At 09:51 PM 2/5/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would argue that John Paul II has done precisely that. > To a large extent, yes. Certainly more than any major Christian leader before him (well, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI also did a lot).
Still a long way to go, though.
> But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based
> thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject?
>
I've said that I don't blame all Christians for Christian anti-Semitism, or
at least that I try not to. Suspicion and resentment are not exactly the same
as blame. But even if I do, or even if other Jews do, is it so hard to
understand why?
I'm trying not to play victim here, since I personally have experienced also
no anti-Semitism myself. Most of the Christian friends I've had in my lifetime
have been just that - friends. They accept me for who and what I am, just as
I accept them for who and what they are. To the extent that I have been
writing on this issue here recently, it's out of a very strong feeling for what
other Jews have gone through, and an understanding that that COULD have been me -
and in different times and places very well MIGHT have been me.
America has been good to the Jews (and vice-versa), and I don't really think
that this is likely to change much, even if Gibson's movie breaks records. But
there is always nervousness among Jews, and if we judge Christians harshly,
that's hardly of the same consequence as Christian anti-Semitism or Nazi
extermination. Again, my point is, if Christians truly want to demonstrate that they
understand why Jews are suspicious, if they truly want to prove that they
pose no threat, it's easy to do so. John-Paul HAS begun to lead the way, and many
other Christians have done likewise. And you don't have to let Mel Gibson
speak for you, or leave it to Jews to point out the inherent dangers in basing a
popular entertainment on an uncritical and ahistorical adaptation of the
Gospels.
So, going on the assumption that the Gospels are the best historical account we have of the events we are discussing, is it not ahistorical to simply skip over Matthew 27:20-25? How would you suggest a film-maker handle that important portion of the story without making Jews nervous?
(I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to understand what would work.)
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
