Religions > Atheism > Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Armageddon Watch" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2003 07:55:33 PM |
| Object: |
Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
The Evangelicals love to drink the blood of Jesus and to bathe and
wallow in it, and the dumbshit Zionists want do deny them their
greatest pleasure - while they know that Israel exists only due to
American support and American support is due to the votes of 40
million evangelicals eagerly awaiting Armageddon.
Well done, Mel ! You have just destroyed the Zionist state without
firing a shot !
Divided over "The Passion"
The furor over Mel Gibson's film is threatening the fledgling pro-
Israel alliance between evangelical Christians and key Jewish groups.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Mel Gibson's "The Passion," the graphic film about the crucifixion of
Jesus Christ, won't be released until next spring, but the controversy
surrounding the film is already testing the resolve of one of the most
unorthodox political and interfaith alliances in play today: the bond
between conservative Christians and Jewish groups, who have come
together in recent years over their strong support for the state of
Israel.
Suddenly, "The Passion" has pitted the partners in this fledgling
alliance against one another, on opposite ends of an emotional debate.
Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, have called the
film anti-Semitic because it portrays Jews as responsible for the
killing of Jesus Christ. But many Christian evangelicals are applauding
the conservative Gibson's film.
"I think there's going to be a big backlash" because of the Passion
controversy, says Dave Blewett, president of the National Christian
Leadership Conference for Israel. "The film could create a divide
between Christians and Jews and solidify stereotypes we have of each
other."
On its Web site, the National Association of Evangelicals recently
posted a statement about "The Passion," which included a passage that
rankled some Jewish leaders: "There is a great deal of pressure on
Israel right now, and Christians seem to be a major source of support
for Israel. For Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians
over a movie seems shortsighted."
"We were very saddened and surprised to see that," says Eugene Korn,
director of interfaith affairs at the ADL. "It seemed almost like a
quid pro quo. Support for Israel shouldn't be part of political
negotiations." He notes, "It's the first time in several years the
issue of support for Israel had been raised by the evangelical
community."
The statement "was never intended to be a threat," says an NAE
spokesman. "It was an observation that [Jews] are combating people who
support them, groups that have never resisted Israel. It's baffled some
evangelicals that Jewish leaders are so antagonistic toward the people
who want what's best for the Jewish people."
The evangelical Christian-Jewish alliance, which has been building for
years, came into full public view following the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, along with the subsequent spike in Middle Eastern violence.
Conservative Christians, with close ties to the Republican White House,
have been forceful in declaring their unwavering support for Israel and
its conservative Likud government. Some members of the Christian
Zionist movement, as it's called, have even moved to the right of the
White House, bankrolling controversial Jewish settlements in the West
Bank, and criticizing the Bush administration's "Road Map" strategy for
peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Evangelicals are convinced the
peace plan would damage the Jewish state.
Late last month House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, traveled to
Israel and addressed lawmakers. "I come to you with a very simple
message: Do not be afraid," he said, relaying America's Christian
Zionist message. "Standing up for good against evil is very hard work --
it costs money and blood. But we're willing to pay."
The alliance has caused discomfort for some Jews, who suspect the
evangelical support is based less on a love for Jews than the desire to
fulfill interpretations of the Bible, that forecast the coming of the
Messiah only when the Jews are in the Promised Land. (According to the
prophecies, following the Messiah's return, some Jews will be saved,
but most will perish.)
Nonetheless, the Christians' strident political and spiritual support
of Israel remains alluring. "Israel's in desperate need of friends,"
says Blewett. "Some Jews don't want to work with evangelicals or accept
their support because they think there's an agenda. But most will,
because the issue of Israel is so crucial right now. And they figure
they'll deal with repercussions later."
Against that backdrop comes "The Passion." Many conservative Christians
are hailing the movie and its literal interpretation of the passion
play as a masterpiece, while Jewish groups like the ADL are objecting.
Last Friday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, one of the largest
international Jewish human rights organizations, urged Gibson to make
changes to the film. In a press release, it said that the unreleased
film had "generated an unprecedented wave of hate mail and calls" to
the center.
The film has the "potential for discord between Christians and Jews,
absolutely," adds Kim Troupe, director of Christian Friends of Israeli
Community USA. "We're used to hearing from our Jewish friends about
their concerns over anti-Semitism. And it's a valid concern."
But some evangelicals insist the ADL isn't part of the Christian
Zionist alliance, anyway. "The criticism is coming from liberal groups
who are not happy about the [Christian-Jewish] alliance," notes Kristi
Hamrick, spokeswoman for American Values, a conservative advocacy group
run by former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer. "The ADL is
not at the center of this Christian-Jewish partnership."
