Posted on 03/04/2004 10:24:16 PM PST by churchillbuff
Edited on 03/05/2004 10:48:45 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Gibson's Blood Libel
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23
Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]
Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.
Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Please. No one of any consequence, that I'm aware of, has suggested that this movie should be officially censored. They've done no more than state their opinion of it. The raw emotion of the majority of posters on this topic gives them away and reveals them for what they are--faux Christians with more devotion to Mel Gibson and his movie than to the tenets of their faith. If what I'm seeing here isn't exactly anti-Semitism, why, it's the best facisimile of it to come along in quite some time.
In the long run, breaking faith with your allies isn't even good strategy -- word gets around....
Do you know what you are talking about!
Yes, I think I do.
I'm sorry to say that I supported the War uncritically, and with an ease that upon reflection I find unsettling and embarrassing. Especially in light of my vicarious -but stark and vivid- exposure to the horrors of War, via my parents, and their personal, all to real and very much non-vicarious experiences in Italy, during WW II. And, all this from a girl who has always considered it prudent, to hold any man aspiring to the presidency in suspicious regard, simply by dint of the fact that he seeks it. I like President Bush a lot, but blind loyalty is a very, very dangerous thing, and I won't let that happen again. I'm still not sure if going into Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do, but events in the last 2 months caused me to reconsider- critically.
The best friend a soldier has is the citizen, who with common sense, historical perspective critically assess the necessity of any War, any invasion, any ‘incursion', etc. Once the battle has been engaged, the soldier's best friend is a supportive, vigilantly engaged citizenry with eyes and ears at the ready to reconcile, or not, talk and facts.
A soldier cannot speak for him or herself, therefore it's the responsiblity of the citizenry to see to it that they are not considered sometime, somewhere in the middle of a list of objectives.
Hamza01, your desire that we now get things right over there, is not only on point, it's an imperative.
President Bush is much less likely to throw in the towel than Mr. Kerry, of that I'm nearly certain. And I do think President Bush is keen on doing things honorably, at least I hope he is. Still though, Yalta is an all too recent reminder that even following enormous expenditures of conviction, courage and bloodshed, the path of least resistance still has the power to ensnare.
The Law of Advantages and Rewards of the long view are not neceessarily suspended because of political consideration or because the going gets real rough and complicated. President GHW Bush had the perfect opportunity to rid the world of Hussein in ‘91. True, the coalition would have balked, but Mr. Bush had all he needed to make the case for removing him, punctuated boldly by Hussein's actual -versus grave and gathering- aggression against neighboring Kuwait.
As I understand it, he left the Kurds in the same position JFK left those brave men who charged the Bay of Pigs in '62 or '63, whatever year that was. JFK's abandonment of those men is an enormous indictment of his true lack of character, and an absolutely low-rent, unforgivable moment in his administration of the Presidency.
Now, it has to be said that the Elder Bush can't be accused of stooping to the same level of ‘expediency' as JFK, because JFK abandoned those men -point blank- in the middle of the intended objective of the mission, while GHWB abandoned the Kurds in the midst of tangential strategy to the mission. Perhaps that's what GW is alluding to when he uses the word strategery?
Anyway, I don't want to see that happen. The Kurds have the closest thing to a working Democracy in that area, and which was viable even in the midst of Hussein's reign of terror. We do owe them, in my opinion. And we may not owe the Iranians as much, but they are not a country so used to the yoke that they hold no promise. Iran holds enormous promise, if we can just aid where we can, and take the long view.
Thank you for being Saadiq with me. That is the first step to being a Sadeeq. Holocaust Denial is not always a sin. What does a child know ? There is ignorance and there is willful, malicious ignorance. On that point we agree. I have fond memories of Moslems who were kind to me. I have some other memories also but I am alive and unharmed.
As for the fundamental precept of Islam, I take that to be alShehadeh which I can never accept as true. There is one G-d and he delights in all who perform justice tempered with mercy.
Try to keep an open mind and heart toward Israel.
Alf Shukr for sharing.
Saddened to hear that you have been harmed by Muslims. In my experience, a good number of bastards populate every nation. And I, too have run into people of varying faith and hue who have tried to do me harm. Number of them were from my own ethnic heritage. Over time, I have learned not to let a limited personal experience cast a shadow over reason, and let prejudice color my views of any group. But it is certainly not easy.
The Shahadah is the declaration of faith which states "There is no God but God. And Mohammed is the Messenger of God". I take it that it's the second part you cannot accept. Understandable.
But if Mohammed himself could live with that, well then so can I.
And I will keep an open heart and mind for Israel. I hope you will consider doing the same for the Arabs of Palestine.
Shukran ya aqi (this you will know) Mutafakkaran biradar (same thing in Farsi)
I'm surprised at this article because I usually agreed with Krauthammer in the past. Most Jewish journalists are upset about The Passion, which follows the Bible, IMO, and they're never going to accept this movie. They've managed to create a blockbuster with their publicity.
Jesus was fully God and fully man while on earth. As a man He would have Satan constantly whispering in His ear. If Satan never leaves us, why would you think he would leave The Son Of Man??
Krauthammer is completely off kilter on this one. What is his problem??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.