robert Fisk
Smearing the Dead
David Lindorff
The
Great Oil Gouge: Burning Up that Tax Rebate
Sarmad S. Ali
Baghdad is Deadlier Than Ever: the View of an Iraqi Coroner
Christopher Brauchli
Bush Administration Equates Medical Pot Smokers with Segregationists
Juliana Fredman
Collective Punishment on the West Bank: Dialysis, Checkpoints
and a Palestinian Madonna
Larry Siems
Ghosts of Regime Changes Past in Guatemala
Elaine Cassel
Onward, Ashcroft Soldiers!
Saul Landau
Bush:
a Modern Ahab or a Toy Action Figure?
August 25, 2003
Kurt Nimmo
Israeli Outlaws in America
David Bacon
In Iraq, Labor Protest is a Crime
Thomas P. Healy
The Govs Come to Indy: Corps Welcome; Citizens Locked Out
Norman Madarasz
In an Elephant's Whirl: the US/Canada Relationship After the
Iraq Invasion
Salvador Peralta
The Politics of Focus Groups
Jack McCarthy
Who Killed Jancita Eagle Deer?
Uri Avnery
A Drug
for the Addict
August 23/24, 2003
Forrest Hylton
Rumsfeld
Does Bogota
Robert Fisk
The Cemetery at Basra
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity
Insults to Intelligence
Andrew C. Long
Exile on Bliss Street: The Terrorist Threat and the English Professor
Jeremy Bigwood
The Toxic War on Drugs: Monsanto Weedkiller Linked to Powerful
Fungus
Jeffrey St. Clair
Forest
or Against Us: the Bush Doctor Calls on Oregon
Cynthia McKinney
Bring the Troops Home, Now!
David Krieger
So Many Deaths, So Few Answers: Approaching the Second Anniversary
of 9/11
Julie Hilden
A Constitutional Right to be a Human Shield
Dave Lindorff
Marketplace
Medicine
Standard Schaefer
Unholy Trinity: Falwell's Anti-Abortion Attack on Health and
Free Speech
Catherine Dong
Kucinich and FirstEnergy
José Tirado
History Hurts: Why Let the Dems Repeat It?
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen's America
Gavin Keeney
The Infernal Machine
Adam Engel
A Fan's Notations
William Mandel
Five Great Indie Films
Walt Brasch
An American Frog Fable
Poets' Basement
Reiss, Kearney, Guthrie, Albert and Alam
Website of the Weekend
The Hutton Inquiry
August 22, 2003
Carole Harper
Post-Sandinista
Nicaragua
John Chuckman
George Will: the Marquis of Mendacity
Richard Thieme
Operation Paperclip Revisited
Chris Floyd
Dubya Indemnity: Bush Barons Beyond the Reach of Law?
Issam Nashashibi
Palestinians
and the Right of Return: a Rigged Survey
Mary Walworth
Other People's Kids
Ron Jacobs
The
Darkening Tunnel
Website of the Day
Current Energy
August 21, 2003
Robert Fisk
The US
Needs to Blame Anyone But Locals for UN Bombing
Virginia Tilley
The Quisling Policies of the UN in Iraq: Toward a Permanent War?
Rep. Henry Waxman
Bush Owes the Public Some Serious Answers on Iraq
Ben Terrall
War Crimes and Punishment in Indonesia: Rapes, Murders and Slaps
on the Wrists
Elaine Cassel
Brother John Ashcroft's Traveling Patriot Salvation Show
Christopher Brauchli
Getting Gouged by Banks
Marjorie Cohn
Sergio Vieira de Mello: Victim of Terrorism or US Policy in Iraq?
Vicente Navarro
Media
Double Standards: The Case of Mr. Aznar, Friend of Bush
Website of the Day
The Intelligence Squad
August 20, 2003
Robert Fisk
Now No
One Is Safe in Iraq
Caoimhe Butterly
Life and Death on the Frontlines of Baghdad
Kurt Nimmo
UN Bombing: Act of Terrorism or Guerrilla War?
