Pharyngula

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 19, 2010 3:45 PM

Gibson can FOAD. He hasn't been relevant since Mad Max. What delighted me was seeing Hitch still writing. In a universe that was truly authored by a superior being, Hitch would be living in Malibu and Gibson would be getting chemo.

Posted by: timpanogos.wordpress.com | July 19, 2010 3:47 PM

Isn't it time now to stop pussy-footing around? These people are anti-semitic proto-fascists, their prejudices propped up by truly weird religious beliefs.

"Proto-fascists?"

I think you meant "patent fascists." No use pussy-footing, is there?

Posted by: spaninquis | July 19, 2010 3:49 PM

Well, I'm an ex-Catholic atheist, so maybe I'm in that first category.

Posted by: sendittodevnull | July 19, 2010 3:53 PM

It is painfully obvious, that most of the anti-Catholicism that exists today comes from two major sources: ex-Catholics (and those with one foot out the door) and secular Jews.

[JARRING CHORD]

... two three major sources: ex-Catholics, those with one foot out the door, secular Jews, and atheist professors in Minnesota....

four major sources ...no... Amongst the sources are such elements as ex-Catholics, those with one foot out the door, secular Jews, atheist professors in Minnesota and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope ... I'll come in again.

Posted by: Tulse | July 19, 2010 3:54 PM

Slightly OT: Glenn Beck may be going blind.

I presume we will see the same folks who talked about god punishing Hitch attach the same explanation to Beck's tribulations, right?

Posted by: Suzan | July 19, 2010 3:58 PM

Of course many of us ex-Catholics hate the church.

If we were LGBTTQ we were subjected to years of hatred and vilification by a religion that was not only alien to us but but forced upon us.

A religion that to this day is one of the main forces in keeping LGBTTQ people as second class citizens, persecuting us and denying us basic human rights.

I am forced to question the intelligence of any woman who remains a part of such a completely misogynistic organization. One that denies her control over her right to decide the most intimate matters of her life, one that values the life of a fetus over that of an adult sentient woman. The church for that matter does not consider women fully human beings and denies them the right to fully participate in both society and the perpetuation of their own vile mythology.

Posted by: Hodor | July 19, 2010 4:00 PM

I'm not sure whether you could necessarily call "The Passion of the Christ" anti-semitic. I mean yeah, its creator is an anti-semite who probably intended the movie to be anti-semitic and who did succeed in reaching a huge anti-semitic audience, but in the end, it's still based on the very likely scenario that the Jewish high priests of the day were just as eager to kill off heretics as those of the other two Abrahamic religions would be in the two millennia that followed.

I guess I'll have to see what TV Tropes has to say on this topic. There goes my evening.

Posted by: DaveinBoston | July 19, 2010 4:06 PM

Jesus was killed by the Jews is like saying that Joan D'Arc was killed by the Catholics: technically correct, but implying something that is absurdly untrue.

Jesus, according to stories that some believe to be 'gospel' truth but was written about a half century after the events that they depict, was executed by Roman authorities because a crowd of people who happened to be of a religion that 99% of the people in that area of the world (Judea) subscribed to (Judaism) chose to pardon another man (Barabbas).

Any other guilt associated to "Jews" in general is anti-semitic bigotry.

Posted by: irenedelse | July 19, 2010 4:10 PM

@ Tulse (#1), Aaron Baker (#5): Yes, the Gibsons father and son are member of a horribly right-wing splinter group of the Roman Catholic Church, but the current pope has been trying to bring this kind of "traditionalist" Catholics back into the fold for several years. Remember the brouhaha about the reintegration in the RCC of excommunicated bishop Williamson, who happens to be also (surprise, surprise!) rabidly misogynist and antisemitic? And of course, it's the same Benedict XVI who brought back the traditional Latin liturgy at mass, just to please the "traditionalists".

Posted by: Loreo | July 19, 2010 4:26 PM

If I may quote a phrase I was compelled to shout at Easter every year of my childhood - "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

I almost want to go back to Easter Mass, just to yell it with relish.

Posted by: Perspexo | July 19, 2010 4:31 PM

I would've thought that with the RCC's recent equating of child abuse and ordaining woman that Mad Mel would fit in quite nicely with the panzercardinal's new old school church.

Posted by: steve | July 19, 2010 4:32 PM

What is amazing is that Gibson doesn't have the self control and common sense to just shut up.

Neither does Ratzi.

Comes with the ideology I suppose.

Posted by: Haley | July 19, 2010 4:40 PM

I once knew a family who converted from Catholicism to Judaism, and are now pretty secular Jews. I suppose they are the Enemy.

They final straw in them leaving the church was the catholic school turning a blind eye to the bullying their daughter was receiving.

Anyway. Fuck Mel Gibson.

Posted by: Alex the Wonderchemist | July 19, 2010 4:46 PM

@ sendittodevnull #8:

You owe me a new keyboard after I just spat orange juice all over it. Well played, Sir.

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | July 19, 2010 4:52 PM

It's a common matter with religious kookery. When someone at the level of a Mel Gibson or Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i makes some outrageous bizarre anti-life statement, there are those who say, "Oh, it's okay. The Titanic isn't really sinking. It's not that bad."

Too many apologetics and not enough outrage. Not by a wide margin.

Posted by: Jolo5309 | July 19, 2010 4:58 PM

If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the the Jews pay for what they did.

That is in the sequel to the Passion of the Christ

Jesus Christ! Two: The Reckoning

He's made as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.

(insert fight scene of Christ and the Pope)
I said "I'd be back".

Posted by: nonsensemachine | July 19, 2010 4:58 PM

@16

It goes even deeper than that. There's evidence that Barabbas was Jesus himself! Bar-Abba means "Son of the Father" and scholars believe Jesus was known as Jesus bar-Abba, or Jesus Son of God (as it was common to refer to God as Abba, just as today xians refer to him as such in english).

The Jews were asking for Jesus's pardon because he was a leading voice of opposition FOR the jews and against the Romans. The Romans didn't like that idea so they executed him anyway. As you said, early catholic Romans thought other Romans wouldn't buy into a religion that makes them look bad, so they made up a new character to shift the blame to the Jews.

Posted by: daveau | July 19, 2010 5:05 PM

Gibson was on TV earlier this year doing a remote interview for some movie (Edge of Darkness, I think, but who cares). The interviewer asked him if he thought his fans had forgiven/forgotten about his previous controversies, which I thought was a legit question, because he hadn't done a movie or an interview in the intervening 4 years. You could just feel the rage as Gibson said it was a long time ago and all water under the bridge, then he cut the interview short. Then, while still on camera, called the interviewer an asshole. What a complete dick. That and the misogyny and the racism and whatnot...

Posted by: Qwerty | July 19, 2010 5:11 PM

I am surprised that Bill NotaJew (oops)... Donahue took time off from his "let's get the Empire State Building to light up for Mother Teresa's 100 birthday to complain about Frank Rich.

Mel Gibson's move "The Patriot" also made it apparent that he thinks the African slaves of the south loved their masters. When I saw it, it reminded me of "Gone with the Wind" in this aspect. Truly awful portrayal of slavery.

Posted by: Bo Gardiner | July 19, 2010 5:21 PM

Good post by Hitchens, and very interesting about his religious background.

Yet he essentially omits noting the most dominant aspect of these calls, which is hard to do... the extraordinary misogyny. So do most media reports about this. As usual, bigotry is big news unless it's misogynistic language, which is still viewed in our society as rather acceptable. As this is a failing of Hitch, it's not surprising he downplays this. Sorry to do this, but to remind:

[quote]“I deserve to be blown first! Before the f*cking Jacuzzi! Ok, I’ll burn the goddamn house up, but blow me first! How dare you!??!”... [OG: I walk on a eggshells always with you!] That’s because you’re a f*cking using whore. Now I own you. [The babysitter] will be fired if she goes to your house... that c*nt… You don’t f*cking count! You’re a f*cking using whore!... F*ck you, you’re a f*cking whore!... you f*cking ignorant bitch! ...you c*nt whore..."
- - -
"Shut the f*ck up! You should just f*cking smile and blow me! 'Cause I deserve it... I need a woman, not a f*cking little girl with a f*cking dysfunctional c*nt...You need a f*cking bat to the side of the head...You f*cking c*nt...You, you weak c*nt....Why don't you f*ck off to that c*nt bitch A---'s...You're a c*nt and a whore! [OG: What kind of a man is that, hitting a woman when she's holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth, twice, in the face. What kind of man is that?] Oooh, you're all angry now! You know what, you f*cking deserved it...I'll put you in a f*cking rose garden, you c*nt..."
- - -
[About her breasts]"They look like some Vegas bitch, they look like a Vegas whore. And you go around sashaying around in your tight clothes and stuff. I won’t stand for that anymore. I don't want my woman to be that... When you go out in public it's a f*cking embarrassment to me. You look like a f*cking bitch in heat. And if you get raped by a pack of n-----s it'll be your fault, all right? Because you provoked it.
- - -
"...you’re a whore and a bitch... Bitch, c*nt, whore..."[/quote]

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 19, 2010 5:28 PM

Wow, turn over a rock with these people and you find a new hate.

Not on Gibson, anyone who even heard of Passion and didn't clue in to his anti-semitism is probably stupid enough to believe in Fundie Christianity, but rather Donohue.

Wow, that's some old-school, "the jews are to blame for everything" Nazi shit. I guess he's been going there more and more, but he's like the Teabagger guy who tried to "respond" to the NAACP.

He's so flustered by his man-crush being found out and lightly rebuked that he has dropped all pretense of dog-whistling and just started on the "jews ist untermenchen" shit.

Impressive in a disturbing way.

Posted by: Shala | July 19, 2010 5:31 PM

I won’t stand for that anymore. I don't want my woman to be that... When you go out in public it's a f*cking embarrassment to me.

I think Mel Gibson should move to an Islamic country and spare us all his stupidity.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 19, 2010 5:38 PM

nonesensemachine@34:

Well, as soon as you start playing the name-game with the NT, it all falls apart. There's umpteen Maries, the hero is Joshua ben-Adam, who is also ben-Joseph, who is also ben-Yahweh, you have other Jesi, you have the Simons and Judas's and John's.

