The Passion of the Christ
Icon/NewMarket Films, 2004
A Response to Critics
Christianity is a Jewish heresy. This is a truth of history that is rarely noted and whose implications are rarely appreciated. One result of that lack of awareness and appreciation has come in hostile reactions to the movie, The Passion of the Christ, made by actor/director Mil Gibson as a labor of love and devotion, with his own money (25-30 million dollars)...
A true problem with an ahistorical approach is the particular self-righteousness that might now be expressed toward the Mediaeval doctrine of the collective guilt of the Jews. The collective guilt of the Jews is a significant feature of Judaism itself. The Israelites are condemened by God to 40 years in the desert because they (all? some?) venerated the Golden Calf while Moses was on Mt. Sinai. Later, when the 10 Tribes are deported by Assyria or the First Temple is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the Jews Exiled in Babylon, the only theological explanation that would ever exist for these events, inflicted on the Chosen People of the Lord, is that they were punishment by God for the failure of Israel, or the Jews, to obey the Law. The Chosen People, after all, although God's favorites, are also held to a higher standard, to be rewarded or punished by God to the extent that they observe His commandments and walk in His ways. It is not surprising then, but quite obvious, that early Christians would see the failure of their Jewish brethern to accept Jesus as the Messiah as another example of their previous disobedience to God. Since the Temple was destroyed in the Jewish War (66-73 AD), the nation of Judah destroyed, and the Jews scattered across the Roman Empire and the whole Middle East in an enduring Disaspora, it would be astonishing if Christians, or even Jews, did not interpret these as signs of God's Wrath.
Today, collective guilt as a concept is properly rejected on the basis of modern liberal and individualistic principles of justice and political order. Unfortunately, I am afraid that some of the very critics who wax so indignant about Mediaeval docrines of the collective guilt of the Jews, nevertheless subscribe to the modern political doctrines of the collective guilt of, say, white males, for whom the "equal protection of the law" provision of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution may be suspended (as explicitly stated recently by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) so that they can be discriminated against in "affirmative action" or "diversity" programs intended to cut down the number of white males who are admitted to educational programs, hired for jobs, or promoted. It is such approachs of social engineering and racial/gender retribution that today get called "liberal" politics. Since some of these critics may in fact be Jewish, whose leftist or "liberal" voting, in general, is legendary, even while male Jews are consistently counted as "white males," benefiting from no preferences at all in "affirmative action" or "diversity" programs, we also have the curious circumstance that male Jews may actually judge themselves as collectively guilty for wrongs of the past like slavery and Segregation. Indeed, virulent anti-Semites like Louis Farakhan are happy to hold the Jews (male or female) particularly guilty for slavery and Segregation -- not to mention the exploitation and victimization of minorities by Jewish businesses in their neighborhoods. Critics of The Passion of the Christ, consequently, better be clear about whether they are actually for collective guilt or against it. I will not allow that Jews individually can be innocent, but white males cannot.