Thanks Tom for taking me at face value (ie genuine, serious). Sometimes it seems that I'm read as ironic or deadpan-sarcastic, but I'm not like Curls:

B.C.: "meet Curls, master of sarcastic wit".
Visitor: "OK, let's hear you say something funny"
Curls: "I'm pleased to meet you".

..that's not me though. Sometimes I feel like i should do a Woody Allen, writing a 'help me I'm kidnapped' note to his parents: "This is not a joke. I am enclosing a joke so you will be able to tell the difference".

So I appreciate you bothering to answer my post in good faith.

>Shortly after the 9/11 attack, Americans developed a new sense of patriotism and love for their country. This included most conservatives and also a great many who would consider themselves leftists on most other issues. But there was a significant group, mostly from the ranks of the Left, which was actually repelled by the patriotism, and was angered by the sudden display of flags everywhere. They were called symbols of repression and imperialism, and those displaying them were derided.

I witnessed this, attenuated, from a distance (Australia). My own position (elsewhere stated or implied in the Zone) is to totally support your country in fighting terrorism, and establishing homeland security. That *doesn't* necessarily mean though that I support various foreign-policy ventures, or adventures. I think that summarizes it..

>Many of these same people have similar negative attitudes about other characteristics of the majority of Americans, among them a strong religious faith. Something about those who place strong faith in a personal God rubs them the wrong way, and the hogpile on Gibson reflects this much more than any objective problems with his film.

I hadn't seen it that way. I am (at the very least) sympathetic to monotheism and religious faith. - Jews, Christians, Catholics and Sikhs. But I do *not* regard Gibson and his type of film-making as representing any type of religious faith that I could identify with. If I am wrong, and he & his film *do* accurately represent the attitudes & religious feeling - then I may have to reexamine my long-held respect/regard for Catholicism.

>I suspect you dislike Gibson in response to this atmosphere, not out of any objective standards. His father is half-senile, and irrelevant.

You are *wrong* here Tom, I am not so dependent on contemporary cultural trends. I was brought up on the religious atmospheres of Bach, Mozart and especially Beethoven - who still sustain me above all others. I simply detest this wild and nasty 'Aussie' and his narcissistic/violent 'religiosity'. And his father is NOT irrelevant: he was pronouncing his views LONG AGO when he was much younger. And Gibson jnr has acknowledged his moral/'intellectual' debt to his father, and not renounced his father's views!! How in the name of Lord-of-the-rings could that be irrelevant???

>As I pointed out, it's obvious that the violence is not a real issue in this film based on the treatment of similar violence in films that meet with their approval.

That's a reasonable point, but I for one detest excessive violence in movies - simple as that. And there is a good case for making out that the violence in Gibson's flick *IS* gratuitious. (But if it isn't, what would that say about his type of spirituality? .. that's why I'd have to revise my opinions, as I mention above.)

>It's also obvious how far one has to bend over backwards to get anti-Semitism out of this exercise, based on articles I've read by those accusing Gibson of this.

I'm not sure of this one way or the other, it's still an open question as far as I'm concerned. I'm not making a judgement here.

>I used "Schindler's List" as an example. Did that film imply that all Germans are evil? Of course not. But it is a hard fact that evil was done by some Germans back then. That is truth, not prejudice. Implications that the Jews are being condemned as a race in this movie because some are behaving badly are a huge stretch. As has been pointed out, there weren't a lot of Norwegians in the area at the time. Where the "cultural elite" comes into thsi is that Jews who are upset with the film are interviewed and brought forward, while those who do not agree that the film is anti-Semitic are kept in the background. Oddly, the Romans apparently come off much worse in the movie, yet I'm not seeing problems from the Italians on this.

That's silly Tom. The context here is 2000 years of pogroms, instilled by jew-hatred - the 'Christ-killers'. The modern Italians are *not* the descendants of the Romans in the way that the Jews *are* the descendants of the Jews of that time.

I am trying to figure out, what is your motivation here: I know you seem to be super-patriotic - good for you. I like your country a lot, too. But what are you trying to defend or attack here? Are you a religious Catholic who also likes Gibson's film? Or is this all just another rant against 'political correctness' in your country?

Whatever it is, at least thanks for replying. That's serious, not ironic!
Daniel