It's never clear who is who, which name is distinct and the same -- it's a clear artifact of massive cut-n-paste, re-contextualizing the stories to change their meaning while saving the internal structure.

Why isn't Jesus's name transliterated as Joshua, when it's transliterated as such for the OT Joshua? Why do the apostles seem to divide, rejoined and get renamed? It's a mess of tendentious retelling of stories, making the Quran and the Pali Canon seem to be limpid in contrast.

And yet most "Biblical Academics" tell us that the Jesus Myth is silly tripe. Who knows what the original tale behind the re-re-re-tellings is? And frankly, who cares? It's absolutely irrelevant to the tradition -- just like the actual Priest-King of Ur who was the template for Gilgamesh is irrelevant to understanding the Tale of Gilgamesh.

Trying to figure out "what really happened" from the documents we have is just like trying to figure out who Humbaba's economic role in the Lebanese cedar trade of 3000 BC, or what Alexander the Great did from the Buddhist statues of the Buddha from Afghanistan.

Yeah -- there's a link. But not one you could actually recover any information from.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 19, 2010 5:41 PM

A true catholic believer, how refreshing to see the real xian at play, how mentally sick has he got to be before they section the cretinous bastard!

No wonder the RCC is imploding under its own desperation.
But they need all the sickos god sends them!
Kindda double edged sword methinks.

They are deeply implicated with their product, and he is completely loony tune.

This is not a breakdown or alcoholism, this seems to be his actual character shining through, nice bit of work by his upbringing and religious indoctrination courtesy of a truly evil parent. well done Ratzi et al...your methods are noted!

Posted by: ralfnausk | July 19, 2010 5:51 PM

"Our 'civilization' tolerates open sodomy and condones murder of the unborn, but shrinks in horror from burning incorrigible heretics—essentially a charitable act." He attacks the late Pope John Paul II for having said, in one of his "outreaches" to the Jewish people, "You are our predilect brothers and, in a certain way, one could say our oldest brothers."

But no, Opus Dei, as bad as it may be, is still part of the official Roman-Catholic Church. Does Gibson realise that in the Middleages he and those of his kind would have been burnt as heretics (they are always worse than atheists, so heretics would be burnt first).

Posted by: Deen | July 19, 2010 6:01 PM

It is painfully obvious, that most of the anti-Catholicism that exists today comes from two major sources: ex-Catholics (and those with one foot out the door) and secular Jews.

Posted by: windy | July 19, 2010 6:05 PM

Yet he essentially omits noting the most dominant aspect of these calls, which is hard to do... the extraordinary misogyny. So do most media reports about this.

One of the more blatant examples:

Gibson could have easily, in his sick, pique of anger at his ex-girlfriend, simply wished rape as his vengeful punishment for her without specifying any ethnic group, just any man. But he didn't.

O_o

Posted by: St. Alfonzo | July 19, 2010 6:28 PM

WIthout the death and resurrection of Jesus, sent by god specifically for that purpose, xtianity would not exist, correct? Seems to me then that all parties involved in facilitating the crucifixion plan would be honored and adored for their role in the implementation of god's divine plan rather than being vilified as having done something horrible.
I've always been confused about this. Can someone please explain the xtian hatred for Judas and for the Jews?

Posted by: Bo Gardiner | July 19, 2010 6:44 PM

Gibson could have easily... simply wished rape as his vengeful punishment for her without specifying any ethnic group, just any man. But he didn't.

@windy

My god, I can't believe I just read that. I'm just sick. Next time I see Hutchinson's face on CNN I will lose it.

We go bananas over an insane actor, but a mainstream media political analyst can calmly write this in a national article without backlash... I'm speechless...

Posted by: carver | July 19, 2010 7:01 PM

@DaveinBoston #16
You mentioned Barabbas. Did you know that the name Barabbas means Bar = son of and Abbas= father
so,Son of the father

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 7:29 PM

Cerberus @49:

That was a statement about the script, not the movie. And the ADL are not exactly what I would call an impartial institution here. What I’d like to see is a serious argument about the movie being anti-semitic.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 19, 2010 7:37 PM

Posted by: Eamon Knight Author Profile Page | July 19, 2010 4:31 PM

I'm trying to figure out how Gibson squares his religion with his drunkenness and fornication.

Probably the same way Bill Donahue squares his with his divorce.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 7:48 PM

echidna @53:

You don't see the anti-semitism?

Why do you think I’m asking? And the danger more often that not lurking behind questions such as yours is something I’m trying to go to some lengths to avoid, namely confirmation bias. I like to be sure that what I’m seeing is actually there, because as we all know there are no end of ways to deceive yourself.

the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25.

But you’re not basing your charge of anti-semitism on one one-second quote from the movie, are you? And even if you were, how do you ascertain that the alleged anti-semitic effect has actually been produced? Or is that irrelevant?

Imagine Pontius Pilate, the man who according to Eusebius, was removed from his post by Caligula for being too bloodthirsty, being portrayed as a wise, gentle man.

Yes, shocking to see that in a work of fiction. But surely you’re not saying that shows anti-semitism.

The Passion Play which is performed every 10 years at Oberammergau for the last 400 years was a favourite of Hitler.

So was Wagner’s music. Is that anti-semitic too then? Please.

Mel Gibson had an easy piece to work with if he wanted to do an anti-semitic movie.

If indeed. But that’s kind of the issue in hand, isn’t it?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 19, 2010 7:57 PM

You know, I'm surprised Pilty hasn't shown up to defend Gibson.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 8:01 PM

raven @65:

You are an idiot and a troll.

That is certainly a brilliant argument for why the movie is anti-semitic. Thanks for that.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 8:12 PM

echidna @69:

Gibson, anti-semitic himself, just goes along with the existing plot.

So you’re saying that Gibson’s movie accurately depicts the gospel of Matthew, a book that in this day and age nobody outside a mental institution would even think of using to incite actual hatred against Jewish people, and that’s why the movie is anti-semitic?

Wouldn’t that be saying that the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is anti-semitic?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 8:21 PM

Bible

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 8:29 PM

Nerd of Redhead @74:

Nothing there except what folks read into it.

That’s kind of my point, Nerd. Of course you can read all sorts of things into the Bible, and lots of people have of course done so. But that just means the Bible is pretty vague and contradictory. Which, as we agree, it is.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 19, 2010 8:50 PM

What part of Jews killed Jebus don't you understand? That is the start of anti-semitism, and unless properly ruled out, the movie essentially endorsed it. That is our point. Yours is idiocy.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/G_DrX4w61J9Hbc10sKw77Ui7Sih6JAwbn_Q-#dabcc | July 19, 2010 8:59 PM

You never hear: The Romans killed Jesus. You don't hear that, despite them being the ones who "pulled the trigger" (according to the tale). Those who transfer the blame to the Jews are most likely doing so to support their biases.

Or perhaps they view the gospel as a rough draft for the Saw?

Posted by: natural cynic | July 19, 2010 9:08 PM

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 19, 2010 9:12 PM

@Nerd #78:

What part of Jews killed Jebus don't you understand?

Possibly the part where you said that it is all about “Nothing there except what folks read into it”. For those among us calling other people idiots, that means you said that the anti-semitism is not in the Bible but is read into it. At least that is what you said.

And by way of analogy, your same point (provided you don’t want to disown it) applies to the movie. Which is a possibility I should like to see dispelled before I stop withholding judgement.

Posted by: Kyle N | July 19, 2010 9:37 PM

Actually, I think Beck was confusing Jesus with Joseph Smith. Mormons frequently do that. I mean, look at the official name of the church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Yet they believe it was Jospeh Smith who died for them. Jesus takes a back seat to old Joe whose magic bulletproof underwear didn't work for a split second.
It's just sad that the other more accurately labeled Christian religions have taken a card from the Mormons' playbook. The LDS have been using the "persecuted" tack since the beginning. Did they ever stop to think that maybe it was accurate? Bullshit beliefs don't trump hard reality and facts here, although the faithful would like to continue to believe they do.

Posted by: echidna | July 19, 2010 9:58 PM

Pete the troll quoting Nerd of Redhead:

Possibly the part where you said that it is all about “Nothing there except what folks read into it”. For those among us calling other people idiots, that means you said that the anti-semitism is not in the Bible but is read into it. At least that is what you said.

Sorry, Nerd is right: the Bible is a collection of contradictions. There is nothing of value there. You can read anything into it.

By deliberately misconstruing Nerd's comment, you demonstrate that you know that you have lost the argument. You have nothing substantive to say - only lies and fabrications.

Game over.

Posted by: Stardrake | July 19, 2010 10:41 PM

raven@89:

Let us not forget that Christianity in general still holds the entire SPECIES responsible for the acts of two mythical people who didn't know right from wrong!

So at least the stupidity is consistent--may be the only consistent thing about Xianity....

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2010 11:22 PM

You convince us you are right. Show detailed evidence

You're a nut sometimes, NoR. Beattie is making no claims. He is questioning the claim, accepted as a given by most other commenters here, that Gibson's movie is antisemitic in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2010 11:36 PM

OJ killed two people, but damn he could run the football.

Alas, he never wrote lucidly on the Congo.

Posted by: Lyr | July 20, 2010 12:04 AM

Speaking of religiosity, MG, and misogyny:

"A translation of the Judeo-Christian Bible that does not offend women is analogous to a translation of Mein Kampf that does not offend Jews."
---William R. Harwood, 'Gods, Goddesses, and Bibles: The Canonization of Misogyny"

Posted by: TheCalmOne | July 20, 2010 12:10 AM

Yeah, they were two different movies, my mistake.

I give a shit because Mad Max was a groundbreaking action movie made on a shoestring in Oz by a brilliant producing/directing team (Kennedy and Miller), to whom I gave the credit in my post.

Gibson has no excuse whatsoever for his revolting behaviour, least of all his acting in a movie 32 odd years ago.

Posted by: articulett | July 20, 2010 12:25 AM

I think it's so weird that the Christians blame the Jews for Jesus' death when it was all part of god's atonement plan according to their divine text. Not only that, but Jesus WAS god-- so his crucifixion was part of his OWN plan. And what sort of sacrifice was it, when it was just a day and a half on a cross followed by eternal glory in paradise? Who wouldn't go for that bargain? And why does the sacrifice of Jesus matter so much when so many people have died terrible suffering deaths-- aren't they all supposed to be god's "children"? (Why don't those appease the bloodthirsty god?)

