Is Gibson a nazi!?

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Frankly it's all a bunch of nonsense.

I am no expert in the NT but I recall no event in which Jesus claims to be the son of god. As long as he doesn't do that - Jews shouldn't have a problem with him.

According to Jewish faith no one can tell who is a real profet / messiah besides himself and God, thus their persecution is unwise since you might hurt a messanger of God.

I'm not aware of any cases of jews prosecuting different movements of faith. Even today when the more religious movements despise the reformist movement, it is because of principal issues, and they never call for violence.

If anyone had a beef with Jesus, it were the Romans - since Jesus were starting a political movement. He tried to abolish a major trade center in Jerusalem too. Mainly he caused havoc and unrest where ever he went.

Read Mathew 26:63 - Mathew 26:64 detailing the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. They specifically asked Jesus if he was the son of God. He said yes and judgement was passed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

He didnt say might - he said in his opinion they DID have such impact. His opinion may be wrong, but it certainly makes sense to not take actions that ARE in effect antisemitic (or bigoted in any other fashion, i might add) and note, he said actions, not comments.

He's wrong because even if they do have that impact that is due to how other people take the statements, not due to the intentions of the speaker. If we censored everything that had a bad effect academic freedom would not exist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
klug says that when an arab in France attacks a Jew in France, someone whos not Israeli and maybe not even a supporter of Israel, its not antisemitism cause Israel claims to be the state of all Jews, many Jews agree, and its easy to get confused.

I think you are mistaken. Whether or not the action is antisemitic is determined by the intent of the attacker.

Either the attackers direct their attack against Jews qua Jews (which is antisemitic) or they direct it against Jews qua representatives of Israel (which is anti Israeli).

Now because the attacks are against Jews who may or may not support Israel, it appears that they are antisemitic attacks. But Klug notes that Israel does identify itself with the Jewish people and many Jewish people identify themselves with Israel:

All of which is liable to give the unreflective onlooker the impression that Jews are, as it were, lumping themselves together; that Israel is indeed "the Jewish collective

If the attackers believe that, then they are directing their attack against Israel because they believe (sometimes erroneously) that particular Jews are part of the Jewish collective (or Israeli collective - it makes no difference) and hence representatives of Israel.

He's right, this is no doubt what the attackers (and many of the victims) believe, so it is simply not the case that the attacks are anti semitic since the intention of the attacker is what determines that fact.

[chequita guevara]

Effect is as important as intent.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Effect is as important as intent.

But if you say that, then we can't ever really say anything controversial. And it's not the case that there is just one effect.

If I say that the policies of the Sharon government are morally and politically bankrupt or that Zionism is not a good thing, that may lead some people to commit anti-semitic attacks. But it may also convince people that alternatives to Sharon's policies are needed and that Zionism needs to be re-evaluated and those in my view would be good things.

Or perhaps the same statements could be anti-semitic in effect because they propose changes which are not in the interests of Jewish people as they see them (although it's a fallacy to speak of a collective opinion based on race). But then I would say that, that's fine with me, since I think the interests of other people trump the interests of Jewish people in this case.

[Agathon]

And for the record, if there is real anti-semitic hate going around you will find me protesting it. I've done it before and I'll do it again in a heartbeat.

But I will also protest chauvinistic policies directed against other peoples. Again, I've done it before and I'll do it again.

What I won't do is stand by while people trivialize the holocaust by accusing anyone who doesn't support their dubious political aims of being a racist when it's not true. That is despicable behaviour and if there is a God, I am sure he would not be particularly happy about it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
By the way id really like to see a movie about Sabetai Zvi (17th C false messiah, who eventually converted to Islam, which some of his followers claimed was actually a mystical act)

I second that.

[Sirotnikov]

Read Mathew 26:63 - Mathew 26:64 detailing the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. They specifically asked Jesus if he was the son of God. He said yes and judgement was passed.

That is one version. But If I'm correct, the different passions have conflciting data. Which one is true? How can which one is true and which isn't? After all, they are based on evidence of rumor post-factum.

Anyhoo, I fail to imagine a situation where a Sanhedrin would take interest in that question, unless it was previously proposed.

It's not a thing you ask would-be messiahs.

If the attackers believe that, then they are directing their attack against Israel because they believe (sometimes erroneously) that particular Jews are part of the Jewish collective (or Israeli collective - it makes no difference) and hence representatives of Israel.

He's right, this is no doubt what the attackers (and many of the victims) believe, so it is simply not the case that the attacks are anti semitic since the intention of the attacker is what determines that fact.

I agree in theory, but in practice, many times the intention of the attacker is based on his beliefs, some of which may indeed be anti-semitic.

It can happen that a person would make an anti-semitic (or plain racist) remark out of ignorance and not out of intention.

Infact I'm pretty sure that even some anti-semites don't actually want to be anti-semites or see something special about it. They just have a tendency to dislike jews, see something naturally wrong with their society. Thus they take what they see as logical stances.


As far as effect goes - I agree with che. This can potencially relegitimize the hatred towards jews based on a religious aspect. I think the Jews had enough hatred to spare for the next millenia.

Just so you won't blame me of "thinking the jews are somehow beyond critcism and so on" I also think that we should stop reminding the germans of their nazi past on every occassion.

I mean, sure, it's justified, even necessary to remember the crimes. But to make germans the target villains in every second hollywood flick is just bad. It makes them angry and feel defensive. And we know it causes them to run amok and try to erase nations (sorry, had to) (this is a good example of what not to do)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If the attackers believe that, then they are directing their attack against Israel because they believe (sometimes erroneously) that particular Jews are part of the Jewish collective (or Israeli collective - it makes no difference) and hence representatives of Israel.

