Religions > Atheism > The Da Vinci Protocols: Why Jews Should Worry About Dan Brown's Success
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
06 May 2006 05:14:46 PM |
| Object: |
The Da Vinci Protocols: Why Jews Should Worry About Dan Brown's Success |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.
As everyone knows by now, Brown uses a gripping suspense story set in
the present to inform us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and
that he has descendants living in Europe today. Furthermore, the
members of this surviving Jesus family have been protected for
centuries by an altruistic secret organization, the Priory of Sion,
which is locked in combat with a sinister, violent Catholic group, Opus
Dei. That latter seeks to keep the secret of Jesus' paternity from
getting out. Behind Opus Dei stands the Catholic Church. For millennia,
the church has perpetrated what the film calls "the biggest cover up
in human history."
Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic lay order, asked Sony to place a
disclaimer at the beginning of the movie admitting that the story is
fictional-a request the studio has so far refused. Brown himself
states at the outset of the novel that his tale is grounded in
"fact": "The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded
in 1099-is a real organization," and so on.
Scholars have done a solid job of pointing out the fictions that
interweave Brown's "facts." Notably, the "Priory of Sion" is
"real" only in the sense that it really is the modern invention of
Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic
views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard's hoax merely
took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by
the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about
Jesus' fathering children.
You may wonder if Brown's readers find his tale convincing, not as
fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that
53 percent of the book's readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their
"personal spiritual growth and understanding."
But why should a non-Christian care?
Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the "biggest cover up
in human history" bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony
conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu
Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish
elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world
through "Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism."
In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be
a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown's
version, the "Priory of Sion" ("Sion" simply means "Zion"
in French) is the good guys. They've been waiting for the right
moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to
introduce the world to the worship of the "Goddess," a.k.a. Mary
Magdalene.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about
the "sacred feminine." Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths,
including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.
Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), the French monarchist and anti-Semite who
gave us the "Priory of Sion," spent much of his life inventing
minuscule esoteric organizations intended to "purify" France of the
evil influences of modernity-and of Judaism. In 1940 he wrote of the
"terrible Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" that threatened France.
The Priory of Sion was one group he started. The point of this occult
order was to advance Plantard's claim to be the surviving heir of the
ancient Merovingian line of French kings, whose "holy blood" was
guarded by the Priory. The idea that the Merovingians were the
descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was added on later.
Besides highlighting the word "Zion" or "Sion," the two
conspiracy theories share an understanding of how to deal with ideas
you disagree with. Rather than taking traditional Christian beliefs at
face value and arguing with them (as I do in my current book by the
way), Dan Brown portrays the religion itself as resting upon a
conscious deception. That excuses him from having to make arguments at
all.
Anti-Semites do the same thing. Rather than coming out honestly against
Darwinism or Marxism or modernity in general, they concoct a story
about Judaism as a lie and a conspiracy. The Protocols remains a global
phenomenon of staggering popularity, especially in the Arab world.
I emphasize that Dan Brown never intended to foment bigotry. Yet to the
cause of conspiracy theorizing, he has done a wonderful favor, training
his readers in the habits of paranoia and gullibility. For people
committed to finding the truth through investigation and argumentation,
that's depressing.
As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion. The success of Brown's book, now transformed
into a movie blockbuster, is bad news.
- David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and
the author most recently of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning
Point in Western History.
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 12:11:39 AM |
|
|
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147725181.073914.116210@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Miriam Cohen wrote:
Mike Schilling wrote:
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147675006.352958.27630@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hvednbHRau7gLvrZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish
lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer.
So, clearly, f-c wasn't talking about Shylock.
I'm waiting.
Clearly, he was talking about Shylock. He simply
didn't realize that Shylock was a money lender,
not a lawyer - a fact which you deleted. How
many other Jewish characters do you know of
from Shakespeare plays?
==========
The other poster said that only an idiot Christian would be offended by
fiction.
The point I was trying to make was that for centuries followers of
Judaism have been complaining about Shylock.
No, you said "Jewish lawyer". Whom did you mean?
He *MEANT* Shylock, he was just too ignorant to realize that Shylock
wasn't a lawyer. He was *WRONG*! (don't hold your breath waiting for him
to *ADMIT* it though)
=======
You were the one who made the idiotic claim that Christians had no
reason to complain about fiction.
I gave examples of Jews complaining about Shylock, about the movie
"Sophie's Choice", about the movie "Star Wars", about the movie "The
Mummy".