Plus, if the whole crucifixion was all part of some loving and omniscient god's plan, then why aren't the Christian's thanking the Jews for their part in it? Doesn't it mean that NOW the Christians get to live happily ever after? It seems like blaming the Jews is akin to blaming their god for his creepy salvation plan. If god knew how this all would turn out, then it doesn't seem like there was any "free will" for the Jews involved in this little passion play, does there? And didn't the whole bloody mess have something to do with forgiveness?

If Jesus wasn't sacrificed according to the story, then that would mean then Mel would be tormented forever due to original sin, right? So why is he so prejudice against the jews-- they played a big role in the "happily ever after" Mel imagines he's going to.

Religion makes no sense... nor do those who claim to believe it.

How many people must pay the price for imaginary things done in the name of imaginary gods? How long must we put up with this self-righteous bigotry in the name of religion? And how long will people look away and pretend at has nothing to do with faith-- that faith is something good, special, and something to be protected?

Posted by: grudgedk | July 20, 2010 2:18 AM

One of Gibson's most ardent defenders is right-wing Catholic kook Bill Donohue:

Hollywood is controlled by Secular Jews? Like Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus? Who made all those ex-catholic, anti-republican movies with Charlie Bronson and Chuck Norris in the 80's? You know liberal propaganda favorites like "Deathwish" and "Invasion USA"?

Posted by: CW | July 20, 2010 2:23 AM

And yet, Hitchens remains an idiot that believes in magical faeries in the way of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. He's an atheist, but with ideological superstitions just as imaginary and mind-dulling.

Posted by: echidna | July 20, 2010 3:02 AM

I am sure you didn't mean anything by it but "abo" can be considered a racist term.

Anything could be considered a racist term. In this case, I would want to look more closely at why it would be racist.

First and foremost, "abo" is short for aboriginal, a perfectly respectable term. Australians use short forms as a matter of course, so there is nothing derogatory per se in using a short form.

One of the things that struck me in the US, and more recently elsewhere, is that simple descriptors are taken to be racist - such as "black". "She is black" should be no more racist than "she is blonde". The problem is not the term itself, it is underlying racism that is the problem.

In my view, "abo" is racist only if the context is racist, and not otherwise. To say that "abo" is racist is to say that it is racist to use race as a descriptor in any way. I don't buy it.

I will know that a society has got over it's racism when to refer to someone's physical characteristics as a descriptor is considered neutral and factual, not racist.

Until then, using descriptors in non-derogatory manner might be a positive step toward combatting racism.

Posted by: theGobi | July 20, 2010 3:14 AM

Hey echidna, are you 'taking back porch monkey' as well?
I have never heard the term 'abo' in polite company, so while your argument is a noble one I wouldn't try it out in a pub in Mackay.

:-)

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 20, 2010 3:34 AM

Peter Beattie wrote:

the gospel of Matthew, a book that in this day and age nobody outside a mental institution would even think of using to incite actual hatred against Jewish people

Which century are you from?

Posted by: theGobi | July 20, 2010 4:23 AM

"Taking back porch monkey" was a scene in the Kevin Smith movie Clerks 2. One of the characters uses the term without realizing it is derogatory -- he remembers it as a term of endearment and starts a campaign to "take it back" from being a racist slur -- to everyones horror and embarrassment.
'Abo' is a contraction of 'aboriginal' but that in itself does not make it neutral. The same goes for 'paki' instead of 'pakistani'. Unfortunately language is seldom neutral when there is a baggage of prejudice.

Posted by: Noddin | July 20, 2010 5:01 AM

I just need to make a comment on this matter. Then I will take the discussion down another pathway.

Mel Gibson is a revolution spinner. In my mind, he is a dustbag and an idiot, but the slime comes with the utmost appreciation for the arts -- thereafter, however, nothing but a man without roots of kindness; a twist fiddler. Or, a sick man with hatred for gender and others. A boot cock in many terms. He knows history, in all events.

Is Mister Hitchens a good man? I have read about many of the places Hitchens has written about. I have been to some after traveling. The world needs more of a certain love that no Catholic or anti-theist has come up with. Is this a problem? I have seen things nobody here could even describe. I cannot even describe them. That makes me among many of you.

When I stop to take in the World, I find two things: the need for a better conversation. Plus, a willingness to expunge. In most cases people are fools, but in others they shine like Mister Myers. No wonder we have come this far in such a short span. This blog has arms that move more than we realize. Do you see it?

In history, religion has taught us many things, but today science has cut through and infested the mind. But science today is the deep flaw of mankind. It is our only train forward, and it is prone to fall down. Do you understand? The rails might not be there. But if they are? Good to all of us. We might find that day.

What I mean by this with regard to Mister Gibson is not simple. Many here would not understand if I worked to write it down, because it is my new thought, so I will make it simple. The Church and Mister Gibson are both in the wrong. But can science correct their errors? No. Only a reflective caution will relieve these men of their hatred and idiot ignorance. It will take deep thinkers from the World.

I find that there are remedies to shit think. I will not share my personal remedies with you. You need to find them.

So I leave with one last comment. And it is. Walk with me a few miles and you will be a better person. I am not better than you, I am just more in tune. I say it with respect. OK?

If you need to talk further I will stand by to load this blog.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | July 20, 2010 5:34 AM

I find that there are remedies to shit think.

Posted by: echidna | July 20, 2010 5:47 AM

Unfortunately language is seldom neutral when there is a baggage of prejudice.

Yes. I think that "porch monkey" couldn't be taken back - there was never a possibility that this term was neutral. It is inherently a slur.

Paki is not inherently a slur, it is only when it is used in a derogatory way that it becomes a slur. Black is not inherently a slur. These terms can become neutral again when the baggage is gone.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 20, 2010 6:02 AM

@echidna #106:

Anything could be considered a racist term. In this case, I would want to look more closely at why it would be racist.

Why does the same kind of argument not apply to Gibson’s movie, I wonder?

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 20, 2010 6:50 AM

Peter #115 etc.

You are articulate and I do appreciate skepticism and holding people to factually support their assertions. But I am sorry I miss the intellectual honesty in your arguments.

I did not see the movie - but I have no reason to doubt the statements of fact by those that claim specific knowledge (e.g., in #49).

I am cautious as a human can be (I hope) re: confirmation biases but this does seem a pretty open and shut case.

The movie followed a well-worn script - one taught to me in my main-stream my Catholic upbringing before the Ecumenical thrust for instance; we were taught as gospel that it was the Jews themselves that instigated and ensured the persecution and death of jebus - the Romans forced into it so to speak. Naturally there was not out right statement that jews

This script played through the ages to the detriment of Jews, giving soil to chronic subjugation and sometimes acute antisemitic actions by what we would call Christians. Do you really deny this?

Unless you can show me how this movie did a one-eighty on this party line it is you I remain skeptical of. Did the movie portray the Jews as warriors for compassion and justice for all - including this Jesus? Did it show them as egalitarian intellectuals? Where did it not follow the darkest version of the Jews as instigators of the death of Christ?

If you say: "it did follow the traditional script - and so what - that does not make it antisemitic - that was just the times.." I say you might be superficially right but intellectually dishonest and extremely naive.

The movie by all accounts went out of its way to play aspects that fueled antisemitism through the ages. An artist has choices - the canvas is theirs - he could have portrayed a more transcendental view easily. He did not. If the shoe fits wear it. My feeling - unless you can show the movie is not factually as I have been lead to believe.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 20, 2010 7:28 AM

Good post Concerned Joe.

Peter, if something like a movie increases the hatred for Jews, either directly or indirectly, it is anti-Semitic by definition. Since the movie (or any other Passion Play) portrays "Jews killing Jebus", they are by definition anti-Semitic, as they effectively increase hatred for Jews. As I have said all along, what part of that don't you understand? Skepticism is fine, but you need a proper perspective. Show us how that movie did not increase hatred toward Jews.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 20, 2010 9:05 AM

Peter please address this: the film was art; it - from all interpretations I've encountered - cleverly (subtly at times) used devices that cast Jews as instigators of the death of Christ (YOU show us how it took a more divine view and cast the Jews as victims of plan, or them as benign); this basic storyline has in history been used to the detriment of Jews; Gibson is by his own life actions part of philosophy that that is antithetical to ecumenical Catholicism; the art paints the canvas as he wants - any weighting is his; he was playing to a crowd deposed to confirmation of their biases against non-Jesus believers.

And finally - you ask me to be skeptical - why should I not be skeptical of your more apologetic interpretations?

So far I read your arguments as - I saw the movie and it does not seem antisemitic to me - others are wrongly interpreting - so there!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2010 9:41 AM

semitic
anti-semitic

Posted by: Birger Johansson | July 20, 2010 10:00 AM

It is possible to over-interpret a single film (just as it is possible to over-interpret a kind of behaviour using evolutionary psychology, or over-interpreting anything from a small sample of information).
Can we perhaps move on from The Passion of Christ to the totality of what we know about Mel Gibson?

From the few details I know, it looks like he inherited a lot of ugly-think from his nutcase father, even though he can keep it in check when he is sober.
Yes, he is a competent actor, and Polansky is a good film director, neither of which is relevant for the ethical dimension of their acts.

Gibson Jr can either owe up to having troubles, or retreat into increasing obscurity surrounded by sycophant hangers-on. Neither outcome is of much interest to me. I am more concerned with the rise of political wing nuts, but since Hollywood has such a grip on people's imaginations, the "Gibson files" will inevitably continue to take up more space in media than a hundred more important issues.
(I have to log off, must go home to feed the cats. Thanks for an interesting discussion)

Posted by: Bo Gardiner | July 20, 2010 12:25 PM

@131

Mike, that is a sad tale at your office. The victim-blaming culture remains strong, and sadly, women are often brainwashed in it too. Media "experts" on TV go far to foster these myths, as is pointed out in an an excellent post about Gibson on the blog of the Men's Anti-Violence Council.

The blog calls out the Today show for putting on a a medical doctor defending Gibson because he might have a brain tumor and that the girlfriend "knew how to engage his rage. She was very quiet, used a soft voice."

