The Passion, Anti-Semitism, and Wisdom From Our Nation's Father: Part Two
Critics of the Gospel accounts claim that the Jewish role in Christ's crucifixion has been unfairly exaggerated if not fabricated. Consequently, they lambaste Gibson as spreading anti-semitic distortions and inflaming ethnic tensions. They point to Adolf Hitler's use of "passion plays" to turn German public opinion against the Jewish race.
This virulent reaction against the biblical account (and Gibson's interpretation) misses one important point: Many Christians sincerely believe it.
Must one religious faith renounce its beliefs in order to accommodate another? Should Christians be compelled to reject the Gospel of Matthew because it is offensive to practitioners of the Jewish faith? Is tolerance more important than truth?
While many Jews shudder at the association of Matthew's account with "truth," our society cannot ignore the millions of people who sincerely regard the Bible - the entire Bible - as God's Word. When they read Matthew's rendition of Jesus's crucifixion, they see it as a factual account of history, just as when they read of David slaying Goliath or Moses parting the Red Sea. Must these honest and sincere believers of the Christian faith cast aside portions of Scripture, so they can avoid the label of "anti-semitic"?
The logical conclusion of much of the criticism leveled at Gibson's film (and the Bible) is an affirmative answer to the above question. That answer would be seen as unacceptable to our nation's Founders.
It would be intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible to deny one's true convictions (religious convictions, no less) simply to avoid offending others. Christians have the same right to proclaim their faith, as Jews do - or as Muslims do. There will be times when the expression of the doctrines of these various faiths will collide. It is the responsibility of our society to accept that and even to welcome it.
That is the spirit of Washington's admonition against bigotry and intolerance. Washington never would've sacrified conviction on the altar of political correctness.
After all, it was Washington that called on his Continental soldiers to practice "Christian conduct" and who referred to Jesus as the "Supreme Author of our Blessed Religion." A Commander-in-Chief today saying such things would be blasted as "intolerant," "narrow," and "discriminatory." Yet Washington would go even further as President, adding "so help me God" to the presidential oath, taking that oath on the Bible, and ordering a day of national Thanksgiving (originally a blatant religious holiday). Washington never closeted his faith or convictions
Latest Articles