Reader criticizes Mel Gibson for promoting violence on screen

I’ve got to hand it to Mel Gibson for a great job of proselytizing and it also made millions in the process. My question is what made Gibson make this movie, "The Passion of the Christ" Was it to proselytize, was it to make money or was it to promote violence and stir up old hatreds or could he have possibly believed it would help humanity?

There has always been controversy about who killed Jesus. I believe it wasn’t the Romans or the Jews who crucified Jesus. He was responsible for his own death. He believed, "He died to set me free." He achieved this part of his goal in that Christianity is powerful. But Jesus went barefoot and his preaching was not about money or power. He didn’t foresee enormous churches, gold artifacts and priests in Rome dressed in splendor. Was it all in vain because there is more sin and evil today than ever before?

Many of Mel Gibson’s movies are all about violence, and this one is the worst. We have enough violence in our lives today without reliving the crucifixion that happened 2000 years ago. People of faith don’t need such a gory reminder.

When we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we will make this a better world.

Vivian J. Hight

Edison