| Author |
Message |
    
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:34 pm: |     |
The release of "The Last Temptation" led to anti-semitic criticism of the studio executives, who were Jewish, even though the Director, Screen Writer and Author were Christians. I read a very long detailed article about this recently, but no longer have it and I may look for a link. |
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 513
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
quote:The Passion" is not a movie: it's a theme-park ride ffor Jesus freaks.
- Addy
I find it mazing how Addy can flip off such a blatant anti-christian slur without being held accountable.
Addy, you are a bigot and a religious intolerant . |
JK
Citizen
Username: Jeffinmaplewood
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:19 pm: | |
to chocoholic-is that a threat? so we who worry about institutionalized anti semitism should be worried?. I detect a little bit of anti semitism in that statement in and of itself. Shame on you |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 451
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
I remember when Steve Martin was funny |
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
JK,
The fact of the matter is that most Christians who are going to the film are hardly anti-semitic. In fact, fundamentalists tend to be very pro Israel.
But when confronted by bigoted statements about their faith in Jesus Christ, such what we've seen on this board, not even including articles by Christopher Hitchens and Frank Rich, there are some who might become anti-semitic. That is not a threat, that is a fact. I don't see how sneering at someones faith is a way of being concerned about institutionalized anti-semitism.
It is Christainity that is under attack in some quarters, i.e towns banning displays of nativity scenes, children asked to leave class rooms because of religious sayings on their tee-shirts. There a numerous stories of towns who allow liquor stores and the like to flourish, and yet are banning churches. This has happened in both Maplewood and South Orange.
I find the reaction, no, over reaction to this film from some quarters puzzling, to say the least. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2478
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Banning nativity scenes where, on people's homes or public property?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
This is usually on public property. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2481
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
I think the idea there is that publicly funded religious displays amount to an establishment of a government religion. That's a no-no.
However, when people take this overboard and forbid people from wearing their own religious symbols, such as in schools, it's dismaying. They don't understand the point of separation of church and state.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Zeno
Citizen
Username: Eratosthenes
Post Number: 77
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
My objection to "The Passion" is not that it perpetuates pro-Roman propaganda (you couldn't sell a Jewish religion to the Romans based on the premise that the Romans were the bad guys).
I object to knucklehead parents bringing their young children to a movie with Tarantino-esque levels of violence. Jeez, get a clue, people!
BTW I recommend "A World Full of Gods" by Keith Hopkins for some perspective on the "literal truth" of the Bible. |
Carl Thompson
Citizen
Username: Topcat
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
This one is cute. I found it on CNN this morning. I especially like the part about calling the cops on each other.
Couple arrested after 'Passion' fight
Thursday, March 18, 2004
STATESBORO, Georgia (AP) -- A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching "The Passion of the Christ" were arrested after the argument turned violent.
The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic, and the argument heated up when they got home, Melissa Davidson said.
"It was the dumbest thing we've ever done," she said.
Davidson, 34, and her husband, Sean Davidson, 33, were charged with simple battery on March 11 after the two called police on each other. They were released on $1,000 bail.
According to a police report, Melissa Davidson suffered injuries on her arm and face, while her husband had a scissors stab wound on his hand and his shirt was ripped off. He also allegedly punched a hole in a wall.
"Really, it was kind of a pitiful thing, to go to a movie like that and fight about it. I think they missed the point," said Gene McDaniel, chief sheriff's deputy.
|
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 518
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
The thread drift toward religious symbols on public property raises a question.
Why are federal, state, county and local offices (even Malls!) closed on Christian holydays such as Christmas - the birth of Christ? Or, for that matter, on Good Friday?
If the sight of a religious reminder is such an anathema to some folks, they could ignore the holyday altogether and go to work!
BTW, I was on jury duty last week and I report that religious headscarfs are being worn in the courthouse by clerks, etc. I wasn't offended! |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2496
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Closing public buildings and services on major holidays is mere practicality. We can expect large numbers of people to be out, so closing is the best action. I don't see a reason to be offended at that, whether it's a Christian holiday or something a large local minority observes, whether you're in the minority or majority.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Choc: When have South Orange or Maplewood banned a church? Maplewood briefly fought against a Mormon Church but that was because of the tax impact. Do you think it was because of anti-Christian bias?
Over 80% of Americans are Christians. When those of us who are not object to our tax money being used to support Christianity or when we object to religious displays on public property which send a message that to be a "true American" one must be a Christian we are not being anti-Christian. |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 216
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
If you look hard enough it's easy to find something to be "offended" by. It's the shallow people who allow themselves to be bothered by it. |
JK
Citizen
Username: Jeffinmaplewood
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | |
well said Anon |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
Thanks, JK |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 455
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 11:20 pm: | |
I saw "Finding Nemo" the other day - great film.
But, I don't really believe that fish can talk |
JK
Citizen
Username: Jeffinmaplewood
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 11:26 pm: | |
what's the point mellie? |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 507
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:56 am: | |
A little off the topic but expanding on Tom R's point about wearing religous symbols to school (fine with me, as long as all are accepted). Last year my son and his friends were outside on their lunch break from Jefferson. A lunch aide called my son and his friends over and told them to take off the home made necklaces they were wearing (it was a club they formed, totally harmless, non-religous and , non-offensive) because they shouldn't be wearing anything around their necks. One of my son's friends astutely informed this aide that they were many children wearing crosses around their necks. The aides reply was, "Thats different, those are crucifixes", my son's friends reply to her was, "Do you know anything about the separatiuon of church and state ?. The kids got in trouble. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2531
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Ukealalio, that's a fascinating story. And there was more on the pledge of allegiance story on the news this morning.
Does the school giving special permission to wear religious artifacts amount to "the state" having a position on religion? Perhaps it doesn't, since it can forbid hats except for religious head coverings. Or is that wrong to make that distinction?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2088
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
The aides are idiots, basically, and that will probably be the message that the kids walk away with.
What'd they actually get in trouble for..talking back or wearing the necklaces? If it was for the necklaces, then that's assinine because there is no rule saying "no jewelry". |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 509
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
ffof and Tom-I don't wanna call anyone idiots (tho I doubt many of these aides can be described as "deep" thinkers-ya get what u pay 4). I don't think the school has (nor should they) a policy on what you can wear around your neck (unless it's a noose or something equally as deadly). This aide decided she didn't like the badges my son and his friends were wearing and created her own rules. By making the, "Thats different, those are crucifixes" remark, she left a door wide open for a smart (some may say smart-aleck) kid to walk right through. Was he talking back ?, yes and no, was he right ?, technically yes. My son wasn't the spokesperson in this incident but he has done things that are similar. I advised my son that while they were technically right, sometimes you have to back off on non-critical issues to avoid trouble. Ignorance is hard to fight. |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 457
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
in my day the issue about boys wearing neckalces would not have been about their religious orientation
how times have changed...even from last week |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2533
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Oh come on. I wore love beads in 1969. Didn't every self-respecting hippie?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 510
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Even though I feel ridiculous defending a ridiculous reply like this let me clarify-they were not really necklaces but lanyard with self made badges attached. Macho enough for ya mellie ?. Obviously times have not changed that much. Lets all pine for the days when men were men and J. Edgar Hoover acted tough and manly on the outside (while going after people using sex to bring them down) while cross-dressing in private.
ROFLMAO |
mellie
Citizen
Username: Mellie
Post Number: 462
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
whoa - let go of the baggage dude |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 512
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
ROFLMAO |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page