09
Mar
2004
This letter is to protest the negative opinion to your readers regarding the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ. (See River Cities' Reader Issue 466, March 3-9, 2004.) We have absolutely no confidence in the opinions of Mr. Schulz; he has let his anti-Christian sentiments overrun his review of this film. His article is simply a re-hash of the left-wing statements that the film is anti-Semitic and graphically violent. It would be nice to hear an original opinion from your publication on occasion.
Mr. Schulz's admitted ignorance of theology and history is not our issue, but the prevalent attitude that the film is anti-Semitic is getting to be repulsive. This film is based on actual historical figures and events; Mr. Gibson is merely putting them onto the medium of film. Jesus Christ was and is a Jew Himself! So, is it the hatred expressed toward Him that is offensive in this film? Do you object to the film Schindler's List because it portrayed actual historical events that included the persecution of the Jewish race? Do you object to the graphic portrayal of violence and war in the film Saving Private Ryan? Why do the liberals want to censor the Truth? If you don't like historical events, then we cannot change the past. If you do not like the film, which is your entitled opinion, that is fine. This film powerfully affects readers out there with a brain and a conscience because it is true, it really happened. For that Mel Gibson should not need to apologize. If you are genuinely interested in learning the history of the time, I urge you to read the writings of Josephus and the Scriptures themselves.
In the theatre there is a sign near the entrance that warns you against the graphic and violent content of this movie. When you watch Fight Club, or any of the ridiculously violent mafia movies, then violence is "merely artistic expression." But when a film depicts the "passion," or "sufferings" of Jesus Christ, all of a sudden you are morally opposed to violence in the media of film. Mr. Schulz went to a film translated as "The Sufferings of Christ" and was angered by the sufferings of Christ.
What offends us is Mr. Schulz's inability to follow the plot of the movie. This should be a given for a film critic. I believe finding a film reviewer with the intelligence and depth to decipher plots and symbolism from films should be your goal as a "newspaper." But I'm sure finding someone capable of churning out liberal rants like all of the rest of the news is probably more what you have.
Corey and Suzanne Diekman
Grand Mound, Iowa
Mr. Schulz's admitted ignorance of theology and history is not our issue, but the prevalent attitude that the film is anti-Semitic is getting to be repulsive. This film is based on actual historical figures and events; Mr. Gibson is merely putting them onto the medium of film. Jesus Christ was and is a Jew Himself! So, is it the hatred expressed toward Him that is offensive in this film? Do you object to the film Schindler's List because it portrayed actual historical events that included the persecution of the Jewish race? Do you object to the graphic portrayal of violence and war in the film Saving Private Ryan? Why do the liberals want to censor the Truth? If you don't like historical events, then we cannot change the past. If you do not like the film, which is your entitled opinion, that is fine. This film powerfully affects readers out there with a brain and a conscience because it is true, it really happened. For that Mel Gibson should not need to apologize. If you are genuinely interested in learning the history of the time, I urge you to read the writings of Josephus and the Scriptures themselves.
In the theatre there is a sign near the entrance that warns you against the graphic and violent content of this movie. When you watch Fight Club, or any of the ridiculously violent mafia movies, then violence is "merely artistic expression." But when a film depicts the "passion," or "sufferings" of Jesus Christ, all of a sudden you are morally opposed to violence in the media of film. Mr. Schulz went to a film translated as "The Sufferings of Christ" and was angered by the sufferings of Christ.
What offends us is Mr. Schulz's inability to follow the plot of the movie. This should be a given for a film critic. I believe finding a film reviewer with the intelligence and depth to decipher plots and symbolism from films should be your goal as a "newspaper." But I'm sure finding someone capable of churning out liberal rants like all of the rest of the news is probably more what you have.
Corey and Suzanne Diekman
Grand Mound, Iowa
