1
   

W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:17 am
W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?[/u]
Ann Coulter
March 11, 2004

William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" - who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives - was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize.

With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)

The "passion play" has been put on in Germany since at least 1633. I guess 1633 would be "pre-Hitler." In addition, Moses walked the Earth "pre-Hitler." The wheel was invented "pre-Hitler." People ate soup "pre-Hitler." Referring to the passion play as "pre-Hitler" is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!

Despite repeated suggestions from liberals - including the in-house "conservative" and Clinton-supporter at the Times - Hitler is not what happens when you gin up Christians. Like Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine killers and the editorial board of the New York Times, Hitler detested Christians.

Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an "invention of the Jew" and vowed that the "organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed" so that the state would "remain the absolute master." Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century - all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade, vs. seven abortion providers killed. Yeah - keep your eye on those Christians!

But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. (And don't get them started on Zionism.) Like their Muslim friends still harping about the Crusades, liberals won't "move on" from the Spanish Inquisition. In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast.

But Safire argues that viewers of "The Passion" will see the Jewish mob and think: "Who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?"

Let's see: It was a Roman who ordered Christ's execution, and Romans who did all the flaying, taunting and crucifying. Perhaps Safire is indulging in his own negative stereotyping about Jews by assuming they simply viewed Romans as "the help."

But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? (Besides people who go around putting up nativity scenes that have to be taken down by court order?) The religion that toppled the Roman Empire - anyone?

Jesus' suffering and death is not a Hatfields-and-McCoys story demanding retaliation. The gist of the religion that transformed the world is: God's only son came to Earth to take the punishment we deserved.

If the Jews had somehow managed to block Jesus' crucifixion and He had died in old age of natural causes, there would be no salvation through Christ and no Christianity. Whatever possible responses there may be to that story, this is not one of them: Damn those Jews for being a part of God's plan to save my eternal soul!

Gibson didn't insert Jews into the story for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way.

Of course, the original text is no excuse in Hollywood. The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of.


Sometimes Ann scares even ME (But I still love ya Ann)
Link to her here or at her home here.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,799 • Replies: 75
No top replies

 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:25 am
She pees in public to satisfy her reader base.
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:08 am
"Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'"

This is nonsense. Gibson used the SCriptures themselves, and if you have ever read it, it is quite specific in all the gory details. Human nature here at work is the central message combined to what Jesus was saying. It doesn't point at any one group, it points at all of them.

"But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. "

Yet another gross generalization from the poison pen queen. You do realize any argument attached to a gross generalization is totally invalidated, don't you?

"In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast. "

This is callous, devaluing human life, and laughing at human suffering. It isn't even accurate. The Inquisition didn't stand alone with killing Europeans in the Middle Ages. Their ignorance about the fleas on rats living in the filth that caused the Black Death is a good example, and a third of Europe was wiped out. God was the reason there as much as He was for the Inquisition.

"But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? "

Anne sure as hell doesn't. Her lack of compassion here is appalling.

"The religion that toppled the Roman Empire - anyone? "

More nonsense. Converting to Christianity allowed the Roman Empire to survive a few centuries more than it would have. Rome was in power for 1,200 years. Christianity took over during the last three centuries or so. It was a corrupt Senate that led to a corrupt empire, and of course, the German hoardes invading them while they wallowed in their corruption.

"Jesus' suffering and death is not a Hatfields-and-McCoys story demanding retaliation. The gist of the religion that transformed the world is: God's only son came to Earth to take the punishment we deserved. "

This is downright sick. Jesus came back to complete the laws of Moses, and to demonstrate that man's inhumanity against man is the root of all his sorrows. Please note Jesus was preaching tolerance, acceptance and forgiveness, and not the least of which, love having more authority than power. Anne resembles a Satan-worshipper more than she does a Christian. Jesus let them torture him to death to demonstrate acceptance and what it really means. Satan was not happy about this at all.

"Damn those Jews for being a part of God's plan to save my eternal soul!"