"That's poppycock," responds ADL president Abe Foxman. "We have been
part of the Christian-Jewish dialogue." He notes last year that the ADL
reprinted a pro-Israel essay by Ralph Reed, former head of the
Christian Coalition, and ran it as a full-page ad in the New York
Times. As for the stridently pro-Israel ADL being "liberal," "That's
part of a small group of the evangelical community and making noise;
that's their political hang-ups," he says.
Meanwhile, Ted Haggard, the president of the NAE who has appeared on
several cable news programs praising "The Passion," reports he has
received anti-Christian e-mails from some Jews. "I'd guess if I'm
receiving the first ones like that in 20 years, others are receiving
them, too," says Haggard. "And I'd guess equally poorly informed people
on the Christian side probably writing to Jewish leaders."
Joseph Pruder, director of the Interfaith Task Force for America and
Israel, downplays any Hollywood-driven rift. "I think it's too soon to
portray this as a conflict or emerging conflict," he says. "It wouldn't
be the first thing we disagree on. Within the Jewish community there
has been unhappiness about evangelicals trying to missionize among
Jews. And the evangelical-for-Israel community has been very careful
about that."
However, Haggard at NAE reports, "We're starting to see preliminary
indications of anti-Semitism, not based on the movie, but based on what
Jewish leaders are saying on CNN every night about the movie, making
flamboyant claims."
He says, "Without a doubt average parishioners, the typical Baptist
church member who turns on the TV and sees the Jewish leadership
attacking a movie about Jesus, they are turned off by this. If it
continues, Christian leaders, who are doing everything they can to
support Jewish concerns and Israel, will have to justify why Jewish
leaders are attacking a movie about Christ. It's an unnecessary hurdle
to leap."
Haggard, along with other prominent American evangelical leaders, saw
the movie at Gibson's invitation last month in Colorado Springs.
Gibson, who is a devout Catholic, told the pastors, "The Holy Ghost was
working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I
hope the film has the power to evangelize."
"I don't see anything new in this film, there's no new data, so I'm not
following their logic," says Haggard, referring to Jewish
critics. "These are good men but they're fearful of a shadow that
doesn't have any substance."
But Haggard insists that "support of Israel must absolutely continue,"
despite the rift over "The Passion."
On the political left, some are hoping the rift widens. "I hope it will
bring some sense to sectors of the Jewish community who have allied
with the most reactionary elements of the Christian community," says
Michael Lerner, head of the country's progressive Jewish organization,
Tikkun.
He calls the Jewish alliance with the Christian Zionist
movement "immoral," "destructive" and "opportunistic" because, "They're
aligning themselves with people who would prefer Jewish people not
exist," says Lerner. "Ask Christian Zionists if they do or do not
subscribe to the view that the world would be better off if everyone
became Christian."
There have been recent signs that the strong evangelical support of
Israel and Jews is not entirely consistent with their larger beliefs.
Last year, Christian Zionist leader DeLay told a group of Texas
evangelicals, "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to
the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity."
"Christians have to be very sold in the reasons why we're supporting
Israel," says Troupe, at Christian Friends of Israeli Community
USA. "If we're supporting it for an agenda of conversion or because of
the Messiah's return, that's problematic from the Jewish standpoint."
Lerner warns, "If the ["The Passion"] turns out to be anti-Semitic, it
will open the eyes of some in the Jewish community who mislead
themselves into believing that an alliance with right-wing Christians
had no downside."
Foxman at ADL says he's received some "I-told-you-so" phone calls from
concerned Jews complaining about the evangelical response to "The
Passion." Foxman dismisses the concern, saying those on the "extreme
left of the Jewish communities" such as Tikkun, are trying to drive
away conservative supporters. For now, while some Jews fret over "The
Passion," conservative Christians cheer it. Janet Parshall, head of the
National Religious Broadcasters Association, tells Salon, "I tip my hat
to Mel Gibson. His allegiance is to God, not a movie studio. He wants
to take the power of film to transmit the most important message
mankind has ever received."
A syndicated radio talk-show host and keynote speaker at a large pro-
Israel rally held in Washington during the spring of 2002, Parshall
calls Israel "the most important piece of property on the planet."
As for "The Passion," scheduled for an Easter 2004 release, Parshall
reports her listeners "cannot wait to see the movie."
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/21/passion/print.html
--
Sent by yaddayadda from mail15 part from com
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
.
