Conference taveng::bagels

    The head of the studio -- Universal, I think -- which is releasing
    the film is Jewish.  This gives anti-semities the chance, as if
    they needed one, to toot their horns.  The fact that the film is
    based on a novel by a Greek and directed by Italian doesn't seem
    to impinge upon the minds -- better yet, mindlessness -- of the 
    latent and not-so-latent Jew haters.
    
    
  

    Several news reports focused on a group of picketers with placards
    saying that the movie "promotes anit-Semitism", supposedly because
    the studio head is Jewish. Why doesn't it promote anti-Catholism
    because the director is Italian?
    
    The movie doesn't have anything to do with anti-Semitism. It is
    just the small minded bigots finding an excuse for their anti-Semitic
    feelings.
    
    By the way, to his credit, Jerry Falwell came out very strongly
    against the idea that the movie should have anything to do with 
    anti-Semitism, and condemned the protesters.
    
    
    Jack

    According  to an article in the August 4th Jewish Advocate (Boston),
    the main instigator of the protests in the LA area, Rev Robert L
    Hymers, has been linked to Jews for Jesus (I hope I am not reopening
    old wounds by reporting this.)  In fact, according to a July 29
     article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, Hymers is supposed to
    have been married by the leader, Moshe Rosen, of Jews for Jesus.
    

    about .3 -
    maybe so, but surely the main fuss started in Italy and is being
    concerted by Catholics. They aren't controlled by J-for-J.
    Actually, since "jews control hollywood" is a well-known excuse
    for antisemitism, i really do wish that jewish hollywood moguls
    would just stay away from anything that can be (mis)used against
    us. Jesus should be a verbotten topic! not that antisemites themselves
    lack for excuses, BUT this excuse is really having an effect on
    plain people who otherwise just don't bother with antisemitic rantings
    and ravings.
    -AZ

    If someone wants to he/she can find an execuse for anti-semitism.
    They don't need the Hollywood Jewish producers to provide an execuse,
    they'll find their own. I don't think anyone should run from doing
    a project they feel is worthwhile(socially or $) just because someone
    is liable to use it against them.
    Remember Jews "control" Hollywood, the courts, the banks, the military
    and every other "the" you can name. It doesn't matter what we do,
    they'll still blame us for all their problems and fears.
    We should do what we have to do, all the while keeping an eye to
    our backs. If we run from projects or businesses, THEY will have
    won.

    	re .5
    
    	I have to disagree on this one.
    	I think people should be careful about how their actions
    	are intrepreted.  More specifically, the idea that making
    	a positive contribution to Art and/or making money from an
        endeavor that intentionally tries to harm a large number
    	of people religious beliefs, is to me wrong.  
    	There are so many more productive, positive ways to get
    	your point across without having to distort history and create
    	resentment (rightly or wrongly) against you and you people.
    
    	As a Jew, I think this movie is insulting to all people who
    	believe in deity, and the real intent of this movie is to
    	break or shake a large number of people's closely held,
    	very personal beliefs.  I think this is basically Evil.
    
    	I would not want someone to do this to the ideas that I
    	hold most dear. Why not try to nip this in the bud?
    
    
    	Jack

    Of course I haven't seen it, but I've read quite a bit...
    
    The author of the book was a deeply religious Christian who thought
    that his book was rather reverent.  The climax of the story is written
    in language that backs that up; it's been excerpted in the press,
    and is perhaps a bit more pious than the more respectable broadcast
    preachers usually get! 
    
    A Jewish critic who actually saw the movie found it offensive in
    its representation of the milleu of the time.  It is a very Arab-style
    scene, where Jews aren't portrayed particularly nicely.  The movie
    was made in Morocco, which might explain some of it, but the film's
    attitude is again very Christian.  It's not something that most
    Jews would want to put their money into, though I suppose the studio
    didn't realize how it would come out, and were giving Scorsese his
    "artistic freedom".
    
    From what I know of Christian theology (which I studied as an academic
    subject), Jesus was portrayed as both human and diety.  The film
    explores the human side of him, which seems very valid in a religious
    context.  The protests from Christians seem to come from those who
    did not understand the context of the story -- they don't realize
    that the most controversial stuff about Mary Magdalene is revealed
    to be a vision created by Satan that Jesus resisted, affirming his
    deity-hood.  (Satan is not a character in Judaism, but he does play
    some kind of role in Christianity, especially at the folk level.)
         fred

    I have to disagree back.
    
    If we were to follow this view then many ideas would never be discussed
    or expressed. If Scopes had followed this view then possibly the
    teaching of evolution would still be illegal(although in some areas
    it's barely legal now). Oh, I know Scopes never dreamed the effects
    his actions would have, but he did have an effect none the less.
    
    I have doubts that this film, which I have yet to see, is really
    disruptive to peoples basic beliefs. I have seen interviews with
    the clergy(Catholic priests, Presbyterian ministers and a Baptist
    minister) where they felt that if one had faith it would not be
    hurt by this film, and if one did NOT have faith maybe it would
    lead to a questioning that could produce faith.
    
