Bill Maher: Mel Gibson and Tom DeLay Are Anti-Semites

[peterh]

<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/24/115411.shtml>

Controversial TV talker Bill Maher attacked religious conservatives in an early morning interview on Wednesday, claiming that movie star Mel Gibson and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were "anti-Semitic."
"I do think Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic," Maher told radio host Don Imus. "So, by the way, is Tom DeLay. So, by the way, are all these Christian right people who pretend to be friends of Israel."
Then Maher accused Christian fundamentalists of befriending Israel only because, ultimately, they'd like to see Jews die:


Not sure if this belongs here….at any rate….imho…Bill Maher is right on!!!

[el_gato]

1. he he

[Sticky]

4. Saw that

...he was on Imus this morning. Also talked about bush being awol and asks rehetorically why the media never calls him on it. Imus played along but then later criticised Mahar's remarks....

I'm new to MSNBC and Imus so not sure if this is his usual MO.

[JNelson6563]

2. I agree on the Fundies

The only use they have for Jews is the role they are suppose to play in the rapture. They have no use for any heretics, heathens, godless, pagans or those "Jesus-murdering" Jews. Sad. When will the rest of Christianity proclaim loud enough for the world to hear that these people are the complete opposite of their religion is suppose to be about??

Julie

[genius]

3. I have no doubts about Tom Delay. He's slime

Has Gibson done anything anti-Semitic besides make a movie about Jesus? The truth of the matter is what happened is history and nobody should be asked to change history to make it more favorable to one group or the other. By the way, Jesus was a Jew.

[vi5]

6. I don't know if he's said anything but he does belong...

to a sect of catholicism that rejects Vatican II (I think that's what it's called....I'm not a practicing catholic), specifically the part about apologizing for the holocaust. And Mel's dad has gone on record with some very anti-semitic statements that Mel has been asked to repudiate but has not.

[stanwyck]

52. According to a TIME magazine article

last year, Mel's father is a Holocaust denier. Doesn't mean, of course, that Mel is...but it's troubling.

[Zhade]

112. VATICAN II: The Revenge

(Sorry, it just sounded like a bad sequel to me, ignore my weirdness :P )

[Susang]

115. LOL

That made my day. :-)

[Xithras]

7. I Agree.

It can be tough sometimes being a Christian Democrat, so I've kept out of the "Passion" threads, but I really don't see where the "anti-Semitic" charge for this movie comes from. Unless you're willing to brand the Bible itself as anti-Semitic, I can't see where making a movie about the death of Jesus makes you anti-Jew. The Bible is very clear about where the blame lays.

[villager]

9. so Xithras "you agree"

that Matthew's version, blaming the Jews -- which, of course, wasn't actually written down until about 300 years after the "fact" -- is "the truth?"

[Xithras]

14. I'm not a fundie...

But I do believe that there are no lies in the Bible. Misunderstandings? Probably. Exaggerations? Maybe one or two. Mistranslations? Certainly. But at it's core, the Bible is the true history of the Christians and the Jews. What Gibson has done is take a portion of the Bible and translate it, literally, to the big screen. That act in and of itself is NOT anti-semitic.

[Vikingking66]

27. it's not the Bible, it's the movie

During the Middle Ages, the passion story was used in "passion plays" that were put on during the Easter cycle. These plays were highly bastardized versions of the Gospel, and put forward an argument about the role the Jews played.

It's the difference between saying influential Pharisees argued for cruxifiction, and that all Jews wanted Christ dead, actually killed him,
and thus every Jew from that day forward is evil, damned utterly, and that every Christian is doing his duty by killing them so that the apocalypse can come.

These plays often lead to pogroms and expulsions of the Jews, and played an integral part in the creation of modern anti-semetism.

The worry over Gibson's movie is not that it will show the Biblical account of Jesus' death - there's been lots of movies that showed that. The worry is that Gibson, as a member of an ultra-conservative sect that believes in "blood guilt" whose script relies upon the antisemetic rants of a German mystic nun from the 18th century, might produce something more akin to these passion plays. In a world where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict already makes many Jews nervous about a resurgence of anti-semetism, this movie is very ominous.

Part of the problem is Gibson's exclusivity. Up until very recently, Gibson only showed the movie to Christian evangelicals and got into a very nasty legal tussle with a group of Catholic and Jewish theologians who reviewed the script and said it was anti-semetic and furthermore a distortion of the Gospels. When he finally allowed a few members of the ADL to see the movie, they were not happy about it.

[Dhalgren]

34. There is very little

"true history" in the Bible. That has been established by numerous historians for more than a hundred years. If you say that the Bible is "true history", then perhaps you should rethink your ideas about what constitutes "fundamentalism".
The Bible can be poetic, inspirational, a book of many "life lessons", an investigation of the soul of man through the poetic medium of myth - sure, all those things; but history, it is not.

[soleft]

45. what he said

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. Damn it, Dhalgren, I'm just going to tell you one more time....

Due to your geographic location of Alabama, you're going to have to drink the fundie kool-aid and marry your sister. You are going to completely blow the stereotypical vision of what Alabamians are.

Now, please flame anyone who disagrees with the fact that the world is no older than six thousand years.


(Well said. I wish I had written your post.)

[ProfessorGAC]

106. 6000 Years Old?

It's 5600 years at most. Heretic!
The Professor

[Xithras]

80. I'm not a literalist

For example: I don't believe that the Earth was created in a few days (how long was a "day" before He created the Earth?), I believe that when God created mankind evolution was his tool of choice, and I somewhat doubt that we're all descended from two people.

Still, I believe that the history presented in the Bible, when viewed in the proper perspective, is true...and I have yet to see any of the historical references in the Bible completely refuted. Do I think the whole world once flooded and one family on a boat were the only survivors? No. But I do beleive that there was once a major flood in the MidEast that killed a large portion of the population that founded the story...and there are both archeological indicators and legends from non-Christian/Jewish sources to back that up.

To assume that the Bible is true, word for word, is assnine fundamentalism. To assume the Bible is all legend and dismiss it entirely is much the same.