Jews weren't complaining about "Star Wars;
they were complaining about Mel Brook's
"Spaceballs" which is a satire on "Star Wars"
and other sf movies. Kind of weird, considering
that Mel Brooks is Jewish. (So is Mark Hamill,
for that matter, and Carrie Fisher's father and
Harrison Ford's mother are Jewish.) One of the
things I've always admired about Jews (having
been one myself, before I realized that I was
an atheist) is their ability to joke about them-
selves and their foibles (every group has its
foibles, though most won't admit this). The
ones who complained about the line "May the
Schwartz be with you!" simply have no sense
of humor. It's just a silly pun, for crying out
loud!
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Proving that your accusation was not only idiotic, but your accusation
was also hypocritical.
- moshe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Watt-Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 12:29:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:11:39 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Jews weren't complaining about "Star Wars;
they were complaining about Mel Brook's
"Spaceballs" which is a satire on "Star Wars"
and other sf movies.
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 01:02:27 AM |
|
|
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lwe@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3noi6214bpnk8uptnpppokcbick6nre2t5@news.rcn.com...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:11:39 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Jews weren't complaining about "Star Wars;
they were complaining about Mel Brook's
"Spaceballs" which is a satire on "Star Wars"
and other sf movies.
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
And others to be a vicious parody of an Arab, though my brother thought he
was supposed to be Italian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 06:58:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 06:02:27 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
And others to be a vicious parody of an Arab, though my brother thought he
was supposed to be Italian.
They're all the same - which is why Anthony Quinn was able to have a
long career as a generic ethnic.
8^)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 10:50:33 AM |
|
|
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:11:39 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Jews weren't complaining about "Star Wars;
they were complaining about Mel Brook's
"Spaceballs" which is a satire on "Star Wars"
and other sf movies.
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader", but that didn't make
it any nicer to me. Then again, given the level of writing in that movie,
are
we really surprised?
Susan
(Hi, Lawrence!!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ingeborg Denner" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
17 May 2006 02:28:04 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
inge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
17 May 2006 05:41:07 PM |
|
|
An Wed, 17 May 2006 09:28:04 +0200, Ingeborg Denner hat geschreibt:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
When I worked in Israel a couple of decades back. I observed that the
Palestinian TV and Jewish TV channels both had crime movies. In the
Jewish movies the evil master criminal was always an Arab and in the Arab
movies he was always a Jew. In both movies he wore a white suit and ate
watermelon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uri Bruck" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
25 May 2006 05:06:26 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann <kann@keinspam.de> wrote:
An Wed, 17 May 2006 09:28:04 +0200, Ingeborg Denner hat geschreibt:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
When I worked in Israel a couple of decades back. I observed that the
Palestinian TV and Jewish TV channels both had crime movies.
The Palestinian Authority isn't that old. What Palestinian TV would
that be?
Two decades ago there was hardly any original drama on Israeli TV,
none of it was crime drama, and Israeli cinema produced only a handful
of crime movies. I don't remember any Arab master criminal in any of
them.
The Arabic speaking movies were usually Egyptian films - I don't
recall many references to Israelies.
In the
Jewish movies the evil master criminal was always an Arab and in the Arab
movies he was always a Jew. In both movies he wore a white suit and ate
watermelon.
Eh.. What?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Wasp" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
17 May 2006 08:08:33 AM |
|
|
Ingeborg Denner wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
That's always been my take on it, at least in many cases. Much as I
loathed TPM, the accusations of "racist" portrayals always made me
laugh. They're just Bad Guys, okay?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
17 May 2006 10:56:16 AM |
|
|
On 17-May-2006, "Ingeborg Denner" <wildwusel@gmx.de> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
Well, I went with what I heard, rather than anything I
wanted to see - especially since I was still offended.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Moishy" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
19 May 2006 04:02:53 PM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:AIHag.5063$343.4405@trnddc06...
On 17-May-2006, "Ingeborg Denner" <wildwusel@gmx.de> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
Well, I went with what I heard, rather than anything I
wanted to see - especially since I was still offended.
C'mon we all know it was a yid ;)
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
19 May 2006 06:14:35 PM |
|
|
Moishy wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AIHag.5063$343.4405@trnddc06...
On 17-May-2006, "Ingeborg Denner" <wildwusel@gmx.de> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dxmag.2448$RY2.1513@trnddc02...