Michael Egan
Revisiting the Paranoid Style in the Dark
Ramzi Kysia
Peace
is not an Abstract Idea
Steven Higgs
NPR and the NAFTA Highway
John L. Hess
A Downside Day
Edward Said
The Imperial Bluster of Tom Delay
Jason Leopold
Gridlock at Path 15: the California Blackouts were the "Wake
Up Call"
Website of the Day
Ashcroft's Patriotic Hype
August 19, 2003
Jeffrey St. Clair
Blackouts Happen
Gary Leupp
"Our Patch": Australia v. the Evil Doers of the South
Pacific
Sean Donahue
Uribe's Cruel Model: Colombia Moves Toward Totalitarianism
Matt Martin
Bush's Credibility Problem on Missile Defense
Juliana Fredman
Recipe for the Destruction of a Hudna
John Ross
Fox Government's Attack on Mexican Basques
Sasan Fayazmanesh
What Kermit Roosevelt Didn't Say
Website of the Day
Tom Delay's Dual Loyalities
August 18, 2003
Uri Avnery
Hero in War and Peace
Stan Goff
The Volunteer Military and the Wicked Adventure
Cathy Breen
Baghdad on the Hudson
Michael Kimaid
Fight the Power (Companies)!
Jason Leopold
The California Rip-Off Revisited: Arnold, Milken and Ken Lay
Matt Siegfried
The Bush Administration in Context
Elaine Cassel
At Last, A Judge Who Acts Like a Judge
Alexander Cockburn
Judy Miller's War
Harvey Wasserman
The Legacy of Blackout Pete Wilson
Website of the Day
Fire Griles!
Congratulations
to CounterPuncher Gilad Atzmon! BBC Names EXILE Top Jazz CD
August 16 / 17, 2003
Flavia Alaya
Bastille
New Jersey
Jeffrey St. Clair
War Pimps
Saul Landau
The Legacy of Moncada: the Cuban Revolution at 50
Brian Cloughley
What Has Happened to the US Army in Iraq?
William S. Lind
Coffins for the Crews: How Not to Use Light Armored Vehicles
Col. Dan Smith
Time for Straight Talk
Wenonah Hauter
Which
Electric System Do We Want?
David Lindorff
Where's Arnold When We Need Him?
Harvey Wasserman
This Grid Should Not Exist
Don Moniak
"Unusual Events" at Nuclear Power Plants: a Timeline
for August 14, 2003
David Vest
Rolling Blackout Revue
Merlin Chowkwanyun
An Interview with Sherman Austin
Adam Engel
The Loneliest Number
Poets' Basement
Guthrie, Hamod & Albert
Book of the Weekend
Powerplay by Sharon Beder
Hot Stories
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
William Blum
Myth
and Denial in the War on Terrorism
Standard Schaefer
Experimental Casinos: DARPA and the War Economy
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
August
30, 2003
Gibson's Christ on
Trial
Dispassionate
Notes on the "Passion" Controversy
By GARY LEUPP
1. Mel Gibson's forthcoming film "The
Passion," based on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus
as depicted in the New Testament, has even before its release
generated controversy. This is good and appropriate.
2. The film might, just conceivably,
as Rabbi Eugene Korn, the Anti-Defamation League's Director of
Interfaith Affairs suggests, "undermine Christian-Jewish
dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive
progress in interfaith relations."
3. We have a great deal of religious
intolerance and narrow-mindedness in this country now (including
the form of anti-Semitism directed against Arabs and Arab-American
Muslims), and do not need any more of any kind.
4. To depict a whole people as guilty
of deicide ("god-killing") is perhaps the most egregious
form of intolerance and racism imaginable, and the Oberamagau
Passion Play tradition alone validates Jewish (and others') concerns
about a cinematographic Passion.
5. But the ADL's accusations of "anti-Semitism"
are often dubious, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
6. The issues involved should be examined
rationally, unemotionally.
7. There are Christians critical of the Gibson film, and Jews
supportive of it. Paula Frederickson, a Catholic scholar of the
first century Roman empire, declared that she was "shocked"
by the script, which "presents neither a true rendition
of the gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of
what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate
was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest."
But Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion
Picture Association of American saw it in Washington and pronounced
it "a compelling piece of art." He phoned Kirk Douglas
afterwards to praise it.
Michael Medved, a former synagogue president,
wrote in USA Today that the "noisy assaults"
on the film were "unfair and painfully premature."
Matt Drudge, interviewed by Pat Buchanan and Bill Press on MSNBC,
called it, the "best picture I have seen in quite some time,
and even people like Jack Valenti were in the audience in tears
at this screening. It depicts a clash between Jesus and those
who crucified him, and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a
magical film that showed the perils of life on earth."
8. Mel Gibson is a devout, if dissident, Catholic. Anti-abortion,
pro-death penalty, and accused of hostility to feminists and
gays, Gibson is no model of tolerance.
