All right, but what did he say exactly. And I agree, we certainly don't want our Jews "blackened".

that Jews cause all the wars in the world, then asked one of the cops if he was a Jew. He also got off such zingers as "I'm going to fuck you", "I'm so fucked", "I own all of Malibu", and "What are you looking at, Sugartits?"

It is far worse than that, it is code for anyone who goes against the prevailing meanness of this country and its society and culture. That's why Karl Rove uses "liberal" like it's a slander, because so many in this country have been convinced that it is. If many Jews are also liberal, this does not ipso-facto mean that the label applies only to them. It applies to all of us who believe in justice, fairness, equality before the law, and simple, human decency.

what is that line, where is that quote that says something about "The truth in wine there is truth"? Was it Romans? or Mr. Quevero?

Although Caiaphus and the Jewish Sanhedrin were responsible for bringing Jesus up on charges before Pilate, it was actually Pilate who was responsible for Jesus' death. The Jews were not allowed to carry out a death sentence. That's in the Bible. When Pilate said, "See to it yourself" that is a made-up phrase inserted in the Bible to place blame on the Jews. Just as is the phrase of Jesus' "It is those who brought me here who will have the bigger sin." Pilate would not turn his prerogatives as a Roman Governor over to the people. Jesus was crucified by ROMAN soldiers, not Jews. Do we think Pilate would turn his soldiers over to the Jews for a crucifixion? He would be the laughing stock of Rome. These phrases were inserted in the Bible by the Catholic Church after 325 C.E. when the Council at Nicea VOTED to name Jesus as the "Son" (consubstantial) of God (with the Father). They did so because what Roman would convert to a religion which had its prophet crucified by a Roman Governor?? Think about it.

The pretext of this article is completely wrong. Most Evangelicals I speak with here in Texas (that is, deep in the loins of the Bible Belt) are studying their Jewish roots in the Old Testament and pledging their undying support for Israel--regardless of the consequences. My dear mother (an dyed-in-the-wool Evangelical) imparts that it is Christians' "morale command" to support the Jewish homeland to facilitate the Apocalypse (and she calls ME crazy for disavowing belief in a literal "end of the world/hellfire and brimstone" scenario!!!).

I'm not personally qualified to talk about the anti-Semitic elements in the Passion. Really. I was raised Catholic, but I don't give much of a damn anymore, and I'm not qualified to speak about it from the Jewish point of view. I don't know the real history here; I'll leave that to scholars.

But what I did spot from the beginning of the Passion was the sheer, sado-masochistic horror of the treatment of Jesus. By using the modern filmmaker's technical facilities of simulating an hour of whipping, snapping bones, blood spattering all over the stones, this was a literal exercise in horror.

Now, as a child, "doing the Stations of the Cross" did have an obligation of meditating on the various torments that a crucified man would have, along with the generosity of Jesus in suffering all this "for us." Thus, there was a sadistic aspect to it, but you had to believe that from the Passion would come redemption.

But by focusing all of a filmmaker's toolkit on presenting the brutality, Gibson presented us a) with a dark Christianity that even I, growing up in Quebec in the '50s, only caught glimpses of, and b) a kind of Braveheart Jesus who was as shallow as Hollywood can ever be.

The only detail that reminded me for sure that anti-Semitism was part of the game was the line that was cut from the subtitles but left in the Aramaic, because they knew it was dicey: "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:22-25)"

I was raised Catholic during the 60s, on the cusp of the changes wrought by Vatican II, and in a neck of the woods where there simply weren't any Jews. And when the Christ-killer charge finally did come up in my 9th grade parochial school religion class, it was quickly dismissed. The mission of Jesus was to die for the sins of all mankind. Judas, the Jews, the Romans, all were simply instruments of God's will (and yes, a wise nun and bunch of 14-year-olds came to the same conclusions as the Gospel of Judas).

I have since matured into a born-again atheist, and although I used to be merely impatient with Jew-haters, they've begun to scare the bejeezus out of me. They've gone from a discredited minority huddling under rocks after the Holocaust to much more prominent ulcers on the body politic.

This is a bad thing.

The article was extremely difficult to read and understand because the author can't write.

His mispelled words, dangling participles, long diatribes, and conflicting verb tenses within his sentence structure make reading the Gibson tirade a heavy burden. I would suggest if the author has a point to make, he make it clearly and quickly. First and foremost, he writes about Mel Gibson totally out of context by excluding his life, personality and accomplishments. Mel Gibson has worked for many years as first an aspiring actor, reaching notable roles, and graduating to more responsible positions as producer/director. The American and international public have a very favorable image of Gibson which, in most venues, is considered positive; Although he may have a drinking problem, the author has mistakenly used this DUI incident to promote his own liberal, anti-Bush views. In short, the article was not worth reading.

It was all opinionated b.s. Peter Dempsey

it's funny to that salon close to put this under 'arts and entertainment' and not the general news section. as the article suggests, gibson has chosen the art of hate and is not playing a role.

ps - if only we could post this article on every evangelical church door in america overnight. a fourth treatise of sorts.. i wish.