Man, talk about not getting it. Jesus was telling us we have to save ourselves. God gave us free will. We can act like the Romans, or grow up and start cooperating with each other. It holds true to this very day.

"The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of. "

Someone constantly defaming and insulting people is terrified here, but it isn't the liberals.

This article comes perilously close to being slanderous. But that is what to be expected from neocons, especially when their throne is in jeopardy.

The irony here is that Anne is so willing to heave molehills in front of mountains and call them condo complexes, that she exhibits the very liberalness of interpretation and slanting she so thoroughly despises and denounces. I don't think even a physician has the power to heal her blackened husk of a heart. I doubt even Jesus could.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:12 am
Umbagog wrote:
You do realize any argument attached to a gross generalization is totally invalidated, don't you?


No. And the reason I don't "realize" this is because it's false logic.

There are non-fallacious generalizations.

Watch:

"All humans were born in the solar system".

Regards
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:13 am
I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Anne Coulter is actually a self-hating Jew, and all this nonsense is just a cover....I saw 'The Believer'...you just never know.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:30 am
Coulter is making up this burroshit as she goes along--in the 350 years of the Inquisition, about 5000 people were executed. Her flippant remark about the "Kulaks" (a manufactured term of Stalin's) is typical of her glib insensitivity--literally millions of Russians and Ukranians died, but she would have us believe that this somehow justifies the slaughter christians have perpetrated. I notices she mentions the Inquisition (and displays her ignorance), but fails to mention the tens of thousands of people, mostly women, who were burned as "witches" by Protestants. Dime to a dollar she's Protestant herself, wanna bet on it? Charlemagne spent nearly 40 years slaughtering Saxons because they were not christians, and in one year alone his chroniclers brag that more than 5000 women and children were slain in a single incursion. The Knights of the Tuetonic Order used to hunt down Letts and other peoples of the Baltic as though they were wild animals, and they claimed to be doing God's work, because these Slavs were "pagans." During the Reconquista, the soldiers of Aragon and Castile were left free to plunder any captured city, and slaughter anyone who stood in their way, because they were Muslim, or simply because they lived in a formerly Muslim-controlled city (often, the majority of the population were christians and Jews). After the "Moors" were driven from Spain (the few survivors who were not slaughtered outright), Our Dear Isabella decreed that Jews could convert to christianity, get out of Spain, or be executed. Letting the "Tercios" plunder a city was convenient, also, because then the Queen didn't have to pay them. Her successor, Carlos, who became the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, used the same tactic in northern Italy, where the population simply happened to be in the way. As late as a century later, the Tercios were let loose in Antwerp, and because some (and by no means all) of the population were Protestant, they were given a week to murder, rape and plunder. Once again, this obviated paying them. The wars of the Reformation saw Catholic against Lutheran, and Lutheran against Calvinist, and everybody against the Anabaptists (who were accused of communal living and group sex, as well as principles of free love--the Baptists ? ! ? ! ? . . . puh-leeze). In France a crusade was carried out against the Albigensians, claimed to be heretics, as well as the Waldensians, who were hunted all over Europe. The Hussites might have been snuffed out, as was their inspiration, Jan Hus, had they not developed fire arms to a high degree, and taken to the road in wagon trains, which they would circle to fight off the Austrians when they were attacked.

I've left out pages of examples--christianity is one of the most blood soaked religions the world has known. That's not "liberal" propaganda, it's something called history. Every time Our Dear Annie opens her mouth, if you can understand her despite having both feet firmly lodged there, you get yet another breath-taking display of her ignorance. I no more consider the murderous excesses of the christians to be evidence of the basic moral corruption of the contemporary christian than i consider the fairy tales embodied in the New Testament to be evidence that the Jews are "Christ Killers." Coulter is an embarrassment to the journalistic profession; but, as Mencken observed, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:33 am
Craven, please.

"All humans were born in the solar system". A non-fallacious generalization that is true is NOT a gross generalization that lumps a myriad of conditions into one group and definition.

Since Earth is part of the solar system, the NF version is OK, and arguments can be made to support it.