[roguevalley]

96. The 'fall' of Jericho as told in the Bible with Joshua is refuted.

There is no match for the time that it was said to be blown down by Joshua's masses. It was knocked down by earthquakes but not during the Joshua era. I love Joshua, I might say. He's one of my favorites but he's not historical in the timeline of the Bible when applied to archeological information.

[The Magistrate]

76. With All Due Respect, Sir

Scripture is replete with lies, conciously told with deliberate aim to enhance the power of those who told them. The thing is best read with the sort of eye turned properly toward any Pentagon bulletin.

[leesa]

92. Very well said, thank you.

[DBoon]

12. Didn't come from Gospels

I heard the Mel Gibson version actually came from "visions" of an 18th century catholic mystic - and are not in fact based on the biblical account. The "mystic's" account placed more blame on the jews than the bible, which tended to blame romans.

Would need to verify this though

[genius]

15. Pilot gave them a choice and they prefered executing Jesus

even though it meant freeing a dangerous criminal. Read the Gospels. Pilot didn't want to execute Jesus. Hey, the Christians did a lot of horrible things to the people living in North and South America. Every group has it's dark point in history. By the way, my husband is Jewish and he believes the Jews blew it back with Jesus.

[Character Assassin]

18. Eh, that "Pilate" not "Pilot"

Otherwise, you are correct. The depiction is from the bible, and AFAIK, doesn't vary from from the account in any substantial way.

[genius]

23. Thanks for the correction on the spelling.

The trouble is that it is difficult to discuss history without offending some group.

[The Magistrate]

89. Still, Ma'am

It is a tremendous leap in the dark to consider the account given accurate in any detail. At the time it was written, it was desperately necessary for the Christian Messianists to seperate themselves in the eyes of Roman authorities from the Jewish Messianists, who were engaged in open armed rebellion against Rome, and subject to tremendous persecutions. Another clear trace of this is in Paul's continual exhortations to his followers to obey all Roman authorities.

[roguevalley]

97. There is no evidence anywhere in the Roman world for releasing

prisoners during ANYONE'S festivals let along those of conquered peoples. For Pilot to have allowed the crowd to choose who would die is not only not founded in Roman history, it belies the lack of concern that these Roman governors gave to anyone else's opinion. Pilate in fact was known to be excessively brutal in a group noted for brutality. The choice isn't founded in fact. It was never a part of Roman practice.

Perhaps a little 'spin' by Romans anxious to deflect THEIR GUILT to the local and most historically convenient dog's body, the Jews????

[Xithras]

16. I "heard"?

The story you're referring to is based on the diaries of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nun in the 1700's. IF this is true, I can agree with the criticisms (Emmerich was most certainly anti-semitic, and her version of the Passion bore that out). Unfortunatly, there is no evidence besides persistent rumor that Gibson did this. Gibson has repeated stated that the movie is based on Biblical accounts and has NEVER claimed that the Emmerich diaries or "The Dolorous Passion" was used as the inspiration of the movie.

[Vikingking66]

28. actually, there was an interview with Entertainment Tonight

In which a spokesman for the movie went on and on about the Emmerich diaries. It was only after they reported the nature of these writings that Gibson said the movie would be based on Biblical accounts.

[mkregel]

90. Exactly...

I was going to say this couldnt have been based on the bible as the bible places most guilt on (1)Pilate (2) Herod and (3) the Pharisees.

From what I heard, the movie pretty much makes all the Jews, sans the disciples, the killers of Jesus. Keep in mind the bible shows A LOT of support for Jesus from Jews - thousands turn out for his Sermon on the Mount, thousands are fed with fishes and loaves.

If we were to do an interpretation of the biblical Jesus, and modernize it, we'd have Christ killed by the CIA, Falwell and Pat Roberston. Now THAT would be a good movie!

[Zhade]

113. Of course they turned out - free food!

(That's a joke, people, and not about Jewish people themselves, but that EVERYONE goes where free food is to be had. Witness church potlucks.)

[kysrsoze]

84. I'm sure this is why Bill Maher said it. I wonder....

If that @sshole actually watched the movie before he came to his assumption.

[villager]

8. when you talk about "the truth of the matter"

and refer to an actually non-verifiable historical record, are you assuming that the myth/legend cycle reported in the Gospels -- which may have some historical veracity, though no one can be sure how much -- is historically accurate? i.e., the same as recorded history?

[genius]

13. There are four different eye witness accounts about Jesus in the New

Testament and they are pretty consistent although they have different styles. And yes, I do believe the New Testament - at least the first four books. Look, every society makes mistakes. Look at our country. To deny what happened to Jesus is ridiculous. Christians have made lots of mistakes and so have Jews.

[Locrian]

20. question

Im sincerely not trying to attack - but Ive always been curious. Is there ANY other (Tacitus, Levy ??) document that actually collaborates the bible as historical?

Any how do the similar (historical? mythological?) stories about Budda, Khrishna, Quetzequatal, etc stories get discounted when they occurred BC?

[starroute]

32. There's nothing until the second century

The earliest Christian documents are purely religious/visionary in nature. The first statements which present a historical Jesus date from after 100 AD, and even some of those are questionable. For example, Tacitus supposedly wrote about 115 AD that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, but there are reasons for thinking the passage might be a later interpolation.

The tendency to speak of Jesus as a historical figure only became pronounced in the middle 100's and dominant about 180 AD. The first clear evidence of the gospels as we know them -- in the form of quotes by other writers -- dates to about the same time.

It has been clearly established that the gospels were written by people who did not have any personal knowledge of the history or geography of first-century Palestine, which suggests that they were set down only well after the destruction of the Temple and the beginning of the Disapora.

Various aspects of the gospel stories are at variance with Roman history. For example, the census which supposedly brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem never happened and could not have happened as described. The accounts of the trial and execution of Jesus are also not in conformity with Roman law.

Biblical scholars have been working for the last century and a half to sort out the various layers of story in the gospels and are still far from agreement. The one thing they do agree on is that there is no way every aspect of the gospels can be literal truth.