He's right, this is no doubt what the attackers (and many of the victims) believe, so it is simply not the case that the attacks are anti semitic since the intention of the attacker is what determines that fact.

I agree in theory, but in practice, many times the intention of the attacker is based on his beliefs, some of which may indeed be anti-semitic.

I don't disagree. But allowing that this is possible also means the reverse is possible.

It can happen that a person would make an anti-semitic (or plain racist) remark out of ignorance and not out of intention.

Then the person is not being intentionally antisemitic and should not attract the same sort of sanction as someone who is.

Compare: I don't know that a certain word is slang for doggy sex and I ask a woman whether she likes it. Now she's going to be offended, but, if she is reasonable, she should no longer be offended once I explain myself. Of course if I do it again, then it's obvious I'm doing it on purpose and she should kick me in the balls.

Infact I'm pretty sure that even some anti-semites don't actually want to be anti-semites or see something special about it. They just have a tendency to dislike jews, see something naturally wrong with their society. Thus they take what they see as logical stances.

I don't know if it is a matter of logic. I don't dislike Jews qua Jews. My supervisor, who I really like, is Jewish as are many people whom I like and respect. On the other hand I know several Jewish *******s who I can't stand. I also know some Jewish people who are rabid Likudniks, but whom I like nonetheless. I generally don't like those who accuse everyone of being an anti-semite, but I even like some of those because they have other redeeming qualities.

I hope you can accept that while I believe that Sharon is a lunatic and that Zionism needs a long hard look taken at it, it doesn't mean that I hate Jews or want to see them suffer.

Having said that I don't want to see the Palestinian people suffer either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


I don't disagree. But allowing that this is possible also means the reverse is possible.



Then the person is not being intentionally antisemitic and should not attract the same sort of sanction as someone who is.

Compare: I don't know that a certain word is slang for doggy sex and I ask a woman whether she likes it. Now she's going to be offended, but, if she is reasonable, she should no longer be offended once I explain myself. Of course if I do it again, then it's obvious I'm doing it on purpose and she should kick me in the balls.



I don't know if it is a matter of logic. I don't dislike Jews qua Jews. My supervisor, who I really like, is Jewish as are many people whom I like and respect. On the other hand I know several Jewish *******s who I can't stand. I also know some Jewish people who are rabid Likudniks, but whom I like nonetheless. I generally don't like those who accuse everyone of being an anti-semite, but I even like some of those because they have other redeeming qualities.

I hope you can accept that while I believe that Sharon is a lunatic and that Zionism needs a long hard look taken at it, it doesn't mean that I hate Jews or want to see them suffer.

Having said that I don't want to see the Palestinian people suffer either.

can you accept that someone who doesnt think there should be a palestinian state doesnt want the Palestinian people to suffer. Would it be reasonable to assume that someone who doesnt think that there should be a Palestinian state, just might be an Anti-Palestinian bigot??? And that someone who commits acts of violence against muslims in the US, ought of the confusion created by either Al qaeeda or Saudi Arabia claiming to speak for all muslims, and some muslims agreeing, should be considered an act of anti-muslim bigotry, even though the perpertrator HONESTLY THOUGHT it was retaliation for the attack on the WTC??

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

can you accept that someone who doesnt think there should be a palestinian state doesnt want the Palestinian people to suffer.

Sure, I think they're mistaken, but there is nothing illogical about such beliefs and they certainly aren't bigots.

Would it be reasonable to assume that someone who doesnt think that there should be a Palestinian state, just might be an Anti-Palestinian bigot???

Again, yes that is possible.

And that someone who commits acts of violence against muslims in the US, ought of the confusion created by either Al qaeeda or Saudi Arabia claiming to speak for all muslims, and some muslims agreeing, should be considered an act of anti-muslim bigotry, even though the perpertrator HONESTLY THOUGHT it was retaliation for the attack on the WTC??

Sure, someone might think that way and that wouldn't necessarily make them a bigot - although revenge is not particularly constructive. It doesn't mean they shouldn't go to jail for it. Same goes for those Turks who blew up that synagogue.

Look dumb people do all sorts of stupid things, it doesn't mean we should let them get away with it, but we shouldn't accuse them of being racists either.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to Jewish faith no one can tell who is a real profet / messiah besides himself and God, thus their persecution is unwise since you might hurt a messanger of God.

Siro, forgive me. Are you absolutely sure that the Jews have no criteria in place to determine whether someone is or is not a prophet?

[St Leo]

How would such criteria work? Do you carry out an autopsy of a prophet candidate and call them a prophet if their brain has a tumour for the purpose of communicating with the gods?

[Ned]

To a Christian, it would be hard to accept that either the Jews or the Romans are to blame for anything negative because it is doctrine, dogma, belief that Jesus was born and came into existence to die on the cross as he did for the salvation of mankind from original sin. This is why he did not resist when he was arrested and why he essentially admitted that he was the messiah, the son of God, when asked during his trial. Jesus knew his fate and accepted it. It was pre-ordained and part of God's plan. It was noone's "fault."

[Spiffor]

Attacking a Jew on the sole basis of his religious or ethnical background is antisemitic
Attacking an Arab on the sole basis of his ethnical background is antiarabic
Attacking a Muslim on the sole basis of his religious background is islamophobic.

I don't think any of these can be justifiable. I have no real problem with attacking religious bigots, or ethnic ragers, as soon as their bogotry as individuals is made clear. But I have a serious problem with attacking Jews, Arabs or Muslims on sight (or pretty much anybody on sight), just because they happen to belong to a group they didn't choose, and because all these people, far from it, are not *******s.