Novak: No anti-Semitism in Gibson's 'Passion'

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 11-03-03

[Bohemund]

I've laid out the evidence, and it comes from the bible. Prove me wrong. Levicitus didn't help your case, and neither does this sudden move into amnesia,

You have proved nothing more than the fact that, in your opinion, Matthew (probably himself a Jew writing within 100 years of the death of Jesus, another Jew) tried to smear the Jews.

including your convenient inability to answer the question--who looks like the guiltiest parties in the story from Matthew you just recited?

This is a new question, or your question formulated clearly at last. When Jesus was condemned by the crowd, which was stirred up by priestly agitators, the crowd looked guiltiest. When Jesus was mocked, stripped, scorged, forced to carry his cross, nailed to the cross, offered vinegar, and stabbed in the side, the Romans looked guiltiest.

[Bohemund]

1. Your conspiracy theory that Jewish Christian evangelists slanted the bible to smear other Jews.

3. If you refuse to admit that the Matthean passage refers to only the crowd, fine.

4. The Catechism states that God's compact with his chosem people, the Jews, is still valid. The acts of anti-Semetic Christians in the past are, of course, terrible.

4b. If you insist that all Jews are guilty for the death of Jesus, then you agreeing with the anti-Semites, not any Christian denomination I know of.

5. Please see post 459.

[Bohemund]

I see no chance of finding common ground on this. I'll pray that you find peace. God bless you.

[donh]

Redemption is available to all. Guilt cannot be spread around. Anyway, what guilt are you talking about?

The bible says redemption is available to all and you believe it, but when the bible says, say, that God punished the Medeanite children for the sins of their parents you don't believe it's possible?

[donh]

1. Your conspiracy theory that Jewish Christian evangelists slanted the bible to smear other Jews.

It is not my conspiracy theory--it is the conspiracy theory of mainstream and catholic historians. See reference above.

3. If you refuse to admit that the Matthean passage refers to only the crowd, fine.

It does not refer only to the crowd--it specifically, and pointedly, refers to the heirs of "the WHOLE of the people", whom, I point out, were not in attendence.

4. The Catechism states that God's compact with his chosem people, the Jews, is still valid. The acts of anti-Semetic Christians in the past are, of course, terrible.

And, therefore, one presumes, when a priest points out a fundamental part of catholic doctrine: the to know of jesus, but not accept him as savior, condemns oneself-- it applies to orthodox jews.

4b. If you insist that all Jews are guilty for the death of Jesus, then you agreeing with the anti-Semites, not any Christian denomination I know of.

Anti-jewish--not anti-semite, the church draws a sharp, if laughable, distinction:

Except, of course, for the Catholic Churches anti-jewish policies since the it's beginnings until more or less now, in half-measures, in response to the holocaust.

And, as usual, that is not what I insist, is it? I insist that that is what Matthew probably, and fundamental church doctrine certainly, say about about orthodox jews has been anti-jewish for a very long time--the Catholic Church, by the way, agrees with me.

[polemikos]

LOL! You crack me up.

You ask for articles pointing out Zuccotti's errors and I post them. But instead of looking at the specific errors documented there-in, you denigrate the sources. It's an old lawyer's trick. If you can't fight the facts, smear the fact teller.

Zuccotti repeatedly harps on the lack of a paper trail. Rychlak accurately points out that Zuccotti ignores why this is so, but also that she also neatly ignores the numerous eye witnesses and contemporaneous accounts indicating otherwise. An examination of the facts shows Zuccotti's main thesis is destroyed. The most charitable thing that can be said is that she displays a lack of thoroughness.

I post over a dozen Jewish and Christian scholars supporting the pro-Pius position, but you ignore them. It's fairly obvious you are locked into a conclusion and will not see that the evidence is against that position. Fitting facts to a preconception is a logically-fallacious process known as eisegesis.

You cannot successfully defend a serial murderer by suggesting that he was kind to some of his victims, even if it's true.

Ho ho! Now Pius XII is a serial murderer?
Ha ha! You must write bad satire for the Onion.

The only problem is that you have produced ZERO evidence of any kind that supports this. Referencing Zuccotti doesn't work because her thesis has been proved false by failure to cite the exculpatory evidence. Her main approach, her technique for excluding said evidence, has been roundly panned by those knowledgeable of the era. No matter how much you try, there is no anti-Pius case. You need to admit that, before you can make any progress.

Now, if you want to make a case against the Church, you'll need to be more specific, and cut back on the wild charges. It does your case no good to display a reckless disregard for the truth as you've done with Pius.

[donh]

You ask for articles pointing out Zuccotti's errors and I post them. But instead of looking at the specific errors documented there-in, you denigrate the sources. It's an old lawyer's trick. If you can't fight the facts, smear the fact teller.

