PeterDavid.net

You actually have pretty good reason to be concerned, though it's unlikely that the attacks will come from any Republican Christians hopped up on communion wine, fresh from recent viewing of THE PASSION. If I were Jewish and sending my kids off to college I'd be nervous about the hostility they will face from some Muslim students and a left wing faculty that often equates Israel with Nazi Germany.

The situation is worse in Europe, where anti-semitism has flourished in the last few years. It wasn't THE PASSION that did it there either (Frankly I have always suspected that a sizeable percentage of our European friends regret the fact that Hitler didn't finish the job).

So I'd say be vigilant but don't let political bias blind you to the true direction the attacks are likely to come from.

I don't understand bigotry like that, and I hope I never do. However, I really don't get Christian anti-Semitism. What that boils down to is people who worship a Jew condemning all Jews for the death of the Jew they worship, a death without which (a friend pointed out) they don't even have a religion, because the whole point of Jesus's life was what his death did for the rest of mankind. Wasn't that the whole point of sending him down here? That's why you have all these people running around with John 3:16 signs (mostly seen at sporting events). If you're Christian and you're going to hold the actions of a few Jews as indicative of all Jews, I would think you should be thanking them, because without the death of Jesus, no one would be saved, and the Christian religion wouldn't even exist.

But then, most "reasons" for things like bigotry are just convenient excuses to defend what people have already independently decided they're going to do and believe anyway, and they're just trying to find something to justify it.

Maybe this is a silly question, but I've been mulling it over ever since it was reported that "The Passion" was Anti-Semitic: regardless of who killed Christ, the Jews or the Romans, if the man had not died on the cross in the manner in which he did, would Christianity exist at all? Didn't Jesus have to be crucified? Wouldn't everyone be Jewish if it hadn't happened?

Should the Christians not be throwing parades and honoring us Jews for giving them their basic theology?

Just a thought...

You mentioned people being taken away without being charged with a crime. Before someone says that couldn't happen here, I'll point out the people being held at Quantanamo Bay. They still haven't been charged with a crime. In fact, the government is arguing in court that there is no need to do so because of the murky legal status of where the base is. Even the identity and actual amount of people in captivity is being withheld from public access. The similarities to pre-war Germany should frighten anyone, not just those with Jewish ancestry.

Guess my comment got removed. I guess it would make people uncomfortable. Thanks. You just went against what you preach. :(

I was trying to say much the same in the Passion blog, but far less eloquently. Some people are too wrapped up in defending the movie to realize that there is a larger picture. Growing up Jewish, it's hard not to have concerns about anti-semitism. Hate is prevalent in all parts of society, about anything and everything. Hate crimes happen so quickly that any time one sees anything remotely intimidating it is better to talk about and hopefully diffuse it before something tragic can occur. On the other hand, it's more than a little heart warming to hear how many people who post on this blog can't understand anti-semitism. I, also can't understand how anyone can hate others so intensely, be it those of another faith, race or political creed. I just know that people like that are out there and we must always be conscious of it in the same way we don't walk down dark alleys in the middle of the night. An ounce of prevention...

It is a bit of a leap to compare the president's proposed and most likely DOA constitutional amendment to the unpleasantness that gays faced under Hitler.

In the past year, the criminalization of homosexual conduct was struck down by a fairly conservative Supreme Court. The president is reacting to the further mainstreaming of homosexuality but it doesn't appear as if those who support gay marriage or gay rights in general are losing. It's not like gays are getting two years hard labor. Most discrimination against gays vis a vis employment and housing probably won't stand up in court.

Yes, there is violence against gays (though unlike the lingering violence against blacks, it's not state-sanctioned like "accidental" cop shootings), but hate crime legislation makes that a federal offense.

Other than the gay marriage issue (and again, it looks like those who support it are obviously winning or maybe I'm imagining the weddings that are taking place in SF, Mass, and now NY), I can't see how things could improve other than for George Bush to french Donald Rumsfeld on national television.

I'm not sure of who is being deprived of liberty without due process or the whole relocation camp thing? Can you be more specific? Are you speaking about The Patriot Act, most of which isn't as byzantine as people think, though I don't support it at all.

And yes, we had both of the above in the past (my father attended a segregated school, so I know of our shady past), but things improved through nonviolent protest and social change.

The existence of organized anti-Semitic groups is not a bad thing. No, that's not a typo. We live in a free society where freedom of thought and assembly are important rights. That includes the right to think and gather over the most repugnant ideas. I wouldn't have it any other way. It's not like we have a policy of anti-Semitism in this country. In fact, most anti-Semites think the opposite, given our support of Israel (even the much maligned president is quite a fan of Israel).

Compared to Iraq or Cuba or China, I don't see how we have much to complain about. I don't see the Empire taking place any time soon. It's not that I don't think there are some serious problems in our government but we have the freedom to change them. We have an election coming up in which we can peacably overthrow the existing government, from the highest office in the land to even your local Congressional representatives.

Guess my comment got removed. I guess it would make people uncomfortable. Thanks. You just went against what you preach. :(

Boy, "Paranoid Jew" indeed.

Ben, I speak for both Glenn and myself in saying, with perfectly clear conscience, that we have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't see your comment, I didn't remove it, Glenn didn't see it, he didn't remove it. Feel free to repost it and chalk it up to one of those weird computer glitches.

PAD

Ya know, this is one of the times that I just want to quit Earth. I am not just sick and tired of all the hate and violence of this supposed "civilized society" but I find that I am also extrordinarily bored with it. How sad is that? I mean I used to believe that people were fairly decent one-on-one but in groups they are trouble. Now it seems that even individuals are turning into hate-filled deceitful slime.

I'm not pointing at anyone here because the posters here seem to be those decent individuals I mentioned.

Pad is right. It's happened here and it will again. I mean, let's look at what we have in the 'melting pot': People eho hate Jews. People who hate Gays. People who hate Blacks. I'd make a complete list but none of us have that kind of time. I hear that next week we will be introduced to the Loyal Brotherhood for the Open Hatred of Left-Handed Lithuanians.

I am just plain tired of having organized hate in front of and behin me. Meanwhile to my right are all the groups who want to ban something or other and to my left are people so self-involved that they blow their horn when the light has been green for under a second.

I think we've become diseased as a society by attacking symptoms instead of finding solutions. You know, maybe if we'd focus on solutions we could cut the organized hate (AKA Ignorance) dramatically. But I don't see it happening. Society is too willing to become the victim of on e of the oldest strategies on the books: Divide and Conquer.

I hope I'm wrong.

Salutations,

Mitch.

PAD, maybe you can give some examples when you talk about Germany today? Yes, unfortunately Neo-Nazis still exist and violence against minorities happens as well (but not only in Germany). But "People deprived of liberty without due process"? That is something I hear all the time when I watch the news about the "War on terror" with emphasis on the USA and to a lesser degree Britain but not Germany and certainly not in connection with anti-Semitism. And "citizens who committed no crime, rounded up in relocation camps"? Also this is more familiar to me when looking at the "War against terror" subject, just replace relocation camps with prison. It also is a problem when looking at how to deal with illegal immigrants. But I never heard it in connection with anti-Semitism.