On 16-May-2006, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
I think he meant the complaints about "The Phantom Menace," where
some
people took the alien who owns Shmi Skywalker to be a vicious parody
of a Jew.
Gee, I thought it was supposed to be an "Arab trader",
Considering the number of different "who is meant with
that guy" we have by now, I start to wonder if the
stereotypes aren't far more in the eye of the beholder
than built in by the creator.
Well, I went with what I heard, rather than anything I
wanted to see - especially since I was still offended.
C'mon we all know it was a yid ;)
From this thread, it seems not, which is kind of nice.
it means one old and very ugly charicature of an entire
race is no longer as universal as it was a few decades ago
when everybody would have gotten it.
--
Asked to explain, Eichmann said, "My fellow officers
and I coined our own name for our language. We called
it amtssprache -- 'office talk.'" In office talk "you deny
responsibility for your actions. So if anybody says, 'Why
did you do it?' you say, 'I had to.' 'Why did you have to?'
'Superiors' orders. Company policy. It's the law.'"
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 09:18:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:49:02 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147675006.352958.27630@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hvednbHRau7gLvrZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer.
So, clearly, f-c wasn't talking about Shylock.
I'm waiting.
==========
The other poster said that only an idiot Christian would be offended by
fiction.
The point I was trying to make was that for centuries followers of
Judaism have been complaining about Shylock.
No, you said "Jewish lawyer". Whom did you mean?
Is Alan Dershowitz in Shakespeare anywhere?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 09:29:54 AM |
|
|
"Bill Snyder" <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ac3h62lukfh9i6c25vsrhge29pttp5pgsh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:49:02 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147675006.352958.27630@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The point I was trying to make was that for centuries followers of
Judaism have been complaining about Shylock.
No, you said "Jewish lawyer". Whom did you mean?
Is Alan Dershowitz in Shakespeare anywhere?
IIRC, he appears briefly in "Queen Alexandra and Murray".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 10:11:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:17:11 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hvednbHRau7gLvrZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer.
So, clearly, f-c wasn't talking about Shylock.
I'm waiting.
Then no. Obviously nobody recalls any complaints about how a Jewish
lawyer was portrayed in a Shakespeare play. Are you done screwing
around?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 10:48:39 PM |
|
|
"David Johnston" <rgorman@block.net> wrote in message
news:m9sf62hamuaabdo17qarvu01hjuf1hjvdl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:17:11 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hvednbHRau7gLvrZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer.
So, clearly, f-c wasn't talking about Shylock.
I'm waiting.
Then no. Obviously nobody recalls any complaints about how a Jewish
lawyer was portrayed in a Shakespeare play. Are you done screwing
around?
I'm still waiting for "fact-checker" to produce any facts. I agree I might
have a long wait.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mordecai! mldavisplease dont" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 11:07:17 PM |
|
|
Mike Schilling wrote:
"David Johnston" <rgorman@block.net> wrote in message
news:m9sf62hamuaabdo17qarvu01hjuf1hjvdl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:17:11 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hvednbHRau7gLvrZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer.
So, clearly, f-c wasn't talking about Shylock.
I'm waiting.
Then no. Obviously nobody recalls any complaints about how a Jewish
lawyer was portrayed in a Shakespeare play. Are you done screwing
around?
I'm still waiting for "fact-checker" to produce any facts. I agree I might
have a long wait.
I have been waiting years for him. Don't hold your breath.
PS - his name is Morris.
It is always nice to have his name when you talk nicely to him - don't you
think?
Do us all a favour and keep him will ya?
Thanks mate.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 06:41:54 PM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer. Jews weren't allowed to be
lawyers back then. He was a moneylender - a job that
many Jews were forced into, since they weren't
allowed to be much else by bigoted Christians.
Forced to be so rich, they could make a living lending money to others?
How cruel!
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Watt-Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 07:23:17 PM |
|
|
On 14 May 2006 16:41:54 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer. Jews weren't allowed to be
lawyers back then. He was a moneylender - a job that
many Jews were forced into, since they weren't
allowed to be much else by bigoted Christians.
Forced to be so rich, they could make a living lending money to others?
How cruel!
Jews were forbidden to own land, which was the most respectable way to
earn a living. There were several occupations closed to them by law.
At the time, though, the Catholic Church interpreted scripture to
outlaw loaning money at interest.
Christians were therefore forbidden to be moneylenders.
Jews weren't.