Melissa McEwan also has a good post at Shakesville, calling out Whoopi Goldberg for defending her good bud Mel on The View, outraging the rest of the group (a weird reversal there). I've liked Whoopi for so long, but first she defends Roman Polanski, now this. It seems her first loyalties are to the rich and famous, not the raped and battered, and I've had it with her.

BTW, HuffPo last night deleted my comments criticizing Hutchinson for his essay stating that if Gibson had simply said his girlfriend deserved to be raped by "any man", without specifying race, it would have been OK.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 20, 2010 2:45 PM

@132

To be fair to my coworkers, they only knew that he had went on an angry tirade, they didn't know the specifics. While what they were doing was victim-blaming, I would say it was pretty mild and given what they didn't know, fair to joke about.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 1:43 PM

@Nerd #124:

if something like a movie increases the hatred for Jews, either directly or indirectly, it is anti-Semitic by definition.

That is still at least one phrase short of being true (intent, see above), but even if it were, it would be you who would have to show that somewhere on earth actual hatred of Jews had been incited by the movie. Nobody in this thread and nobody I have ever heard of has used the movie as as much as an excuse for actual anti-semitism.

Since the movie (or any other Passion Play) portrays "Jews killing Jebus"

And it doesn’t. It portrays Romans as killing Jesus. Who are you trying to convice with your careless reasoning here? As I have said before: the danger with ideas that you think are ‘obvious’ is that you don’t think them through properly. And I’m sorry, but that’s what this looks like.

What the Passion does portray Jews as is people who wanted Jesus gone. And you have said nothing so far to convince anybody not already on your side of the argument to accept the idea that that makes the movie anti-semitic.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 2:12 PM

@ConcernedJoe #126:

So far I read your arguments as - I saw the movie and it does not seem antisemitic to me - others are wrongly interpreting - so there!

Then you can’t be too serious about reading. As far as I can see I’m the only person so far who has pointed to a scene that is directly related to one of the claims of anti-semitism (Jews killed Jesus), and no one has even made reference to it. And yet it is me who is constantly asked to provide ever more evidence—even though I have not made any claims whatsoever, only asked for the actual reasons to declare a movie anti-semitic. Do you seriously think that this kind of skewed debate is conducive to any sort of agreement?

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 21, 2010 4:17 PM

and yeah, I didn't fix the original spelling errors.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 21, 2010 6:53 PM

Okay, Peter Beattie thinks that Mel Gibson loves Jews so much he even lets them use his toilet. Never mind that Gibson has had to apologize for anti-semitic statements on numerous occasions. Never mind that Gibson's father is a notorious holocaust denier and Mel has never (that's NEVER) disavowed this even when asked if he does. Never mind that Gibson publicly accused Pope John Paul II of "sucking up to the Jews". Beattie has decided that Gibson is bestest buddies with Jews and loves them with all his heart.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 7:09 PM

Oh dear, can you please stop the bullshit of putting words into my mouth. I have never said a single word about Mel Gibson’s personal views and/or attitudes, and your post about how I apparently think he loves Jews is incredibly mindless.

I have been asking about the movie, and I would have thought that you are intelligent enough to see that a movie and a person are not the same thing. And even if Gibson were, without a shadow of a doubt, an anti-semite, that of course does not mean in any way, shape, or form that anything and everything he does or says automatically becomes anti-semitic.

Don’t you think it reflects badly on you that you resort to completely made-up ‘arguments’? (Again, see the questions of creationism or science–religion compatibility, where the god-botherers and accommodationists do the same thing.)

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 7:23 PM

In Mr. Gibson's film, there is absolutely no ambiguity as to who is responsible for the death of Jesus -- it is the Jews. Roman soldiers are seen bribing Jews to come out en masse to his trial by the Sanhedrin, in the Jewish Temple and at night.

Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, calls for Jesus' death time and time again, and all the Jews (literally hundreds and hundreds) rally behind this cry. The compassionately portrayed Pontius Pilate does not want to harm Jesus, but the Jewish high priest, supported by the crowd of Jews, time and time again calls for Jesus' crucifixion.

'Passion' Relies on Theme of anti-Semitism

Did you see this movie?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 21, 2010 7:33 PM

Make or break question about Gibson: Has he ever written lucidly about the Congo?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 7:57 PM

Swing and a miss.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | July 21, 2010 8:18 PM

nobody here has deigned to show even a trace of a piece of evidence that actual hatred of Jews in the real world was in any systematic way incited by the movie, and meant to do so.

what....the....fuck....are you talking about?

I guess I'm technically in the clear of hating you for your assholishness since I haven't driven to where you live and slapped you with a trout and ESPECIALLY because the Pharyngulites haven't told me to do so.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 8:36 PM

The most damning thing even the ADL have to say about the actual plays is that they exhibit “traditional Catholic anti-judaism”. Why do you think even the ADL make a distinction between that and actual ‘anti-semitism’?

Soooo, it's not really anti-semitism if it's the church because they've always done it?

Wow.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 8:43 PM

I'm starting to think that nothing short of a second Holocaust, citing The Passion specifically, would convince Peter.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | July 21, 2010 8:51 PM

I'm starting to think that nothing short of a second Holocaust, citing The Passion specifically, would convince Peter.

Exactly.
Trolls are usually more evasive when demanding extreme evidence to prove a point that noone is making.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 8:56 PM

@JacobCH #156:

I'm starting to think

I wish. Seriously.

But please do tell me: how does ‘some tangible evidence’ translate in your mind into ‘nothing short of a second Holocaust’? Has it ever occurred to you that your lack of imagination (or perhaps even lack of evidence?) is not the same thing as a binomially complementary notion in my mind?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 8:59 PM

Further, from the ADL is their site on Anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim World.

Funny. Arabic is a semitic language. The most widely spoken in the world, actually. Odd how they would use "anti-semitic" to refer only to these countries bigotry towards Jews...

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 9:08 PM

@Ryan F Stello #158:

Trolls are usually more evasive when demanding extreme evidence to prove a point that noone is making.

So true, Ryan. Except that nobody has so far addressed my specific (and I guess incredibly extreme) request for a scene that portrays Jews in any way comparably to Nazi propaganda posters, as one commenter put it. I have pointed to a specific scene (wow, I can provide extreme evidence!), which everybody seems to have evaded. And a number of people are demanding I prove a point I am not making, i.e. that Passion is not anti-semitic. Once again: I am not making that, or any other, point. I am asking what the evidence might be that the movie is anti-semitic. If you are satisfied with the answer, ‘It is so by definition’, good for you. But don’t then pretend to be any sort of sceptic or evidence-based thinker.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | July 21, 2010 9:17 PM

And a number of people are demanding I prove a point I am not making, i.e. that Passion is not anti-semitic.

I might be convinced if you could produce some tangible evidence that such people was part of some organization whose intent is to ask you produce some tangible evidence.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 9:17 PM

@raven #161:

Christ, you are stupid and tiresome troll.

Another incredibly convincing argument. You must be so pleased with yourself.

If the evidence is really all over the place, raven, why don’t you just point to it? If some nut came here denying evolution, you would probably point him to some actual evidence and tell him to come back when he thinks he has found something wrong with it. Nobody here would think of saying, ‘The NCSE says evolution is true, so by definition it is.’ That would be ridiculous. Because the evidence is really obvious and we can, and routinely do, point to lots of it. You think that is an “extreme” standard?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 9:24 PM

First, we caution viewers against seeing this film as a factual representation of Jesus’ Passion. Study of the film, confirmed by Mr. Gibson's own words in repeated interviews, has established that visions, legends, and fictional materials were added to a selective combination of the four gospel accounts to produce the screenplay. These visionary or fictitious unbiblical materials include the depiction of Satan and numerous demons, the portrayal of Barabbas as bestial (thereby making the Jewish crowd’s preference for him even more vile), and the two-stage and frontal scourging of Jesus, a torment that would have ripped out his vital organs and killed him on the spot. This is neither historically reliable nor theologically sound.

a href="http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2353">"The Passion of the Christ," Jewish Pain, and Christian Responsibility

I'm not posting this as an appeal to authority but as an illustration of the culpable anti-semitism that pervades the movie. The Jewish high priest also did not attend the scourging of Christ in the gospels. Satan, also, was only pictured moving among Jews--no one else. Gibson ADDED these things to the gospel story. For what reason other than hatred of Jews for killing Jesus?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 9:26 PM

Beattie reminds me a lot of the southerners who try very hard to pretend that the confederate battle flag stands for things other than slavery. Never mind what other folks think. They have their revised history, and they intend to stick to it come hell or high water.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 9:34 PM

Because, Peter, you seem to be arguing that despite Christians using the killing of Jesus by the Jews as an excuse to inflict incredible violence against them for more than a millenia, Gibson going out of his way to enforce that idea isn't anti-semitic somehow.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 9:40 PM

@Nerd #169:

I still see no evidence presented by Beattie the loser to support his position.

*sigh*

Since I haven’t been advancing a position, I need not and cannot present such evidence.

And schoolyard taunts? Really? *g*

For example questionaires run before and after the movie showing a decrease in hatred for Jews after watching them kill their christ...

Now we’re talking. I suppose that since you think there is no doubt that Passion is anti-semitic, you know of such questionnaires to support your position? Because that would be the kind of evidence that might make me stop withholding judgement. (Again: “extreme evidence”? I don’t think so.)

And one other thing we have already been over: the Romans killed him. I think you should at least want to get the most basic facts right about a movie you feel competent to judge.

Posted by: Scorpy1 | July 21, 2010 9:53 PM

And one other thing we have already been over: the Romans killed him.

No, the sun killed him.
I don't know why people like you think its obviously the Romans' fault.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 9:59 PM

I have been asking again and again for evidence that would make me change my mind?

Since I haven’t been advancing a position,

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 10:12 PM

@John Morales #179:

You don't think your position is that the assertion that Passion is anti-semitic is unjustifiable?

I don’t think that, and it isn’t. How often do I have to say that not believing X is not the same thing as believing not-X?

My position is still that of withholding judgement, as I have said a couple of times. Have you just overlooked that or is that really confirmation bias on your part?

Posted by: echidna | July 21, 2010 10:18 PM

Beattie obfuscates:

And a number of people are demanding I prove a point I am not making, i.e. that Passion is not anti-semitic. Once again: I am not making that, or any other, point. I am asking what the evidence might be that the movie is anti-semitic.

