I've always been told "You can't judge a book by its cover."
Since when did we decide, then, that we could judge a film by its director, especially when he hasn't even shot the film yet.
Contrary to the writer's contention, there was nothing in Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" which demeaned Jews as a whole to be cruel and demented. Have we already forgotten that Jesus and his disciples were Jews? Do we despise the compassion of Simon of Cyrene, a Jew from modern-day Libya, who helped Christ carry his Cross to Golgotha?
It is a terrible thing for the Jews to be pilloried ad libitum for all the troubles of the world. Yet when will the Jews stop attacking ad nauseum the hateful rants of foolish celebrities? So Gibson has issues with Jews; does that mean he cannot positively portray in film one of their most celebrated moments in their history?
One of the most celebrated films depicting Christ, from birth to crucifixion, Il Vangelo secondo Matteo, was directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, a confirmed Marxist and atheist. Depicting the subject faithfully from the original narrative, Pasolini confirmed that a man's personal sympathies will not necessarily distort the material he is commissioned to recreate.
Besides, all the puzzling about Gibson's latent anti-Semitism is all very troubling, of not totalitarian. Do we want to live in a world where we feel compelled to dissect the inner opinions of a man before deciding if he may say, write, or present anything?