Thus, Jewish moneylenders were common, and were detested by Christians
for it. And "moneylender" doesn't mean "financier," it means being
able to make loans of _any_ size. If someone needed to borrow five
ducats until payday, the only person who would loan it to him, other
than immediate family or close friends, would be a Jew.
Refusing a loan to a good Christian was a good way to get the crap
beaten out of you, of course.
Every so often some Christian bigshot would get so far into debt that
he would be shocked, SHOCKED to learn that Jews were loaning money at
interest, and would promptly declare all such debts invalid, as being
against scripture. If that didn't work, the Jews who wanted their
money would be beaten, exiled, or murdered.
Sometimes bribing the right officials would prevent this, or at least
delay it, so your typical Jewish moneylender had some pretty high
overhead, paying off the bishop or prince.
Gosh. How nice, being a rich moneylender!
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 07:26:07 PM |
|
|
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On 14 May 2006 16:41:54 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ImL9g.86707$dW3.43100@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
<fact-checker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147563084.930509.139290@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody recall any complaints about how a certain Jewish lawyer
was portrayed in a Shakespeare play?
No, I honestly don't. Enlighten me.
Shylock wasn't a lawyer. Jews weren't allowed to be
lawyers back then. He was a moneylender - a job that
many Jews were forced into, since they weren't
allowed to be much else by bigoted Christians.
Forced to be so rich, they could make a living lending money to others?
How cruel!
Jews were forbidden to own land, which was the most respectable way to
earn a living. There were several occupations closed to them by law.
At the time, though, the Catholic Church interpreted scripture to
outlaw loaning money at interest.
Christians were therefore forbidden to be moneylenders.
Jews weren't.
Thus, Jewish moneylenders were common, and were detested by Christians
for it. And "moneylender" doesn't mean "financier," it means being
able to make loans of _any_ size. If someone needed to borrow five
ducats until payday, the only person who would loan it to him, other
than immediate family or close friends, would be a Jew.
Refusing a loan to a good Christian was a good way to get the crap
beaten out of you, of course.
Every so often some Christian bigshot would get so far into debt that
he would be shocked, SHOCKED to learn that Jews were loaning money at
interest, and would promptly declare all such debts invalid, as being
against scripture. If that didn't work, the Jews who wanted their
money would be beaten, exiled, or murdered.
Sometimes bribing the right officials would prevent this, or at least
delay it, so your typical Jewish moneylender had some pretty high
overhead, paying off the bishop or prince.
Gosh. How nice, being a rich moneylender!
I am quite familiar with all those tales of abuse, and they are not at
issue here.
But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
are not allowed to earn it?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 07:51:08 PM |
|
|
: "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
: But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
: are not allowed to earn it?
In what sense have you "aquired" this money, if you are required to
pay it in bribes, can't use it to buy property, and in general can't
do anything much with it? Just wondering.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Watt-Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 07:51:15 PM |
|
|
On 14 May 2006 17:26:07 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
are not allowed to earn it?
Inheritance. Gift from parents. It really doesn't take much to get
started. As I said, "moneylender" doesn't imply rich. If you have a
hundred bucks, you can be a moneylender.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 04:59:41 PM |
|
|
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On 14 May 2006 17:26:07 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
are not allowed to earn it?
Inheritance. Gift from parents.
Of course. Should have thought of that. They get it from other people
who are not allowed to earn it.
It really doesn't take much to get
started.
It makes you wonder why poor people all over the world don't go into
banking, instead of all that dreadful farming and mining, and other
laborious livelihoods.
Must be a personal preference.
As I said, "moneylender" doesn't imply rich. If you have a
hundred bucks, you can be a moneylender.
It might be a little hard to live on the earnings, though. Even at
100% per anum, one hundred bucks loaned out is going to make for some
very watery gruel most days of the year.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 05:57:29 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147730381.422687.129400@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On 14 May 2006 17:26:07 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
are not allowed to earn it?
Inheritance. Gift from parents.
Of course. Should have thought of that. They get it from other people
who are not allowed to earn it.
It really doesn't take much to get
started.
It makes you wonder why poor people all over the world don't go into
banking, instead of all that dreadful farming and mining, and other
laborious livelihoods.
Because, as you note below, unless you've got substantial money to lend out,
it isn't very lucrative. But when you're forbidden by law to own land,
enter one of the professions, or do many other sorts of work, it can be the
least of evils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darth Breather" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
16 May 2006 02:05:27 PM |
|
|
Mike Schilling wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It makes you wonder why poor people all over the world don't go into
banking, instead of all that dreadful farming and mining, and other
laborious livelihoods.