The evidence that the movie is anti-semitic is that the Passion Play in Oberammergau, based on the Gospels and telling the same story (only less gory), is anti-semitic as detailed in the quoted piece in comment #71. The movie is not any less anti-semitic than the passion play.

The logic goes like this:
P1: "Passion Play is anti-semitic"
P2: "Gibson's Passion no less anti-semitic than Passion play"

If P1 and P2, then "Movie is anti-semitic".

If this is not sufficient evidence for you, then please tell us what would be?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 10:20 PM

Seriously, provide some fucking sources to back your bullshit up. Until you do, nothing you say is of any value whatsoever.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 10:25 PM

@echidna #184:

The evidence that the movie is anti-semitic is that the Passion Play in Oberammergau, based on the Gospels and telling the same story (only less gory), is anti-semitic as detailed in the quoted piece in comment #71.

echidna, we have been over this. Your quote in #71 does not say the Passion Plays were/are anti-semitic. This is easily the third time I’m pointing this out. When I’m being accused of not acknowledging evidence, can you please at least acknowledge the facts in your quote?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 10:30 PM

I am not asking you to change your mind.

And Pilty, you are bigger shithead every time you post here. What a loser. Can't even provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. That makes your whole theology and philosophy false, since your deity doesn't exist.

PZ, clean-up aisle 5....PZ, clean-up aisle 5...

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 10:32 PM

We don't need to convince idjits like you

Yes, I suppose that attitude explains one or two things.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 10:33 PM

Yes, I suppose that attitude explains one or two things.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 21, 2010 10:37 PM

@Nerd #190:

but we had your number a hundred posts ago.

That must be because you are very, very clever. :)

And Pilty, you are bigger shithead every time you post here. What a loser.

You really are sixteen, aren’t you?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 10:40 PM

He sure fits the description of Pilt you've got in the dungeon, though.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 10:44 PM

That must be because you are very, very clever. :)

You really are sixteen, aren’t you?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 10:48 PM

I, for one, am done giving you evidence, Peter. You don't respond to any of it and from what I can see you don't even read any of it.

Again, I'll ask you: Why did Pope Paul absolve the Jews if it wasn't causing anti-semitism? Why did Gibson change the passion story to reflect more poorly on Jews if not because of anti-semitism? Why do you require proof of viewer's motivations before declaring the work itself anti-semitic?

Again, I'll ask you: BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 10:53 PM

Again, I'll ask you: BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2010 11:04 PM

I have responded to pretty much anything,

Nope, not a single one of you.

Nope, not a single one of you.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 11:12 PM

More evasion. Should I be surprised?

1)

The one thing you lot keep repeating is the analogy to the gospel story and the Passion Plays, which does not work as per #71.

Have you responded to my question about the inflationary devaluation of the term ‘anti-semitism’?

it is one reason that people have used, but it is nowhere even near the most prominent one.

Have you responded to the question about the questionnaires, or anything like them?

Why do you require proof of viewer's motivations before declaring the work itself anti-semitic?

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 11:25 PM

As an aside, I was only starting to come to grips with my latent atheism when I went to see the Passion in theaters. I exited the theater without any doubt that whatever I'd decide vis a vis believing in a god, this disgusting story surely had nothing to do with him.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 11:42 PM

Theirs certainly is.

Bacchus, though? He's disgusting in a good way.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 21, 2010 11:58 PM

Not a fan of Pan. Just finished playing Freedom Force again and he whooped my butt.
/geek

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 12:15 AM

That's terrifying, Sal. I'm glad to see you made it out of there. I really wish it surprised me, though.

I guess the version that'd been force-fed to me was pretty candy-coated. Despite being raised methodist and drinking his blood every week, I had no idea how obsessed they were with blood and blood-sacrifice until I saw that movie.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2010 12:38 AM

Syzygy @57, did you mention kittens?

<ducks>

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 12:45 AM

Comic sans does frame her spewings very appropriately.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2010 12:57 AM

Patricia,

... she'll get back to me when she hears what "Father has to say about it."

And that's one big difference between Catholics and Protestants; both seen guidance from authority to determine what to believe, but the former seek belief guidance from the Priesthood, the latter from Scriptural exegesis.

For example (my emphasis)

"There is no salvation for those outside the Church ... I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's... Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."

I'd have to say I have less disrespect for the protestant variety of abrogation of personal epistemic hygiene.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2010 1:11 AM

Paul W.,

I gotta say that people should be a little slower to jump to conclusions about Peter Beattie

Your character defence is noted.

My only conclusion so far are that he's (in essence) come in and asked PZ in particular (and commenters in general) to justify that the Passion is anti-semitic, to his satisfaction.

After a number of exchanges, he remains unconvinced and non-committal, claiming nothing of relevance has been produced.

I find his position difficult to distinguish from (as Nerd puts it) hyperskepticism.

This is why, most recently, I have enquired for more detail as to what he requires, since what's been offered is not acceptable.

Paul, please inform me if this is a hasty conclusion.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 22, 2010 1:36 AM

For those that have not followed the blog since I first appeared... my church of the snake kissers believes in the gospel of St. Mark 16:15 , 18. Which is some of the stupidest bullshit ever pronounced on the planet. Mia culpa.

Posted by: echidna | July 22, 2010 1:48 AM

Peter Beattie,
I'm finding your comments really frustrating. You asked questions. I tried, more than once to answer. You respond essentially with a "Nup. Not good enough. Try something better".

But you do not offer anything constructive, or any argument which allows me to get a handle on what it is that you are looking for. It's a very unsatisfying exchange. I think this echoes what JacobCH is saying as well.

I'm not interested lobbing arguments to a wall that just bounces them straight back at me.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 2:05 AM

She never would speak tongues in front of me, though. Said her faith was private. You know, except every day when she'd evangelize at me.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 2:20 AM

S'all good. They all say I'm going too, so at least she'll have some company.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 6:37 AM

Morning, Petey. Welcome back.

Because—as we would agree, I think—that actual hatred of, and violence towards, any group in a society, as well as their incitement, must be fought. And I think it is important to differentiate between—and this is only meant to describe a possible spectrum—relatively harmless prejudice and actual hatred.

And are you ever going to touch on my questions? I touched on yours, as you asked and despite replying to "pretty much anything," none of your replies to me have been in reference to the meat of my posts.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 22, 2010 6:53 AM

@Paul W #219:

Beattie is not Piltdown Man.

Quite the understatement.

I’ll say.

Posted by: echidna | July 22, 2010 7:12 AM

Peter,

Can you at least see that I must be feeling the same way?

You said that you don’t think it makes sense to call something ‘anti-semitic’ per se unless it was intended to incite hatred of Jews and actually had that effect. I don't agree - I think that it is only necessary to display prejudice or hostility. The Passion story, by blaming the Jews, but not the Romans, for the death of Jesus does this.

Using your criteria, the contents of the movie are almost irrelevant, since you consider only intentions and effects. To know what is intended, we would need to know what was inside Gibson's head. The evidence from his other utterances is that he has anti-semitic views. I disagree that a particular effect is required. If some idiot on a street corner tries to incite hatred against a race, the idiot's speech is racist, whether or not anybody takes any notice.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 22, 2010 7:32 AM

Wow - thanks people (even PZ jumped in) for sharing.

Petey - I just do not get that you do not get the simple points or say you get them but make mockery of them without really addressing their essence.

Here they are as I see it:

(1) when the Western World become Christian the Jews became second-class citizens commonly (to the masses) justified because of their very prominent role in killing Jesus and then rejecting Him as Savior. The only thing that "saved" the Jews mostly was their ability to be money lenders (their theology did not disallow that). So places like Italy - States that needed cash-flow - became more tolerant. Spain not so - "Ti guarda dal Grande Inquisitor!"

(2) scholars generally recognize the tone that lead to the modern antisemitic outbreaks was set by the underlying premise stated in (1). Other more "practical" factors were involved for sure - but the tone in general stemmed from the Gospel justification. And also and certainly in the US the antisemitic feelings and actions came down to the Jews killing and rejection of Christ.

(3) plays etc. that blatantly without mitigation (like Gibson's film) cast the Jews as instrumental in Christ's death continue to give some people underlying (in their heart) support of their prejudices against the Jews.

(4) such prejudices play out even in the USA to this day and have a lot to do (under-the-covers) with the theological picture painted through the ages. Unlike the Blacks - Jews that convert and claim being and act as Christians - can join Clubs that might not otherwise. Do you understand this?

(5) If Gibson was not of antisemitic intent he would have as an artist portrayed the Passion in much more interesting ways. I could think of a several screen plays I could write that would emphasize the notion of "god's plan" and the conflict it might have with human emotions and values. He on the other hand took no steps to mitigate the culpability of the Jews; he did not broaden the conflict of ideas and values to go beyond the party-line spewed through the ages. He had artistic license and from what I understand used it to emphasize the worst aspects only. The question is why! We conclude - the shoe size is antisemitic. That may be wrong but it sure seems that way in context.

(6) Do you deny that theology has underpinned in someway substantially the persecution of Jews by Christians for Centuries? Not saying only factor - but as a common-man rallying factor at least. If you deny such please support adequately.

(7) Do you deny that Gibson played the party-line to the hilt? Can you show us where and how he enhanced sympathies for the Jews and the plight in the "plan of god"? Do you really think a US christian fundy or a European neo-Nazi would for any reason during this movie be moved to some lucidity and say - "you know the Jews are perhaps not as bad as I thought"?

We think this movie simply uses whatever artistic abilities it might have used to perpetuate the stereotype of the Jews as anti-Christ and not the mitigate that stereotype at all. That in our minds is antisemitic. As would a film that one knows will break box office records in the South USA that plays out without any sympathetic treatment black men raping innocent white women - even if it just followed an implanted storyline - would be racist - especially if say a "David Duke" produced it.

Why should we not think like this? Again show us in the movie how Gibson attempts to solicit sympathy for the Jews. Justify why you are essentially saying there are no people prone to antisemitic feelings and if there are this film does not play to them.

Peter - really the onus is on you.

Posted by: KG | July 22, 2010 7:53 AM

As I have said a couple of times now, I don’t think it makes sense to call something ‘anti-semitic’ per se unless it was intended to incite hatred of Jews and actually had that effect.