9. But Gibson is a brilliant filmmaker,
capable of producing very inspiring works, "Braveheart"
in particular a moving validation of righteous rebellion against
oppression. (One of my very favorite films.)
10. Gibson revels in very bloody scenes,
and can be expected to make "The Passion"
very gory.
11. Objective historians consider the
"real" history underlying the Passion storyline unclear.
Most concede (although some scholars contest this) that there
was a Jewish man living in the Roman province of Judea in the
early first century CE who, killed ca. 30, became an object of
worship of the Christian faith.
12. We know very little about this man,
Yehoshua or Yeshua (Jesus). The Roman historian Tacitus (ca.
55-115) and the Roman-born Jewish historian Josephus Flavius
(37-ca. 101), mention him, telling us little except that he was
crucified by order of the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius
Pilate.
13. Although some once doubted Pilate's
historical existence, a limestone building inscription found
in Caesarea in 1961 mentions "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of
Judea."
14. Most serious academic Bible scholars regard the gospels (biographies
of Jesus in the New Testament, probably authored between 65 and
130 CE) as a mix of objective history, legend and myth. Fundamentalists
disagree, seeing these writings as the infallible Word of God.
15. About one-third of humankind is at
least nominally Christian, and most Christians accept the New
Testament account of Jesus' death as true. This alone justifies
dramatizations of that account, whatever its relationship to
historical reality, including very graphic dramatizations.
16. The gospels, whether or not reliable as "history,"
all indict Pontius Pilate as the executioner of Jesus.
17. The Qur'an, composed in the early
seventh century and believed by Muslims (an additional one-fifth
of humankind), states that the Jews "claimed" to have
killed Jesus, but that in fact they "slew him not"
and "God took him up unto himself." Surah 4 is vague
on the issue of responsibility for Jesus' death.
18. There are many other narratives about
the life of Jesus (like the Gospel of Peter), or lists of his
sayings (like the Gospel of Thomas), composed from the first
to third centuries, that were not incorporated into the New Testament.
The emergent Church sought to suppress them; much of such material
was burned in anti-heresy campaigns and lost forever.
19. The selection of works for such inclusion
was completed only in the fourth century. Critical scholars view
the selection process as fully human and subjective.
20. Of the canonical gospels (those included
in the New Testament), Mark (of unknown authorship) was probably
the first. Matthew and Luke draw upon it and incorporate almost
all its content. The three books (called "the synoptic gospels")
are very similar in structure and content.
21. The Book of John is probably the
last written of the canonical gospels (ca. 90-120). It is very
different from the synoptics.
22. The representation of the last days
of Jesus evolved over time. The author of Mark (ca. 65-80) provides
the basic, terse narrative. After driving the moneychangers out
of the Temple before Passover, Jesus incurs the high priests'
wrath; with Judas' cooperation, the Jewish authorities arrest
him, convict him of blasphemy, and turn him over to Pilate. Pilate
finds no fault with him, but under pressure from the priests
and an assembled mob, sentences him to crucifixion, turning him
over to Roman soldiers who having mocked him, perform the execution.
Matthew (80-100) adds significant details:
it names the chief priest Caiaphas as mastermind of the plot,
gives the sum paid Judas, and has Pilate's wife send him a
message telling him of a bad dream and encouraging him not to
judge against Jesus. There's the hand-washing scene
designed to emphasize Jewish authorities' responsibility for
Jesus' death. The mob cries, "Let his blood be on us
and our children!" Luke (ca. 80-130) adds "leading
citizens" to those wanting Jesus' death. It has the
chief priests telling Pilate that Jesus isn't just claiming
to be king, but inciting to revolt, and to refuse to pay taxes.
In Luke, a still hesitant Pilate sends Jesus off for trial
before (the Idumaenean Jewish) King Herod in Galilee,
who mocks him but making no decision, sends him back to Pilate
for a second trial. After Pilate reluctantly sentences him to
death, Jesus is taken away by Jewish rather than Roman
officials.
23. In this evolving depiction, Jewish
authorities (and the mob they organize) receive more and more
attention, while Pilate is treated more and more sympathetically.