I admit that I moved from Germany to England more than 10 years ago but I am in close contact with my family and am still watching German news - as well as British and US news. I find what you write about Germany today hard to believe, but if I really missed something I would like to know.

Didn't Jesus have to be crucified? Wouldn't everyone be Jewish if it hadn't happened?

You know...that would be a heck of a novel. A novel in which the disciples were so determined to create a religion, but interest was flagging in their guy. So they decided he needed to be martyred and set the wheels in motion secretly...

Of course, if I wrote it, I'd be the first Jew crucified in a couple thousand years...

PAD

Boy, "Paranoid Jew" indeed.

Well. Sometimes. :)

Ben, I speak for both Glenn and myself in saying, with perfectly clear conscience, that we have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't see your comment, I didn't remove it, Glenn didn't see it, he didn't remove it. Feel free to repost it and chalk it up to one of those weird computer glitches.

DOH! My bad.

What I originally said was that my grandfather did the same as yours in moving he and his wife out of Poland. And if an anti-semite group or person comes knocking at my door they'll find a 5" 11' bald, tattooed and armed Jew waiting for them. We'll have a little coming to Jesus meeting ending with them meeting Jesus in person. :)

You know, I'm sick of, and going to disagree with, all the comments about how hateful and racist this country is.

The fact of the matter is, the human race is racist. It's always been natural for people to form into "cliques" for survival and comfort. It's an evolved instinct. Watch kids. They do the same thing. All that being said, it doesn't make it good, or acceptable.

However, of all the places in the world, the US is one of the most open. While there are hate groups, and haters, hate speach is not considered acceptable in most social groups. Even in Oklahoma, in any sort of gathering, use of racist slurs, or anti-gay comments would be considered inaproppriate, and unacceptable. If you compare this to what is going on in Europe (and France especially!), with the treatment of Jewish business owners and residents, or the middle east, or Asia, then it makes the US look pretty good. I mean, maybe in Canada they have it better (although talking to some Canadian friends of mine, I'm not so sure).

I've had direct conversation with Holocaust Survivors, as well as with Jews who made it to the US pre-WW2. They have nothing but glowing things to say about their treatment in the past 60 years. I can link to dozens of interviews online which say much the same thing. They know it's not perfect, but all things considered....

Is it perfect? No. But we are 1000% better off as a nation and really even globally that we even were 40 years ago, much less 100, much less 300. There will always be idiots. But there is a far cry from the idiots on the fring, to Nazi Germany. I'm half native american, and I don't worry about the evil pale face swooping into town and killing my family (even though that kind of stuff was still happening less than 100 years ago).

There is no goverment sanctioned racism, blacks aren't getting rounded up and gassed, police aren't rounding up gay men and locking them in internment camps, and people are free to have weblogs criticizing the government without fear of the "man" busting their door down and locking them up for it.

Jerry

You know...that would be a heck of a novel. A novel in which the disciples were so determined to create a religion, but interest was flagging in their guy. So they decided he needed to be martyred and set the wheels in motion secretly...

That sounds a lot like a screenplay I wrote a couple of years ago. It's won some contests, done very well in others, and been read all over Hollywood, but nobody wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

I'm remninded of Peter's wonderful work on the Hulk when Delphi saw a future dictator and Achilles was trying to take him out. Anyway, as an agnostic Cohen who was on the phone with a rabbi this morning (for my job), I feel it is my resposibility to say the following:

HAIL ERIS!!

I'm off to get a hot dog. And if they're gonna come for me or mine, and that's not just genteic relations, they WILL regret it.

As a Non-Jew, I can never understand the fear the Jewish community feels regarding the Holocaust happening again. However, that said, I'd say the chances of something like that happening in America today, are somewhere between slim and none. The two major reasons why are 1)minorities and Jews are integrated into all segments of society. The military for example, has a large minority base. 2)Watchdog Groups, such as the NAACP and ACLA. They call the government on anything they feel doesn't passes muster, and are often very successful. Add to this, this country has a very large, and ever-expanding press. With these two major obstacles, a new Holocaust movement went never get beyond the beginning stages-it'd be nipped in the bud before it ever got significant.

However, of all the places in the world, the US is one of the most open.

Yah. But it doesn't stay that way without contant vigilance. And I don't think it CAN stay that way without vigilance.

While there are hate groups, and haters, hate speach is not considered acceptable in most social groups.

Well, you know that's due to political correctness...

(Stop to think, though...would want to be in a society where hate speech and slurs were socially acceptable?)

"There is no goverment sanctioned racism, blacks aren't getting rounded up and gassed, police aren't rounding up gay men and locking them in internment camps, and people are free to have weblogs criticizing the government without fear of the "man" busting their door down and locking them up for it."

There is now presidentially sanctioned homophobia, Arabs and Arab-Americans *are* being rounded up and held without charge, Arabs across the country are being held without charge or access to legal representation in internment camps, and the Patriot Act could shut this site down in a heartbeat, without warning or explanation.

I can't see how things could improve other than for George Bush to french Donald Rumsfeld on national television.

If he did, he'd just be accused of pandering to the left.

As for the Constituional Amendment issue, supporters of gay marriage would be dancing in the streets if Bush had proposed an amendment to legalize gay marriage, and opponents would be against one.

I'm also a little disappointed, but not really surprised, that PAD has finally resorted to throwing around the liberal epithet of bigotry. That ought to put a chill on any discussion or debate from anyone who disagrees with PAD's position on the subject.

Oh, and finally to the people who think they're being cute about pointing out that if Christ hadn't died, Christian's wouldn't have a religion, what alternative universe do you have access to?

What a sophist argument! The foundation of Christianity is grounded in the teachings of Christ, not just his death. It's like saying that the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded if Martin Luther King hadn't died. Had either lived longer than they did doesn't mean that their teachings wouldn't be just as popular today or just as valid.

And you know, while I'm not trying to be anti-semitic here, let's not forget that the Old Testament and Torah chronicle some pretty brutal Jewish attrocities done in the name of God. The story of Jericho comes immediately to mind. And while I happen to think that modern day Israel has every right to defend itself, you can't escape the irony of them building a wall around the Palastinians. So is that "Never again, unless we're the one's doing it, then it's okay?"

People who act holier-than-thou rarely are, religious or not.

There is now presidentially sanctioned homophobia, Arabs and Arab-Americans *are* being rounded up and held without charge, Arabs across the country are being held without charge or access to legal representation in internment camps, and the Patriot Act could shut this site down in a heartbeat, without warning or explanation.

Actually, that entire statement is untrue, especially the section about the Patriot Act. But, I'm not going to change your mind on that, and it's easier to just make statements than back them up.

EClark, you have to admit though, that any cause whose leader is willing to die for it certainly gives said cause some extra strength and backing, no? Perhaps Christianity would have fizzled out if they didn't have a martyr to look back to. We obviously can't prove it one way or another, but it's possible.

