Posted on 12/21/2004 3:18:18 PM PST by swilhelm73
Clearly Hollywood in its heyday certainly extolled the virtues of America, with the likes of Frank Capra bringing us classics like It's a Wonderful Life, and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. These movies gave America a sense of self worth, and showed us that old fashioned values were part of Hollywood's production thought process.
The mentality has changed. Democrats from the past were a lot different. Zell Miller made a point of this at the RNC when he said:
“What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.”“Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter.”
“But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.”
“It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.”
As I said earlier, I don't think Hollywood is anti-American, but they sorely misjudged a lot of people.
Irrelevant. I sincerely doubt anyone held a gun to the Catholic Mr Scorsese’s and Mr Coppolo’s heads to make their films. Frankly I doubt it was the money either, but if their values are buyable is that The Jews fault too?
As I acknowledged plenty of Jews in Hollywood. But plenty of others too. Angry/Hostile Catholics are a much bigger problem for their own community than are outsiders looking in. Ditto for angry Jews looking to trash their own religion. So maybe Catholics interested in preserving and defending their faith ought to look inside instead of outward for the OTHER to blame.
While I agree that they breathlessly support the state of Israel, they have no use for the likes of Boteach who offended most Christians by calling them "ignorant peasants" for not agreeing with his revisionist New Testament interpretation that no Jews were involved in the Passion -- if they call to support him, most of the time it's because he or they are bashing Catholics.
You sound a little paranoid here. Boteach objected to actual specific comments. You are bringing in global anti-Catholic conspiracy theories here. Considering you are all too sensitive about Catholic discrimination you show little to Jewish sensibilities. Catholics did not lose 6 million co-religionists due to “Christian Radio.” It is you, not Boteach, who is bashing Evangelist Christians throughout this post. Please don’t.
As I posted the link to the actual show, I suggest you read it. Rabbi Boteach limited his “peasant” comment to Donohue and Ms Giroux for their specific remarks. To make it universal about all Christians and to try to bring in Evangelical Christians here, as Mr Buchanan did, is to try to create a rift where none exists between the Jewish and Evangelical communities. I understand your desire (and Buchanan’s) to make it an all Christian alliance against “Jewish Hollywood” and liberal Jews, as you do in your post by bringing in the Jewish Cabal at the ACLU (what’s next – the Jews are running our foreign policy, hat tip to Mr Buchanan?), but that is really not an accurate description as Mr Buckley points out. Unfortunately religion bashing has become a non-denominational sport in the US by secular fundamentalists including what you refer to as “ethnic Jews.” Whose term is that? It is as much a misnomer as ethnic Catholics since an ethnicity is one thing Jews are not, just ask an Ethiopian Jew serving in the Israeli Army.
If I wanted to go in for a Catholic Cabal thing I might wonder why the current prevalence of anti-Semitic and or anti-Israel comments on TV News is coming from Buchanan, Matthews, and O’Reilly. Any common denominators there?
You're repeating nonsense about that Vatican II statement -- nothing in Catholic teaching has ever allowed for anti-semitism -- it was merely a polite restatement of 2000 years of Catholic teaching that while some Jews were involved in Christ's Passion, not all Jews back then and certainly no Jews now could be held responsible. Mel Gibson made quite a point of affirming this in his Diane Sawyer interview. I hope you know that in the Passion readings at Easter, we in the congregation read the words of the crowds shouting 'crucify him' to signify that it was all our sins that nailed Christ to that cross. And, oh yeah, this nonsense about Catholics rejecting the Old Covenant -- every Catholic Mass has a series of Scripture readings which always begin with one from The Old Testament followed by responsorial psalms!
Well then I suppose His Holiness Pope Paul VI “repeated nonsense” too when he made the Nostra Aetate Declaration in 1965. He had his reasons and I for one am not prepared to call them into doubt. I never claimed that anti-Semitism was doctrinal to Catholicism (although I could; the Inquisition is a more famous example) but that in practice it has been prevalent. Ditto on Passion Plays. This stuff is historical so your attempts at refutation are strange and revisionist.
As for the OC/OT, you distort my meaning. The OC is in the Catechism so of course the Catholic Church does not reject it per se, and I never said they did. The Catechism gives the OC typological meaning which is quite different than the literal meaning Evangelical Christians believe in. Also and probably as a result, it is not studied and revered among Catholics in practice as it is among Evangelicals.
And I would not cite Mel Gibson’s interview with Diane Sawyer as evidence of his pro-Jewish stance since many Jews were highly offended by his inability in that interview to clearly state that the Holocaust/Shoah actually occurred when pointedly asked.
So, I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't be so quick to repeat exaggerated claims of evil Catholic history from secularists who want to remove Catholic morality from society or from evangelicals who incessantly slander Catholicism in their pulpits, papers, and radio stations. Always consider the source. That's why I no longer trust anyone who slandered Mel or Passion, especially the lying, viciously anti-Catholic Charles Krauthammer.
I have no desire to support so-called Liberals who want to remove morality from society. I feel morality is a common heritage Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews share. We also share a fairly liberal, in the true sense of the word, attitude of religious tolerance in the USA. I like Mr Krauthammer and read him consistently. I have never seen him make an anti-Catholic statement. Mostly I rely whenever possible on original sources such as Mr Gibson, Mr Donohue’s, and Rabbi Boteach’s own words. This is a corollary of my global mistrust of everyone’s bias.
As to The Passion, I also felt that the focus of groups like the ADL on the Gibson film was misplaced for a variety of reasons, but not because of any threatened backlash. I’m not much for appeasement which is what you are advocating. Implicit in your “blowback” comment is a threat.