[NWHarkness]

21. The Gospels

Are neither eye witness accounts, nor are they completely consistent with each other.

I respect everyone's right to their own religious beliefs, but when you try to present them as history, then there is an objective standard of proof that should be applied.

[genius]

24. Yes they are

Read them some time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Here's a fellow who did

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=051734582X

A great read.

[haymaker]

30. No they are not.

I don't believe ANY are eye wittness, much less all. Can you supply documentation about the lifespan of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

[Susang]

36. They were not eyewitness accounts

The others were written a hundred or more years after the events you say they witnessed with their own eyes took place. That is historical fact.

[genius]

47. And you told you that?

They were written by three Apostles and a tax collector who followed Jesus around.

[Susang]

54. You might want to check your history

Along with all the other posts on this topic.

BTW, I took a 4 credit college course called "The Bible as History" taught by a Catholic no less that told me that. As a matter of fact most Catholic theologians take the stance that the gospels were "inspired" by events and contain many stories meant as lessons or metaphors. I'd suggest you consider further reading on the subject.

Also, what gospel is truth? What about the differences between the four accepted gospels (and there are quite a few differences)? What about the gnostic gospels? What about the secret gospel of Mark that was omitted? What about the gospel of Thomas? What about the fact that the gospels were oral tradition until somebody actually got around to writing them down years many years after the event happened? All of these things need to be considered before you go around claiming that the bible is a true history of the events

[genius]

64. I have checked my history

I grew up with a group of historians who did extensive research into the issue. I think your Catholic professor ought to check his. BTW, I also took college credit courses on the subject. One was taught by a Jewish Buddhist Monk. Another was taught by an athiest. If the athiest could have discredited the Gospels, she would have. The Monk was awesome. So were the historians with whom I grew up.

[Susang]

73. You obviously have a different definition of *truth* than I do

Since what I've gotten through my 12 years of Catholic school, as well as my extensive research on the subject is that nobody can say with authority that the gospels were even written by the people they are attributed to. Scholars who have spent their entire lives researching and documenting this cannot say for sure since the early church was based on the oral tradition and the "gospels" weren't actually put to paper (or papyrus, etc) until years and years later. Amazingly, you seem to know more than all these esteemed scholars put together.

I also find it telling that you didn't even bother to address my other concerns about what gospels are *truth*. What about all those other gospels and writings that were kept out of the canon for various reasons, many of them political. Why are the contradictory gospels that are included in what we call the bible more truthful than the ones that weren't included? Do you deny that social and political pressures have changed the document you call truth many times to satisfy man's personal and political prejudices? How can the bible be historical when the translations and rewrites basically consign it to be an elaborate game of Telephone?

[teknomanzer]

82. Such statements...

make me doubt your credibility. I am starting to wonder if you are a fundamentalist.

[Zhade]

120. No offense, but this doesn't even pass the laugh test.

You cite no evidence - hearsay on what you tell us happened, with no supporting independent evidence, does not meet even the most rudimentary evidentiary standards.

What's a Jewish Buddist monk like, anyway? Do you mean he was Semitic in genetic origin but practiced Buddhism? I'm not attacking this, I'm actually curious, because it's an interesting combination!

[The Magistrate]

121. Of Course It Passes The Laugh Test, Sir

You did laugh, did you not?

[roguevalley]

99. How is it that some of the earliest people in the Old Testament died

when they were in the nine hundreds? How can we know for certain what was truly what when it is clear that they either lived a lot longer than we know how to do or not?

[Dhalgren]

31. The "historiosity" of the

Synopic Gospels is highly suspect (and that is being kind). The Gospels "set up" the Jews to be the "fall guy" for Jesus' death. He was executed by the Romans, not killed by the Jews. If Mel is being "true" the the Gospels, the antisemitism is in the Gospels, not (necessarily) Mel. That being said, I have no idea whether Gibson is antisemitic or not. He is a faily "fundie" Christianist, so he may well be.

[roguevalley]

98. You also have to know that there are two 'voices' in Genesis. So the

'truth' of the gospels or any of the other committee chosen books of the Bible is probably going to be denied us through the attrition of years, the prehistoric nature of their times and good old fashioned lack of evidence.

The Bible is a tricky business. It guards its secrets well.

[Rich Hunt]

110. If I remember correctly

One of the Gospels (was it Matthew? I think so, because of the emphasis on Jesus' lineage) did not at all blame the Jews - the anti-semitism was apparent in at least one of the others (Luke) because it was written for Greeks.

It's been a while, although I did review Matthew a few months ago.

[teknomanzer]

81. What is history...

You said:

The truth of the matter is what happened is history and nobody should be asked to change history to make it more favorable to one group or the other.

Since there are no historical records outside of the New Testament I would hardly call the Jesus story history. I could just as easily say that Gibson's movie The Patriot was history since it contained some facts about the American war of independence, but that would not be true either.

[phillybri]

5. I like Bill a lot....

I truly feel like he always speaks his mind. And yes, that includes him kissing a little Bush ass earlier this year....

[Hawkeye-X]

10. Funny thing about one of DeLay's top lobbyist

is in fact Jewish. Look at Jack Abramoff. My sister (who's a Dem) works for him.

Hawkeye-X

[Beetwasher]

11. And you can just here him saying

"Heck, I ain't no anti-semite. Matter of fact, I got's me one of them jew-boys on my team! One of my top lobbyists in fact. Dem Jews sure is good with money!"

[BigBadVodoDaddy]

17. You should be attacking Imus!

He attacks Dem's all of the time.

[dfong63]

19. anti-semitism is a serious charge

and imho it's irresponsible of Maher to toss it around so loosely. in doing so, he dilutes the meaning of the term, and discredits himself.

[devilgrrl]

68. Maher's mom is Jewish...

I have no problem with him tagging two overtly biggoted assholes like Gibson and Delay as anti-semites... because they are! :grr:

[Character Assassin]

70. You have no problem with a serious charge backed up by nothing?

Have you seen the movie?
Can you cite Gibson's anti-semitic comments?
Actions he's taken against any Jews?