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 01:46:52 PM |
|
|
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:7h3rnvkf0f47gosqa6epqq1mhvm74qee4a@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:39 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
How many Christians who also haven't ignored the movie have gotten
hate mail?
Probably none, because they aren't likely to be trying to prevent
freedom of speech as organizations like the ADL are.
Not true, but thanks anyway.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 04:18:05 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message news:<3f7dc420@news101.his.com>...
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:7h3rnvkf0f47gosqa6epqq1mhvm74qee4a@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:39 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
How many Christians who also haven't ignored the movie have gotten
hate mail?
Probably none, because they aren't likely to be trying to prevent
freedom of speech as organizations like the ADL are.
Not true, but thanks anyway.
Susan
Of course it's true. They want the movie changed or prevented from being
shown. The sword of Damocles is that if Gibson releases it as it is,
he and the studio could suffer some kind of retribution for having done it.
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people who could
do Gibson's career more harm than the movie might.
What Gibson should do is find an independent distributor, one that hopefully
isn't threatened by whatever FOX was, and release the movie to the arthouse
circuit. That way, the general public gets the least exposure but those
who are really interested in the movie can see it. Personally, I'd rather it
be banned than changed just to suit the beliefs of one small minority.
Maybe like horror movies that were severely cut for U.S. release (or banned
altogether in other countries like Canada) it could find it's way onto DVD
unscathed in a few years when the controversy is gone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
04 Oct 2003 08:07:50 PM |
|
|
"Richard" <rander3127@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ec75e55a.0310031318.254a9bd5@posting.google.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message
news:<3f7dc420@news101.his.com>...
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:7h3rnvkf0f47gosqa6epqq1mhvm74qee4a@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:39 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
How many Christians who also haven't ignored the movie have gotten
hate mail?
Probably none, because they aren't likely to be trying to prevent
freedom of speech as organizations like the ADL are.
Not true, but thanks anyway.
Susan
Of course it's true. They want the movie changed or prevented from being
shown.
And your proof of this is...what/
The same "proof" that tells you that the ADL has a direct pipeline to the
New York Times &/or the conspiracy crap about the ADL sicking people on
Gibson?
The sword of Damocles is that if Gibson releases it as it is,
he and the studio could suffer some kind of retribution for having done
it.
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most
individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people who
could
do Gibson's career more harm than the movie might.
What Gibson should do is find an independent distributor, one that
hopefully
isn't threatened by whatever FOX was, and release the movie to the
arthouse
circuit. That way, the general public gets the least exposure but those
who are really interested in the movie can see it. Personally, I'd rather
it
be banned than changed just to suit the beliefs of one small minority.
Yeah, to hell with the truth, or protecting people from violence.
Then again, all us Jews are rich & powerful, & we're really only making it
up that we're ever in danger, & it's only us Jews who are against the crap
in the movie, right?
Susan
Maybe like horror movies that were severely cut for U.S. release (or
banned
altogether in other countries like Canada) it could find it's way onto DVD
unscathed in a few years when the controversy is gone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 09:36:21 PM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 11:26:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:36:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
People don't like being dictated to by minorities. Why do you
think they hate politicians?
-Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
04 Oct 2003 08:08:38 PM |
|
|
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:0visnv8hdr7ki5jc6je2nstpqph3k7iel3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:36:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be
economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most
individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
People don't like being dictated to by minorities.
Yeah, people prefer to trample them.
Susan
Why do you
think they hate politicians?
-Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
06 Oct 2003 12:45:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:08:38 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:0visnv8hdr7ki5jc6je2nstpqph3k7iel3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:36:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
People don't like being dictated to by minorities.
Then don't live in a country in which the main force of law is the
protection of the rights of the minorities. Move to a theocracy where
you can dictate theocratic law to everyone. I hear Iran is nice this
time of year and it's required that one be theistic there.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
06 Oct 2003 05:43:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:45:58 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:08:38 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:0visnv8hdr7ki5jc6je2nstpqph3k7iel3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:36:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
People don't like being dictated to by minorities.
Then don't live in a country in which the main force of law is the
protection of the rights of the minorities. Move to a theocracy where
you can dictate theocratic law to everyone. I hear Iran is nice this
time of year and it's required that one be theistic there.
Who said the "main force of law" is for protecting minority rights?
Some left-wing sociologist? Majority rules is still the way things
are done, which is how elections are held. This does not mean
trampling on minority rights, but it does mean they have to make
a very good case when they see something they want controlled.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
04 Oct 2003 09:30:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:08:38 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
<rander3127@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:0visnv8hdr7ki5jc6je2nstpqph3k7iel3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:36:21 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 3 Oct 2003 14:18:05 -0700, (Richard) posted
in alt.atheism:
While it's not likely it would be violent, it would probably be
economic.