But to say all liberals are anything is sheer nonsense. We may look like sheep, but there is a wide range of divergent opinions coming out of the liberals. You need look no further than your relatives to see this. To try and attach a logical argument to something that is patently false does not a case make. If the foundation of your house is faulty, your house will fall down, not last for 100 years.

By the way, I am not a liberal. Seriously. I'm not a democrat either. I'll go for a democrat's throat when he says something stupid. At this time, however, it is the republicans that are wallowing in stupidity, hell, downright deceptive maneuvering.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:38 am
Thank you, Setanta -- I'd like to be shown the text in the scriptures describing in detail the scourging. You won't find it. You also won't find Mary present with towels to wipe up the blood given to her by Mrs. Pilate. Gibson has underestimated the taste of the American public and the sound of money changing in the temple is echoing across the country. He and Newmarket didn't expect the film to do more than 40M the first weekend. The question is who instigated the controversy? Who tends to gain from the controversy?

Anne's moleholes are swallowing her.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:42 am
Again, not all "gross-generalizations" are fallacious. Which is what you argued. This is a common misperception.

Yes, to say "all liberals are X" is probably going to involve fallacy. Not always as you generalize fallaciously.

But in an irony you invoked a fallacious generalization about generalizations. Then proceed to use another fallacious generalization.

Umbagog wrote:
But to say all liberals are anything is sheer nonsense.


False. Again you use a fallacious generalization (about generalizations).

Watch: "All liberals are within the solar system."

Look, I agree with you in that Ann's generalizations are fallacious, but intelligently contructed arguments are not her cup of tea.

That doesn't mean yours are not fallacies. You are just stacking one on top of the other.

As an aside, my earlier example was fallacious. No, not all humans were born in the solar system.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:43 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Watch: "All liberals are within the solar system."

Are you sure?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:45 am
LOL
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
That column was incoherent even by Coulter's standards. And, as usual, her attempts at sarcastic humor fell flat...
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 11:47 am
You're right, EhBeth -- liberals are actually aliens come to Planet Earth to take over. Very Happy

Mel's dour, moribund movie will please many with the personalities of my patio furniture (yes, it's plastic).
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:04 pm
I understand Mattel is replacing the Ken doll with the Coulter doll -- she also has no balls.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:06 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
As an aside, my earlier example was fallacious. No, not all humans were born in the solar system.


I'm rather mystified here. Is this to be taken as a serious statement, or just ironic hyperbole for humorous effect? Perhaps i'm a little slower than usual today.

Anyway, this makes a more interesting discussion than anything Our Dear Annie writes.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:17 pm
Not all humans were born. My generalization has exceptions and it was fallacious.
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:19 pm
Setenta, Craven is dissing me. I don't think he likes me very much.....awwwwwwwww.

Me calling a gross generalization a gross generalization is not a gross generalization.

All I am saying is that one cannot use logic to form an accurate argument around a gross generalization like Coulter does.

Craven is splitting hairs to be irritating, and humourous, I suppose.

Since my humor ranges toward the sick, I can't really taunt back here, according to the rules, but if we were in a bar, he would be red-faced by the time I was finished with him, and everyone would be laughing BUT him.

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:23 pm
No Umbagog, I am not "dissing" you. My arguments do not depend on who I like or dislike and I rarely "dislike" message board members.

My arguments are also not contingient on whether others will like or dislike them.

Edit: feel free to imagine bar-room moments of exhilarating vindication. An alternative would be not to contruct fallacious arguments if having the fallacy pointed out perturbs you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:24 pm
CdK does not consider this sort of exercise to be "dissing" someone, UBG. For my part, i only go into bars if they have good food at a reasonable price--i don't take strong drink.

CdK, you're going to have to define "born," as you are still losing me. If you are making a distinction between, for example, being delivered through the "birth canal" and caesarian section, it would help to know that.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 12:27 pm
I define birth as either of those methods. But I strongly suspect that methods involving neither types of birth have produced humans.

Things like cloning, test tube babies and the like.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 06:24:12