Though I doubt Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” will create a violent anti-Semitic backlash, Jay Barnes (“The Passion pro-Jesus, not anti-Semitic,” March 10) showed remarkable insensitivity and ignorance in his commentary on the film. His dismissal of the Jewish community’s concerns as “ludicrous” demonstrates an indifference toward the violence Jews have suffered as the result of being labeled “Christ-killers.” Perhaps worse, the piece also contained a reckless and inappropriate invocation of the Holocaust, for which Barnes should be ashamed.

First let me say that I don’t think that the “anti-Semitic” label should be thrown around lightly. I have used this space to defend thoughtful critics of Israel, when others called them anti-Semitic. Though I have not seen Mel Gibson’s film, my guess is that it is far less threatening to Jews worldwide than other geo-political factors.

With that said, I will also point out that Jews such as myself have every right to be concerned when someone such as Gibson portrays the crucifixion as driven by religion, rather than politics. Most serious biblical historians agree that [Pontius] Pilot ordered Jesus crucified for challenging the political power of Rome, rather than for challenging the religious power of the Jewish priests. I, as well as many other Jews, take this distinction very seriously, because we have been persecuted as a result of the “Christ-killer” label for many generations.

My great-great-grandparents saw their property destroyed and their neighbors beaten and killed as the result of pogroms, anti-Semitic riots in Czarist Russia. It is no accident that pogroms usually happened in the days immediately following Easter, when Russian Christians went to church, and were told by the Orthodox Church that Jews killed Jesus. This charge fueled the hatred behind the horrific pogroms.

Barnes’ commentary ignores this troubling history. Moreover, the way in which he brought up the Holocaust was extremely offensive. The slaughter of six million innocents is not a rhetorical nugget to whimsically insert in political arguments. In the future, Barnes should think harder when bringing up such a serious topic.

Also troubling is Barnes’ inability to distinguish history from religion. Most Holocaust depictions are based on historical documents, photographs and first hand accounts. “The Passion of the Christ,” on the other hand, is by Gibson’s own admission, primarily based on his religious beliefs. By comparing films like “Schindler’s List” to Gibson’s version of the crucifixion, Barnes really just exposed his own ignorance.

I originally had no intention of weighing in on “The Passion of the Christ.” My feeling was that Gibson is entitled to make a film, and others are free to enjoy it. But when I saw Barnes brush aside the historical link between the charge that the Jews killed Jesus and anti-Semitism, and then go on to crudely invoke the Holocaust to back his simplistic point of view, I felt obligated to expose his ignorance and recklessness.

— Joe Goldberg is a graduate of the class of 2003 with a BA in political science.