    Basically, I guess I agree with Oliver Wendel Holmes(or was it Learned
    Hand, I never can remember which) that as long as you don't shout
    FIRE!!! in a crowed theater, when there is NOT a fire, you can say
    most anything you want. I just don't have to listen.
    
    After I see it, if it gets released in Dallas, I'll know better.

    .8 is in answer to .6 not .7 

    Scopes knew what he was doing.
    						Ann B.

    	re 8.and 10
    
    	I have nothing against "discussion" on serious topics.
    	Yet, some people wonder why, when they attack somone's 
    	closely held religious beliefs that they get defamatory,
    	hateful rhetoric in return.  It is clear that there has
    	to be a lot of careful judgment used as to what subjects
    	are discussed, where they are talked about, and to what
    	audience.
    
    	I agree with .10 that Scopes knew what he was doing.
    	There is an organized attack going on against people of
    	religious belief, and it is sometimes very subtle.  I am
    	not naive, and feel I can recognize it when it rears its
    	ugly head.  This Scorcese was dismissed from a Seminary
    	where he was studying, and put this movie out as a means
    	of revenge.  It is a complete revision of history, much
    	like what some Neo-Nazis do by saying concentration camps
    	did not exist.
    
    	If you perpetuate a lie, you in fact promote it.  
    
    	This movie is trash, and I have no trouble with those people
    	who are protesting this movie, and MCA Corp and its affiliates.
    	I may protest also if it comes to this area.  
    
    	Imagine the outrage you would feel if they depicted Moses as
    	a deviant, or King David as an effeminate.
    
    	All things are put into movies, advertising, literature  for
    	a definite reason and purpose.  This movie is no exception.

    Re: .-1
    
    I seem to remember Moses being shown as less than perfect in Cecil
    B. DeMille's movie.
    
    I also remember reading a book (it is too early in the morning for
    me to remember the title, but someone will probably remind me) which
    was a history based on a hypothetical "tell" which had a piece where
    King David had someone unjustly killed and took another's wife away
    with him.
    
    Was I offended?  Nah.  

    And I can point out plenty of Science Fiction stories which cast
    the Lord in a "different" light from what the Torah says.  Am I
    offended?  No.
    
    Fiction, when not foisted off as the truth, has a hard time being
    offensive to me, and, I think, to most people.
    
    				Paul
    

>>> I also remember reading a book (it is too early in the morning for
>>>>me to remember the title, but someone will probably remind me)
>>>>which was a history based on a hypothetical "tell" which had a piece where
>>> King David had someone unjustly killed and took another's wife away
>>> with him.
    
    You do mean the Bible, don't you? 

   The Bible paints a very vivid picture of King David's various sins.
   Moses is obviously not sinful in the same way, but he's not
   perfect, either. Is anyone, in the Bible? To tell the truth, I find
   the Christian idea of a perfect man rather blasphemous in itself.
   Should I picket churches?

   What I did find offensive was saying that Scorsese made the movie
   out of 'revenge'. In the first place, who knows or cares what his
   motives were? And anyway, it's the quality of the movie that
   matters - not what someone in the audience  decides must have been
   in the film maker's mind before he made the film. Kazantzakis - who
   wrote the book - was a devout Greek Orthodox Christian.


   Marge
                

        

RE .11:

�    	It is a complete revision of history, much
�    	like what some Neo-Nazis do by saying concentration camps
�    	did not exist.

	What history?  The NT isn't history, it's theology.  Correct me
	if I'm wrong, but there's virtually no primary source material
	on JC.

�    	This movie is trash...
    
	Have you seen it?  Has anybody participating in this discussion
	seen it?  I don't intend to (even though I like Scorsese's other
	films) because it's too Christian.  From what I've read, it accepts
	the idea of JC's divinity, which I find offensive.  Ironic?

    RE: .12
    
    The book is "The Source" by James Michener, I believe.  While it's
    a work of fiction, the historical references appear to be fact.
    
    /Ed

    The film we are discussing is a work of art, in the broad sense,
    an act of creative expression.  It is not (and isn't purported to
    be) a documentary.  Does this movie attack the faith of those who
    believe that Jesus is the messiah?  From what I've read (and I'll
    see it when it opens next week), Jesus comes out as the winner in
    the end.
    
    I think it's okay to dislike a movie after viewing it.  It's also
    okay to not view a movie because one thinks that it won't be
    interesting.  But I don't believe that someone who hasn't seen a
    film is justified in preventing others from not seeing it.  An
    advisory role ("You probably won't like this film") is fine, but
    using imperatives and threats in a case like this is wrong.
    
    I saw "Hail Mary" three years ago, and couldn't see what the fuss
    was about.  Being a Godard film, noone understood it anyway :-).
    All the talk and protest just got _more_ people to see a mediocre
    film.
    