[Susang]

74. His father is a Holocaust denier and Jewish conspiracy theorist

I certainly cannot say for sure if Gibson is anti-semitic or not, but the religion that he was raised in, evidenced by his father's version, is. His dad's remarks were widely reported by the New York Times earlier this year.

That being said, I certainly don't believe everything my father believes. Could be true of Gibson as well. :-)

[Character Assassin]

77. Yep, his father has been in transloon mode for some time now

But until I see any concrete evidence that he supports his father's viewpoint, I refuse to entertain the notion that Mel is, de facto, an anti-semite.

I'd like to think others around here would be open-minded enough to do the same as well. I see precious little evidence of it so far.

[Susang]

78. Only circumstancial evidence

He did spend his own money on a very exclusive traditionalist Catholic church in California. Unfortunately, the traditionalist Catholic movement does have some very anti-semitic views. Therefore, as much as I would prefer to think otherwise (I actually enjoy most of Mel Gibson's work) I have a feeling that he wouldn't be so supportive as to build a multi-million dollar church if he didn't follow the beliefs they espouse. I could be wrong. :-)

[kysrsoze]

85. I really want to know if there's any proof of that.

Seems like Mel would have a REALLY hard time getting a job in Hollywood if that were the case. A very large portion of the movie industry is Jewish.

BTW - Even the Catholic Church itself, as well as many other denominations, believe Jews and all others who do not believe in Christ are going straight to hell. Of course I don't subscribe to that view.

[Susang]

95. If his movies make money, he can always get a job in Hollywood

If you remember, he didn't start his career in Hollywood, he became famous from the films he made in Australia.

The New York Times article is very eye opening about his father's beliefs and about the church that Gibson funded and attends. The traditionalist movement that Gibson claims to be a part of rejects all of the reforms of Vatican II. They are particularly vocal about the church's pronouncement that Jews were not to blame in the death of Christ, which is a church tenet that was used to abuse and persecute Jews for centuries.

[noonwitch]

22. I do think fundamentalist christians are anti-semitic

So are a lot of freepers, considering that palestineans are technically "semitic" people, or at least that's my understanding of it all.
If Tom DeLay is a "second coming, can't wait to see Jesus fry my enemies" type christian, well, he is looking forward to the day Jesus will allegedly smite all those who don't believe in him, which includes jews. At least that's what He told John ("the disciple whom Jesus loved")when John had his vision (or trip) that was the Revelation.
As far as the controversy regarding Mel Gibson and his movie goes: I have no idea whether Mel is anti-semitic. I do know he's a devout catholic, who is making this movie out of love for the subject matter. I personally look forward to seeing the movie and judging for myself it's artistic merits and possible prejudices. My understanding is that Mel wants to use graphic imagery to tell a graphic story, the violent death of an innocent man, who is killed for religious and political reasons that are still relevant in today's world. Some jews and some romans in that time did conspire to kill him. Some jews and some romans, along with greeks and samaratins were loyal followers of his teachings.

[genius]

25. I notice that nobody is concerned about anti-Christians.

I think extremists in all religions are stupid. The fact of the matter is every religion has its value and we need to respect the positives of all religions. We also need to respect the right of people who don't believe in any religion. It's the seeming need to change history because it might offend some group that inspired me to comment on the original posting.

[villager]

35. no one is "changing history"

the Gospels aren't "history." They are a telling of a particular legend for a particular belief system. Like many legends, this one may have its, well, genesis, in actual historical events.

But unless you're a time traveler, your assumption that the Gospels represent an accurate recounting of "history" are, in fact, faith-based.

You are welcome to your faith. Just don't expect everyone else to share it.

[genius]

41. Eye witness accounts are not history? I disagree.

The Gospels are as much a part of history as any other eyewitness accounts of anything in history. The Romans also kept records that back up events in the Gospels. Even most non-Christians don't dispute the historic value of these first hand accountings of the events. You can allege bias on the part of people who write about what they watch. That is always a problem with any writings out of history. There are other events more recently where we have tended to trust first hand accountings when perhaps we should question their bias. The thing that is impressive about the Gospels is that the different first-hand accounts agree with each other. No other part of the Bible (Old or New Testament) has this kind of verification).

Just because you don't want to believe that this part of history happened, doesn't mean you can erase it or pretend that it is not part of history. By the way, ever break down the word history into "his story?" That's what history's all about.

[villager]

51. no proof they're reallty "eyewitness," actually

... and none of them was written down at the time -- the writing came years later, and no one even knows if the actual apostles did the writing attributed to them.

And of course, all the accounts differ. And what about the gospels, like Thomas, which the church wouldn't canonize?

again, you accept your "Truth" as a matter of faith, not fact. But be honest enough to admit that's what it is: Faith.

[genius]

57. There is lots of evidence that they were eyewitness accounts.

The accounts made reference to events that occurred that have been backed up by records the writers would not have had access to. It is only through extensive historical research that the evidence has been put together. It is those who don't want to believe them that are questioning whether their authors actually wrote them.

If you really want to get into a discussion of religion, the main problem with the Bible is that people are not viewing accurate translations. For instance, the nonsense about hell doesn't come from the Bible but from very pointed mistranslations. In the Old Testament, the same word is alternately translated into grave, pit and hell. At one time to hell something meant to bury it. Check it out. Also, Jesus never said he was God. There were different words used for God in the New Testament and the verse the trinitarians use, uses a different word (which should have more properly have been translated into great one) for God than is generally used for the Almighty.

If those who are opposed to the New Testament actually checked it out, they might be pleasantly surprised. Incidentally, the New Testament is very pro-Israel.

However, this discussion is already getting far away from politics.

[thinkingwoman]

60. I'll check it out

Please list your sources for the "extensive historical research" that proves the first four books of the New Testament are "eyewitness" accounts instead of stories written at least 100 years later.

I will check them out, because they will contradict "extensive historical research" cited to me by numerous college professors.

