Quote:
Originally posted by James
He was getting ragged on by a talk show host for taking that "inflammatory" line out of the movie.
The Host was like: Well Mel wouldn't remove the line because all the groups protested but he removed it when a focus group was made uncomfortable by it.
Tell me something: If something is generally hisorically accurate is it really anti-anything?
I know its taught academically that the Jewish leadership at the time was instrumental in the death of the mythic Jesus.
I don't really care, I wasn't there at the time and he wasn't a relative or anything.
Why is that anti-semitic?
|
Do you always speak about things you don't know? Because I will tell you something, it's not historically accurate.
An MSNBC article on the movie:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/
From the ADL:
The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.
The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate
The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.
The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.
Furthermore, the remarks made by Gibson and fans of the movie are anti-semitic. They include every wonderful theory out there such including conspiracy theories.
-Rudey