An absurdly narrow definition. It would mean, for example, that applying a quota to the number of Jews who can join a golf club is not obviously antisemitic, since it cannot possibly be shown to be "intended to incite hatred of Jews".

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 22, 2010 10:21 AM

@JacobCH #239:

I posted a link to one of the ADL's main portals that directly refutes this inane argument.

So you did in #146. And the substantive references to ‘anti-semitism’ in the linked text are that the ADL worry about:

“the possibility that it will fuel new anti-Semitism”

“could fuel the latent anti-Semitism that exists in the hearts of those people who hold Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, which always has been the source of Western anti-Semitism”

“greatly concerned about how the film's portrayals of Jews will be received … in regions of the world where the film may reach audiences already deeply infected with the disease of anti-Semitism”

If not even an organisation that serious scholars like Noam Chomsky have alleged of being, more or less, partisan hacks (and he has produced evidence of this) will directly say that the movie itself is anti-semitic, then I think it is safe to question the idea that it’s an open and shut case.

Moreover, in the far more extensive comments by the ADL on the Passion Plays at Oberammergau, they recommend “eliminating all anti-Judaic elements”. Again, nowhere do they say that the Plays themselves are anti-semitic, and I should think that their choice of words was deliberate as they are not usually shy about calling things ‘anti-semitic’ if they think that warranted.

Note also that the ADL never says, like for example the Christian Science Monitor did here, that the Passion might “provoke anti-Semitism”. The ADL seem to be careful to say that it might egg on those “already deeply infected with the disease of anti-Semitism”. To which I think one should reply that those who already are pathologically irrational should perhaps not be our standard for judging a movie.

As to the Passion then, there appears to be considerable opposition even to the view that it portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus’s death. Also, many people seem to have noted that, for example, the assertion that all Jews are portrayed in a negative light is not true, and they give examples.

What I find a bit irritating is that none of you came up with these links. From a strict epistemological point of view, you should have actively looked for this kind of evidence that at least possibly refutes your assertions.

Why must a work be effective in it's delivery to be considered anti-semitic? Wouldn't an overtly bigoted piece that was badly made and is simply comical in execution be anti-semitic simply by virtue of the content being bigoted toward Jews?

Well, two things. I think conflating mere bigotry with ‘anti-semitism’ is not helpful, in fact it is distracting and devaluing the stronger term. (Something Chomsky also notes in the text linked above.)

As to the effectiveness, you have a point that something that is obviously intended to be anti-semitic (i.e. to incite hatred and/or violence or other harm against Jews) will usually also have at least some effect to that end. What I am questioning in the case of the Passion is both the intent and the effect. The latter evidenced by the assertion on Wikipedia that “there have been no publicized antisemitic incidents directly attributable to the movie's influence”. (Admittedly, this is unsourced, but then neither are there any sources alleging that such incidents did in fact take place.) The former by Gibson’s own words and the eminent plausibility lent them by his crazy faith that holds that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 22, 2010 10:38 AM

you see guys, minstrel shows aren't racist because they don't directly incite violence against black people.

...

...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 22, 2010 10:53 AM

Again, nowhere do they say that the Plays themselves are anti-semitic,

there appears to be considerable opposition even to the view that it portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus’s death.

What I find a bit irritating is that none of you came up with these links.

I think conflating mere bigotry with ‘anti-semitism’

What I am questioning in the case of the Passion is both the intent and the effect.

An actual anti-semite wouldn’t allow any Jews in his club to begin with.

The stronger term should be restricted to those nutcases who actually intend harm.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 22, 2010 10:58 AM

@Nerd #241:

The burden of proof is upon you to show the common knowledge that all passion play are anti-semitic are wrong.

Listen to yourself, Nerd. Whose appeal to some alleged ‘common knowledge’—e.g. that anything that looks designed must obviously have a designer—would you yourself accept?

Apart from that, you are wrong about it. Not even the ADL called a specific Passion Play they complained about ‘anti-semitic’ but only said it “contained anti-Judaic elements”. (Maybe they didn’t get the memo?) I have pointed to this evidence over and over again, and yet you keep blabbering on about ‘everybody knows this’ and how this feeble non-argument excuses you from producing any support for it whatsoever.

There is no thing as harmless prejudice.

Again, you assert without evidence. As per the person who got PZ to write his post, it could (possibly should) be equally dismissed.

But I’ll bite. I have a prejudice against fat people. It’s certainly nothing to be proud of, and I don’t know why I have it, but I usually can’t help feeling it. But since I have become aware of it, I actively try to be especially nice to fat people to preventively counterbalance my prejudice. And I have certainly never harmed a fat person, or even so much as privately wished them harm. So in any reasonable sense of the word, my prejudice is actually harmless.

You have more than three posts.

Oh, no shit? I explicitly referred to echidna’s calling me a troll after I had posted just two comments. Which part of that is not crystal clear?

Posted by: KG | July 22, 2010 11:01 AM

"That is a good example of what I called conflating mere bigotry with ‘anti-semitism’. An actual anti-semite wouldn’t allow any Jews in his club to begin with. Which would infringe upon their civil rights and as such constitute harm. If the case is about a quota, I would tend to think that a description of ‘prejudice’, or perhaps ‘bigotry’, would be more helpful. " Peter Beattie

Evidently you think you are Humpty-Dumpty, entitled to make words mean whatever you want. "Antisemitism" is not, in fact, used the way you would like it to be, and you don't get to change its meaning unilaterally.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 11:09 AM

Not even the ADL called a specific Passion Play they complained about ‘anti-semitic’ but only said it “contained anti-Judaic elements”.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 11:35 AM

(I know I said he wasn't worth the time, but I'm pissed off and can't shut up; apologies up front.)

I was joking the first time I said it, but I'm more and more convinced that prejudice and bigotry against Jews must actually reach violent levels before Petey is going to call it anti-semitism.

Unlike you, Petey, we want to stamp out bigotry before it escalates into violence. I don't care a rat's ass if you don't want to call it anti-semitism or not; that movie and the plays it is based off are anti-Judaic anti-semitic anti-fuckingwhatever. They are literally, "against Jews."

Pope Paul knew it, that's why he absolved and denounced prejudice against them. The ADL knows it, that's why they wanted the play changed. Mel Gibson knows it, that's why he changed the story to portray Jews in a poorer light (just like the golf club analogy, a handful of token Good Jews doesn't make up for the bloodthirsty, hawk-nosed mob calling for his death.)

We're not going to let you play word games to try and cover up prejudice and bigotry. Being against those things is the standard position of any moral being and if you're going to argue that it shouldn't be you need to BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT.

Since you haven't yet posted a single source that supports your view with anywhere near the same rigor you're demanding of us (in fact, the only support I can find in any of those links for your position are the conservative talk show host, a senior Vatican official and 2, count em 2, orthodox rabbis who argue the inane Good Jew bullpucky. Considerable opposition? XD), I'll ask for the umpteenth time:

BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 22, 2010 11:37 AM

@PZ Myers #206:

You will not find a single scholarly discussion of the history of passion plays that does not point out their intrinsic anti-semitism.

PZ, surely you can see that the structure of this argument—i.e. to say in response to a request for evidence for the assertion that all Passion Plays are anti-semitic, ‘Well, the experts agree that it is’—is defective.

If somebody asks for the evidence for evolution, you wouldn’t dream of telling them, ‘Well, all the experts agree that it is true.’ Because that is not the evidence.

As to the scholarly discussions, if they are everywhere and since you have obsiously read at least a couple of them, could you point to some? Because what I can see from the Wikipedia entry on the Passion Plays, at least the effect of increasing hatred of Jews is nowhere apparent. The article quotes three authors with the idea that Passion Plays have been followed by increased violence against Jews, but all the original stories give no sources for this claim.

Modern passion plays, including Gibson's, do make token efforts to reduce some of the more blatant anti-semitism, but fundamentally, they all do a few common things: they promote a sense of self-righteousness and persecution, they inflame audiences with violence, often extreme violence, and they tag a scapegoat for the anger they inspire, the Jews.

Except that a sizeable number of people seem to disagree with this interpretation. How can you not even address this obvious (because explicit) counter-evidence and instead run with an interpretation that not even the ADL are prepared to make, who limited themselves to voicing concern that the Passion might be grist to the mill of those who already are anti-semites?

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 22, 2010 11:57 AM

What a minefield. So of course I must step in.

I saw The Passion of the Christ, too, and here's what I thought then, and still think. Knowing what I do about Gibson, I can't rule out that the intent behind the movie was antisemitic. But I didn't see, and I still don't see, the overt antisemitism that the ADL alleges was present.

One digression first: it was alleged, around the time the movie came out, that the notorious quotation from Matthew's Gospel, "His blood be upon us and upon our children," was present in the movie (in Aramaic, of course). If that's correct, that's all the overt antisemitism you'd need; but I don't know Aramaic, and I've never seen that allegation confirmed. Maybe someone here knows of such a confirmation.

That aside, as everyone here knows, the movie relies heavily on the account of the trial and crucifixion in Matthew. And there is a robust consensus among New Testament scholars that this account attempts pretty blatantly to shift blame from the the Romans to the Jewish elite in Jerusalem, and to the Jews as a whole ("His blood be upon us" being exhibit A).

However, scholars are NOT agreed on how much of this account is fictional. More specifically, some think the attribution of a hand in Jesus's death to Caiaphas and other members of Jerusalems's Jewish elite is completely made up. Others think it likely that Caiaphas and other prominent Jews wanted Jesus dead, and strove for that goal. It has to be said that there's nothing in the least bit improbable about the latter possibility.

It isn't, without something more, antisemitic to produce a narrative (perhaps historically accurate in this respect) that gives a role to the High Priest and other prominent Jews in Jesus's death. What would be antisemitic, and antisemitic in the way the Gospel of Matthew is antisemitic, would be to depict the Jews of Jerusalem as all baying for Jesus's blood, and accepting the guilt for his death, both for themselves and their descendants.

