An Open Letter to Sean Hannity Re: "Anti-Semitism"--QUIT PLAYING DEFENSE!

Sunday, March 7, 2004 | tame

[tame]

Dear Sean Hannity:

You are a bright young man (but I'm younger). But with all due respect, GET OFF THE ROPES, MAN! I'm disgusted by the fact that so many conservatives are letting the media--and the leftist Christophobes--frame the question, "Is Mel Gibson's movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST anti-semitic?"

Sean, I know that you've spent much time answering this nonsense...but...that's the whole problem: the "anti-semite" question is pure nonsense. In fact, you as well as many other tv/radio hosts are spending too much time answering the question without pointing out that it is, in fact, the wrong question!

The real question that needs to be asked is this: "Are leftist Christophobes and Christ haters using Gibson's film as an opportunity to carry out their intolerant, Christian bashing?"

Sean, I realize that you may respond to this by insisting that that's exactly what you've been doing. But I must disagree. If you review the tapes of Hannity and Colmes (and other programs), it may become apparent that, even while you try to point this out with your opponents, the discussions are still dominated by a "No, we're not anti-semitic" theme.

Take off the gloves! Quit pulling punches! And for goodness sake go after those fools. You should have them on defense. The discussions should just as well be dominated by a "No, we promise we are not Christophobes!" theme.

I'm sick of this "anti-semitic" red herring. I mean, P-L-E-A-S-E! When is the last time a guy came out of a screening of "Passion" and said, "Well, I wasn't thinking of it before I saw this flick, but now I want to go kill me a bunch of Jews." That's just stupid. And conservatives entertaining the question of anti-semitism without turning the tables on the leftist goons is doubly stupid!

I know your not perfect, Sean. After all you did support Arnold who supports abortion (which causes death), and then you turned around and blasted the lack of principles of certain Republicans who voted for that medicare bill (which at least does not cause death). Curious double standard, there Sean.

Still, I think you're generally a good guy. The discussions around THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST deserve just better from you, and a few other hosts (Scarborough, O'Reilly, etc.). Play offense, Sean. Play offense.

[tame]

I hope we can at least agree on this :o)

[tame]

FWIW, here's my two cents.

[tame]

Head-up.

[tame]

With love from me :o)

[tame]

ping.

[JoeGar]

You forgot to mention that Sean has a new book out ... and that you can buy it from his web site or Amazon.com ... and ...

[tame]

ping about "Passion of the Christ".

[tame]

For those with an interest in "the Passion".

[tame]

"Passion" interest.

[The Raven]

>>The real question that needs to be asked is this: "Are leftist Christophobes and Christ haters using Gibson's film as an opportunity to carry out their intolerant, Christian bashing?"

Exactly. The "defense" mechanism of the right is baffling. The libs always come up with off-the-wall idea that wouldn't make it through any legislature. Future examples: "let's do away with Thanksgiving" - or "tear down the jails and release prisoners - look at all the money we'll save."

Then - the defense starts....and a friendly judge somewhere makes it legal.

Take same sex marriage as an example ---

Marriage is not a constitutional issue - other than it is --- by the 10th Amendment - a State issue. Iowa's legislature could allow the blissful union of two-headed frogs if desired.

However, if ever there was a clear example of something that belongs in the legislature - this is it. The two-headed frogs in Kansas are out of luck. So we think. The Kansas toads do an end-around and redefine the word marriage, find a sympathetic judge, and bypass the legislature.

Now what to we do?

[Born Conservative]

Are you his "good friend" or something?

[tame]

Now what to we do?

Hey, long imt no see/read!

I'm usually a strong supporter of states rights, but on the subject of gay marriage, I'm one of those who definitely support a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It then would not be a states rights issue by definition, of course.

I think if we don't add an amendment we will be asking for serious "constitutional" trouble (rather "judicial activist" trouble). Full Faith and credit will be be used "successfully" by leftist judges to override state bans, etc.

Also, our cultural decline will go into an even faster nosedive without an amendment.

[tame]

Are you his "good friend" or something?

I think JoeGar was being sarcastic.

[The Raven]

>> but on the subject of gay marriage, I'm one of those who definitely support a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage

***

We didn't need it for Utah......(actually - the issue was probably settled then - State's joing the union subsequent to Utah had polygamy addressed in their State Constitutions.)

The real need for a Constitutional amendment is to close the loophole of judicial activism.

[Crazieman]

I'll ask Sean this point blank on Wednesday when I meet him =)

[Born Conservative]

I was too.

[tame]

I'll ask Sean this point blank on Wednesday when I meet him =)

Ahh, good! Please ask him to read my open letter :o)

[AMDG&BVMH]

"I hope we can at least agree on this :o)"

As long as it is done charitably and without ad hominem attacks. Not implying it would be otherwise! ;)

Seriously, the Republicans are way too often immobilized by attacks from the Left, and wring their hands about being called insensitive and etc., and spend their time trying to convinve the Left how nice they REALLY are. I.E. by giving in on something. Whereas to the Left, IT IS ALL POLITICS, so they can rejoice in their easy victory, and use the same strategy the next time!!

[onyx]

*ping*