[Diamond]

Julia Guernsey, an assistant professor in the department of art and art history at the University of Texas told a reporter after viewing the film, "I hate it. I despise it. I think it's despicable. It's offensive to Maya people. It's offensive to those of us who try to teach cultural sensitivity and alternative world views that might not match our own 21st century Western ones but are nonetheless valid."

If "alternative world views that might not match our own...are nonetheless valid" then why does she consider an alternative world view of Mel Gibson despicable and offensive?

Ritual decapitation, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and slavery are "valid", but a Mel Gibson MOVIE is "despicable". Go figure.

Cordially

[Zionist Conspirator]

Julia Guernsey, an assistant professor in the department of art and art history at the University of Texas told a reporter after viewing the film, "I hate it. I despise it. I think it's despicable. It's offensive to Maya people. It's offensive to those of us who try to teach cultural sensitivity and alternative world views that might not match our own 21st century Western ones but are nonetheless valid."

This is what drives me crazy about the prejudices of contemprary academia. On the one hand the science departments are run by naturalistic materialists who believe that the eighteenth century enlightenment was the greatest thing to ever happen in human history. On the other we have the humanities departments run by "third world" fundamentalists who believe that indigenous religion is beyond critique by European rationalist standards. Yet instead of attacking each other these forces "tag team" against chr*stianity.

It really is like pro rasslin', you know. The "heels" never feud with each other.