And as far as Jews doing atrocious things in the name of god, weren't the Crusades a christian thing (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not well versed in the subject)? And what about the radical muslim groups today? Bottom line is, every religious group has it's peaceful adherents and it's wackos.

Why is bigotry a "liberal epithet?" Frankly, I'd be surprised if no concervative has ever expressed concerns over bigotry, and if they haven't, well, that says a lot. I didn't realize that no one was allowed to talk about bigotry when it comes up. Personally, I'm tired of the tossing around of "liberal" this, "liberal" that, or "right-wing" this, and "right-wing" that. They have kind of become meaningless little pejoritive buzz words.

Monkeys.

"Actually, that entire statement is untrue, especially the section about the Patriot Act. But, I'm not going to change your mind on that, and it's easier to just make statements than back them up."

I respect your right to think that, and whilst I admit my knowledge of the Patriot Act isn't as deep as it should be, I stand by every word as increasingly true and based on considerable evidence.

I find your contradiction of Guantanamo and Bush's support of FMA unnerving.

"Actually, that entire statement is untrue, especially the section about the Patriot Act. But, I'm not going to change your mind on that, and it's easier to just make statements than back them up. "

Where is it untrue? Are't there Arabs being held in GTMO with out being charged in any crime? Don't they have the power to monitor and take down websites that they feel to be in anyway threatening to national security? The patriot act is a little ambiguous on that one, and as a non-citizen one who lives in fear of the patriot act...

EClark, you have to admit though, that any cause whose leader is willing to die for it certainly gives said cause some extra strength and backing, no?

I don't deny it, but that wasn't my point.

And as far as Jews doing atrocious things in the name of god, weren't the Crusades a christian thing (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not well versed in the subject)? And what about the radical muslim groups today? Bottom line is, every religious group has it's peaceful adherents and it's wackos.

True, but it's said about Christians like they're the only group that's EVER done it. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a religious cause. Wars are fought in the name of peace and land. The Trojan war was one over Love. Both sides of the civil rights protests killed people and had people who were killed.

Why is bigotry a "liberal epithet?" Frankly, I'd be surprised if no concervative has ever expressed concerns over bigotry, and if they haven't, well, that says a lot. I didn't realize that no one was allowed to talk about bigotry when it comes up.

I call it a "liberal" epithet because it was used in this forum and in the midst of a legitimate debate for one reason and one reason only. It was used to characterize individuals who believe a certain way in a particular light. It's a favorite tactic of the liberal left to quell a debate, which is rather ironic considering how liberal groups like SAG love to bring up the 50"s congressional hearings when people were blacklisted just because they were accused of being communists . Nobody wants to be thought of as bigoted just because they hold a certain point of view. And coming from someone like PAD who usually is such a champion of free speech, I find it troubling that he's resorted to that tactic.

Where is it untrue? Are't there Arabs being held in GTMO with out being charged in any crime? Don't they have the power to monitor and take down websites that they feel to be in anyway threatening to national security? The patriot act is a little ambiguous on that one, and as a non-citizen one who lives in fear of the patriot act...

I can't prove a negative. It's a falacy in debating. Cite me specific evidence, rather than heresay, or rumors, and I can respond. I know of no lines or laws that allows them to "monitor and take down websites that they feel to be in anyway threatening to national security" nor have I seen or heard of them doing so.

As for arabs being held in GTMO bay, there are 3 conditions that must be met for them to be held there:

1.Be a foreign national;

2.Have received training from Al-Qaeda; or

3.Be in command of 300 or more personnel.

I have seen no evidence of ANY arab-armericans being rounded up and carted off to GTMO bay, as you claim. Can you back that up please?

Where is it untrue? Are't there Arabs being held in GTMO with out being charged in any crime?

That's a bit misleading, isn't it? They're being held as "prisoners of war", which while not a crime is a legitmate reason to lock someone up. I think the protests are that they SHOULD be charged as criminals.

**Personally, I'm tired of the tossing around of "liberal" this, "liberal" that, or "right-wing" this, and "right-wing" that. They have kind of become meaningless little pejoritive buzz words.

Monkeys. **

More name-calling. You don't like "liberal" or "right-wing", but calling someone a "monkey " is okay?

EClark writes,

As for the Constituional Amendment issue, supporters of gay marriage would be dancing in the streets if Bush had proposed an amendment to legalize gay marriage, and opponents would be against one.

This one wouldn't.

An old college roommate of mine, for that matter, is profoundly uncertain about gay marriage in and of itself ... but is adamantly opposed to altering the Constitution in either direction on the matter.

Could you perhaps tone down on the massive overgeneralization?

(And on a more general note, how did this thread suddenly turn back into the gay-marriage thread? Is the issue really that all-encompassing?)

As for "The Passion of the Christ" ... haven't seen it, have no plans to. I'm not Christian and have no particular love of Mel Gibson's films -- as such, I don't really see that blending the two is something that's going to be a wonderful way to occupy my time.

As for "paranoia" -- while I think PAD's position on the issue is somewhat more extreme than mine, given his family history I think that also makes sense. I don't think I really have much right to weigh in on whether his reactions are or aren't appropriate.

TWL

On Arabs in Gitmo, EClark asks,

That's a bit misleading, isn't it? They're being held as "prisoners of war", which while not a crime is a legitmate reason to lock someone up.

It's a legitimate reason to lock someone up for a brief period of time. It's NOT a legitimate reason, IMO, to keep someone completely isolated without access to counsel/etc. for years and decades ... and the administration's position is that they are intending to do exactly that. One recent statement said that we're going to be holding those people prisoner even if the upcoming military tribunals find them innocent.

That doesn't sound much like the justice system I learned about growing up -- but perhaps that's just me.

I think the protests are that they SHOULD be charged as criminals.

Agreed.

TWL

"More name-calling. You don't like "liberal" or "right-wing", but calling someone a "monkey " is okay?"-ECLark

Uh, hopefully you're joking about that, cuz that's how I sign all my posts. I wasn't calling you or anyone else a monkey, other than perhaps myself, I guess.

"I call it a "liberal" epithet because it was used in this forum and in the midst of a legitimate debate for one reason and one reason only. It was used to characterize individuals who believe a certain way in a particular light." -EClark

So, when it gets used on a concervative's blog, is it a right wing epithet? And if what the individuals being called bigots are saying/doing falls into the category or scope of bigotry, does that not make them, or at least what they say bigotry? Regardless of whether or not they wish to be called that? For example, I'm sure rascists don't really like being called rascists. Now, whether or not the actions of the people PAD was talking about fall under bigotry, I haven't personally examined yet, so I won't contend that issue right now.

Monkeys

You know...that would be a heck of a novel. A novel in which the disciples were so determined to create a religion, but interest was flagging in their guy. So they decided he needed to be martyred and set the wheels in motion secretly...

