So like, Wow...
Other people seem to feel pretty strongly about this...
One particularly (strong) smart response came from a friend...
who shall remain nameless. But I'll call him Schnason Jeiderman.
Schnason wrote:
1) I think you are much too kind to Mel Gibson
As you point out, he is participating in a tradition
(Passion Play, Mission) that has actively led to the
brutalization (understatement) of the Jewish People
for Two Millenia. The fact that he seems concerned
about continuing the tradition but not continuing the
violence is part of his own miscalculation.
Regardless of the premise from which he acts, the
action he is taking is wrong, and the very fact that
steps one through four indicate that he has no real
concern for anyone's brutalization (he seems to seek
out his own martyrdom in film role after film role) as
inconsequential compared to the ablutionary effects of
that brutalization. He is pushing for a continued
collective judgement of jews (OK-- I haven't seen the
film, and I understand he is removing the scene in
which the jews demand that jesus be killed), and
collective judgement (and it's consequence, collective
punishment) are intellectually faulty. As Hannah
Arendt points out (and she is speaking of the Germans
after world war II), where everyone is guilty, no one
is guilty. In the case of actual offenders, they are
lessened to the status of the group. In the case of
the group, they are punished for what they have not
done.
Also, let's not forget that in the same historical
moment, we lost ten martyrs to the Romans, all of whom
died in ways as horrible and gruesome as Jesus. And
ours didn't come back from the dead. My point is not
to play "the suffering game" to point out that we
suffered more than they did (we were in fact, more or
less the same at that point), but rather to point out
the skewed nature of the narrative, which priveleges
Christian suffering and refuses to portray Jewish
suffering, despite its proximity and depth. In
suggesting that this is the only martyrdom of note, it
erases the simultaneous suffering of our people,
blames Jesus's suffering squarely on us, and then
suggests that perhaps we ought to suffer in the way we
are accused of having caused Jesus to suffer. I think
there's something of the battered "Why do you make me
hit you?" spouse syndrome here.
Inherent in his theology is the idea that we are going
to hell. Why on earth would we legitimate that idea?
I'm not sure we are obligated to have any sort of
civil discourse with someone who believes that.
Also, as you point out-- his beliefs specifically deny
the importance of reason. So why try to reason with
them?
2) Prayer
I think that prayer is deeply problematic. As a
replacement for sacrifice, it begs the question of
whether or not you think sacrifice makes sense. As
praise it seems virtuous, but it's difficult to read
our liturgy, about a God who rescues us in every
moment of need, as anything but magical thinking and a
desire for a different history than the one we have.
I think that prayer, as a jew, makes more sense as
some version of study and intellectual process. I've
always felt that the virtue of judaism is that it asks
us (note that I'm not a chasid) to struggle with our
history and laws, to come up with new understandings
of our obligations and understand our selves more
fully within a jewish context. Prayer has a strong
unifying role, and there's a lot about judaism that
celebrates unification, but I'm not that interested in
sitting in a room with other people sing Adon Olam
every friday. I'd rather take a Talmud class. Of
course, at the center of the question of prayer is the
question "what is pleasing to God." And I'm not sure
I can answer that-- or if I'm interested in trying to
please God for the sake of pleasing God or if I even
fully believe in a God who makes those sort of
demands. Oy. Don't send me to talk the goyim about
The Passion.
One particularly (strong) smart response came from a friend...
who shall remain nameless. But I'll call him Schnason Jeiderman.
Schnason wrote:
1) I think you are much too kind to Mel Gibson
As you point out, he is participating in a tradition
(Passion Play, Mission) that has actively led to the
brutalization (understatement) of the Jewish People
for Two Millenia. The fact that he seems concerned
about continuing the tradition but not continuing the
violence is part of his own miscalculation.
Regardless of the premise from which he acts, the
action he is taking is wrong, and the very fact that
steps one through four indicate that he has no real
concern for anyone's brutalization (he seems to seek
out his own martyrdom in film role after film role) as
inconsequential compared to the ablutionary effects of
that brutalization. He is pushing for a continued
collective judgement of jews (OK-- I haven't seen the
film, and I understand he is removing the scene in
which the jews demand that jesus be killed), and
collective judgement (and it's consequence, collective
punishment) are intellectually faulty. As Hannah
Arendt points out (and she is speaking of the Germans
after world war II), where everyone is guilty, no one
is guilty. In the case of actual offenders, they are
lessened to the status of the group. In the case of
the group, they are punished for what they have not
done.
Also, let's not forget that in the same historical
moment, we lost ten martyrs to the Romans, all of whom
died in ways as horrible and gruesome as Jesus. And
ours didn't come back from the dead. My point is not
to play "the suffering game" to point out that we
suffered more than they did (we were in fact, more or
less the same at that point), but rather to point out
the skewed nature of the narrative, which priveleges
Christian suffering and refuses to portray Jewish
suffering, despite its proximity and depth. In
suggesting that this is the only martyrdom of note, it
erases the simultaneous suffering of our people,
blames Jesus's suffering squarely on us, and then
suggests that perhaps we ought to suffer in the way we
are accused of having caused Jesus to suffer. I think
there's something of the battered "Why do you make me
hit you?" spouse syndrome here.
Inherent in his theology is the idea that we are going
to hell. Why on earth would we legitimate that idea?
I'm not sure we are obligated to have any sort of
civil discourse with someone who believes that.
Also, as you point out-- his beliefs specifically deny
the importance of reason. So why try to reason with
them?
2) Prayer
I think that prayer is deeply problematic. As a
replacement for sacrifice, it begs the question of
whether or not you think sacrifice makes sense. As
praise it seems virtuous, but it's difficult to read
our liturgy, about a God who rescues us in every
moment of need, as anything but magical thinking and a
desire for a different history than the one we have.
I think that prayer, as a jew, makes more sense as
some version of study and intellectual process. I've
always felt that the virtue of judaism is that it asks
us (note that I'm not a chasid) to struggle with our
history and laws, to come up with new understandings
of our obligations and understand our selves more
fully within a jewish context. Prayer has a strong
unifying role, and there's a lot about judaism that
celebrates unification, but I'm not that interested in
sitting in a room with other people sing Adon Olam
every friday. I'd rather take a Talmud class. Of
course, at the center of the question of prayer is the
question "what is pleasing to God." And I'm not sure
I can answer that-- or if I'm interested in trying to
please God for the sake of pleasing God or if I even
fully believe in a God who makes those sort of
demands. Oy. Don't send me to talk the goyim about
The Passion.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home