The ADL has a direct pipeline to the New York Times editorial page
so they can get their message across much more easily than most
individuals.
Also, the ADL no doubt has the support of various powerful people
The fact that Jews are so powerful is the reason they're so
downtrodden. Christian (total lack of) logic.
People don't like being dictated to by minorities.
Yeah, people prefer to trample them.
Susan
Why do you
think they hate politicians?
-Rich
Darn that ever-present persecution complex!
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
02 Oct 2003 05:44:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from telling
the fundamental story of their religion because it might offend someone?
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion from the
Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the stories of
their theology?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
02 Oct 2003 10:45:19 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from telling
the fundamental story of their religion because it might offend someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held responsible for
hate speech, since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion from the
Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the stories of
their theology?
Since it already goes on in Saudia Arabia, we aren't saying much of
anything.
But the minute Jews start trying to kill Muslims over theology, rather than
because *some* Muslim fanatics are trying to kill *them*, I'll expect some
sort of protest.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
02 Oct 2003 11:27:59 PM |
|
|
In article <3f7cf0fb@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there
won't be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from telling
the fundamental story of their religion because it might offend
someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held responsible
for hate speech,
Held responsible? Exactly how would they go about doing that?
Even assuming that this film is "hate speech"-- and a whopper of an
assumption that is-- there is no such law in America that prohibits hate
speech and if there were, it would be instantly unconstitutional as a
violation of the 1st Amendment.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the price of freedom
of expression is that sometimes you're going to hear stuff you don't
like.
since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
At what point in the film does Gibson declare all Jews to be responsible
for the death of Christ?
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion from
the Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the stories of
their theology?
Since it already goes on in Saudia Arabia, we aren't saying much of
anything.
So if the Arabs in America suggested that the Jews should just keep
their mouths shut about their religion, the ADL would say nothing?
Interesting position you have there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 12:04:20 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-38CEC9.23283402102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7cf0fb@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, posted
in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there
won't be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from telling
the fundamental story of their religion because it might offend
someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held responsible
for hate speech,
Held responsible? Exactly how would they go about doing that?
Anyone they can trace to being motivated by his film,.
Rather like when the law manages to find that Matt Hale's "Church of the
Creator" is responsible for certain acts of violence.
Even assuming that this film is "hate speech"-- and a whopper of an
assumption that is-- there is no such law in America that prohibits hate
speech and if there were, it would be instantly unconstitutional as a
violation of the 1st Amendment.
Hmmm, it's late, so I am not able to quite discern if this is a non
sequitur, or just a red herring.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the price of freedom
of expression is that sometimes you're going to hear stuff you don't
like.
And nowhere do I mention that I am in favor of censorship, however much you
are trying to insist that I am.
since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
At what point in the film does Gibson declare all Jews to be responsible
for the death of Christ?
Where he quotes his source material.
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion from
the Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the stories
of
their theology?
Since it already goes on in Saudia Arabia, we aren't saying much of
anything.
So if the Arabs in America suggested that the Jews should just keep
their mouths shut about their religion, the ADL would say nothing?
Interesting position you have there.
Interesting way you have of cutting out the salient parts of my position.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 12:12:34 AM |
|
|
In article <3f7d0358@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-38CEC9.23283402102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7cf0fb@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT,
posted
in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking
nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you
there won't be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from
telling the fundamental story of their religion because it might offend
someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held
responsible for hate speech,
Held responsible? Exactly how would they go about doing that?
Anyone they can trace to being motivated by his film,.
And do what? How come you won't come out and say it?
Even assuming that this film is "hate speech"-- and a whopper of an
assumption that is-- there is no such law in America that prohibits
hate speech and if there were, it would be instantly unconstitutional as a
violation of the 1st Amendment.
Hmmm, it's late, so I am not able to quite discern if this is a non
sequitur, or just a red herring.
It's not my fault your powers of perception are so lacking.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the price of freedom
of expression is that sometimes you're going to hear stuff you don't
like.
And nowhere do I mention that I am in favor of censorship, however much
you are trying to insist that I am.
I can't tell what you're in favor of because you insist on using
nebulous terms like "held repsonsible" without actually saying exactly
what that would entail.
since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
At what point in the film does Gibson declare all Jews to be
responsible for the death of Christ?
Where he quotes his source material.
What exactly does it say?
Pinning you down is like chasing mercury across a formica countertop.
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion
from the Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the
stories of their theology?
Since it already goes on in Saudia Arabia, we aren't saying much of
anything.