I saw a play in London a few years back called "God Only Knows" in which Derek Jacobi plays a man who finds a letter written by a Roman circa 90 AD in which he talks about this new religion of Christianity, and tells how his father had helped to fake the resurection, thinking that, given the unstable nature of Judea, that having people belonging to religion that preached "love the neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" would prevent any rebellion.

David

In Denver recently, a minister announced on a sign in front of his church: "Jews Killed Jesus. Settled!" Local protests brought the offending message down.

Anti-Semitism is still around, even in the generally tolerant United States, but opposition to it is strong, thank God.

http://www.churchcentral.com/nw/s/id/18431/template/Article.html

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1982568,00.html

David Seidman

You know...that would be a heck of a novel. A novel in which the disciples were so determined to create a religion, but interest was flagging in their guy. So they decided he needed to be martyred and set the wheels in motion secretly...

What do you think Judas was up to?

I have a story to share.

When I was in Junior High, a bunch of nice, well-behaved Christians (me being one of them) were herded off once a week to a little Christian class, where we got to watch cheap slide shows. Not real exciting, but it beat the heck out of our boring Spanish class.

Anyhow, I still remember the Christian class leader saying during one lesson that Pilate really did not want to crucify Jesus, that he was forced to by certain evil agitators. Don’t think he came out and said “Jewish.” (Actually, I think the historical record shows that Pilate was a guy who enjoyed his job, especially when it involved torturing peasants.)

I never figured what the heck that lesson was about. Until now.

I read that Pilate is being treated sympathetically in the Passion movie. Maybe the point was that I was supposed to blame a certain sector of the population for Jesus’s death. And that sector is not the Romans.

My faith has lapsed a bit over the decades. But I would have felt then as I feel now: SCREW ANTI-SEMITISM, and please don’t try talking me into it. I loathe bigotry. Jesus was Jewish, every one of the apostles were Jewish, nearly all Jesus’s followers during his lifetime were Jewish. Why should I hate them? They never did nuthin’ bad to me! If you want to hate people responsible for Jesus’s death, blame the dead Romans, but also blame intolerant religious hierarchies, which is what the Pharisees (or whoever that nasty Jewish leaders sect was at the time) seemed to be. Like what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are now.

It always seemed to me that the lesson is distrust of the powerful in religious circles, not an entire religion. And I have not outgrown that. Few people take to heart the saying, “With great power, there must also come great responsibility.” More people should read comic books.

Funny. That class leader seemed to be a pretty nice guy. But now I am wondering what I would find if I scratched his surface.

I don't think i mentioned citizens, but hey, what do American's care about those who came here looking for a new life and get locked up even if they haven't done anything wrong...

Jdog

Last year, a house painter, originally from Egypt, was looking for an address in Oceanside, CA, just south of Camp Pendleton Marine Base. He wound up at the main gate (quite plausible, for those familiar with the labyrinthine streets there), and asked the guard for directions. These were cheerfully given, and he went on his way. Due to instructions included as part of the badly-misnamed PATRIOT USA act, the guard was required to describe the incident in his log.

Two days later, FBI agents burst into the Egyptian painter's house, and hauled him away as a potential "enemy combatant". Six months later, a Federal judge, who obviously didn't know the area, decided that he didn't believe the man wound up at the gate of a military installation by accident, and refused to either release him or review his status.

The last I heard, he's still being held - without trial, without bail, and without access to council.

Who's not getting "rounded up and detained" again?

its 2004...lets face it....religion is a crutch...every major war and or conflict can be traced to a religious squabble....I do not believe in religion...I did not say faith...to me they are 2 different things and no government or mel gibson, is going to tell me to believe in anything they want me to.......as far as gay marriage...that’s just another one of bush's weapons of mass distraction to avoid the real challenges....besides ...aren’t all marriages same sex marriages? ..y'know, same sex every night!!!! (wish I could take credit for that last line..but bill maher said it on tonights show!!) anyways, to all the conservatives...grow up!!!!!!

A name, link, reference, anything? I can't refute what I know nothing about, or know to be true. To many of those stories floating around on web sites have been proven false for me to take a face value anymore...

Jerry

I can't believe nobody's taken up what Bill Mulligan said about the attitude to Jewish people in Europe:

(Frankly I have always suspected that a sizeable percentage of our European friends regret the fact that Hitler didn't finish the job.

In-bloody-deed Bill, and where do you base that snippet on? The title of this thread is 'Paranoid Jews?' and whatever religious or ethnic affiliation you are you fit the first part of the line aptly. Having lived 10 years (ages 10 to 19) in the U.K. and travelled continental Europe I have yet to see that 'sizeable percentage' and thouroughly resent your comment. The US might be a place which defines itself on its right to freedoms (with 'of worship' as one of the highest) but don't you dare spout uninformed rubbish about how the same is not true in other parts of the world as well.

People often tout the recent ban of the //hajib// and other religious clothing/accessories in French public schools as an example of Europe's intolerance of minority religion but they do so without looking past the few facets of the case presented to them by mainstream media. The whole point of the French Republic is to create a state where people can live, work and abide together because before they are anything they are French nationals. That includes religion, whether you agree it should or not, and that is how their country preserves itself. Jacques Chirac declared a ban on 'ostentatious' religious icons in the public school system because parents of many religions in the wake of 9/11 were using their children to designate their seperateness from that identity. (Girls as young as five were being sent to school in full head-coverings when it is explicitly stated in the Qu'ran that these are meant to be worn by pubescent girls to guard them againsts advances on their sexuality/maintain personal honour, to challenge that other parents would send their children to school wearing large crosses) The French government saw a situation arising where children were not identifying themselves as French, but as Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc etc - which is not something they want. It was segregating classes, altering behaviours and frankly worrying people and they decided 'actually, no' and did something about it. My personal beliefs on the matter go against that action but I can understand why it was taken. I've spoken to numerous French students at my university to get their side of the story and I have. But I've also watched them try to articulate the facts of the situation to others and I repeatedly see them called out as representatives of an oppressive, bigoted government.

Moral of the story (and I learned this the hard way on moving here):

Don't make the assumption that America is the moral compass of this world, you'll find the other inhabitants of planet Earth don't agree and not should they.

Rich,

First off, elequent post. Nice to see someone who can get their point across so well....but I still think you need more exclamation marks!!!!!!

/sarcasm off...

For the record, when is Mel Gibson telling anyone what to think? See the movie or not, and take from it what you will. It's just one man's portrayal of a major religious event. There is no preaching, summary, or conclusion given in the movie, beside ones that viewers give themselves...

Jerry

Hmm..how bout some facts here...

"Since September 2000, Patrick Klugman and Malek Boutih — in their book The Antijews: The Book of Antisemitic Violence in France — count 405 antisemitic acts, from offensive graffiti to arson. The statistics of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (the official police report) record 146 antisemitic acts in the same period (attacks, aggression, and insults) and 773 threats (graffiti, anonymous letters, and pamphlets). However the statistics are calculated, the numbers are astronomical and disturbing."

and also...

