Reply to Topic
Just the other day, I attended a screening of the very well-done documentary film, [i]Constantine's Sword[/I, with James Carroll, the author of the book on which this film is based, as the interviewer and the interviewee. The film succinctly pointed out the history of antisemitism, beginning in the Middle Ages, going all the through to today, also pointing out that a Pagan named Constantine who went to Rome and converted to Christianity started all the trouble in earnest. Constantine's Sword also began with the author's boyhood, where he had contact with a Jewish family from New York, and then things began to change as he got older. Wanting to be in the airforce, he drove south to Richmond, VA, where his father had been before, as an airforce man. Back the author went in 2004 and interviewed cadets and leaders, as well as one Evangelical Christian Reverand. The author appeared shocked, as he realized that antisemitism was still alive and flourishing at the academy, as the reverend goes out of his way to (try) to force the prevailing religious viewpoint on everybody through infiltration. Fast forward to Washington Heights, NY, and then to the big evangelical christian mass in Colorado, where hundreds of thousands of people attended a huge religious mass, mainly for kids. The film also shows the history of antisemitism in Italy and other European countries, when the nazis took over, and the Jews were rounded up and deported, and how everything else had ultimately led to the Holocaust. It's a wonderfully historic documentary. Although the book Constantine's Sword came out a year or so ago, the film is brand-new..it just came out. If it comes to your area, I recommend checking it out.
Constantine's Sword:
Just the other day, I attended a screening of the very well-done documentary film, [i]Constantine's Sword[/I, with James Carroll, the author of the book on which this film is based, as the interviewer and the interviewee. The film succinctly pointed out the history of antisemitism, beginning in the Middle Ages, going all the through to today, also pointing out that a Pagan named Constantine who went to Rome and converted to Christianity started all the trouble in earnest.
Saint Melito of Sardis, an early Christian leader in Asia Minor around 180 A.D., is credited for formulating the deicide charge against Jews as being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. His preaching inspired pogroms against the Jews back then. Hey, if you're an unpopular religious sect, who are you going to accuse as the killer--Rome, who rules the known world with a powerful army, or the Jews who have troubles of their own with Rome and other problems?
But all of that was going on well before Constantine was born in 272 into a powerful family. His dad may have been pagan but he was a Roman citizen who served aas a Roman ruler. Although it is thought Constatine was exposed to Christianity (which of the many forms that then existed is unknown) by his mother, he didn’t secure his position as Roman emperor or convert to Christianity until around 312. It wasn’t until 313 that he issued an edict for toleration of Christians. And it was another decade or more before Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantine moved to close pagan temples. I don’t know how that may have affected Jews, but Roman troops had sporadically robbed and destroyed their temples long before Constantine came along.
His mother, St. Helena, left her mark on Christianity when late in life she visited the Holy Land to see all the holy places she’d heard about. Unfortunately, none of those places were even remembered in Jesus’ time, much less maintained since then. But when the mother of the world’s most powerful ruler comes to town and wants to see the manger where Christ was born, you sure better show her something! So St. Helena is responsible for all the holy Christian places that the faithful now visit in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Based on later archeological evidence as to the ancient locations of the Jewish temple, the Roman palace, and the general site used for executions, historians, archeologists, and theologians generally agree that the Way of the Cross that was first pointed out to St. Helena—the path supposedly followed by Jesus carrying his cross on the way to execution—is probably not even in the right direction!
As for the author being surprised at anti-Semitism in this country, he must have never seen Gentleman's Agreement in which Gregory Peck explored that subject.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm not familar with the book or film, WSSlover, but Constantine may be getting a bad rap in both.
Saint Melito of Sardis, an early Christian leader in Asia Minor around 180 A.D., is credited for formulating the deicide charge against Jews as being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. His preaching inspired pogroms against the Jews back then. Hey, if you're an unpopular religious sect, who are you going to accuse as the killer--Rome, who rules the known world with a powerful army, or the Jews who have troubles of their own with Rome and other problems?
But all of that was going on well before Constantine was born in 272 into a powerful family. His dad may have been pagan but he was a Roman citizen who served aas a Roman ruler. Although it is thought Constatine was exposed to Christianity (which of the many forms that then existed is unknown) by his mother, he didn’t secure his position as Roman emperor or convert to Christianity until around 312. It wasn’t until 313 that he issued an edict for toleration of Christians. And it was another decade or more before Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantine moved to close pagan temples. I don’t know how that may have affected Jews, but Roman troops had sporadically robbed and destroyed their temples long before Constantine came along.