So if the Arabs in America suggested that the Jews should just keep
their mouths shut about their religion, the ADL would say nothing?
Interesting position you have there.
Interesting way you have of cutting out the salient parts of my position.
That assumes your position is in any way salient. You have yet to rise
to that standard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 01:43:25 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-AF17A9.00130903102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7d0358@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-38CEC9.23283402102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7cf0fb@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT,
posted
in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking
nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you
there won't be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from
telling the fundamental story of their religion because it might
offend
someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held
responsible for hate speech,
Held responsible? Exactly how would they go about doing that?
Anyone they can trace to being motivated by his film,.
And do what? How come you won't come out and say it?
This reminds me of the last post where you snipped everything important &
pretended I had said something else.
Even assuming that this film is "hate speech"-- and a whopper of an
assumption that is-- there is no such law in America that prohibits
hate speech and if there were, it would be instantly unconstitutional
as a
violation of the 1st Amendment.
Hmmm, it's late, so I am not able to quite discern if this is a non
sequitur, or just a red herring.
It's not my fault your powers of perception are so lacking.
But it is your fault that you are employing either of those tactics.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the price of
freedom
of expression is that sometimes you're going to hear stuff you don't
like.
And nowhere do I mention that I am in favor of censorship, however much
you are trying to insist that I am.
I can't tell what you're in favor of because you insist on using
nebulous terms like "held repsonsible" without actually saying exactly
what that would entail.
I suppose I could say that It's not my fault your powers of perception are
so lacking, but the truth is that I've already delineated it.
since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
At what point in the film does Gibson declare all Jews to be
responsible for the death of Christ?
Where he quotes his source material.
What exactly does it say?
Pinning you down is like chasing mercury across a formica countertop.
Can you speak Aramiac? Or Latin?
I wonder if they'd be just as willing to entertain a suggestion
from the Arabs that Jews should refrain from publicly telling the
stories of their theology?
Since it already goes on in Saudia Arabia, we aren't saying much of
anything.
So if the Arabs in America suggested that the Jews should just keep
their mouths shut about their religion, the ADL would say nothing?
Interesting position you have there.
Interesting way you have of cutting out the salient parts of my
position.
That assumes your position is in any way salient. You have yet to rise
to that standard.
Your pretense that such is the case does not make it so.
Your cutting out the salient parts does not make them less so.
Your inability to understand - or, rather, your refusal to do so - does not
constitute any deficiency on my part.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 05:55:25 PM |
|
|
In article <3f7dc351@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-AF17A9.00130903102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7d0358@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-38CEC9.23283402102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <3f7cf0fb@news101.his.com>, "Susan Cohen"
<flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-7316A8.17443702102003@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:53:02 -0400, "Susan Cohen"
<flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:oq1nnv45h9a8n0krf2upshjao3k0khfh2n@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT,
posted
in
alt.atheism:
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking
nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you
there won't be anyone left to defend you.
The ADL already reports higher numbers of hate-mail.
So it's the ADL's position that Christians should refrain from
telling the fundamental story of their religion because it
might offend someone?
No, it's the ADL's position that Mel Gibson should be held
responsible for hate speech,
Held responsible? Exactly how would they go about doing that?
Anyone they can trace to being motivated by his film,.
And do what? How come you won't come out and say it?
This reminds me of the last post where you snipped everything important &
pretended I had said something else.
And note you *still* haven't detailed exactly how Gibson should be "held
responsible".
Even assuming that this film is "hate speech"-- and a whopper of an
assumption that is-- there is no such law in America that prohibits
hate speech and if there were, it would be instantly
unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Hmmm, it's late, so I am not able to quite discern if this is a non
sequitur, or just a red herring.
It's not my fault your powers of perception are so lacking.
But it is your fault that you are employing either of those tactics.
I'm not. Even you admit you can't tell the difference.
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the price of freedom
of expression is that sometimes you're going to hear stuff you
don't like.
And nowhere do I mention that I am in favor of censorship, however
much you are trying to insist that I am.
I can't tell what you're in favor of because you insist on using
nebulous terms like "held repsonsible" without actually saying exactly
what that would entail.
I suppose I could say that It's not my fault your powers of perception
are so lacking, but the truth is that I've already delineated it.
No, you haven't. You've just said "held responsible". When asked what
that means you duck, evade and avoid the question.
since most Xian leaders agree that all the Jews are not
responsible for the death of Jesus.
At what point in the film does Gibson declare all Jews to be
responsible for the death of Christ?
Where he quotes his source material.
What exactly does it say?
