I heard Mel's a Jew hater.

I don't know that he is an out and out Jew hater, Mike. Gibson strikes me more as either someone who does not question authority (CTM and Opus Dei) or who is sneaky. The effect may be the same, but that is different than being a screaming hater like his father. Perhaps?

Mac Diva:

It is obvious that Mel Gibson has this thing where he denies the Holocaust to a disconcerting degree. However, what relationship does that have to his movie? It is rather like bringing up the fact that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was known to cavort with communists and women who were not his wife. Ditto President Clinton and Rev. Jesse Jackson. It is completely unrelated to his message and body of work that is used by people seeking to discredit it. Yes, some people did raise the communist and adultery specter to try to claim that the civil rights agendas of King and Jackson and the progressive agenda of Clinton were inherently immoral and communist inspired, that you cannot separate the fact that most communists were known to support the civil rights movement and other progressive movements from the movements themselves.

I see this Mel Gibson thing in the same vein. He quite possibly may have some despicable views on Jews. However, his views on the life and death of Jesus might well be unrelated to them, and the the views of the vast majority of fundamentalist, evangelical, and traditionalist Christians certainly aren't.

Virtually no one who believes that Jesus was crucified at the behest of SOME Jewish leaders and SOME Jews that were incited by said leaders thinks that Jews living today are responsible and are a threat to commit violence or discrimination against Jews because of it. Even if that were the case, would that be an excuse for rewriting history or trying to get someone to change their faith? That is certainly something that should be debated. But it most certainly is NOT the case and everyone knows it.

That claims otherwise are made speaks more about the motivations and character of the people making them. It is a willful lie perpetrated by folks who resent the fact that people who tend to be fundamentalist, evangelical, and traditional Christians tend to be conservative politically (ironically Mel Gibson is apolitical). "We don't like the way they vote and disagree with them on political and social issues, so let's portray them as extremist hate filled and potentially violent bigots even though we know it isn't true!" That makes you no different than the people who called Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Soviet agent. The truth is that the Mel Gibson bashers are probably more bigoted and hateful against the people who actually make up the MAJORITY of Christians in this country than Mel Gibson is himself against Jews, and the furor over 'The Passion' proves it. After all, Gibson, who has been making movies since the 1970s, has spent much more time around and working with far more Jews than any of these elite intellectuals will ever spend around the people who flocked to see "The Passion" on opening day. To see people like Jan Herman be so smugly proud of the fact that he will never see it and doesn't know anyone who will (in addition to his war against Wal - Mart and people who shop there) is a clear example of what I am talking about.

So all the people who are debating Mel Gibson's hatred ought to take the advice of a biblically inspired cliche and take a look in the mirror and see what is in your own hearts against people who aren't like YOU.

Very fine points Gerald, but everyone should be like me.

Where have I ever expressed hatred of Mel Gibson? Nowhere. It is the effect of the message he is conveying that concerns me. To break it down, that message can be interpreted to mean: The Vatican's statement in 1965 was wrong. Jews are largely responsible for the death of Christ. That is what Opus Dei and CTM have believed all along. So, there is no way to separate the beliefs of that reactionary segment of Catholicism (sometimes reviled by mainstream Catholics, BTW) from the message of "The Passion." Heck, OD members would not have put up the money to have the movie made if they did not support its message.

The allegations against Martin Luther King, Jr., were quite different. One, that he was a member of the Communist Party, was completely false. The other, that he cheated on his wife, was true, but had no nexus to the question of whether African-Americans had the right to full participation in American society, including voting rights, equal accommodations in businesses and integration into the educational system. I'm surprised you are making such a poor argument. Martin Luther King, Jr., cheated on Coretta, so 'Negroes' shouldn't be allowed to vote, stay at the Howard Johnson's or attend Ole Miss. To say that is to utter nonsense. On the other hand, saying: Mel Gibson, influenced by his involvement in reactionary Catholicism, made a movie that may revive the 'blame the Jews' for Christ's death' tradition, is not nonsense. Get a grip, Gerald.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PEOPLE!!

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.

"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.

"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."

-Benjamin Franklin, 1787, at The Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MD, you state that Opus Dei members financed, or helped finance Mel's movie. I haven't done any research, but every news story that I have seen or read says that Mel financed the movie from his own pocket. Do you have other sources that show OD members "put up the money to have the movie made..."?

I'm surprised you are making such a poor argument. Martin Luther King, Jr., cheated on Coretta, so 'Negroes' shouldn't be allowed to vote, stay at the Howard Johnson's or attend Ole Miss.

Trust me. Anyone banned from a Howard Johnson's is being done a great favor.

Mac Diva:

" On the other hand, saying: Mel Gibson, influenced by his involvement in reactionary Catholicism, made a movie that may revive the 'blame the Jews' for Christ's death' tradition, is not nonsense. Get a grip, Gerald."

It is interesting that you and others keep saying "revive" when there is no evidence that the belief ever went away and even less evidence than it did not. I refer you again to that ABC poll: SIXTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE! THAT INCLUDES THE NEW TESTAMENT, INCLUDES THE GOSPELS, INCLUDES THE PORTIONS CONCERNING THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS! The belief that such things had ever changed is due to the fact that a small minority far detached from mainstream thought are the ones who makes movies, administer our top universities, and publish the New York Times.

It is hilarious how the New York Times had to hand pick a "diverse religious panel" made up solely of people who told them what they wanted to hear. It is even more revealing that the Catholic Church leadership HAS NOT denounced the movie even though they have obviously seen it. It is most revealing that even most black civil rights leader minister/preacher sorts have remained silent on this movie. Why? Because they know what mainstream religious folk think. It is a neat trick that the left tries to attribute mainstream views that are held by the majority or a large minority of people to a fringe, and then pick someone odious to represent that fringe. Well, it sometimes works but not in this case because A) Mel Gibson is and will remain immensely popular, as a matter of fact this movie will make him even more so and cause resentment for his attackers ... as the VERY JEWISH Michael Medved said and B) there are far too many Christians of all denominations and stripes who believe that Jesus was sent to the Romans to be executed by certain Jews who believed him to be guilty of blasphemy.

Funny how NO ONE (including you) will touch the blasphemy angle. Do you believe that there is or at least was in those days such a thing as blasphemy? Do you deny that blasphemy was punishable by death? Do you know what sorts of things that you could have said back in that time that would have had you convicted of blasphemy and stoned on the spot? Why don't we go ask some Jewish theologians and intellectuals on the matter, even those liberal Reform sorts. See what they say. But you see Ms. Diva, that is EXACTLY why no one does it. No member of the Jewish faith is going to deny their own religion and history by saying that there is no such thing as blasphemy and that blasphemy was not regarded as a capital crime in Jesus' time. And no one is going to talk about what things you can say or do would constitute blasphemy. Why? Because doing so in the context of Jesus would make this whole "the Romans did it" thing fall apart. So, you ignore it.

Complete and total nullification for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that you desire. All white juries used to do that all the time in the south (and in other places) Ms. Diva. Great to see that the modern left has learned so well from them.

Yes, Doug. The Michelinis are members of Opus Dei. I suspect they may have raised money from other members as well. In addition, the OD link was used to promote the claim that the Pope had recommended "The Passion." That is where Navarro (the Pope's secretary and an OD member) initially entered the picture. Read more about it here. Gibson is with CTM, but CTM and OD often see eye-to-eye. He could say he did not raise money from OD, but have raised it from CTM.

Gerald, I am not religious. So, no, I don't get into 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' discussions. Again, my concern with "The Passion" is about its impact on societal relations, not religion per se.