"The stereotype of the rich and overly influential Jew continues to persist. From 1988 to 1991, one French citizen in five thought that "Jews have too much power in France." In 1999 that proportion rose to 31 percent, and again to 34 percent in 2000. This is not innocent. Those inclined to attribute to Jews too much influence also feel that there are "too many Jews" and doubt how integrated Jews are into French society.

The antisemitism of those who feel that Jews have too much power is similar to ordinary racism and goes hand in hand with the rejection of other minorities. It is part of a globally hostile attitude toward all groups who appear different. The same people who judged Jews to be too numerous (20 percent in 2000) also believe that there are too many Asians in France (62 percent), too many Blacks (86 percent), and too many Arabs (97 percent). These people are the most hostile to the construction of mosques for Muslims, the most opposed to allowing non-European foreigners to vote, and the least interested in the fight against racism. Their cultural and socioeconomic profile is rigorously identical to that of other racists. "

But you're right...France is a great, open accepting place....

Jerry

You really think American Christian Fundemenalist types are gonna turn on Jews because of a movie?

They've been backing Israel for years. Sure, it's for their own warped reasons(gotta have the Jews in place for the Apocalypse or whatever), but I doubt they'd turn on Jews because of a movie. They're too entrenched and conservative to change that quickly.

I'd worry more about the Europeans who already have a strong vein of anti-semitism running through them and don't need much at all to set it off.

Besides, it's not cool to be an anti-semite, it's passe, it's only cool to hate people if they do stuff you think is icky in the bedroom.

As I said a little while ago...I do not believe in religion, but I think I remember enough of my childhood catechism to ask...should it matter who killed Jesus since he came to earth to live as a mortal and experience pain and suffering? And he was Jewish...to me the problem is that the christian religions have tried to get us to forget that fact to further their own doctrines. It was pre-ordained Jessus was to suffer and die, its humanity that has twisted the story for their own gains...funny, we are the people he gave up his life for?

Did I once say Anti-Semmitism doesnt exist in France? Or Anti-Islam movements? No. Would you please read the post before you embarass yourself by painting it as something it patently is not. You take your facts from one source, 'The Antijews: The Book of Anti-Semmetic Violence in France' and aside from the fact that basing opinions on one source is neither big nor clever. Have you been there? Have you seen the place? Do you know people who have? I've seen in your previous posts that you are keen to extole how the US has comparatively less hate-crime, but where are your figures there? You even mention the headscarf ban as a reason that France is a less-tolerant country than the US - did you understand the point I'm making about how France is not the US, does not need to conduct itself as such? Do you understand that not every country (or even society!) in the world bases itself on the same foundations as your own?

I'll paraphrase yourself for this part, something that could be written by a backpacker on her way through France. "While there are hate groups, and haters, hate speach is not considered acceptable in most social groups. Even in France, in any sort of gathering, use of racist slurs, or anti-gay comments would be considered inaproppriate, and unacceptable."

Not to mention that you are acting just as I have seen so many people do towards the French students in my university, 'I don't agree so I attack and belittle'... never mind trying to understand irregardless of if you agree or not.

But I'll follow your advice: I'm not going to change your mind on that, and it's easier to just make statements than back them up.

PAD, maybe you can give some examples when you talk about Germany today? Yes, unfortunately Neo-Nazis still exist and violence against minorities happens as well (but not only in Germany). But "People deprived of liberty without due process"? That is something I hear all the time when I watch the news about the "War on terror" with emphasis on the USA and to a lesser degree Britain but not Germany and certainly not in connection with anti-Semitism.

Boy, did YOU misunderstand. Or perhaps I simply wasn't clear. What I was saying was that the conditions which lead to the Holocaust sixty years ago--which Americans blissfully say could never happen here--have indeed, to various degrees, been happening right up to modern day here in the United States. I was comparing the US from sixty years ago through to modern day to Germany at the time of World War II. Not to modern day Germany. Sixty years ago people in Germany were being deprived of liberty without having committed a crime; sixty years ago, we were doing it with the Japanese...and, as you say, we're doing it again.

PAD

There are two really boneheaded things about all this.

1) To the guys on the "left". 90% of the people who will see this film have read the book. They know the story. They've been raised with whatever it is that they're taking into the movie with them. PAD in his BID in CBG once said about the film Basic Instinct that seeing the film wouldn't change the veiwers. If they went in hating gays they would still hate gays. If they liked or didn't care one way or another about gays then the film wouldn't make them hate gays. Same here. The beliefs or feelings of the movie going public were made up years before this film. It won't matter one wit a year from now. Let Mel have his film and chill out.

2) To the guys on the "right". Again, this is only a movie. The people on the right in the media have turned this into some sort of major battle in a war for this country. The film has to be a success or the country is lost. If it doesn't make lot$ of ca$h then "they" win and the country is taken over by the pinko commie gay libs or something.

Lost in all this is (in most areas of the media) discussion of whether or not this is or isn't a good film. Also lost in most areas seems to be anything like reasoned discourse. Name calling and culture warring sound bites are the best that you can find in most media right now. It sucks and it's messed up what might have been a good film.

I call it a "liberal" epithet because it was used in this forum and in the midst of a legitimate debate for one reason and one reason only. It was used to characterize individuals who believe a certain way in a particular light.

No, it was used to characterize an individual, George W. Bush, to describe the way I believe he perceives gays and the action he is endeavoring to take. Supporting the implementation of an amendment that formalizes a segment of American citizens as second class citizens is, I believe, a form of bigotry. A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own. Going out of his way to make them unhappy and make sure they don't have the rights of other citizens, I believe, constitutes bigotry.

I believe your response--to try and slap an unwarranted label of "liberal epithet" to a fairly accurate definition of Bush's actions--is a fast attempt to smear me (because, you know, liberal=evil) rather than acknowledge the bigoted actions of the President.

PAD

A name, link, reference, anything? I can't refute what I know nothing about, or know to be true.

The Egyptian house painter's name is Abdelrehim Kewanhas. He has been ordered deported from the US. See San Diego Tribune, 8/23/2003.

By the way....

Folks may not realize it, but the Supreme Court decisions that upheld the Japanese American concentration camps, Hirabayashi v. US, Korematsu v. US, is still valid law. The decisions were vacated because of government suppression of evidence, but the legal basis of the camps still is valid law.

More Bush is Hitler bullcrap? Sheesh.

Bush is like Hitler, huh? Is he trying to throw gay people into ovens? No, he wants to amend the Constitution, as the Constitution allows, to preserve a certain legal definition. At the same time, he wants any amendment to preserve the right of states to recognize civil unions that can grant equal protection to gay couples.

Oh yes, this is VERY hitler-esque. *RollsEyes*

And you know what? This is a tolerant country. There has never been a country more tolerant of Jews in 2,000 years. Relations between Christians and Jews in this country have never been better, yet some paranoid Jews (and yes, that is what they are) are throwing up walls and pointing fingers at their Christian countrymen.