Pinning you down is like chasing mercury across a formica countertop.
Can you speak Aramiac? Or Latin?
Non-response noted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
01 Oct 2003 09:17:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:44:27 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:43:33 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:12:53 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
And there are plenty of people who want to kill Jews, & need only the
slightest encouragement.
Sure, but they have nothing to do with the U.S. or the Western world.
Americans living in the U. S. have nothing to do with the U. S.?
So who in the U.S. is killing Jews?
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
Read something about the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and
early 1930s that made it possible to scape-goat a group. It made the
U.S. depression look like a mild economic downturn. In order to have
a mass uprising or revolution, conditions have to deteriorate
radically. The last few generations have never experienced anything
like Germany did.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
02 Oct 2003 09:19:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
Read something about the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and
early 1930s that made it possible to scape-goat a group. It made the
U.S. depression look like a mild economic downturn. In order to have
a mass uprising or revolution, conditions have to deteriorate
radically.
Gays are being killed because of a depression? Blacks were lynched
for decades because of a depression?
The last few generations have never experienced anything
like Germany did.
But we did experience racism and anti-Semitism, so I guess they're
*not* dependent on a deep depression.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 09:56:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:19:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Yes. Have you ever heard of blowing something out of all proportion?
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
Read something about the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and
early 1930s that made it possible to scape-goat a group. It made the
U.S. depression look like a mild economic downturn. In order to have
a mass uprising or revolution, conditions have to deteriorate
radically.
Gays are being killed because of a depression? Blacks were lynched
for decades because of a depression?
Blacks were killed because the political climate in various rural
areas allowed it. Gays, same thing.
The last few generations have never experienced anything
like Germany did.
But we did experience racism and anti-Semitism, so I guess they're
*not* dependent on a deep depression.
Those are such broad terms,(they can refer to any kind of
descrimination, not just lethal violence) so 'no' in that context. But
you will not find any group (like German Nazis who RAN the country)
carrying out executions of Jews because of Mel's movie.
Would the movie trigger the individual malcontents to commit murder
against Jews? Highly unlikely. For one thing, the movie is told
from a devout Catholic perspective and the kinds of people
who might be capable of doing what you suggest are not likely to
come from that religious background. The last time
I saw a movie that resulted (apparently) in a "copy cat" crime
was "Money Train" and that was an isolated incident.
Worst case scenario (if you can picture skinheads going to see
a movie like this) would be the usual turned over gravestones
in Jewish cemetaries and grafitti sprayed on walls.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 01:46:24 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:je2rnv8g5nrlh81j2rug04nosvvqb4krsq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:19:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Yes. Have you ever heard of blowing something out of all proportion?
Uh, what makes you think these groups do not exist, do not have killing Jews
as a desired goal & would not seize on any excuse to attempt it?
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
Read something about the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and
early 1930s that made it possible to scape-goat a group. It made the
U.S. depression look like a mild economic downturn. In order to have
a mass uprising or revolution, conditions have to deteriorate
radically.
Gays are being killed because of a depression? Blacks were lynched
for decades because of a depression?
Blacks were killed because the political climate in various rural
areas allowed it. Gays, same thing.
& the political climate was fostered by the social climate.
The last few generations have never experienced anything
like Germany did.
But we did experience racism and anti-Semitism, so I guess they're
*not* dependent on a deep depression.
Those are such broad terms,(they can refer to any kind of
descrimination, not just lethal violence) so 'no' in that context. But
you will not find any group (like German Nazis who RAN the country)
carrying out executions of Jews because of Mel's movie.
We can hope.
Would the movie trigger the individual malcontents to commit murder
against Jews? Highly unlikely. For one thing, the movie is told
from a devout Catholic perspective
Um, a radical fringe Cartholic perspective which is suspiciously like a
rabid Fundamental perspective, at least in this instance.
and the kinds of people
who might be capable of doing what you suggest are not likely to
come from that religious background. The last time
I saw a movie that resulted (apparently) in a "copy cat" crime
was "Money Train" and that was an isolated incident.
Worst case scenario (if you can picture skinheads going to see
a movie like this) would be the usual turned over gravestones
in Jewish cemetaries and grafitti sprayed on walls.
As I said, we can hope.
& it's sad to have to hope for vandalism!!
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 04:11:25 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message news:<3f7dc404@news101.his.com>...
< > wrote in message
news:je2rnv8g5nrlh81j2rug04nosvvqb4krsq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:19:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Yes. Have you ever heard of blowing something out of all proportion?
Uh, what makes you think these groups do not exist, do not have killing Jews
as a desired goal & would not seize on any excuse to attempt it?
Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
That's what they said in Germany. When they come for you there won't
be anyone left to defend you.
Read something about the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and
early 1930s that made it possible to scape-goat a group. It made the
U.S. depression look like a mild economic downturn. In order to have
a mass uprising or revolution, conditions have to deteriorate
radically.
Gays are being killed because of a depression? Blacks were lynched
for decades because of a depression?
Blacks were killed because the political climate in various rural
areas allowed it. Gays, same thing.
& the political climate was fostered by the social climate.
The last few generations have never experienced anything
like Germany did.
But we did experience racism and anti-Semitism, so I guess they're
*not* dependent on a deep depression.
Those are such broad terms,(they can refer to any kind of
descrimination, not just lethal violence) so 'no' in that context. But
you will not find any group (like German Nazis who RAN the country)
carrying out executions of Jews because of Mel's movie.
We can hope.
Would the movie trigger the individual malcontents to commit murder
against Jews? Highly unlikely. For one thing, the movie is told
from a devout Catholic perspective
Um, a radical fringe Cartholic perspective which is suspiciously like a
rabid Fundamental perspective, at least in this instance.
and the kinds of people
who might be capable of doing what you suggest are not likely to
come from that religious background. The last time
I saw a movie that resulted (apparently) in a "copy cat" crime
was "Money Train" and that was an isolated incident.
Worst case scenario (if you can picture skinheads going to see
a movie like this) would be the usual turned over gravestones
in Jewish cemetaries and grafitti sprayed on walls.
As I said, we can hope.
& it's sad to have to hope for vandalism!!
Susan
True, but it's like the auto companies do, a calculation of cost-benefit.
Do you repair a car defect, or live with the lawsuits?
The cost is vandalism (maybe) the benefit is freer speech. Where the
trade offs are done is up to those in power.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 09:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:56:14 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:19:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Yes. Have you ever heard of blowing something out of all proportion?
You're, at best (and that's pretty low), a revisionist. Bye.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 11:28:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:28:13 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:56:14 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:19:25 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:17:28 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 02:04:06 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Read it again. I think I spotted the words "want to".
Fine. Who (which group of any size) wants to?
Ever hear of the Klan? Ever hear of the American Nazi Party?
Yes. Have you ever heard of blowing something out of all proportion?
You're, at best (and that's pretty low), a revisionist. Bye.
Revisionist? I'm not denying what those people have done in the past,
distant past, but what have they done recently that would make you
fear them?
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Figaro" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 02:23:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:44:27 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:43:33 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:12:53 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
And there are plenty of people who want to kill Jews, & need only the
slightest encouragement.
Sure, but they have nothing to do with the U.S. or the Western world.
Americans living in the U. S. have nothing to do with the U. S.?
So who in the U.S. is killing Jews? Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
-Rich
Is anything sadder than a grown up putting his finger in his mouth and
playing coy? Of course there are people in this country who want to kill
Jews...and blacks...and gays...and liberals...and even conservatives. We are
the most violent country in the Western world with the most heavily armed
citizenry. Violence and murder simmer in this country like a pot of stew on
the back burner and it just takes one act to make it boil over.. Wasn't it
the Waco incident that led a maniac to kill hundreds in Oklahoma City? Wasn't
the anti-abortion movement enough to make other maniacs murder doctors and
bomb clinics with no regards for human life?
All over America there are sick, twisted (and armed) people waiting for
something or someone to ignite their hatreds to a pitch that will justify--in
their minds--taking lives.
You think that "killing Jews" is unlikely in America? Imagine yourself a good
middle-class German on a street corner in 1930's Berlin; imagine a stranger
approaching you and predicting that in a few years your country will embark
on a rampage of genocide unsurpassed in human history. What would be your
reaction? I can just imagine.
Figaro
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
03 Oct 2003 11:38:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:23:53 -0500, Figaro <figaro@satx.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:48:36 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:44:27 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:43:33 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:12:53 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
And there are plenty of people who want to kill Jews, & need only the
slightest encouragement.
Sure, but they have nothing to do with the U.S. or the Western world.
Americans living in the U. S. have nothing to do with the U. S.?
So who in the U.S. is killing Jews? Who requires just some minor
trigger (like a movie!) to do this? You are talking nonsense.
-Rich
Is anything sadder than a grown up putting his finger in his mouth and
playing coy? Of course there are people in this country who want to kill
Jews...and blacks...and gays...and liberals...and even conservatives. We are
the most violent country in the Western world with the most heavily armed
citizenry. Violence and murder simmer in this country like a pot of stew on
the back burner and it just takes one act to make it boil over.. Wasn't it
the Waco incident that led a maniac to kill hundreds in Oklahoma City? Wasn't
the anti-abortion movement enough to make other maniacs murder doctors and
bomb clinics with no regards for human life?