Finally if the “blowback” is a proliferation of Merry Christmas -- woo hoo! I say the more the Merrier Christmas to all.
Govindini Murty (who was on the MSNBC segment under discussion) and her husband writer/director Jason Apuzzo are founders of the Liberty Film Festival, a conservative film festival. They are pushing to take Hollywood back from the so-called Liberals. I have heard her speak (she is an actress and writer) and she makes precisely the point you have made – Hollywood’s roots are Conservative. She also noted that Hollywood is doing very poorly financially. Cause and effect of alienating 53% of Americans?
Here is an article describing the Festival:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/784hcnrx.asp
So how do you suggest we distinguish between the pronouncements of a Jewish Al Sharpton, and someone worthy of respect, as criticism of either will bring charges of anti-semitism from some quarter.
The point here was never about defending Rabbi Boteach. He criticized statements made by Donohue. Were Boteach’s criticisms, not the man, valid on their face or not? Were Donohue’s statements anti-Semitic?
How did this get turned into an analysis of Boteach? No one is calling for an analysis of Donohue's whole life, although perhaps a history of anti-Semitic, or the reverse pro-Jewish, rhetoric might be relevant.
This is why I like original sources. You be the judge.
Yes, yes, yes, but look how many people hate Jews. They are only kept in line here by the moderators. They choose their words carefully. For example, "neocons" is not even relevant to this thread by it is used as a codeword for Jews.
How about this one...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lappin200309260936.asp
Judging Boteach is implicit in evaluating his comments. Which is why I brought up the Sharpton parallel.
Rabbi Lapin has a very good chapter in his book "America's Real War" devoted to dissecting how secular/liberal Jews play the "heads I win, tails you lose" game with the charge of anti-semitism.
Also note, in the provided link, Rabbi Lapin specifically endorses Bill Donahue's position and says of him "...a good friend who has always stood firmly with Jews in the fight against genuine anti-Semitism, yet now, in his fight against anti-Catholicism, he appealed to Jewish organizations in vain."
Okay, I count one so far, though I disagree about it's relevance.
Like it or not, one charactaristic attributed to neocons is an intense interest in the welfare of Israel. Now one can be "interested" in Israel the way Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are interested in civil rights (looking for problems to have), or one can be interested the way our own Trueblackman or MHKing are.
It takes a real Don Quixote to make the leap from concern over those who mindlessly defend Israel to "look how many people hate Jews."
Are there some here who still try to flog "the Liberty Incident?" Sure. There are also some here who will throw rocks at anyone if it will get them credit for opposing anti-semetism. "Good Racial Manners," to borrow Shelby Steele's term, isn't just about black people.
If you're looking for anti-semetic dragons to slay, I suggest you look for them at memri.org instead of FreeRepublic.
P.S. Please do not mistake the last line of my previous post as a back-handed invitation to leave, but as a perspective enhancer.
Thank you, and have a very Merry Christmas!
Donohue specifically singling out Jews in Hollywood was anti-semitic. There are plenty of secular Christians and others that work in Hollywood.
They get nuked from FR pretty fast. JimRob has no tolerance for Jew haters that try to hide behind the cloak of anti-Zionism.
Rabbi Lapin specifically singles out Jews in the ACLU in "America's Real War." Arguably, he does so with less incentive than Donahue w/ regard to "The Passion."
Jews arguing with and about other Jews is one thing. Catholics tarring all Jews is another. Catholics bristle at the mention of any nastiness done on their parts all the time.
My, but isn't that convenient. What kind of "thing" might that be anyway? Besides, I don't recall Rabbi Lapin restricting the sale of his books to Jews only.
Catholics tarring all Jews is another.
You're going to have to support how that claim relates to Donohue.
Catholics bristle at the mention of any nastiness done on their parts all the time.
What has that to do with Rabbi Lapin's bristling at nastiness done to Catholics by Jews?
You're going to have to support how that claim relates to Donohue.
Oh I think the anal sex thing sums it up.
Now you'll have to excuse me. I have to go shopping and start cooking for shabbos before the market closes.
I suggest you learn how to spell "anti-semitic" before you lecture me about it.
I suggest you learn the proper usage of the word "by" before you play spelling police to distract from your lack of a credible reply.
But that's the difference between us now isn't it? I feel no need to be petty when a better man shows the holes in my reasoning.
As they say in the South "What, you got a mouse in your pocket?"
Perhaps you should call a meeting of the "we" committee, because you've got some fairly prominent and outspoken members that just aren't "on board."
I've already referenced Rabbi Lapin, who interestingly enough, notes Jews seem to have a strong inversely proportional relationship between fidelity to Torah observance, and hostility towards Christians.
Then there's Don Feder, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved, to name a few others that seem to have more problem with "golden calf" Jews than they have with gentiles asking "Hey, aren't those people dancing around that idol Jewish? They aren't suppose to do that, are they?"
Now presumably, if these men insist on talking about Jewish issues to gentiles long enough, at some point the gentiles should be familiar enough with those issues to talk back to Jews about them. Furthermore, can you truly claim to know what "our" issues are when bright, articulate, celebrated, and more importantly, devout Jewish men passionately contend that much observable Jewish behaviour is the theological equivalent of Lady Macbeth screeching "OUT DAMNED SPOT!"?
No. I think you will continue to evade and obfuscate with answers such as "Oh I think the anal sex thing sums it up" to objections over your reckless use of hyperbole. Just don't imagine you are convincing anyone but yourself.
I trust your Sabbath has been pleasant.
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.