One of those "articles" would be considered from the mainstream press, and its a reprint of rabbi Dalin's article, the details of which, are that it refernces the Rychlak/Zuccotti debate, which I most certainly did not ignore, I quoted from it to you. I did not smear anybody to my knowledge, I merely listed the names of your sources, and acknowledged what they were: misc. web sites, & obscure religeous press with, therefore, a likely ax to grind.

As for "the facts", the facts are that there is little incontrovertable forensic evidence, by the proud claim of the Pope's defenders.

An examination of the facts shows Zuccotti's main thesis is destroyed.

It does not. It shows that SOME support, which Zuccotti was unaware of, or which she interpreted differently than some of her detractors, for SOME of the claim that 800,000 saved jewish lifes can be attributed to direct action by PIUSXII. That is a very far way from "destroying" Zuccotti's claim, and since the cleric who is supervising PIUSXII's potential canonization was unwilling to release PIUS documents to the committee of three jewish and three catholic scholars that were investigating the role of the church in the holocaust, it's a pretty safe bet that those concealed records probably don't support that exhuberant and unlikely claim.

Not that I care, since, to repeat myself for about the 10th time, my point in contention has little to do with how many folks PIUSXII saved. Handy as it may be for you to try to short-circuit the discussion with.

.u cannot successfully defend a serial murderer by suggesting that he was kind to some of his victims, even if it's true.

Ho ho! Now Pius XII is a serial murderer?

Must I explain to you what an analogy is, or are you just trying to annoy me with kindergarten-level rhetorical tactics?

The only problem is that you have produced ZERO evidence of any kind that supports this.

Prove what? That the Pope's more exuberant defenders are proud of the fact that their claim of 800,000 directly attributable to PIUS is based on scanty evidence being available?

What did the Pope say when asked about anti-jewish laws in spain? He said the churches' pro-semitic stance did NOT preclude anti-jewish laws. That would be, like, for example, the anti-jewish laws that underpinned the Holocaust. Did the Pope ex-commuicate Hitler? Did the Pope excommunicate anyone who participated in the holocaust? Did the Pope excommucate priests who served the German Army? Did the Pope escommunicate the priests who handed over the birth records to the SS? Did he even try to stop it? Why, yes--as soon as jewish converts to christianity were under scrutiny. If the Pope can be exalted for things he, on the evidence, might or might not have done, he can certainly be questioned for things we know he didn't do.

[donh]

Now, if you want to make a case against the Church,

Well, now, what have I been doing for the last 100 posts, with 5 or 6 other people posting here? Do you only read a post if it says PIUSXII somewhere in it?

and cut back on the wild charges.

Exactly what do my wild charges consist of regarding what it says in Matthew, what it says in the doctrine of salvation, or regarding the promulgation of anti-jewish tracts by the church--right up the the founding of the third reich? Something the church itself admits to and documents.

[polemikos]

I did not smear anybody to my knowledge,

You really are getting tiresome. Now I have to explain basic English. When you write:
...all partisan press reviews...
that is a smear. How so? Just look at the dictionary. Using my Webster's Collegiate:
Partisan A firm adherent, esp. one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

You did the same thing early on in this thread. Contemporaneous and post-mortem praise of Pius XII by famous Jews and newspapers was swept aside with your dismissive "after-dinner testimonials" remark. I was willing to ignore it initially, but now I can't. Einstein, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem, the head of the wartime Italian Hebrew Commission, the Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress, the NY Times editorial pages, are not given to flippant, casual testimonials about so serious a subject. You smeared them, with a lie no less.

You dismiss "his tawdry record" without really even knowing what "tawdry" means. Use a dictionary. It means "cheap, gaudy, showy", the exact opposite of what you have been claiming. In fact, if Pius XII had engaged in the theatrics that Zuccotti and others have condemned Pius for not employing, then his actions could legitimately be called "tawdry", for then he would have been more concerned with show rather than results.

Rather than deal with the facts, you take to denigrating the sources. No need to consider the facts because they come from "blind", "prejudiced", and "unreasoning" sources. This is a strategy employed by those who do not want the truth, but do want their preconceived theories to triumph. As explained above, this is the logically fallacious process known as eisegesis. Lawyers for the guilty employ it often because they hope the emotional spin can turn at least one juror. In the end, all you'll have to hold onto is the tissue of half-truths and false theories that results. No thank you. You can stew in your own hatred all you want. Leave me out.

[donh]

Einstein, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem, the head of the wartime Italian Hebrew Commission, the Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress, the NY Times editorial pages, are not given to flippant, casual testimonials about so serious a subject. You smeared them, with a lie no less.

What a bunch of annoying BS. A bombastic characterization of non-evidentiary remarks is hardly a lying smear. Pull you head out of the sanctimoneous sand.

Evidence-free character witnessing, no matter how august, do not countervail either the skimpy record actually tying PIUS XII directly to ALL "800,000" saved souls he's had attributed to him, nor the contradictory evidence of puzzlingly unassertive behavior in the face of catholic participation in the holocaust, as detailed, (but hardly limited to) in my previous post to you, and in history books. And as usual, ignored with aplomb--after all, you have BIG NAME character witnesses, why should you have to think about anything that might make you uncomfortable?