"May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

--George Washington

Dave Strom wrote:

"Anyhow, I still remember the Christian class leader saying during one lesson that Pilate really did not want to crucify Jesus, that he was forced to by certain evil agitators."

That seems to reflect exactly what I read in my Bible.

I understand, on the one hand, why PAD would be nervous. It seems obvious to me, that if the movie is an accurate portrayal of the truth, those people, the four or five or fifty people who were calling for Jesus' head, THEY were more or less responsible for Christ's death.

NOT all Jews. The movie isn't saying all Jews are responsible, it's saying those Jews, who all died nearly 2000 years ago, are responsible.

Honestly, it kind of reminds me of the complaints about Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin in the Daredevil movie. I heard people complaining that, since the only black man in the movie was a criminal, the movie makers were obviously saying that blacks were criminals.

It was all I could do not to grab people by the throat and start yelling at them, THAT BLACK MAN, THAT ONE CHARACTER is a bad man. It's not a commentary on the whole race, you stupid, stupid idiot.

PAD,

I agree with your argument except for the comment about Bush being bigoted. No society has ever sanctioned gay marriage - EVER! So Bush is bigoted for trying to maintain the status quo throughout the history of the human race? You've lost me here. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

Regards,

Dennis

...

I should clarify -- I wasn't trying to say you're overreacting, Peter, but that given the stupidity of the average person I see/hear/meet, you're justified in being concerned that other people might use this movie as a basis for anti-semitism. I think they're idiots for jumping to those conclusions, but people are idiots more often than not.

wait wait wait, Peter's jewish? I didn't know that. Learn something new every day...

I agree with your argument except for the comment about Bush being bigoted. No society has ever sanctioned gay marriage - EVER! So Bush is bigoted for trying to maintain the status quo throughout the history of the human race? You've lost me here. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

Ah yes, because maintaining the status quo is *always* the right thing to do. Suppose african-americans had just kept with the status quo fifty years ago? That would've been a great idea. Or women in the 1920s, toeing the line and deciding to not seek the right to vote, because, hey, it's the status quo. Why bother messing with it?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but arguing that doing something a certain way because that's the way it's always been is not the best of reasons.

Does this make Bush bigoted? I don't think so. Opportunistic? Definitely. There's a lot of pressure on him right now, what with the economy and Iraq, so I think he's just using gay marriage to deflect attention away from his own shortcomings as President.

Looking in from outside the fish bowl sometimes has its benefits. George W. has me worried that what he is selling the American people with the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security is the first steps in removing the rights and freedoms that forward thinking men gave their lives for for over two centuries. Emperor George is having laws created that inhibit your rights. If he chooses to openly hunt down gays, all he'll need to say is that being gay is unpatriotic.

Hatred isn't that hard to understand. It starts with a negative thought, grows to a generalization, and blossums into bigotry. Everyone of us has the potental to hate to such an extent that it might boggle your mind to realize how much you can hate.

I've been fighting the bigotry and prejudices hammered into me as a young boy ever since I realized that crap my old man was teaching me was exactly that. There are times when I feel like I'm wollowing in guilt for all the sins that my family has committed. And then I look back at how I was ostrosized as a child, simply for not being English or Scottish, and I think of how I, my French Canadian friend and my American friend were shunned.

People hate because the learn to. It's much easier than loving. It's easier to hate the French because they're French. It's easy to hate the Americans because they're overbearing. It's easy to hate the Germans because they're arrogant. It's easy to hate the Muslims because .... Few people look for reasons to love the differences, or to even respect the differences.

If everyone, and I mean every one, actually studied and applied the lessons found in Mathew, chapters 5 to 7, we might actually learn to stop hating.

I think I've rambledon too long, now. Who wants the soapbox next?

The status quo? Bad thing to bring up about marriage. Marriage itself has evolved wildly over the years. Marriage has been about power, money, treaties, status and so many other things in the past. Love didn't even factor into it for a lot of our ancestors. The thing we call marriage today aint the same animal it was many moons ago. Hell, there are still people alive today who stick to the "old ways". I've a friend from another country who met his wife twice before the wedding. Once ten years ago and again when she came over to this country before the wedding. The families set it up and it was done. They've been a happy couple for four years now.

You couldn't get wed to someone just because you loved them and you wanted to for a lot of our history. In this country's short history, both religion and race have been wedge issues in marriage. There were states where you couldn't get hitched if you weren't color coordinated with each other skin wise. And mixing religions? That could have got you hurt in lots of parts of the world and in this country's not too distant past.

The "definition" of marriage has changed over the years. It's been expanded to include new things on both legal and social levels as well as excluding things it once had. Bringing up "the status quo" as a reason against gay marriage doesn't really work that well.

Josh,

I think we agree. I was merely objecting to the term "bigot" as do you. The rest of it is ugly politics as you state.

Regards,

Dennis

I almost never disagree with PAD (snort, laugh, sorry) but yes, people possibly including PAD are in fact overreacting to the Passion movie. I live in a conservative (not to say redneck) rural county in North Carolina where church groups have insidiously been buying up large blocks of tickets so their groups can go see the movie en masse. Not one of the people I've talked to who've seen it has gotten the impression at all that the movie blames Jews for the Crucifixion. This would have been a non-issue without pressure groups crying bloody murder in advance of the movie’s release. Six weeks ago CNN reported, “‘This film has all the makings of a [box-office] bomb,’ entertainment publicist Michael Levine told The Washington Times.” Now that the film is making box-office records, I hope Mel Gibson sends the Anti-Defamation League a “thank you” note. It’s the only polite thing to do.

Beyond that, I think PAD is overreacting to a lot of things in his message. Yes, a lot of those things have happened over the last sixty years. I assume he went back 60 years to get in the internment of Asian Americans during World War II. I agree that was reprehensible, and in more considered time (i.e. when not, what are the words-- "paranoid" and "overreacting"?) the country has realized that and apologized for it. Probably we'll end up doing the same for whatever unjustified detentions may have been initiated on 9/12/2001.

But think about what else has happened in this country in the last 60 years. We now have racial equality, at least formally within the law, and fact is catching up to theory. The Civil Rights Act has been on the books forty years, accompanied by dozens of court orders enforcing the neglected portions of our Constitution. There have been problems, even atrocities, in our history (slavery, mistreatment of American Indians), but the trend has been for those problems to have gotten better, not worse.

As for the attempts by the POTUS to "formalize a bigotry against gays," the comment above about a conservative Supreme Court issuing a broad (arguably too broad) privacy opinion striking down the Texas sodomy statute is well taken. There are no pogroms in America. The proposed amendment would define one legal status in a socially conservative fashion. Comparing ANY of this to Crystal Night is unforgivable hyperbole. The Holocaust is the worst thing people have ever done to each other. I’m sorry Mitch has just noticed people are “hate-filled slime”; that’s been true since the monkeys climbed out of the trees, but the Holocaust is evil on a scale rarely seen even among our kind of slime. All due respects PAD, but it’s not going to happen here. Political culture is a real thing. The Constitution is real. And this Republic looks nothing like a fascist police state. Our laws and our institutions are what protect us from the hate-filled slime, and I say that even after the USA PATRIOT Act.