24. This process culminates in the Book
of John. The Sanhedrin trial isn't even described here; rather,
Jesus is interrogated by a small group at the home of Caiaphas'
father in law. Turned over to Pilate, Jesus is repeatedly
questioned by Pilate, privately and politely, in the Praetorium,
which, for religious reasons, Jews will not enter. Pilate diplomatically
"comes out to them" to ask what crime Jesus had committed;
the crowd does not respond specifically but says "We
are not allowed to put a man to death." Pilate reenters
the Praetorium and has another exchange with Jesus. Asked if
he is the king of the Jews, he counters with the question: "Do
you ask this of your own accord, or have others spoken to you
about me?" Pilate answers, "Am I a Jew? It is your
own people and the chief priests who have turned you over to
me: what have you done?" In this account the Roman seems
particularly anxious to let the rabbi go free. Jesus tells
him that he is in fact a king, but his kingdom is not of this
world; if it were, "my men would have fought to prevent
my being surrendered to the Jews." He is a king who
bears witness to the truth. ("Truth?" Pilate asks,
like a sophisticated Roman familiar with Plato and wearied by
local religious passions, "What is that?") He tells
the crowd he finds no case, offers to release Jesus; but they
want Barabbas.
Pilate has Jesus scourged and humiliated
and presents him to the mob, hoping apparently to mollify them
but declaring yet again that he finds no case against him. If
they want to crucify him, they should do it themselves (19:6).
More cries of "Crucify him!" Pilate again has a private
talk with Jesus, asking him in some apparent consternation where
he had come from. Jesus refuses to reply. Pilate reminds him
that he has the power to crucify him, but Jesus says that power
was conferred from above, and that "the one who handed
you over to me has the greater guilt." (This may mean
Judas, or Caiaphas.) Pilate is all the more "anxious to
set him free," but "the Jews" cry out that
if he doesn't kill Jesus he will be "no friend of Caesar's"
and will be "defying Caesar." Apparently fearing
that Rome might indeed find him soft on sedition, Pilate then
turns Jesus over to the chief priests for crucifixion, although
as in the other accounts Roman soldiers accomplish the deed.
Pilate personally writes a notice in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek
to be fixed on the cross: "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
Jews." Chief priests protest it should be "This
man said: I am King of the Jews," but Pilate refuses
to change it. The implication is that this foreigner better understood
the "real" meaning of Jesus life that did his local
foes.
25. In telling Pilate that the Roman's
power was conferred upon him by God, Jesus suggests that ultimately
neither Jews nor Romans are responsible for his death, but God
Almighty. The Last Supper discourse (John 13-17) makes it clear
that Jesus' death will follow a divine rather than human plan.
26. Historical sources suggest that Pilate was not an entirely
unreasonable man, and in fact sometimes deferred to local religious
sensibilities in a manner unusual for a Roman governor. Josephus
states that when Roman soldiers bearing the standard of the (divine)
Roman emperor marched into Jerusalem, provoking local outrage,
Pilate quickly had the standards removed.
27. The Romans were not always tolerant
of local religious practices. They banned some Druid practices,
for example, and Tiberius once banned Jews and those practicing
Egyptian religion from Rome. On the other hand, Romans dissatisfied
with the formal, public nature of Roman religion flocked to foreign
cults like those of Isis and Mithras. There were even some Buddhists,
in all probability, in Roman Egypt. In any case, Roman authorities
were typically broad-minded (and skeptical) about religious matters,
and it seems unlikely that the Romans would have sought to execute
Jesus as punishment for his religious teachings alone.
28. The statement that the Jews had no
capital punishment law is dubious. In fact the Jews did
have a law authorizing the stoning of blasphemers (Leviticus
24:16) and if we believe the Book of Acts, by the same author
as the Book of Luke, the Sanhedrin was allowed by the Romans
to apply its own laws on this issue. In Acts 7:55-60, the Christian
Stephen is stoned to death by order of the council soon after
Jesus' own death.
29. The ADL report on the film claims
that it "portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish 'mob'
as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming
responsibility for the crucifixion." Surely the gospel accounts
all depict Jewish forces (the Sanhedrin and the mob) as heavily
pressuring Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, and the
charge of "force" here may be subjective. (If Gibson
tampers with the biblical script and, say, has Pilate only agreeing
to the crucifixion to prevent a general insurrection, then the
critics might have a case.) As for assuming responsibility, the
Matthew account (for better or worse) is quite clear: "Let
his blood be on us and our children!" cries the mob.
30. Only in John are "the Jews"
repeatedly and collectively targeted (2:20, 6:41, 7:1, etc.)
as responsible for Jesus' death.