Leave me out.

Leave you out? When did you ever get in?

How do you know what information Einstein or the Chief Rabbi was operating on? Spoon-fed PR from 100's of busy jesuit PR artists madly scrambling to link PIUS's name to as many victims of the holocaust as possible, starting when the allies were clearly going to be the victors?--The likes of the the cleric in charge of PIUSXII's canonization? Who's apparently squirreled much evidence away that we'd like to see corroborating your evidence-free character witnesses.

Have you explained PIUS's remark about Spanish Anti-jewish laws being hunky dory? Have you explained the failure of the Pope to stop churches from handing over church marriage and birth records to help track down jews--unless they were catholic converts?

Of course not. What you have become a one-tune band. And that tune is: Pius saved some number of jews, and made some critical public comments in favor of jews, but short of remedial, official, specific sanctions which the Pope has at his disposal, --so lets all pluck our eyes out before viewing anything else.

Try to get this straight--a bunch of effusive quotes from a bunch of big names are NOT "facts", regardless of how you or I characterize them. They are advertising.

[polemikos]

What a bunch of annoying BS. A bombastic characterization of non-evidentiary remarks is hardly a lying smear. Pull you head out of the sanctimoneous sand.

And still the smears continue. Your words paint an accurate portrait of yourself. Many of the quotes are from contemporaneous witnesses of the events in question. They are, in fact, valid evidence.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in prior posts:
1 - you rely on logical fallacies
2 - you smear your opponents
3 - you smear opposing sources
4 - you mischaracterize evidence
5 - you avoid facts that refute your position
Trying to discuss anything with you is obviously a fruitless endeavor.

[donh]

And still the smears continue. Your words paint an accurate portrait of yourself. Many of the quotes are from contemporaneous witnesses of the events in question.

Like Albert Einstein? Like the Rabbi of Rome? Which witness, or set of witnesses saw PIUS XII save ALL 800,000 jews that PIUS is variously credited with by his most ardent defenders?...and which, I'd remind you, is what we were discussing.

They are, in fact, valid evidence

Just as a character-witnesses' testimony is evidence. It is not, however, what they call "hard" evidence, and it is not the testimony on which sensible jurists need to concentrate to render fair judgement.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in prior posts:
1 - you rely on logical fallacies

Cite an example

2 - you smear your opponents

You mean, people who've called me, for example, a nitwit?

3 - you smear opposing sources

You mean by listing their sources? Or do you mean by inquiring wheather or not they have irons in the fire?

4 - you mischaracterize evidence

You mean I disagree with you about the weight or reliability of a particular piece of evidence?

5 - you avoid facts that refute your position

You mean I don't embrace your evidence with uncritical abandon?

Trying to discuss anything with you is obviously a fruitless endeavor.

Then why are you doing it?

[polemikos]

I demonstrated in prior posts:
1 - you rely on logical fallacies (eisegesis)
2 - you smear your opponents (see prior posts)
3 - you smear opposing sources (see prior posts)
4 - you mischaracterize evidence (see prior posts)
5 - you avoid facts that refute your position (see prior posts)

Trying to discuss anything with you is obviously a fruitless endeavor.

[donh]

I demonstrated in prior posts

And as I refuted without significant sensible counterargument.

Trying to discuss anything with you is obviously a fruitless endeavor.

Which is why, apparently, you've stopped doing so. Turning yourself into a cut&paste bot just so you can annoy me is childish. In rhetoric class, we used to call what you are doing now "proof by repetition".

[donh]

exegesis n., pl. -ses. 1. Explanation, exposition (of a sentence, word, etc.); esp. the interpretation of Scripture, or a Scriptural passage. b. An explanatory note, a gloss. c. An expository discourse. 2. Algebra. New Latin, from Greek exegesis, from exegesthai, to show the way, expound.

eisegesis n., pl. -ses. 1. An explanation or analysis, especially of a Biblical text, using one’s own ideas. 2. Making it up as you go along. 19th c. from Greek eis, into + gesis, as.

The difference between these two words lies in whether or not you agree with your deponent's interpretation of the bible.

I have not been interpreting the bible. What I have been suggesting is that Matthew can and has been taken literally, to the deteriment of the jews. And, further, that that detrimental aspect of the Gospels was intentional on the part of the authors--a technical historical issue which does not make me an interpreter of the text of any stripe. None of these things makes me guilty of either exegesis OR eisegesis, and in any case, would not remotely constitute a "logical fallacy". If you think so, than kindly tell the the name of the fallacy.

Like the physics professor confronted with a flat-earther student said: "Go back to the provost and ask for your money back, and go home--it's not that you're right--it's not that you're wrong--it's that you aren't in the game.