First of all, this is not a good idea. As I have said before, restrictions on speech will always rear back and bite you on the ass. And make you look small and desperate too.
One of the scholars on the interfaith panel which criticized the script claims that media coverage of the controversy was itself antisemitic; for example, she cites examples of news stories which ignored the voiced concerns of Catholic clergy and scholars, implying that only Jews objected to the script. But the panel
was convened by officers of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization. The majority of its members were Roman Catholic (including two priests and a nun). Our 18-page report to Mr. Gibson included a section on Vatican teachings regarding Jews and Judaism.The President of the National Association of Evangelicals - who said Jewish criticism of the movie might endanger evangelical support for Israel -
didn't deny that the Jews are portrayed unflatteringly. "But I am hyper-sensitive to anti-Semitism and things like that, and when I realized there was a controversy, I was surprised. I didn't see anything in the movie that was different, content-wise, than the passion plays I've watched all my life, or the Jesus movies I've watched all my life."Right. Well, that's the point we are trying to make, Mr. Haggard. (Haggard later re-affirmed his organization's support of Israel:
After initially standing by his remarks in a phone interview Tuesday, Haggard called back Interfaith Affairs later in the day with a clarification: “I clearly want to say our love for Israel and Jewish people and their concerns is unconditional.”)The good news is that Gibson is starting to get the message.
There has been some skepticism about the violence that could result from the vivid rejuvenation of antisemitic stereotypes. We're all more civilized than that here, right?
A survey. . . asked respondents if they thought that "the Jews were primarily responsible for the killing of Jesus Christ." The result: 37 percent agreed, 47 percent disagreed, and 16 percent said they did not know. I doubt these same people would agree that "the Christians" killed Martin Luther King, Jr., or that "the Black Muslims" killed Malcolm X.New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen was more concerned about what happens when the movie is released globally:
I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.In the face of fertile ground for pogroms such as this, is Fredricksen's concern so unreasonable?
The existential Jewish dilemma is: At what point do you say: "Hey, better keep an eye on this stuff"? At what point are you crying wolf? Let's remember that most people thought the idea of Nazi death camps was fantastical right up until 1945 when the photos starting coming out. The slow erosion of rights and the dehumanization of German Jews through the 1930s was like slowly boiling a frog. When you are in the middle of a social phenomenon - especially with the recent memory of a horrible cataclysm which perhaps could have been ameliorated if enough attention had been paid at the time - you can't tell.
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful luxury for those outside this existential dilemma. If we are wrong to raise the alarm, their lives and the perpetuation of their culture will not be affected. At least, they think it won't.
UPDATE: The ADL points out that Mel is a bit selective in his concerns about confidentiality agreements: he doesn't seem to have a problem with some groups spreading details about the film to the media, as long as they are praising it.
<< Home