I am genuinely interested in your sources and do hope that you post them.

Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

101. There Is No Evidence Whatever They Are Eyewitness Accounts

There are a great number of things mentioned in them it is certain that, had they occured, other chroniclers would have remarked upon, yet did not. The trooping of risen dead through Jerusalem after the execution of the wretch, for one example.

It is true that names of some leading figures were gotten right, and that the saga of Paul contains some procedural points that were altered somewhat a decade after his arrest. That is about the extent of it.

These things are no more histories than the Illiad and the Oddyssy, which also managed to get a few large things correct, but cannot be in the slightest relied on for detail.

[Supply Side Jesus]

108. Accounts are called sources

Sources judged on their validity. A source that is transcribed hundreds of times by different people throughout the ages are questionable at best, absolutly worthless at worst. Any Historian worth his salt would not take these accounts as truth, or even near truth. At the very best these could supply some unwitting testimony of the times they were written or re-written, more than likely in the 18th century.

[Cheswick2.0]

49. ROFL

Come on, unless you are a time traveler all history is legend.

[TeeYiYi]

83. No doubt. The facts surrounding the death of Elvis are still debated. . .

. . . and he's only been dead how many years now?

Here is an enlightening book for
the fierce defenders of christianity:



http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ1.htm

TYY

[Bridget Burke]

29. But, didn't Jesus HAVE to die?

Wasn't the purpose of his sacrifice to wash us clean of Eve's (& Adam's) Original Sin?

[demdave]

33. He didn't HAVE to die, the salvation comes from Him willingly dying.

It was His sacrifice that did the deed. If He had been mistaken for a murderer and executed I guess we would all still have the stain of Original sin.

That aside, I have been a Catholic for nearly fifty years and did 12 years of Catholic school when it was solid nuns and nobody had ever heard of being PC. In all this time, from friends, family and mere associates I have heard nothing about the Jews being Christ killers. NEVER. I have heard other racist and anti-semetic things, as I am sure everone has (every family has at least 1 idiot in it). But I have never heard anyone blame the Jews. If you believe that Jesus was here to save our souls, how could you blame the system of the time?

[Dhalgren]

37. A couple of things

The Gospels very pointedly blame the Jewish authorities for the killing of Jesus.
Also, just an observation - if Jesus was God, then wasn't God sacreficing Himself, to Himself, to make appeasment for the sins of man? So God required His own sacrefice? And He didn't really die, right? I mean He's God, right?
Just something that came to mind.

[demdave]

38. It is a mystery of faith.

If you believe and it is your faith, so be it. I don't try to dissect people's religious beliefs. The only religion I have a problem with is the one that says "unless you believe the way I do, you deserve to die". We Catholics tried that and the world rejected it. I think those days are gone for good reason.

[dfong63]

40. i think the point is that God took on a human form, and suffered

[Cheswick2.0]

53. the Jewish authorities of that time had a great deal to do with the death

Of Christ... and some other Jews had a great deal to do with following Christ and spreading his word. The Romans were the only ones able to carry out the crucifixion, that is true. That doesn't change the fact that Roman and Jewish "leaders" conspired to put him to death as a political danger.

[AntiCoup2K4]

88. Jews were to blame for Jesus' crucifixion.

Not THE Jews, not all Jews, but the fact remains that the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Judas Iscariot all were Jews. On the other hand, Jesus was a Jew, as were His apostles, His mother, and most of those who associated with Him.

So while it's ridiculous to say THE Jews killed Jesus, just as it is to say THE white man killed Martin Luther King, it's not at all anti semitic to point out that SOME Jews, as well as some Romans (the guys who actually had the hammer & nails) were involved.

Hope that clears up the confusion for everyone :-)

[Susang]

39. Your experience doesn't match with mine

I'm 38 and went to Catholic school for 12 years. I heard the term "Christ killer" used regularly and often by the nuns who taught us. We were also taught not to associate with children who went to public schools unless they were Catholic. The sentiment seemed to wane around the time I attended high school, since I went to a very liberal and progressive Catholic girls high school.

Remember, just because it didn't happen in your school doesn't mean it didn't occur. I'm younger than you and it was rampant where I went to grade school. The feeling still exists among traditionalist Catholics who reject Vatican II. Unfortunately for the future of the church.

[demdave]

42. If they can't get over Vatican II, there is no hope for them.

I also never heard a bad word spoken about evolution.

[Zerex71]

56. Mel, the Vatican, and Vatican II

For starters, I'm a Catholic, although not a 'good one' by any stretch of the imagination, and I find it puzzling and at the same time not surprising at all about all the hubbub that has been put forth about the upcoming film, "The Passion".

First of all, to give you a bit of background, I find that there are a lot of good things about Catholicism, things that I remember fondly from my younger days and about my experiences in going to Church, partaking of the Sacraments, etc., and so while I find a lot of repulsive and yawn-inducing behavior coming from the Church and its minions, that in no way means I condemn Catholicism as a whole. It has a very rich history.

I just think that nowadays, like every other aspect of our culture and society, we have to go overboard with everything and be totally immoderate about it - that is, American life is (to pick one example) totally separated on the issue of being "religious" - you either go to church and are a complete tool of a church (and come on now, who wouldn't agree with me that in the last few years, there has been a huge increase in people who come off as being pious/religious/spiritual/churchgoing?), or you are a total angry nonbeliever. I find both extremes distasteful - on the one hand, you have a lot of Church-haters who are vehement in their hate for their church for a lot of largely circumstantial reasons (when, instead of hate, distaste and a profession that you don't subscribe to a church's teachings or views would do), or you have people who literally believe that if they do everything a church tells them to do, they're on the Fast Track To Heaven, and they are easy to spot these days.