I respect your right to think that, and whilst I admit my knowledge of the Patriot Act isn't as deep as it should be, I stand by every word as increasingly true and based on considerable evidence.

Oh yeah? Like what?

and the Patriot Act could shut this site down in a heartbeat, without warning or explanation.

No it couldn’t. OK folks, be honest, raise your hands if you’ve actually read the PATRIOT Act… What, just me then? OK. The PATRIOT Act, currently running a close third behind the marriage amendment and Passion of the Christ as the source of paranoia, does basically nothing substantive apart from giving the President authority to seize assets of belligerent powers, and requiring ID when opening bank accounts. That’s pretty much it. The search warrants and wiretaps are still under judicial control because the require a court order to issue, but now they can move with the target rather than have to be geographically contained. The detentions of suspect aliens are the most disturbing aspect, but still are under court supervision through habeas corpus writs.

This is still the freest country in the world, and the “sky is falling” paranoia is getting old.

3 by 3

Evidently you have no reading comprehension...since I quote 2 sources! (National Consultative Commission on Human Rights - the official police report!)...

But hey, rather than use facts, you resort to ad hominim....mature.

Way to make your point.

Jerry

PAD,

A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.

I don't tolerate Pedofiles...guess that makes me a bigot? So when did you start tolerating pedofiles, or are you a bigot as well?

My point is, it's not bigotry to not tolerate lifestyle choices you fine wrong. We can argue whether or not GW (or anyone else who is anti-gay) is valid in their thinking, but to call someone a bigot for having made a moral choice is unfair. Necrophyliacs can make an arguement that their lifestyle is valid, but you aren't a bigot if you don't support them. And no, before someone says this, I'm not grouping homosexuality with pedophilia or necrophylia. The point is, if you honestly believe homosexuality is an immoral and incorrect lifestyle choice, believing so does not make you a bigot.

Jerry

I think he's just using gay marriage to deflect attention away from his own shortcomings as President.

Actually, I think he's being incredibly honest. It's not like the change is going to happen before the election, so why would he come out with it now? It sounds to me, on an issue that's very current and relevent, he's making his position clear, rather than hiding it, and revealing it after the election.

If anything, I'm upset with Kerry, so seems to be agree at the timing. He seems to not want to take a position on this, and make it know. God forbid people could have this information when it came time to vote.

Jerry

The point is, if you honestly believe homosexuality is an immoral and incorrect lifestyle choice, believing so does not make you a bigot.

But, I think, attempting to codify that belief into law just MIGHT make you a bigot (because you are, by definition, forcing your opinion on others who disagree).

Believing in something and forcing others to behave in accordance with that belief are two completely different things. The first is very easy to justify; the latter takes much more to justify. Let's not conflate the two.

I don't believe that it's the right thing to do to make marriage a more fluid institution.

Already it's easy to get a quickie marriage and a fire-and-forget divorce.

You re-define marriage to any two not-already-blood-related people have a degree of intimacy, or merely claiming a degree of intimacy you'll have more and more people declaring that the boundaries set thus far to "marriage" are arbitrary.

Leftists and apathetic people are saying that the current boundaries and regulations surrounding "who can get" married are "arbitrary" and "biogted". When we include one or two more possible sets of people into the distinction of "who can get" married we still have more sets remaing who are excluded who want to be included.

CJA

The thing we call marriage today aint the same animal it was many moons ago. Hell, there are still people alive today who stick to the "old ways". I've a friend from another country who met his wife twice before the wedding. Once ten years ago and again when she came over to this country before the wedding. The families set it up and it was done. They've been a happy couple for four years now.

Speaking of the sancity of marriage, I sometimes wonder if the old ways were all that bad...as the gay marriage issue brings out, they weren't that bad....

You re-define marriage to any two not-already-blood-related people have a degree of intimacy, or merely claiming a degree of intimacy you'll have more and more people declaring that the boundaries set thus far to "marriage" are arbitrary.

Yes? And?

Leftists and apathetic people are saying that the current boundaries and regulations surrounding "who can get" married are "arbitrary" and "biogted". When we include one or two more possible sets of people into the distinction of "who can get" married we still have more sets remaing who are excluded who want to be included.

Yes? And?

Jerry wrote:

And no, before someone says this, I'm not grouping homosexuality with pedophilia or necrophylia.

You realize that saying this after you just did it doesn't mean that you didn't do it, right? You ARE grouping them, even if you aren't explicitly equating them.

Jerry also wrote:

The point is, if you honestly believe homosexuality is an immoral and incorrect lifestyle choice, believing so does not make you a bigot.

So if you honestly believe blacks are inferior to whites, does that make you a bigot? Because I honestly believe it does. In both cases.

Rob

To the above poster who asked if anyone has "read" the Patriot Act. I am in insurance, and I was given a training session on how the Patriot Act relates to insurance and financial institutions. Now, no one is saying that fighting terrorism is easy, or that we should not do everything we can to make sure we are not victims again. But while I went through the training all I could think was--how different is this stuff from Communist Russia? Let me explain. The financial industry (banks and real estate folks especially) must report anything they find suspicious in financial dealings. However, the person who is being reported on cannot know they are being "flagged." And the reporter gets to be anonymous. I don't want to be a "paranoid Gentile", but c'mon. Reporting on your fellow man? You cannot know who is accusing you? And how much paranoia does it take for one "foreigner" who makes some faux paus, or doesn't understand a transaction completely to end up on some list? And if you don't report on someone--you can get in trouble. Is anyone else troubled by this stuff? You may think it "can't happen to me", but I am not comfortable with it.

Blue Spider wrote:

I don't believe that it's the right thing to do to make marriage a more fluid institution.

Already it's easy to get a quickie marriage and a fire-and-forget divorce.

For you and me, maybe. We're straight. (At least, I'm assuming you are from earlier comments.)

You re-define marriage to any two not-already-blood-related people have a degree of intimacy, or merely claiming a degree of intimacy you'll have more and more people declaring that the boundaries set thus far to "marriage" are arbitrary.

So right now marriage is defined as "two not-already-blood-related people of the opposite sex who have a degree of intimacy, or merely claiming a degree of intimacy?" I don't see how excluding gay couples improves this pretty bleak assessment of marriage.

Leftists and apathetic people are saying that the current boundaries and regulations surrounding "who can get" married are "arbitrary" and "biogted". When we include one or two more possible sets of people into the distinction of "who can get" married we still have more sets remaing who are excluded who want to be included.

Extrapolating this argument backward to what (I hope) you will recognize as its absurd conclusion, are you suggesting the government should never have recognized African-Americans' civil rights, because now gays want them too? Becuase something got THIS ball rolling, and the ball before that, and the ball before that. Maybe it was giving women the right to vote?

And I'm sure there are plenty of apathetic people who'd prefer marriage to stay just the way it is...