His mother, St. Helena, left her mark on Christianity when late in life she visited the Holy Land to see all the holy places she’d heard about. Unfortunately, none of those places were even remembered in Jesus’ time, much less maintained since then. But when the mother of the world’s most powerful ruler comes to town and wants to see the manger where Christ was born, you sure better show her something! So St. Helena is responsible for all the holy Christian places that the faithful now visit in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Based on later archeological evidence as to the ancient locations of the Jewish temple, the Roman palace, and the general site used for executions, historians, archeologists, and theologians generally agree that the Way of the Cross that was first pointed out to St. Helena—the path supposedly followed by Jesus carrying his cross on the way to execution—is probably not even in the right direction!
As for the author being surprised at anti-Semitism in this country, he must have never seen Gentleman's Agreement in which Gregory Peck explored that subject.
Saint Melito of Sardis, an early Christian leader in Asia Minor around 180 A.D., is credited for formulating the deicide charge against Jews as being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. His preaching inspired pogroms against the Jews back then. Hey, if you're an unpopular religious sect, who are you going to accuse as the killer--Rome, who rules the known world with a powerful army, or the Jews who have troubles of their own with Rome and other problems?
But all of that was going on well before Constantine was born in 272 into a powerful family. His dad may have been pagan but he was a Roman citizen who served aas a Roman ruler. Although it is thought Constatine was exposed to Christianity (which of the many forms that then existed is unknown) by his mother, he didn’t secure his position as Roman emperor or convert to Christianity until around 312. It wasn’t until 313 that he issued an edict for toleration of Christians. And it was another decade or more before Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantine moved to close pagan temples. I don’t know how that may have affected Jews, but Roman troops had sporadically robbed and destroyed their temples long before Constantine came along.
His mother, St. Helena, left her mark on Christianity when late in life she visited the Holy Land to see all the holy places she’d heard about. Unfortunately, none of those places were even remembered in Jesus’ time, much less maintained since then. But when the mother of the world’s most powerful ruler comes to town and wants to see the manger where Christ was born, you sure better show her something! So St. Helena is responsible for all the holy Christian places that the faithful now visit in Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Based on later archeological evidence as to the ancient locations of the Jewish temple, the Roman palace, and the general site used for executions, historians, archeologists, and theologians generally agree that the Way of the Cross that was first pointed out to St. Helena—the path supposedly followed by Jesus carrying his cross on the way to execution—is probably not even in the right direction!
As for the author being surprised at anti-Semitism in this country, he must have never seen Gentleman's Agreement in which Gregory Peck explored that subject.
X
Favorite Movies
Thanks for the info, Rufnek. You've made some good points. However, when Constantine went to Rome and converted to Christianity, it was then that Christianity turned much more violent, resulting in the many crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and much other stuff that ultimately led up to the Holocaust. I've admittedly never heard of, much less seen the film Gentleman's Agreement. It must be a much older film. Is it? Just curious.
Filmed in 1947, just 2 short years after World War II (when I was 4 years old), and directed by Elia Kazan, It stars Gregory Peck as a gentile writer who poses as a Jew to see if the same sort of predjudice exists in America as had happened in Europe before and during the war. He finds it's more subtle but just as widespread. It affects him and his family, especially his son. One of the best things about the film is that it features in a supporting role John Garfield, who was one of the best actors ever on screen: He was the forerunner of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift. He also was a Jew and he took the smaller part at less than his usual star salary because he wanted to be involved in the project. Some studios wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But it won an Oscar for best picture.
Another film along something of the same lines--but not as well made or successful--was Black Like Me, starring James Whitmore. It was based on a book by a white man who first traveled through the 1950s South as himself and then returned to the same places and people some months later after having his skin darkened through chemical injections and changing the texture of his hair. One of the odd things was that Southern blacks always spotted him immediately as a white man, but the whites saw only black and treated him accordingly, which in that time and place was not good at all. As usual, the book is much better than the film as it addresses things that couldn't be put in movies back then.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yes, child, for someone your age it's certainly "a much older" film!