All over America there are sick, twisted (and armed) people waiting for
something or someone to ignite their hatreds to a pitch that will justify--in
their minds--taking lives.
You think that "killing Jews" is unlikely in America? Imagine yourself a good
middle-class German on a street corner in 1930's Berlin; imagine a stranger
approaching you and predicting that in a few years your country will embark
on a rampage of genocide unsurpassed in human history. What would be your
reaction? I can just imagine.
Figaro
You people who lack much of an idea of what conditions might be like
in America IF there were nearly no middle class cannot possibly
understand what is required to allow someone like Hitler to do what
he did. It requires that a people be so villified and blamed for
so much that you can convince an entire population to engage in the
active or passive murder of millions. You can't convince people they
have enemies that require such drastic action unless they have
suffered, as the Germans had in the 1920s and 1930s. The middle class
was nearly wiped out by economic upheavals. Maybe in 20 or 30 years
the U.S. might be in the same position, but not now. And no movie is
going to be the catalyst to ignite them.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
27 Sep 2003 12:31:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:49:05 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
than anything else in in the Bible and second, why exactly
do Jews think is going to happen if people take it to heart?
Do you think Christians will start executing Jews over it?
It is the 20th century, not the 12th.
It's the 21st. In the 20th, Christians DID execute Jews.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
27 Sep 2003 09:50:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:31:22 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:49:05 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
than anything else in in the Bible and second, why exactly
do Jews think is going to happen if people take it to heart?
Do you think Christians will start executing Jews over it?
It is the 20th century, not the 12th.
It's the 21st. In the 20th, Christians DID execute Jews.
Right you are. But do you see Hitler running for public office
right now? The only possible group that might be prone to
attack Jews would be neo-Nazis and they hardly have enough
power or influence to do any appreciable harm to Jews as
a group. Surely you don't suggest banning a movie just because
they exist?
-Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
27 Sep 2003 12:56:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:50:27 GMT, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:31:22 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
It's the 21st. In the 20th, Christians DID execute Jews.
Right you are. But do you see Hitler running for public office
right now? The only possible group that might be prone to
attack Jews would be neo-Nazis
Tell that to the Russians who attack Jews these days.
and they hardly have enough
power or influence to do any appreciable harm to Jews as
a group.
Maybe not in NYC or LA. But the US isn't the world.
Surely you don't suggest banning a movie just because they exist?
I don't suggest banning any movie.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
18 Sep 2003 02:08:40 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3F69BE73.6D738120@serv.net...
-Snip article; link left below-
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/21/passion/print.html
I hate to say it, but I'm pretty amused at the controversy. If you
actually
*read* the Gospels, the writers make it very plain -- especially in the
Gospel of John -- that it *was* the Jews, as a people, who betrayed and
murdered Jesus. THAT IS THE (pardon the expression) GOSPEL TRUTH!
Yes, it's very clear that the writers of the gospels wanted people to
beloeve this, even in spite of the fact that their story is inconsistent
w/its own internal logic.
Susan
This movie and the surrounding controversy will demonstrate the hypocricy
of
Christianity as a whole better than anything in centuries.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gibson Snuff Movie Gets Evangelicals And Zionists On Each Other Throats |
18 Sep 2003 08:17:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:08:40 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3F69BE73.6D738120@serv.net...
-Snip article; link left below-
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/21/passion/print.html
I hate to say it, but I'm pretty amused at the controversy. If you
actually
*read* the Gospels, the writers make it very plain -- especially in the
Gospel of John -- that it *was* the Jews, as a people, who betrayed and
murdered Jesus. THAT IS THE (pardon the expression) GOSPEL TRUTH!
Yes, it's very clear that the writers of the gospels wanted people to
beloeve this, even in spite of the fact that their story is inconsistent
w/its own internal logic.
Susan
1. Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews and demanded fealty.
2. The Jewish hierachy did not believe him and did not want him in
power.
3. His Jewish "friends" gave him up to the Romans.
4. The Romans crucified him.
Jump ahead 1900 years or so.
I'm the head of the Polish secret police, now under Nazi control.
I had over lists and the people who are Jewish in Poland for
extermination.
Do I not DESERVE some of the blame for their fate?
The Jews probably did not participate in the actual crucifiction,
but their role in facilitating it is obvious.
-Rich
.
|
|
|
|
|