31. More than the Passion sequence itself,
the broader (Christian) theological narrative has historically
generated Christian antipathy towards Jews. According to this,
God chose the Jews as his people through the covenant with Abraham,
promised them a Messiah, and sent the Jews his only begotten
Son as that Messiah. God has his son undergo a brutal death,
then rise on the third day, having through that ordeal cleansed
the sins of humanity (at least those accepting him as personal
savior). The majority of Jewry, rather than accepting the grace
offered, rejects it. The forefathers of the Jews thus not only
(according to the gospels) arrest, try, and humiliate Jesus,
turn him over to Pilate, and demand his death, but by their failure
to embrace Jesus as God (as opposed to such failure among benighted
pagans, who weren't among God's chosen to begin with), they as
a people betray Abraham's covenant. Now (according to Paul)
the Law specifically bestowed on the Jews "comes to an end
with Christ, and everyone who has faith" (as Christians,
including Gentiles) "may be justified" (Romans 10:4).
32. This concept of a god undergoing
a horrible death, descending to the netherworld, the rising from
the dead, offering salvation to humankind (or to select believers),
is not unique to Christianity but occurs in other religions once
popular in the Middle East. The Babylonian god Tammuz (earlier,
the Sumerian god Dimmuzi) rises from the dead, due to the actions
of the goddess Ishtar, on the third day. The Persian variant
of Tammuz, Mithras, gets gored in the groin by a bull, dies,
but also rises from the dead. His cult was popular among Roman
legionnaires in the first century. Believers ceremonially drank
bull's blood in a ceremony reminiscent of the Christians' Holy
Communion. The Phrygian god Attis (another Tammuz variant) castrates
himself, bleeds to death, but returns to his consort Cybele on
the third day.
33. Romans tended to lump the Mithras
cult, the Egyptian Isis/Osiris cult, the Attis cult, Orphism,
Christianity and others as "mystery religions," because
they all involved a narrative about a god's death and rebirth
and promised salvation to a limited orbit of adherents who accepted
the faiths' teachings.
34. In all likelihood, the early Christian
movement (which was extraordinarily diverse up to the fourth
century, when Rome's political embrace insured ideological uniformity)
was influenced by the other mystery religions.
35. The propensity to prettify the Roman Pilate continued as
the Christian movement took shape: the apocryphal gospels The
Acts of Peter (second century?) and the Gospel of Nicodemus
(third or fourth century) further minimized Pilate's responsibility.
By the third century, the Church father Tertullian was writing
that Pilate was a secret Christian; the Coptic Church recognized
him as a saint. His wife, depicted in Matthew as opposing Jesus'
death, became a saint (Claudia Procula) in the Greek Orthodox
Church. Meanwhile we observe an increasing tendency to vilify
the Jews; in Nicodemus, for example, Satan himself says,
"at our instigation the Jews crucified" Jesus.
36. Christians have historically answered charges of anti-Semitism
by stating that the sins of Jews, like anyone else's, can be
washed away in the Blood of the Lamb. But only if Jews become
Christians. Obviously this won't do as a response to criticisms
of "The Passion."
37. All Abrahamic faiths (Judaism and
its offshoots, Christianity and Islam) divide humankind into
believers enjoying God's grace, and nonbelievers who don't. This
fact alone has historically produced religious intolerance with
horrific results, especially in Christian Europe. Bloody crackdowns
on "heretics" in Christendom throughout the Middle
Ages; pogroms against Jews; the Crusades, the Inquisition, the
sixteenth century wars of religion, etc.
38. A key issue in this intolerance is
the belief that some live in bliss after their bodily deaths,
while others suffer endlessly for their "sins" (as
defined by a given faith) in torment. Judaism has been ambiguous
on the issue of life after death in general. Islam plainly states
that Jews and Christians may by the grace of God enter Paradise.
Christianity is uniquely prone to consign nonbelievers to damnation.
While many Christian denominations currently concede that non-Christians
may "go to Heaven," New Testament scriptures consign
all non-believers to perdition (John 15:6, John 3:36, Matthew
25:46, etc.).
39. Many films have exacerbated existing
religious or ethnic conflicts. The Indian film Gadar (Anarchy)
drew protests from Sikhs and Muslims; Deepa Mehta's Water
from Hindus; Kevin Smith's Dogma riled Catholics;
the American Sikh community is enraged about the film Dysfunkional
Family, etc. Given the nature of religion, this may be inevitable.
40. Christians believing the theological
narrative noted above, watching a powerful depiction of Jesus'
bloody death following his trial, might indeed, if only subconsciously,
come to feel antipathy towards Jews. Or the film might, whatever
Gibson's intentions, fuel pre-existent anti-Jewish feelings.