Because, as you note below, unless you've got substantial money to lend out,
it isn't very lucrative. But when you're forbidden by law to own land,
enter one of the professions, or do many other sorts of work, it can be the
least of evils.
There are whole communities who are moneylenders in India.
They are typically small traders and shop-keepers. They work on thin
margins, but gradually accumulate capital. The first bit of
money-lending probably starts as giving credit for purchases until a
laborer gets paid or a farmer sells his crop. The next step is lending
money for occasions such as a daughters marriage. These are very
high-risk high-interest loans.
A lot of capital can be generated even in poor communities if the
extended family works together. Twenty or thirty relatives get together
to fund the purchase of initial stock for a promising young person. If
he fails, they are out of luck, but only for a small amount. If he
succeeds, he pays them back and helps fund the next generation when the
time comes. Some become wealthy by the standards of their communities.
Of course they end up being pretty hardnosed. Their borrowers hate them
even while they rely on them.
Micro-credit organizations try to replace these funding sources. They
work because (a) they are non-profit (b) they use social pressure to
reduce risk (c) they only lend for productive uses (e.g. buying
chickens to produce saleable eggs) and not for such things as marrying
off daughters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miriam Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 05:16:18 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
It makes you wonder why poor people all over the world don't go into
banking, instead of all that dreadful farming and mining, and other
laborious livelihoods.
You know, everyone is correct about you, you are a vile and evil moron.
No we know why *YOU* didn't go in to banking; it takes more than a
thimble full of brains to be a banker. Funny how you people (phrase used
intentionally) never seem to know that modern banking as we know it
today was begun by the Knights Templar, good xians that they were.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
15 May 2006 06:01:17 PM |
|
|
Miriam Cohen wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
It makes you wonder why poor people all over the world don't go into
banking, instead of all that dreadful farming and mining, and other
laborious livelihoods.
You know, everyone is correct about you, you are a vile and evil moron.
Ah, the world does not love the truth teller. Happy as Monday morning
in a frat house, the world would rather prefer to avoid the truth.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur," said Petronius. "The world wants
to be deceived, so let it be deceived."
Yet, with Jesus and others, I cry: "Mundus vult decipi, sed non
decipiatur," ... but let it NOT be deceived.
It is not as though we get great thankyous for our work, but someone
has to do it.
No we know why *YOU* didn't go in to banking; it takes more than a
thimble full of brains to be a banker. Funny how you people (phrase used
intentionally) never seem to know that modern banking as we know it
today was begun by the Knights Templar, good xians that they were.
I never claimed otherwise. Read the thread, O Genius. (This is
another truth for which she will no doubt be oh-so-grateful.)
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 07:55:01 PM |
|
|
On 14 May 2006 17:26:07 -0700, "Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Forced to be so rich, they could make a living lending money to others?
How cruel!
Jews were forbidden to own land, which was the most respectable way to
earn a living. There were several occupations closed to them by law.
But how does a perosn acquire enough money to be a moneylender if they
are not allowed to earn it?
He said "several" occupations, not all of them. Although actually, a
Jew could borrow money from a Christian. Christians were only
forbidden to charge interest to members of their own religion. Some
Jews would also initially go into money-lending when they lost their
freedom to work in their original trade either because the
restrictions had been increased, or they'd been forced out of the
place where they'd been working.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 08:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 00:55:01 GMT, David Johnston <rgorman@block.net>
wrote:
He said "several" occupations, not all of them. Although actually, a
Jew could borrow money from a Christian. Christians were only
forbidden to charge interest to members of their own religion.
That would lead an opening for a job as a moneylender lending money
borrowed from Christians. Which is how moneylending is done today -
via intermediaries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't be upset about fiction? |
14 May 2006 08:18:59 PM |
|
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:5vkf62tp07hhmo8bs22aoe4aoko5s0pjjc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 00:55:01 GMT, David Johnston <rgorman@block.net>
wrote:
He said "several" occupations, not all of them. Although actually, a
Jew could borrow money from a Christian. Christians were only
forbidden to charge interest to members of their own religion.
That would lead an opening for a job as a moneylender lending money
borrowed from Christians. Which is how moneylending is done today -
via intermediaries.
And paying back the Christian with "gifts", since he wasn't allowed to earn
interest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