Well, unless it snuck in in Aramaic, this is just what's NOT in Gibson's movie. Some in the crowd call for his death; some are horrified and grief-stricken. There's nothing visually to suggest collective guilt here. Thus I continue to think the ADL was going overboard. If others who've seen the thing disagree, I'm sure they'll let me know in heated detail why I'm wrong.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 22, 2010 12:34 PM

Well, I think we can all agree then! Gibson's movie might be as anti-semitic as he thought he could get away with, possibly, which is to say, probably, not very. Maybe.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 22, 2010 1:33 PM

Gibson denied the existence of a curse, but stated the citation — in Aramaic — is audible "under the crowd"."

Well, if he left that curse in, I fully agree that's overt antisemitism. Are there any Aramaic speakers here who can settle this once and for all?

Posted by: Paul W., OM | July 22, 2010 3:10 PM

Regarding "antijudaic" vs. "antisemitic," if I get the distinction correctly, it's a good and important one.

I'd say that most people here are antijudaic---they are opposed to the Jewish religion.

I'd also say that most people here are not anti-semitic---dumb term, I know, because Jews aren't the only semites---and would rightly object strenuously to those things being equated.

They may think the Jewish religion is wrong, as they do the Christian one and a bunch of others, but they have no particular animus toward Jews or general bias against Jewish people, culturally or racially.

Christianity of the usual (substantive) sorts is intrinsically anti-Judaic; it says that Christianity is true(r) and Judaism is false(r), e.g., that Jesus was divine, died for our sins, etc., and to the extent that Jews disagree, their religion is wrong.

That does not necessarily imply antisemitism, e.g., thinking that Jews are generally culturally or racially inferior, deserving of worse treatment, etc.

I think it's reasonable to concede that the movie is patently antijudaic---duh, of course it is, it's a clearly Christian movie about the guy Christians think is divine and Jews don't---without conceding that it's patently antisemitic.

I personally do think that the movie is a bit antisemitic, and that Mel Gibson himself is more antisemitic than his movie, and a horrible shithead more generally.

Still, I think Peter's been asking some good questions, the good-ness of which might be more apparent coming in a modified form from me.

How antisemitic is the movie, really?

How is the movie antisemitic, as opposed to merely antijudaic?

I don't think a movie is necessarily anti-X just because the villains of the piece are Xs and are portrayed as villainous. Maybe they're just the villains, you know?

For example, is a typical mafia movie anti-Italian, just because the villains are Italian? (Some people actually think so, because it perpetuates a negative stereotype of Italians. And whether that's a reasonable thing to think depends what you think of the audience, and whether they're likely to take it that way.)

Is a movie about witch hunters killing accused witches and heretics bigotedly anti-Christian because the witch hunters are Christians and trying to obey the Biblical command not to suffer a witch to live? Is it unfair to Christians if the leaders of the witch hunt are portrayed as clearly villainous nasty types, and the mostly supportive mob is mostly supportive, including some "braying" and bloodthirstiness?

I suspect most of the Christian viewers of Gibson's Passion take it mostly the way they'd take a movie about the Salem witch trials---they think its about some Jews then, not about all Jews forever---like a witch hunt, in Salem, by some Christians then.

I think Peter's questions about intent and effect are good ones.

For example, I think---but do not know---that the effect of the movie was probably a whole lot less antisemitic than it would have been in the 1950's or especially the 1930's, much less in 1560.

Why? Because fewer people now actually believe in the collective guilt of the Jews, or that it's something serious they ought to do something about.

I think there's something right about the ADL's talking about something being anti-judaic, which can be grist for some people's anti-semitism.

These days there are a whole lot of Christians who are quite anti-judaic---they believe Jesus is really really important and that the Jews are in profound theological error---but do not dislike Jews, or think they're particularly inferior.

Lately that's even true of many fundamentalists. Conservative Christians and Jews have united to oppose theological liberals and secularists. To many evangelicals and fundies these days, religious Jews are good guys like them, opposed to the decadence of modern society. Their theological differences are real and important, but not nearly as important as their similarities---Jews are merely mistaken about the Jesus thing, not evil, and in fact being a religious Jew makes you more than averagely good in their eyes. (Weird, huh?)

That's important in evaluating the actual effect of the movie, and the intent of releasing such a movie.

If I'm not mistaken, passion plays used to sometimes have obvious and dreadful effects on people's behavior. Christians, who were already anti-semitic, would get their passions inflamed, and go and beat up Jews, or even burn them out of their houses.

So far as I know, that didn't happen with Gibson's The Passion. Few Christians got worked up about those evil Jews and went and took it out on actual present-day Jews.

I think that's because, for most Christians, that's not what the movie was about. It wasn't about evil Jews, but about misguided people (a mob, like a witch hunt) who mostly happened to be Jews, and Jesus's destiny.

I do think the movie was insensitive and a bit irresponsible, but nothing like it would have been in an earlier era, where the anti-Judaism would translate automatically, for many people, into serious anti-semitism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying none of that happened---maybe some people thought and did antisemitic things. But where's the evidence that it was a major effect?

And don't get me wrong, I fucking hated the movie.

I didn't hate the movie because it was anti-Judaic; as I understand the terms, I'm anti-Judaic (but not anti-semitic) myself.

I hated it because it was pro-Christianity torture porn.

The main point of the movie was to amplify one man's suffering by pulling out all the stops that Gibson could think of, in support of a staggeringly stupid idea: that one guy having an admittedly very bad weekend at the hands of a mob was the most important event in history, and that his curiously brief "death" could somehow atone for thousands of years of "sin" by millions of people.

That's the big problem with the movie, and I have to admit that I think Donohue is right about one thing---a lot of people like me don't hate it because it's an anti-semitic movie, but because it's a Christian movie. It pumps up the Bad Craziness at the very heart of Christian dogma, to get people to feel strongly about it, and in favor of it. It's cinematic brain poison at its finest.

The biggest problem is not with the antisemitism per se, but with the central Christian dogmas, which have many indirect effects. Antisemitism is one effect, and it is worth worrying about, but it's part of a larger pattern.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if more people were motivated by the movie to vote Christian than to feel negatively toward Jews. Given the emotionality of the film, it may make them feel that they owe it to Jesus to stand with-him-not-against-him, and go vote for idiots like Palin and Bachmann, or picket an abortion clinic, or whatever.

I wouldn't think that for most people the effect of the movie would be largely to arouse anti-Jewish sentiment; for more, it would be likely to arouse pro-Christian sentiment, and to some extent, anti-non-christian sentiment.

That doesn't mean that it's not worth worrying about antisemitism---it is---just that I think the main problem is more general. The central message of the movie is profoundly wrong and dangerous in a way that goes beyond the Christian/Jewish thing.

To the extent that the movie is antisemitic in effect, that's mostly due to the minority (I think) of people who take the collective guilt of the Jews for Jesus death seriously.

It's worth asking if there's any evidence that that happened, or how much it happened. If there's no real evidence, people should acknowledge that, and admit that they're guessing about stuff they don't have even anecdotes about.

It's also a good question how much filmmakers are responsible for irresponsible minorities who take their films "the wrong way." Should Kubrick have not made A Clockwork Orange because some assholes would inevitably choose to emulate his sociopathic antihero?

Does anybody know of even a single credible anecdote of anti-Jewish violence spurred by this movie, similar to the one about the Jewish student being attacked by three Catholics students and getting his arm broken.

To be honest, I'm surprised that I haven't heard of a few such stories, and I find that interesting. How much collateral damage like that should we expect, as Peter asks, how would we know if we were wrong?

Posted by: Paul W., OM | July 22, 2010 3:36 PM

Well, if he left that curse in, I fully agree that's overt antisemitism. Are there any Aramaic speakers here who can settle this once and for all?

Wikipedia says:

One specific scene in the movie perceived as an example of anti-Semitism was in the dialogue of Caiaphas, when he states "His blood [is] on us and on our children!", a quote historically interpreted by some as a curse taken upon by the Jewish people. Certain Jewish groups asked this be removed from the film. However, only the subtitles were removed; the original dialogue remains in Aramaic soundtrack.[58]

When asked about this scene, Gibson said, "I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me."[59] In another interview when asked about the scene, he said, "It's one little passage, and I believe it, but I don't and never have believed it refers to Jews, and implicates them in any sort of curse. It's directed at all of us, all men who were there, and all that came after. His blood is on us, and that's what Jesus wanted. But I finally had to admit that one of the reasons I felt strongly about keeping it, aside from the fact it's true, is that I didn't want to let someone else dictate what could or couldn't be said."[60]

Personally, I don't find Gibson particularly plausible when he says it's not a curse and is "directed at all of us."

But that's partly because I already think Gibson is a bigoted asshole.

Coming from a theologian, I might actually think it was sincere, or at least in the sense of lying to himself rather than simply lying to others.

That's the kind of weird interesting thing that comes up around cases like this.

We often want to hold people responsible for the obvious implications or inevitable interpretations of what they say---how could they not have known how people would interpret it?

But when it comes to religion, you have to take into account that being religious is largely an exercise in not drawing obvious inferences, to protect other beliefs.

I can easily imagine that Gibson actually believes what he says, and that a Catholic theologian told him it wasn't a curse on the Jews. That's the kind of stuff they say, when they change their minds about something like collective guilt.

That doesn't get Gibson off the hook for putting that line in the movie. I'm curious why that exact line was important to him. If it was really just about "all of us," couldn't he have used a clearer statement?

Was he closely following a particular gospel at that point, and didn't want to just skip a line? I'm skeptical.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 22, 2010 4:13 PM

Even the US showed a rise in 2004 when the movie came out.

Posted by: JacobCH | July 22, 2010 4:24 PM

I doubt it matters to anyone, but since y'all are bringing up years and stats now I thought I should make clear that my friend was attacked almost exactly a year before this movie came out and I mentioned it only to illustrate that the jews-killed-jesus story itself does exist in the minds of some and has been used to commit violence. It has no direct connection to Gibson's film.

Posted by: KG | July 22, 2010 4:35 PM

I'd also say that most people here are not anti-semitic---dumb term, I know, because Jews aren't the only semites

This is based on two misapprehensions:

1) "Semite" is not a term applied to modern populations by any practising anthropologists other than cranks. "Semitic" is applied only to languages (and it's true there are non-Jewish populations speaking Semitic languages, but then there are Jews who do not speak such a language).
2) The term "anti-Semite" was applied to 19th century anti-Semites by themselves, and they meant they were anti-Jewish. The use of "Semite" gave the prejudice a pseudo-scientific gloss.