So, how does this relate to the controversy over "The Passion"? For one, it's automatically assumed that because the Jews had a hand at the very least (see the recent MSNBC op-ed discussion on the four Gospels and how the Jews are historically linked to the crucifixion) in the demise of Jesus that because they are depicted that way, that brings about anti-Semitism. That's ridiculous. That's like saying men are terrible navigators because Columbus thought he found the West Indies and ended up finding the New World. It's just simpleminded and wrong to associate a factual retelling of a historical happening with an automatic damning of a racial or ethnic group. The Jews killed Jesus along with the Romans - So why isn't anyone huffing and puffing about anti-Italianism? And if they did do it, big deal. Really. Stop and think about how ridiculous it is for anyone to hate anyone for something they or may not have done a couple of thousand years ago. It makes about as much sense as hating white people because slavery was an institution for a long time. If I had to be pissed at Jews right now, it's because they talk out of both sides of their mouths with respect to the Palestinian question - You can't attack us but we can sure as sh*t do whatever the hell we want to you, with US $300M a year to back it up (or whatever the figure is).

Mel is associated with a very strict, very devout, very conservative movement within the Catholic church that adheres very closely to original Catholic behaviors and precepts (which probably includes, but I haven't done any resarch on it, no eating of meat at all, any day of the week, not just during Lent). They even have Latin Mass. Truth be told, I wish I had Latin Mass because I find in that to be very rich historical, symbolic, and authentic, but that doesn't make me a religious fanatic or extreme conservative Catholic. And you know what? If that's what Mel Gibson wants to do, fine by me. I find him actually to be one of the least demonstrative celebrities about his religion - outside of making a film about which everyone but himself has made a stir - he seems pretty quiet about the whole thing. I appreciate not having someone's religion shoved down my throat, unlike, say, John Travolta and Tom Cruise, both Scientologists, the latter who personally traveled to Germany to allow Scientology to continue to be legally practiced there. (Incidentally, I understand that Jim Caviezel is also in the same sect as Gibson. I don't think they are in Agnus Dei, though, which is an ultrasecret Catholic society that wackos like former FBI mole and friend of strippers Robert Hanssen and coup facilitator Antonin Scalia are part of. Agnus Dei is apparently like the Catholic equivalent of Yale's Skull and Bones, and we all know what losers were in that frat.)

Anyway, my point is that the real title of this movie should be, "Much Ado About Nothing", but that's one's already been taken.

[Susang]

59. I think you mean Opus Dei

Also, vegetarianism is not a tenet of traditionalist Catholics. Only no meat on Fridays, Lent or no. They do, however, reject the authority of any pope since Vatican II.

BTW, Latin mass is not prohibited by Vatican II. All Vatican II demands is that masses be offered in the language common to the area. I attended Latin mass at my grandmother's church in the early 1970s. They also offered mass in Polish and Lithuanian, as well as English.

[Zerex71]

104. Thanks for the clarification

I was writing that late in the afternoon when I was at work and tired and didn't have the strength to fact-check my post. The errors are all mine.

[chicaloca]

102. israel

"If I had to be pissed at Jews right now, it's because they talk out of both sides of their mouths with respect to the Palestinian question - You can't attack us but we can sure as sh*t do whatever the hell we want to you, with US $300M a year to back it up (or whatever the figure is)."

Excuse me? Not all Jews are Zionists--and hell, if you define Zionism literally, not all Zionists even agree with what's going on in Israel right now. And it's not as if the US is being forced to give Israel money. We do it all by our stupid imperialist selves. And, what exactly is Israel "doing to" the US? Mind you, I don't agree one bit with the shit that Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but I'm certainly not going to characterize that mistreatment as a Jewish thing. After all, how much oppressing would the Israelis be able to do without the help of the US? Why doesn't the US ever have to own up to its role in that mess?

[Zerex71]

105. Let me rephrase that...

I'm against anyone that's Israeli/Zionist/Jewish that's allowed to proceed with their violent double standard. I don't care what they are called - what they are doing is wrong, and it starts with Sharon, and BushCo is right along for the ride. No one has been able to adequately explain to me why Israel is the 51st state in the Union.

[Susang]

58. I never heard a bad word against evolution either

Doesn't mean others haven't. Though as far as I'm aware, the church no longer regards the concept of evolution as heresy.

[GinaMaria]

109. Me too

I remember stuff like this. I'm about your age. Sad really when I think how many young minds they had access to. We were taught that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels. They were written by the 'communities' that MMLJ had set up. :crazy:

I remember hearing something about a book of Mary, written by the community that Mary set up. At some point I just started shutting this stuff out. Pre V II, though I only remember it slightly was not a good time. That's my grandmother's Catholisism. The craziness that made her always have a hankerchief in her purse so she could put it on her head if she walked into a church without a hat. I remember one time she used a Kleenex from her purse! She walked around church with Kleenex on her head. It struck me as so very odd when I was kid.

Peace my friend and hope to see you soon
G

[Classical_Liberal]

114. I never heard that in Catholic school

and I went from 73 to 84.

[Susang]

116. Like I said before

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. See GinaMaria's post.

[genius]

43. You're right. He could have prevented it. Look at his words to Judas.

He knew what was coming and he intentionally walked into it. He had the power to save himself and he did not use it. However, that did not change who did what. People make mistakes. Look at Paul. He was stoning people before he changed. Our country attacked a defenseless Iraq.

[thinkingwoman]

61. Paul NEVER changed

First he was a jewish religious fanatic.

Then he fell in the desert, hit his head, and became a christian religious fanatic.

Once a fanatic, always a fanatic.

[genius]

65. At least he stopped stoning people.

That was an improvement.

[thinkingwoman]

71. was it?

I'm not so sure. I'm also not so sure that he actually stopped stoning people--physically maybe (no historical records so no way to know for sure), but he certainly did NOT stop persecuting those who did not think and act as he believed they should

fanatic to the end.

[reprobate]

50. Wouldn't have been a religion without a dead martyr.

And he wasn't the first. The whole story was an adaptation of the very popular 'savior' myth.

For example: Vishnu, Osiris, Zoroaster, Indra, Tamuz, Athis, Adonis, Herculese, Prometheus, Thor, Kadmos, Quexalcoatl, fo, and Mohammad.

They all had several things in common. All were treated as devine, many born of virgins, most suffered crucificion or other cruel deaths,many died for the sins of the world, were called savior, and arose to heaven.