    Dave

    It seem to me that part of the flap comes about because of differences
    in various folks views of absolutes. Those that believe that there are
    total absolutes are likely to be offended by movies, books, etc which
    appear to less than respectful to whatever they rever as absolute.
    Christians, Jews, or Moslems who believe that G-d is absolutely holy
    will tend to take a dim view of anything which talks about G-d in
    anything less than reverential tones, seeing it as blasphemy. Folks
    who don't share the same view of something being absolute are more
    likely to see the movies, books, etc. as simple expressions of personal
    views without necessarily having any cosmic ramifications.

    For the record, I fall in the category of people who believe that there
    are absolutes. I believe that there is a big difference between,
    for example, making a movie that explores the issue of some leader
    being untrue to his public nature versus a movie that explores the
    issue of G-d being untrue to his revealed nature. The first may
    or may not have cosmic consequences, the second definitely does
    have cosmic consequences.
    
    Paul
    

    Re. .10
    I wanted to be perfectly clear, but as usual I spoke with mud.
    
    Yes Scopes knew what he was doing, but didn't understand what the
    ramifications were. In fact based on an interview with him (just
    before he died?) he said the whole thing wasn't even his idea, which
    to me meant it was a setup deal to protest the law(of course I do
    not know if my interpretation of what he said is correct).
    
    Back to the issue at hand. I agree wholeheartedly with .17. The
    problem comes about due to beliefs in absolutes. And as you might
    guess I don't believe in absolutes, particularly when they interfere
    with my ability to do, see, read or say something. 

    I do agree that you don't have to go see the movie, or even want
    me to see it. BUT, don't try and stop me from seeing it if I want
    to or feel I should for some reason.
    
    By the way the Dallas city council was asked to interceed and request
    the distributor from releasing it here. Al Lipscom(sp. ?) sidestepped
    the issue, although he said he didn't want it shown, by requesting
    the board that rates films here to do something. The board chairperson
    said that she expected that it would be rated as unsuitable(due
    to its R rating), but that they are NOT censors and would NOT be
    censors. Unsuitable(due to SEX, VIOLENCE or LANGUAGE) means that
    children must be accompanied by their parents or guardians. So I 
    guess I'll be able to see it here if I should get the chance and
    I, repeat I decide to go.
    
    
    
    

From the articles and movie's title, I believe it deals with Christ's
temptations, which he surmounts at the end.  I could well imagine that
a movie that spends 1:55 drooling over the temptations, and 5 minutes
at the end showing the successful refusal could be seen as offensive.

Ultimately, there are conflicting rights:

-- my right not to be offended by unsults against my religion.

-- my right to blaspheme, if this is what I want to do.

-- my right as an artist to explore issues, even though they may offend others.

There is no way to resolve those rights.

Martin.

    Re .19, no way to resolve three cited rights:
    
    Sure there is: drop the first one, and the other two are already
    not in conflict.
    
    Free speach means you can offend and insult.  I support that,
    as the alternative leads to tyranny (e.g. "You cannot say the
    government is wrong--that's an insult").
    
    			-John Bishop    

    re .19, .20 --
    rights shmights ... what does "rights" have to do with jews getting
    involved (through financing, etc.) in something that will surely be
    used against us?! you may have a right to yell something offensive
    in a crowded theatre short of "fire", but you'd have to be a jerk
    to do so if the theatre is filled with the offendees.
    america is filled with believing christians. we should have stayed
    out of this one!
    -AZ

    re. 21
    
    >>rights shmights ... what does "rights" have to do with jews getting
    >>involved (through financing, etc.) in something that will surely be
    >>used against us?!

    The assumption in the above is that if Jews don't do something
    "offensive," then non-Jews won't take "offense."  History, however,
    strong belies that assumption.  Over the course of history,
    anti-semites have attacked Jews for being too rich and too poor,
    for being communists and for being Capitalists, for trying to
    assimilate and for staying with their traditions, etc, etc.
    
    Anti-semites will attack whatever Jews do or don't do.  They will
    latch their hatred on to any excuse.  Indeed, their hatred does
    not need an excuse.  Ultimately, it is not the actions of Jews that
    causes hatred; it is our very existence. 
    
    And I, for one, will be damned -- small 'd' -- before I allow the
    hatred or intolerance or ignorance of someone else define my actions.
    And I believe that Jews, in general, also cannot define their behavior 
    by what might or might not offend Christians, by what might or might
    not feed prejudice and hatred. 
    
    Should Einstein not have promolgated his theories because the theories 
    contradict fundamentalist beliefs; should Salk not have invented his 
    vaccine because some Christians don't believe in innoculations;
    Should Gershwin (sp?) not have promoted jazz melodies and techniques because
    Southern Christians didn't want black traditions dignified.  The
    list could be endless.  
    
    My basic point, to reiterate, is that hatred towards Jews doesn't
    result from the actions of Jews. The problem isn't with us -- it's
    with them, and history has given us lots of thems.