Posted by: SC OM | July 22, 2010 5:12 PM

describing a historical event accurately

Um...what?

Posted by: Paul | July 22, 2010 6:00 PM

I haven't really chipped in because I haven't seen the movie, but someone up-thread mentioned Satan walking amongst the Jews. Is that accurate? It wasn't really discussed. That's definitely an embellishment if true, and not very subtle.

Posted by: Paul | July 22, 2010 7:01 PM

So, scratch everything I said before. Since the movie contains this statement, it is either overtly antisemitic or Mel Gibson is a much bigger ignoramus than I suspect him of being. I think, given his theological leanings (and his elsewhere demonstrated antisemitism), that he knew exactly what he was doing when he included this statement in the dialogue.

You should also note his stated reason for removing the subtitle, provided in 270:

if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me

He's not an ignoramus (well, not when it comes to the situation under discussion). He doesn't even have the tact to claim it was to respect sensibilities. He directly stated that he removed a subtitle that many would find anti-semitic because he was scared the Jews would come to kill him. Not surprising coming from the guy who blames Jews for all wars, but still...

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 23, 2010 9:20 PM

@JacobCH #265:

They threw the bat at him, spit on him and said, “that’s for killing Jesus, heeb.”

I wouldn’t have denied the existence of individuals for whom ‘Jews-killed-Jesus’ is an ostensible motivation for their anti-semitism, but thank you nonetheless for the elaboration.

What I would say, though, is that these guys are, as you noted, usually religious extremists. (As has also been noted, no mainstream Catholic should get behind ‘Jews-killed-Jesus’.) And one obvious question with these types is: what will they not use as an excuse to assert their sense of supremacy over others?

As to the more general point you may have wanted to address with the anecdote, of the most egregious anti-semitic influences and/or movements of the past 500 years, the Nazis were not motivated by ‘Jews-killed-Jesus’—because they didn’t care one whit about Jesus but very much about racial purity and what they believed to be a world-wide Jewish conspiracy—and Luther wasn’t either, as he was mostly hung up on the Jews not accepting the divinity of Jesus.

So, ‘Jews-killed-Jesus’: an excuse for already pathological fanatics, yes; a generally significant cause of anti-semitism, not so much.

Posted by: John Morales | July 25, 2010 6:33 AM

Peter wrote that he doesn't consider it possible for something to be anti-semitic (AS), absent demonstrated AS intent and AS effect.

Clearly, in his opinion, something intended to be AS but which has no such effect is not AS, and similarly something which has an AS effect (but not intentionally so) is also not AS.

<shrug>

I don't care to argue that definition.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 25, 2010 10:46 AM

John, glad you actually do care to argue. As I said in #246 in response to JacobCH:

As to the effectiveness, you have a point that something that is obviously intended to be anti-semitic (i.e. to incite hatred and/or violence or other harm against Jews) will usually also have at least some effect to that end.

Vice versa, I would happily concede that a clear effect is at least an indication of intent, as I implied (and, yes, could have said more clearly) in this paragraph in #235:

You could construct a case similar to Fox News and the Saddam–Osama link. If viewers of a particular network are significantly more likely to believe a certain falsehood, then you have at least shown that the effect of that network’s broadcasts is to bolster the falsehood. It wouldn’t address the questions of motive and intent, which I think are also important, but of course it would constitute evidence.

So, at least in practice, you would probably be right to say that either clear evidence of intent or clear evidence of effect would be sufficient to label something as ‘anti-semitic’. One could still argue about what is ‘clear evidence’, but I would think that, once the discussion is focused on actual evidence, that can be worked out.

In any case, I think it should be obvious from what I have asked for—i.e. evidence of an effect—that I would consider it relevant evidence. Nerd’s idea of the questionnaires is a good one and entirely relevant to the point I have asked him (among others) to support. Except that the questionnaire evidence does not seem to be forthcoming. Which is funny for someone who said, “Intentions don't matter. Results do.” Well, where are the results? And shouldn’t you be eager to see them as well, to be more confident of your position?

And lest any more knee-jerk kitchenware comparisons be made: the idea of someone or something being guilty until proven innocent is something I would have hoped we agree about is abhorrent. In that light, it seems more than strange, when asked about evidence for PZ’s (and other people’s) assertion that Passion is anti-semitic, to respond, ‘You show us your evidence first!’

Similarly, I should rather like to err on the side of caution than to wrongly accuse somebody or something of, for example, being anti-semitic. That’s why I want to make sure that the assertion is not wrong, and in order to do that I have to explore plausible sources of error. This is the most standard way of testing a statement (philosophy of science 101), and I am still somewhat puzzled by the vehemence with which some of you attack me for applying it. On a website, no less, that is famous for championing it. I fail to see how that is consistent.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 25, 2010 11:30 AM

One more thought on ‘semantics’, especially re: JacobCH in #256:

Not even the ADL called a specific Passion Play they complained about ‘anti-semitic’ but only said it “contained anti-Judaic elements”.

Seriously, other than your wacko semantic somersaults, what is the difference between those two things?

First, if you call something “wacko” which you admit you don’t understand, you need to be more critical. And how keen can you be to find out if you can’t even be bothered to google the terms yourself?

Second, and more important, how can you accuse me of using ‘mere semantics’, when I explicitly say that different words in this context denote different actual things and that being able to differentiate between these things is important? Your anti-semantics, on the contrary, lumping words together without even considering their differentiating potential and insisting that everybody call a movie ‘anti-semitic’ even though you are aware that it is, at worst, bigoted and has no connection whatever to the word’s most readily accessible connotations (pogroms, ghettos, Nazis etc.) is what I have argued throughout is actually harmful to the fight against the discrimination of minorities—“blunting one of the instruments to fight it” (#283).

As far as I can tell, nobody so far has even acknowledged the possibility that this might be a problem. Given that this is Pharyngula, the lion’s den of fiercely critical thinkers, I find that weird.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 25, 2010 11:42 AM

Let us see. Mel Gibson is a devotee of a break away catholic sect that wants the RCC to go back to the pre-Vatican II days, an institution that had centuries of being officially anti-semitic. Mel Gibson has expressed anti-semitic ideas. Mel Gibson based his movie on a passion play that expressed the anti-semitic feelings of the society that produced it.

And Peter Beattie argues that the end results might not be anti-semitic? That is some impressive critical thinking there.

Posted by: John Morales | July 25, 2010 7:41 PM

Thanks, Peter, that's quite a concession.

So, at least in practice, you would probably be right to say that either clear evidence of intent or clear evidence of effect would be sufficient to label something as ‘anti-semitic’.

I wrote that I consider this a "reasonable definition"¹^,², but I also think it's incomplete and much more likely to generate false negatives than false positives (since the burden of proof is extreme) and thus unsatisfactory.

Even weakening the evidentiary requirements to significant probability, rather than fact, the burden of determining intent or effect would remain very high (our only access to people's beliefs is self-reporting or observed behaviour, which can often be ambiguous (admittedly, less so as observations mount, thus enabling discernable patterns to emerge)).

Here, it seems to me you're considering the case of Gibson's Passion as a datum in isolation, rather than a datum which is part of the dataset constituted of Gibson's oeuvre.
This raises the bar significantly towards establishing a case, one way or another.

--

¹ I don't think anyone here would dispute that if something's intent or effect can be determined to be AS, then that something should be considered AS.

² Here's another definition, which doesn't rely on either intent or effect, but rather the nature of the work or action (admittedly, it still relies on subjective evaluation).

Defining Anti-Semitism, from Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Because the working definition is broad, the EUMC provides explanatory text that discusses the kinds of acts that could be considered anti-Semitic:

“Such manifestations [of anti-Semitism] could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for 'why things go wrong.’ It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 26, 2010 8:32 PM

@John Morales #294:

… and much more likely to generate false negatives than false positives …

Which is exactly the way it should be. Not because it is anybody’s objective to comfort actual anti-semites (or any other minority haters, for that matter) but because such a judgement itself can do harm if it is unfair. And as I have been pointing out, there are other words to describe and to label what a person is doing that do not carry such dire connotations but still convey an unmistakable sense of ‘You’d better watch it’.

Ironically enough, this very idea is explicitly contained in the quote from Hitchens that PZ used to introduce his post:

We live in a culture where the terms fascist and racist are thrown about, if anything, too easily and too frequently.

Do you think it is blindingly obvious that Hitchens is wrong about this? Or will you simply not see that I’m making the same point about ‘anti-semitism’?

I just waded through all the comments again to see if anybody had picked up the point about devaluing a word through inflationary use, just as Hitchens says is too often done these days. Not a single person did.

Posted by: John Morales | July 27, 2010 6:18 AM

Peter:

Which is exactly the way it should be.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

I'll just note that your opinion on this is no less idiosyncratic than your definition.

And as I have been pointing out, there are other words to describe and to label what a person is doing that do not carry such dire connotations but still convey an unmistakable sense of ‘You’d better watch it’.

If it's AS, then AS is the right word for it.
It it's something else, then I agree that a different word would be more apposite.

As for such other words, please help me out.
Red:Pink :: Anti-semitic:XXX.

What is XXX, such that it doesn't gain excessive generality?
Or do you mean appending or prepending some qualifier, such as quasi-anti-semitic or anti-semitoid¹?

Ironically enough, this very idea is explicitly contained in the quote from Hitchens that PZ used to introduce his post

Your quote basically says that the terms 'fascist' and 'racist' are often used inappropriately in our culture; I see nothing there to suggest that there are specific words for not-quite-anti-semitism.
Shorter version: I disagree.

Or will you simply not see that I’m making the same point about ‘anti-semitism’?

I quite understand you think the term is misused if applied to Gibson's Passion, and I do not deny that it may well be a term that's often misused.

That point says nothing about whether Gibson's Passion is or is not AS.

I just waded through all the comments again to see if anybody had picked up the point about devaluing a word through inflationary use, just as Hitchens says is too often done these days. Not a single person did.

It's not worth arguing, and you make no case for it anyway.
Analogically, the term 'fascist' has been well and truly abused, do you think its connotations have been thereby etiolated? I suggest to you that, rather, the term retains its connotations but it has become recognised that it's often missaplied.

--

¹ Yes, these are ad-hoc neologisms, so far as I know.