Like the philosopher once said, ain't nothing new under the sun.

I'm not trying to disrespect anyone's beliefs, but we must remember that they are beliefs, not history. We all have the right to our own beliefs, we just must not let them run our lives, just guide our lives.

[genius]

66. He was a martyr and that is history.

The religion may be questioned but not what happened to him. Pretty soon people will be claiming that Wellstone was a myth.

[thinkingwoman]

72. are you going to post sources or not?

where is this "extensive" research that the Bible is historical fact?

I'm still waiting to check it out.

[Susang]

75. As am I

I respect the bible for what it is, an elaborate and often beautifully written example of what happens to oral tradition after it's written down and then changed by almost every person of power who got their hands on it.

[KharmaTrain]

48. Living In Christian America

As a Jew I've never been too far from stories, sermons and the realities of anti-Semetism. It not only exists in this country, it's pervasive within society...usually manifested in a second-hand attitude by some Christians.

The worst are the Fundies...and I should know. As a teen I was invited to several "parties"...that I thought were being held by friends...later to find out they were "bible study" groups run by Christian Fundamentalists looking to make "in-roads" in my heavily Jewish neighborhood. It was downright sneaky. And yes, I can recall several parties where alcohol and weed were freely available. The message was always how the Jews have been misguided since they haven't accepted Jesus as the son of God and it was up to me...a hormonally challenged teen...to right that wrong. Thank goodness I was as skeptical of organized religion then as I am today.

In college I was "befriended" by someone who couldn't talk to me enough about being a Jew and "how it felt". He had a million questions...where did my ancestors come from? Which tribe I belonged to? Was I taught about "the Real Jesus" and so on. I learned that this person was a fundamentalist Baptist (ala Bob Jones) who were told that Jews would be their ticket to Armageddon and unless the Jews hang around to be slaughtered, prophecy can't be fulfilled. Yep, great feeling to be like a pig...fattened up for the slaughter.

I'd like to see Gibson's movie and decide for myself the "historical" merits of this film. I prefer that the ADL or other groups sit back and have confidence that those of us who have been raised in the Jewish faith are smart enough to tell what's an "interpretation" compared to Anti-Semetism.

The other night I saw Paula Zahn and Alan Dershowitz just devour David Limbaugh (Rusty's even fatter and dumber brother) who "published" a book called "Persecution" (Zahn hit him on the air if he thought up the title or did his publisher...LOL) about how CHRISTIANS are being persecuted in America.

It was the usual Religious Right BS...schools changing the "Easter" bake sale to "Spring" and so on...awww. This goon should only know what it is to feel completely different than "the rest"...where people look at you in a different way than the rest cause you're "on of them"...or hear from a boss that your company landed a great account, just the client specified that the "Jew Boy" doesn't work on it or the endless "jokes" about money, lawyers, doctors and big noses. All Limbaugh's problem is he's was born with several chromosomes less than a human. Talk about a gold-digger...why CNN even gave this doofus airtime was bad...of course, unless Zahn (a good Catholic...not good enough for the Fundies I'm sure) had this ambush planned all along.

Cheers

[reprobate]

55. You're not alone.

As a eight year old I was chased down the street by some older kids who were screaming "you killed christ". Hell, I never even could kill a bird.

[ikojo]

63. Amen! My supervisor is a fundie

and when she found out I am Jewish man I thought she was going to pop! I think she believes she will get extra points in heaven if she converts a Jew to the "true faith." She is forever trying to shove Christian text down my throat. When I say good morning and ask her how she is doing to says, "I am washed in the blood and favored from above." She will pray over her food, invoking Jesus' name, in front of me should I go to her desk and she is eating. It's Jesus, Jesus, Jesus all the time!

This woman, like MANY, MANY Christians in America has NEVER been around Jews. They think Jews still live like Moses in the movie the Ten Commandments. She would ask me questions about animal sacrifices and stuff like that. Oy vey! I don't EVEN begin to try to explain the Talmud to them, especially since fundie Christians cannot fathom questioning what is in the Bible.

I referred her to a Jewish website that answers questions about Judaism, jewfaq.org, and she went to the site. However the next day she wanted me to read a Jesus saturated book. I told her that I had a very good understanding of Christianity and did not feel the need to read any books on the subject. My minor in college was religious studies and trust me most Jews know more about Christianity than they know of Judaism, sad but true.

When I was in high school I wore a Star of David and a classmate accused me of wearing a satanic star. I tried, unsuccesfully to explain that it was the Star of David.

Hearing the word Jesus or Christian does NOT bring me comfort. This is what I think of when I hear the word Jesus: Inquisition, Crusades, ghettoes (the first ghettoes were erected in the Middle Ages for Jews who were not allowed to live among the believers. Jews had curfews and were severely punished by Christ loving Christians if they were caught outside the ghetto), slaughter of American Indians and other "heathen non believers of this hemisphere) and last but definitely not least Holocaust.

Since I work around a bunch of non questioning Bible believing fundamentalists I worry about what my life at work will be like after Mel Gibson's movie comes out next year around Easter time.

An interesting tidibt: People say that Jews are good with money: Well in the middle ages there were very few occupations available to Jews. Since the church (THE power at the time) did not approve of usury and already viewed Jews as beyond redemption, they allowed Jews to loan money and charge interest. Of course then the church could turn on Jews and often did not repay loans.

Since Judaism ENCOURAGES studying the Torah Jews were often the only literate people during the Middle Ages as well. Many Christians at the time were not encouraged to read the Bible themselves and thus did not know how to read.

I don't think anyone other than a Jew can say what is and what is not antisemitic. Just as noone other than a black can say what is racist. Walk a mile in the shoes and then perhaps you will understand. That being said there is a book coming out, in October I think, called the Politics of antisemitism. It is available to preorder on amazon.com.

[underpants]

44. I thought Delay was anti-TERMITE

Maybe I missed something.

