Big Mick,

"This film is not going to cause anyone to convert to antisemitism. To suggest otherwise is paternalistic at least."

I'm not sure why this should be so.

Some event or moment in a person's life makes them hate, or at least makes them realize they hate. For plenty of people in history it's been the gospels themselves, (interpreted by a zealous sermonizer of course, since for centuries most people couldn't read them). Why is it either ridiculous or paternalistic to suggest that this film might be such an event or moment, since it is after all just the gospels interpreted by another zealous sermonizer? It sounds pretty plausible to me.

I also think you dismissed Amos's quote from Slate a bit too easily. The evidence presented there suggests at least that this film IS helping along a revival of anti-Semitism in some places in the US. As for predicting what will happen in other countries, it's true that these predictions are never certain. But to suggest that claiming Syrians might engage in anti-semitic violence is xenophobia is a little strong. I assure you, open anti-semitism is far more prevalent there than here.

It's true we may be off-base predicting anti-Jewish violence as a result of this film. The herd mentality does tend to arise when your grandparents (or great-uncles) were herded into stockades before being gassed to death. Jews and Jewish organizations tend to want to err on the side of safety when it comes to anti-semitic propaganda. It IS possible to take this too far, but I'm not convinced it's going too far with this example.

Another important question asked by Slate was: do you think Gibson worried about the possibility of anti-Semitic violence when he made the movie? If so, why not really cut out the line about the blood being on the heads of Jewish children?

As I said above, I think he either didn't care or he's an active anti-Semite. Or, possibly, he just has really bad judgement.