Salaam and Shalom, ladies

Feb 22, 2004 20:07

2004-02-22 08:53 (link) Select ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 14

well, if i had the chance to address this guy, i'd say... chavalah February 22 2004, 18:51:34 UTC
Well, first of all, I've never heard of anyone claiming to be a spokesperson for Jewry. Perhaps Foxman would take it upon himself to speak for the ADL, but never for all of us. Most Jews I know live by the old adage "to every 2 Jews, you get three opinions."

But secondly, I haven't heard of a single Jew yet who isn't at least a little apprehensive about this movie. I, myself, will wait until I see it before passing full judgement on it, but I'm under the impression that Gibson's father, at least, belongs to the "fundamental" Catholic Church, which denounces the Pope's declaration that the Jews did not kill Jesus. That, enough, is cause for concern with me.

I'm sorry if you feel Jews who protest this movie are tearing others down, but the whole point of their concern is to make sure that we're not torn down. Violence along the lines of "Christ-killing Jews" has caused us devestation for centuries- through the Crusades, through the pogroms, through the Holocaust, through a recent surge of synagogue and Jewish gravestone ( ... )

Reply

Re: well, if i had the chance to address this guy, i'd say... glenn66 March 23 2004, 12:15:12 UTC
>but the whole point of their concern is to make sure that we're not ( ... )

Reply


bizzarossal February 22 2004, 19:19:34 UTC
I saw that comment in a friend's journal, and this is what i said--

I beleive that although this movie may not be intended to be anti-semitic, it promotes anti-semitism by showing Jesus humiliated and beat upon by a crowd of jews/semites.

It's a condensed version of the great points mentioned above.

Reply

Re: babypianocries February 23 2004, 10:17:00 UTC
I made a post about this film in my journal this weekend. I'm against it for other reasons, the post is public and I invite you to look.

But I ask, how does historical accuracy promote-anti Jewish sentiment? If Mel Gibson were to use a crowd of Anglo actors, everyone would complain that this was yet another Arayanization of Christ's life.

Christianity has never put any emphasis on "who killed Christ", in fact, it's taught that we all did, by our sins. So any film that places importance on that detail would be wrong. But Jesus was a Jew, he loved his land, his people and his faith.

I look at it the same way I do the situation of Malcolm X, who dedicated his life to black power yet was assassinated by a black man. Theres no intra-racial bitterness over that, so why over Jesus? It's sad that they (organized Christian religion) have removed Christ from his true self.

Reply

Re: ibleedgrenadine March 2 2004, 21:25:19 UTC
im sorry, but christianity has always placed an emphasis on who killed christ. as a child of mixed backgrounds i can say this honestly and without hesitation. Growing up in an irish neighborhood and attending a catholic school as a boy, my father was taught time and time again that the jews are christkillers and a sinful people cursed to wander the land consumed with guilt. that pretty much spells it out for you ( ... )

Reply

Re: babypianocries March 3 2004, 19:49:57 UTC
No, I'm glad you shared that story. I sometimes forget because I was raised in a mostly Jewish neighborhood, and my associations with Christianity are more Messianic and Eastern European than anything else.

The Church is totally guilty of removing all aspects of Jewishness from Christ, and I just can't grasp how after all this time has passed, people still feel justified in saying Jews killed Christ.

It's funny, because if you turned to those same people and blamed them for the Crusades, or the slaughtering of Native Americans, or Slavery, they would get all self defensive...ugh.

Reply


kibbutznik February 25 2004, 17:00:22 UTC
Im going to see the movie and wearing my kippa...my friends are prepared for me to get spit on. I say let them spit on a jew at a jewish film.

Im a little concerned, because this film has already been labeled and considered christian. The only problem with that is its completely jewish, and there isn't really anything 'christian' about it. Historically there was no such thing as 'christian' at that time.

Christians have already thrown this in the face of Jewish people, and logistically that was a very bad move for them to do...you can see the fruit of that action already. People lashing out and all..

I do hope that the foundational jewishness of the film can work its way through that logistical nightmare to be seen. That is, if any of them will go see it now after having been smothered and insulted by christians on behalf of it.

I am not a christian, and have no desire to be. I do hope and pray that this film can be seen in some positive way for all who see it.

Shalom.

Reply

crossbonestyle February 25 2004, 17:12:13 UTC
forgive my Goyish-ness, but refresh my poor un cultured memory, what is a Kippa again? *blushes*

Reply

kibbutznik February 25 2004, 21:57:09 UTC
kippa (skullcap). Another word for kippa is Yarmulke, which means "awe of the King [G-d]" in Aramaic. And while Im at it, ... the Torah prohibits Jews from "going in the ways of non-Jews," one who does not cover his head would therefore be in transgression of a Negative Commandment of the Torah.

Reply


zazen47 February 26 2004, 15:05:04 UTC
That comment and ones like it have been appearing in people's livejournals as a mass form of spam. It's likely generated by a spam bot which searches for journals of with particular interests (or just randomly). I'm not sure what kind of opinion it's author wants to spin with this form of net-bombing, but I give it no credibility due to the methods they chose to use to use to disseminate it.

Just FYI.

Reply

crossbonestyle February 26 2004, 15:18:39 UTC
It was left in my other journal as well. Damn those spam bots

Reply

automitan February 26 2004, 23:21:38 UTC
What...spam? Isn't that a food...on both counts...nah! Hey angelfire86, your a bot now..hahaha! She even responds and nicely at that. Just kiddin around, but in all sincerity...

In most cases its no different that having a conversation about the same thing in more than one community..ie, sports or politics...in this case its a movie, and unless your opinion is often changing, you use the same comments. I don't see it as a credibility issue or some bot..., and focusing on that seems to be more of a way to side step conversing about the topic. I just discuss and move on...unless Im not interested in the topic...then, you'd never know I looked at it. But hey, thanks for the comment. Shalom

Reply


ibleedgrenadine February 29 2004, 10:15:23 UTC
of course this film was intended to be anti semitic! it was made to please gibson's father who just happens to be a rabid anti-semite who fervently believes that the holocaust never happened. i saw the film and i can honestly say that all of the jews except for the apostles, mary, and jesus himself are portayed as filthy and rather ugly people with crooked teeth and crooked noses.
besides, since when is a 45 minute flogging scene intended to promote understanding and peace and not angst?
since the films release i have been called a "christ killer" at least 5 times by people i am forced to socialize with because of school, work, and other unfortunate institutions. the majority of people in this world are easily influenced and swayed by anything that they see; something of that magnitude is bound to have some type of less-than-pleasant effects.
im sorry if i upset anyone...

Reply

crossbonestyle February 29 2004, 10:37:58 UTC
I had heard that Gibson's father was an anti semite, and some of the things I have heard about this film may show Gibson himself to be anti sem.
A large amount of my friends are jewish and because I defend them, I have gotten hype too. I have yet to see a good thing come from this film.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up