Posted on 03/11/2004 4:13:32 PM PST by ComtedeMaistre
Mel Gibson made it clear in his interview with Diane Sawyer, that hating people goes against his religious beliefs. That should have settled the matter.
But we are now being told that, anyone who believes in the 4 Gospels, especially the Gospel of John, is an anti-semite (I refer you to the Hollywood anti-Gibson critic on MS-NBC's Scarborough Country). That definition of "anti-semite" covers 50 percent of Americans.
The term anti-semite should only be used to refer to the very worst people, who want to inflict harm on Jews. If the term is used carelessly, then it loses all its meaning. In the 1980s, Commentary Magazine editor, Norman Podhoretz, made a habit of using the term "anti-semite" promiscuously, against both conservatives and liberals he did not like. People in the literary community soon developed a new definition, i.e., an anti-semite was defined as someone who was winning an argument with Norman Podhoretz.
Careless charges of anti-semitism have been made against every US President since Harry Truman (with the possible exception of LBJ). Truman was accused of anti-semtism due to his habit of making politically-incorrect remarks. Eisenhower was called anti-semitic because of the tough stance he took against Israel in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Kennedy was suspected of anti-semitism because of his admiration for his Senate Colleage and family friend, Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the influence of his (Kennedy's) father on his career. Nixon was called anti-semitic for his habit (like that of Truman) of making politically-incorrect comments in private. Gerald Ford, as is well known, supported the American First Committee in his youth, an organization that ill-informed lefties like to call "anti-semitic". When Jimmy Carter leaned on Israel to make concessions during the Camp David negotiations in 1979, some leaders of Jewish organizations called him "anti-semitic". Even Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel President in history, was smeared as anti-semitic because of his trip to the Bitburg Cemetery in West Germany. When Bush 41 opposed $10 billion in loan guarantees for settlements in Israel in 1991, he was shouted down as an anti-semite. You get the drift.
Great figures in history, such as Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Napoleon, Thomas Edison, Hillaire Belloc, HL Mencken, and Marlon Brando, have similarly been labelled. Even Winston Churchill, the man who defeated the Nazis, has had the anti-semite label pinned on him, based on anti-communist comments he made in the 1920s.
The point is, unless the word "anti-semite" is limited to being used against truly evil and genocidal people, then it will use its meaning. Those who have prostituted the term, such as Norman Podhoretz and Abe Foxman, in their fight against imaginary anti-semites, have actually made the job of fighting real anti-semites, such as the genocidal wahabi murderers of the Middle East, much more difficult.
But who cares about fighting real anti-semitism, when you can bash conservative Christians, who have become like patsies that every leftists with a chip on his shoulder can dump on.
I have a sneaking feeling that he really wants to censor all speech that comes from Christians, especially anything that he feels is judgmental. Could it be that he feels above Christian morals?
I agree with the end result, his attempts to label Christians as anti-semite clouds the real anti-semite activities that occur each day in the U.S. How else could he justify supporting the Clintons when they clearly have close ties to terrorist groups set upon eliminating all Jews from the face of the earth?
People do not always follow what they believe -- is that news for you?
Killing is a sin. That was repeated since time immemorial and is one of the Commandments. Yet, no Pope ever condemned the Crusaders, the Cardinals that expelled Jews from various lands. Hate is against religion, yet it was one of the first Christian Emperors that decreed that a Christian should not befriend a Jew.
People do not always follow their faith, do they?
OK, that's relevant. Not.
However, the following does not any sense:
The point is, unless the word "anti-semite" is limited to being used against truly evil and genocidal people, then it will use its meaning. By your definition one has to serve is SS to be called anti-Semite.
So, I say on every corner nasty things about black people (asian, Indian, Italian, etc.) but do not kill them, I am not prejudiced? If I were to say nasty things about, say, Catholics, I am not an anti-Catholic bigot until I start killing them or at least advocate wiping them off the face of the Earth.
You appear to be consused.
And, Shakespear may not have been a virulent anti-Semite, but he faithfully reflected the anti-Semitism of his day in the Merchant of Venice. And, yes, Voltaire and Dostoyevsky were virulent anti-Semites: just because someone is talented, that person is not necessarily moral.
Hmmmmmm, first they would have to reject the book and the ideas in the book and the people that came up with the ideas in the book which is about Jewish things..
We talkin about democrats/Rinos here or Muslims or BOTH...?
See, Jack, that's what people talk about. You say criticises Jews for events that happened 2000 years ago. I guess you are saying that Gibson does criticize "the Jews" for these events. Not some people, specific people, but "the Jews." I see. And he should do so being unopposed?
If you are a Christian, you should follow Commandments, one of which prohibits you from serving as a false witness. Yet, you just did. And the ease with which you did that --- not even an attempt to support your injurous allegation -- is notable.
Are you Christian only when you feel offended for Christianity or on other days as well?
Sound like you are 15. You should be in bed now.
If you can't think, stop writing. You look worse with every post.
You obviously haven't read FR's policy on personal attacks.
I won't accuse you of thinking, since you never apparently never started.
Are you a Jew that is only offended by Christian movies?
Can you even think straight? Where did you see me on this thread expressing my opinion about the movie? On other threads I dis express it - --- I support the movie and hope it will revitalize Christianity in this country.
Now, as I said, if you can't connect dots with a straight line, you should be in bed.
Prove it.
Uh, you can't even spell. Time to retire?
Sadly, the dots you see may be drug induced. More important, however, may be your attempts to see me in bed. That suggests other motives.
You do not abide by Christian standards, you do not differentiate between mistakes and inabiliries, and now you show us tha you spit on core American values.
In this country, son, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
You do not have a single moral bone in your body. You've shown that even in a post that contains only one line.
Your mind, however, is all bone.
I'll not write to you again: I don't wrestle with pigs and children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.