"God Squad" Rabbi Marc Gellmann told Bill O'Reilly
that the "visual impact" of the cat 'o nine tails,
the spikes going through Jesus' hands make a "visual impact"
that might cause hatred. "All the way through, the Jews
are portrayed as bloodthirsty," says Sister Mary C. Boys,
a professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary.
41. The film might encourage Muslim anti-Jewish
feeling as well. This is an issue in places like Casablanca,
Tunis and Cairo. Some have expressed fears about its impact in
Russia, too, where anti-Semitism is on the rise.
42. But Gibson has a right to follow
his faith and make a film that expresses the content of the gospels.
43. And the ADL and other groups have
the right to criticize the film, or what they know or even imagine
about it. They can picket, organize boycotts, etc.
44. In doing so, such groups should clarify
whether they find the New Testament itself anti-Semitic, and
hence dramatic treatments of it inherently objectionable. Some
scholars have effectively made that case.
45. But if the film is in fact a faithful
recounting of the New Testament narrative, non-Christians criticizing
it will (for better or worse) risk reducing their own influence
in largely Christian American society. "For the Jewish leaders
to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems shortsighted,"
states Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Columnist Joseph Farah, who considers himself "a good friend
to the Jewish community in the U.S. and around the world,"
says that, "if the Anti-Defamation League chooses to make
an issue of this film, it will be the organization's own undoing.
In effect, the ADL will be telling Christians their most deeply
held beliefs, their faith, their Holy Scriptures are offensive.
To take issue with this movie is, essentially, to take issue
with the Gospels, to take issue with the Christian faith...I
wouldn't recommend that path to my friends in the Jewish community.
It would be a dreadful mistake."
46. The "undoing" of some critical
organizations might be a good thing. In supporting such Islamophobes
as Daniel Pipes, the ADL can hardly present itself as a paragon
of religious tolerance.
47. Criticism of the film might focus,
less on its depiction of Jesus' Jewish antagonists, as on premise
that the Lord of the Cosmos should require the brutal death of
his Son (at Jewish, Roman or any other human hands) as the means
to allow a select segment of believing humanity to avoid eternal
damnation. (Question for discussion: Is such a cosmos reasonable?)
48. Criticism could also focus on the
dubious historicity of the whole gospel narrative.
49. Some fine Hollywood producer could
follow up by dramatizing the bloody tale of Tammuz, which precedes
Christianity by centuries but anticipates the gospel story in
its story of a bloody divine death and resurrection. This, especially
if very movingly done, would help place the Christ-tale in comparative
religious-mythological perspective.
50. One should oppose any effort by studios,
entertainment capital, and interest groups to censor or impede
distribution of Gibson's religious work. Honest, dispassionate
debate (about history, religion, and tolerance) is in order,
not the crucifixion of a brilliant artist.
* * * * *
In Braveheart, just before the
Battle of Stirling, William Wallace's followers ask him what
they should do, confronted with so overwhelming an English force
arrayed against them. "Just be yourselves," he counsels.
I hope you'll be yourself, Mel, however I may differ with your
religious premises. They may take away your distributors, they
may take away your promoters, but they can't take away your freedom.
Gary Leupp
is an an associate professor in the Department of History at
Tufts University and coordinator of the Asian Studies Program.
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Weekend
Edition Features for August 23 / 24, 2003
Forrest Hylton
Rumsfeld
Does Bogota
Robert Fisk
The Cemetery at Basra
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity
Insults to Intelligence
Andrew C. Long
Exile on Bliss Street: The Terrorist Threat and the English Professor
Jeremy Bigwood
The Toxic War on Drugs: Monsanto Weedkiller Linked to Powerful
Fungus
Jeffrey St. Clair
Forest
or Against Us: the Bush Doctor Calls on Oregon
Cynthia McKinney
Bring the Troops Home, Now!
David Krieger
So Many Deaths, So Few Answers: Approaching the Second Anniversary
of 9/11
Julie Hilden
A Constitutional Right to be a Human Shield
Dave Lindorff
Marketplace
Medicine
Standard Schaefer
Unholy Trinity: Falwell's Anti-Abortion Attack on Health and
Free Speech
Catherine Dong
Kucinich and FirstEnergy
José Tirado
History Hurts: Why Let the Dems Repeat It?
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen's America
Gavin Keeney
The Infernal Machine
Adam Engel
A Fan's Notations
William Mandel
Five Great Indie Films
Walt Brasch
An American Frog Fable
Poets' Basement
Reiss, Kearney, Guthrie, Albert and Alam
Website of the Weekend
The Hutton Inquiry
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|