[Richardo]

69. OK, UP - I'm laughing at that one....

Thanks....for the levity. <--- channeling Bob Hope

[The Sushi Bandit]

46. Way to go BILL!

*

[genius]

67. I like Bill Maher too.

He has more courage than most of the people in television.

[kysrsoze]

86. Really? I think he's a smarmy, cocky bullsh*tter who will say....

anything to get some press. He talks all about how he's a liberal, but I've yet to see many of his stances which convince me of that. He also wholly supported Gulf War II and has criticized people who protest against Bush and his policies.

[Rich Hunt]

111. Whaaa??

The problems I have with Bill Maher are:

-his jokes are often lame
-he's a grouch
-he picks on Muslims too much
-he seems to be a bit of a male chauvinist

But he most certainly did NOT support Gulf War II.

Not at all.


In spite of his flaws, it's an entertaining show, because you see all sorts of viewpoints, and a real diversity that you don't find on the free cable channels.

[frank frankly]

79. way to go Bill Maher!!!

right-o and right on

[scarletlib]

87. A good read on the history of anti-semitism

is Contantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carroll. It is about 756 pages and came out in 2001. You can get it in paperback.
Mr. Carroll begins and ends his history at Auschwitz. It is a compelling story of the origins and political uses of anti-semitism from the time of Constantine to the present. A succinct summary is that anti-semitism was developed by Constantine and Church powers as a political tool for conquest and control. The very early history of the religion contained no anti-semitism. Judaism and early Christianity were both related (Christians were still considered to be a Jewish sect) and both coexisted peacefully sharing many of the same rites and traditions. That was all changed and done so deliberately.

I recommend the book to all who seek a truer understanding of this blight on the Christian religion.

[leesa]

91. Finally, someone is saying this loud and clear!

Of course, most of America is anti-semitic because it seems they are either hating the Jewish or Muslim people both of whom are semitic.

[sam sarrha]

93. i dont believe that the fundie christians are antisemitic, they support

and depend on Israel to initiate Armageddon to cause the end of the world so Christ will come and raise the dead for an army to defeat the Beast.... looks like the whole damn government is bent on fulfilling end times bible prophecy, with our tax dollars.

[Mari333]

94. Yep

http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm

[roguevalley]

100. a good book:

Jesus, the Heretic: Freedom and Bondage in a Religious World
By Douglas Lockhart

Incredible book.

[Djinn]

103. a bit of a loose ramble

A few random thoughts: I'm with Magistrate - the development of the three main montheistic religions has been the story of power and politics and doesn't have a lot to do with God, people will often state the eminently sensible line that while Jesus was killed by some people who were jews that not all jews killed christ - blindingly obvious one would think given jesus was jewish, but I'd actually dispute that any of those in positions of power were PRACTISING - how many politicians could honestly say they live a godly life, do you think it was any different back then.

Jesus wasn't killed because he was claiming to be the son of god - noone would have cared if people didn't listen to his agitation, after all they had plain old bampots back then too - but people did listen to his views on social justice and he was therefore a threat established political power and was executed because of that.

I often wonder what most christians would do if tommorrow someone were to pop up in the world and state that a large part of their religious teachings are wrong and that as the son of god he/she had come to save them from their sins - I can't help thinking most would consider him blasphemous and many would want him/her punished/sanctioned. If that person was also causing a stir politically - taking part in radical political protests (throwing the money changers out of the temple was more of a political action than a religious one, the temple was a civic centre more than just merely a place of worship) then you can bet your bottom dollar that he/she would be punished - we find it harder to kill people these days but a mental health order and involuntary institutionalisation would be a likely outcome.

On whether Mel Gibson is anti-semitic or not or whether his movie will inflame hatred...the kind of people willing to take on board hatred based on an event thousands that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago are NOT the type of people who spend their hard earned on a six hour long movie in which ALL the dialect is in Latin or Aramaic, in fact even ENGLISH subtitles would probably rule them out

[Tansy_Gold]

119. There are some fringie, wacko, nutcase theories. . . .

. . . .that Jesus (assuming he did exist) was executed for purely political reasons because he claimed to be temporal King of the Jews and the Romans feared he would touch off a revolt. According to these theories, the whole "son of God" message came much later, but at the time of the crucifixion, the crime was sedition for claiming to be -- as all the "begats" indicate -- the legitimate descendant of David and therefore ruler of the Jewish people. The "INRI" sign on the crucifix stands for the Latin (which I am blithely mutilating here to get the point across) "Iesus of Nazareth, Rex (king) Iudea."

Frankly, I find the fringie, wacko, nutcase theories a lot of fun -- Henry Lincoln, et alia -- and maybe they illuminate how fragile the foundations of contemporary western religions really are. And they do point out the possibility that religion was/is used to cover a multitude of secular political motives.

And for what it's worth, I was raised (1950s) protestant in a half-Jewish family and most of my friends when I was growing up were Catholic. I heard the "christ-killer" epithet more times than I can count, including as recently as summer 2002 when a Catholic woman I worked with said she could always spot a Jew just by that guilty look they had for killing Jesus. Yeah, sure.

[peterh]

107. For what it’s worth Dept….

There is an opinion in today’s L.A. Times that delves into the controversy surrounding Gibson’s film The Passion. It appears that the ADL has come out and labeled it as anti-Semitic.

Personally as a non-believer, its just more evidence against organized religion. When mortals that have egos bigger than their brains, yet are able to use a fairy tale to sway a populace in a way that could be viewed as less than humanistic, is just another indication that we as a race, still have a loooooooong way to go to enlightenment status.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-doherty25sep25,1,7978454.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions>

[Gigi]

117. Ah...but are they?

Yes, but are they anti-dentite?
Remember the Seinfeld episode?!
Hilarious!

[Guaranteed]

118. I don't like Israel

Only for their politics though. Does that make me an anti-Semite?
My best friend is Jewish. Does that count against me being an anti-Semite?
My favorite color is green, and I have four cats. Does that mean anything? Hmmmm....
This whole thing is frickin' RIDICULOUS. People yelling "anti-Semite." Psssh whatever.