Filmed in 1947, just 2 short years after World War II (when I was 4 years old), and directed by Elia Kazan, It stars Gregory Peck as a gentile writer who poses as a Jew to see if the same sort of predjudice exists in America as had happened in Europe before and during the war. He finds it's more subtle but just as widespread. It affects him and his family, especially his son. One of the best things about the film is that it features in a supporting role John Garfield, who was one of the best actors ever on screen: He was the forerunner of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift. He also was a Jew and he took the smaller part at less than his usual star salary because he wanted to be involved in the project. Some studios wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But it won an Oscar for best picture.
Another film along something of the same lines--but not as well made or successful--was Black Like Me, starring James Whitmore. It was based on a book by a white man who first traveled through the 1950s South as himself and then returned to the same places and people some months later after having his skin darkened through chemical injections and changing the texture of his hair. One of the odd things was that Southern blacks always spotted him immediately as a white man, but the whites saw only black and treated him accordingly, which in that time and place was not good at all. As usual, the book is much better than the film as it addresses things that couldn't be put in movies back then.
Filmed in 1947, just 2 short years after World War II (when I was 4 years old), and directed by Elia Kazan, It stars Gregory Peck as a gentile writer who poses as a Jew to see if the same sort of predjudice exists in America as had happened in Europe before and during the war. He finds it's more subtle but just as widespread. It affects him and his family, especially his son. One of the best things about the film is that it features in a supporting role John Garfield, who was one of the best actors ever on screen: He was the forerunner of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift. He also was a Jew and he took the smaller part at less than his usual star salary because he wanted to be involved in the project. Some studios wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But it won an Oscar for best picture.
Another film along something of the same lines--but not as well made or successful--was Black Like Me, starring James Whitmore. It was based on a book by a white man who first traveled through the 1950s South as himself and then returned to the same places and people some months later after having his skin darkened through chemical injections and changing the texture of his hair. One of the odd things was that Southern blacks always spotted him immediately as a white man, but the whites saw only black and treated him accordingly, which in that time and place was not good at all. As usual, the book is much better than the film as it addresses things that couldn't be put in movies back then.
Yes, child, for someone your age it's certainly "a much older" film! Filmed in 1947, just 2 short years after World War II (when I was 4 years old), and directed by Elia Kazan, It stars Gregory Peck as a gentile writer who poses as a Jew to see if the same sort of predjudice exists in America as had happened in Europe before and during the war. He finds it's more subtle but just as widespread. It affects him and his family, especially his son. One of the best things about the film is that it features in a supporting role John Garfield, who was one of the best actors ever on screen: He was the forerunner of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift. He also was a Jew and he took the smaller part at less than his usual star salary because he wanted to be involved in the project. Some studios wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But it won an Oscar for best picture. Another film along something of the same lines--but not as well made or successful--was Black Like Me, starring James Whitmore. It was based on a book by a white man who first traveled through the 1950s South as himself and then returned to the same places and people some months later after having his skin darkened through chemical injections and changing the texture of his hair. One of the odd things was that Southern blacks always spotted him immediately as a white man, but the whites saw only black and treated him accordingly, which in that time and place was not good at all. As usual, the book is much better than the film as it addresses things that couldn't be put in movies back then.
Filmed in 1947, just 2 short years after World War II (when I was 4 years old), and directed by Elia Kazan, It stars Gregory Peck as a gentile writer who poses as a Jew to see if the same sort of predjudice exists in America as had happened in Europe before and during the war. He finds it's more subtle but just as widespread. It affects him and his family, especially his son. One of the best things about the film is that it features in a supporting role John Garfield, who was one of the best actors ever on screen: He was the forerunner of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift. He also was a Jew and he took the smaller part at less than his usual star salary because he wanted to be involved in the project. Some studios wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. But it won an Oscar for best picture. Another film along something of the same lines--but not as well made or successful--was Black Like Me, starring James Whitmore. It was based on a book by a white man who first traveled through the 1950s South as himself and then returned to the same places and people some months later after having his skin darkened through chemical injections and changing the texture of his hair. One of the odd things was that Southern blacks always spotted him immediately as a white man, but the whites saw only black and treated him accordingly, which in that time and place was not good at all. As usual, the book is much better than the film as it addresses things that couldn't be put in movies back then.I've never seen the movie Black Like Me, but I have read the book, which was really intense.
X