Rob

Hey Blue Spider,

Two-not-already-blood-related-people....

Another example of the change in marriage and also how those defining it now don't know it all that well. Blood relations, strange as it seems, can get hitched in this country in this day and age. They just want some distance in the line. But even that's new. Marriage between first cousins isn't that uncommon around the world and was something that was done in this country's short history. Would you insist that, by law, we don't recognize the marriage of two people from another country who move here because they're first cousins and we don't allow it here anymore? Just wondering.

And I'm not apathetic. Nor are many of my friends who don't have a prob with gay marriage. I'm just secure in who I am and in my beliefs. I've got a few gay couple friends and at no time have their relationships ever made me feel that mine with my girl was threatend, under attack, devalued or in some way less then it could be. They have their happy household and I have mine.

And, Tang, I kinda like some of the old ways too. But I still think I would like to actually know the person I'm spending the rest of my life with.

TOBY:

I told you "gerbils, not monkeys."

See what happens?

Gerbils.

Actually, you can have really close blood ties in some states and still be wed. I think it's the law in West Virginia that at least one male in the family get hitched to his sister.

Hey, I'm from Virginia. I have to get at least one WVA dig in before the end of the night.

"Hail Eris!" indeed, Jay. I've got my copy of the Principia Discordia -- the only religious tome published by Steve Jackson Games -- and I'm a'headin' for a hot dog.

Now that I've confused everyone...

Many, many posts above, PAD mentioned "You know...that would be a heck of a novel. A novel in which the disciples were so determined to create a religion, but interest was flagging in their guy. So they decided he needed to be martyred and set the wheels in motion secretly..." This has been done, in several forms, before. Many of the Jesus conspiracy theories suggest he was mortal, was secreted away, and had children with Mary Madgalene. (This theory pops up everywhere from the divinity of the royal houses of Europe to the comic book Preacher to the novel The DaVinci Code.) This could mean he wasn't divine, or his divinity is passed down. The novel ANOTHER ROADISDE ATTRACTION (which I haven't read in years, so feel free to correct any errors) has a traveling circus group find the corpse of Jesus, which would mean no ascension if there's a body. What do I think? It's time for, drumroll please...

KING ARTHUR AND JESUS CHRIST

There was a historical Arthur. (Again, this is based on classes I took over 10 years ago; expect fuzziness.) Before England was called the same, there was someone who built a sturdy fort that kept out some invaders; it's believed his name was Arthur, because shortly after this fort was made there were lots of people being named Arthur. Over time, the fort evolved into a castle. There was a stone, which became an anvil, which was transformed into a Holy Grail. There was a great battle, then a betrayal, then a clash with a relative. French romances were all the rage among English nobility, so soon courtly love became entwined with the legend, and a love triangle, and Christian beliefs got mixed in, and on, and on -- and all from someone who made a good fort.

Now, what if around 2000 years ago, there was a Jew with a different message? Instead of urging violence and the imminent Second Coming, he told people to love one another? Don't fight -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't judge -- forgive others instead. And what if people talked, and the stories about him grew. "He talked to a great crowd!" "He helped many!" And what if those followers wanted to keep spreading the (dare I say it? yes) Word about this kind man. And what if the stories grew: "He didn't just help people -- he healed them!" "He didn't just heal them -- he brought them from the dead!" And what if his reputation grew, from being a good man, to a great man, to a holy man, to a prophet of God, to the Son of God, to 1/3 of God? He didn't defeat the Romans -- but what if that was the plan? What if he transcended death instead of succumbing to it? And what if the followers decided to organize their thoughts, creating a book combining the old ways and the beliefs about this new man? (Not all writings would make it in, of course -- the organization would have to decide which were divinely written and which weren't.) And what if that organization grew, divided, argued, fought wars, killed unbelievers and differing sects, finally believing it superceded all else, even that which existed before?

Could all this have happened? Could the most powerful religion today have evolved from a man who told people to love one another?

I'm an agnostic, largely because my answer to this is yes.

Bill Mulligan: "..I'd be nervous about the hostility they will face from some Muslim students and a left wing faculty that often equates Israel with Nazi Germany.."

Sorry Bill, but the Passion is being propelled into the public consciousness by the right wing, not the left. You will not find nazis voting or supporting leftwing democrats or liberals. The leftwing was, alongside Jews, a target of Nazi fascim, as well as in Italy whose title for it was 'corporatism', which is what we have here in the U.S under Bush/Cheney.

So please don't tell the jewish community they need to be afraid of liberals and left wingers, cause you'd be 100% wrong.

MYOB'

.

So, I do a quick page refresh to see if I missed any of the discussion, and wonder why there was suddenly about three feet of text added in the twenty minutes since I started perusing the messages.

Jesus...if that really is Bendis, I kind of expected more pauses, ellipsis, and "y'know"s for that "authentic" dialogue sound. Although I suppose the repetition does ring true as Bendis work.

I'm also a little disappointed, but not really surprised, that PAD has finally resorted to throwing around the liberal epithet of bigotry. That ought to put a chill on any discussion or debate from anyone who disagrees with PAD's position on the subject.

Sometimes "bigotry" is the right word, though. There's a difference between disapproving of what a person does (which is what Fundamentalists, among others, claim to do) and hating the person.

The pedophile example was interesting; are you a bigot for hating a pedophile? Perhaps. After all, a pedophile is not a person who has sex with children, but one who is sexually attracted to children. Hating a person who has sex with children is... within the bounds of acceptablity (if you can really justify hatred to begin with), but hating a person who is attracted to them, recognizes that his attraction is wrong -- an argument can be made that it isn't, but we'll just go with the assumption that it is inherently wrong to copulate with a minor -- and seeks to overcome it because of that sexual attraction; that's not exactly right. I don't know if I'd call it bigotry, but hating someone for their weaknesses rather than their transgressions is decidedly un-Christian.

As for the Marriage Amendment; yes, it's bigoted in nature. It's a proposed law that uses arbitrary and irrelevant stereotypes to justify preventing a certain group of people from having certain rights -- hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. -- based solely on the thing that makes them different. It's as bigoted a law as the original law that outlawed marijuana, which was justified by the man who brought it before Congress because "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men," among other things.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Oh, and finally to the people who think they're being cute about pointing out that if Christ hadn't died, Christian's wouldn't have a religion, what alternative universe do you have access to?

Well, Peter David is a Jewish writer. He has access to all the worlds his imagination will take him to, and none of them necessarily require by the doctrine of his faith that Jesus Christ be regarded seriously as either the Son of God or the Savior of Mankind.

What a sophist argument! The foundation of Christianity is grounded in the teachings of Christ, not just his death. It's like saying that the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded if Martin Luther King hadn't died. Had either lived longer than they did doesn't mean that their teachings wouldn't be just as popular today or just as valid.

Actually, Jeeze ([silliness]as they called him back then; it's true![/silliness]) wasn't especially popular back then. His teachings didn't really have much mainstream effect until some time after his death, and this was mostly herded along by the people who were talking about his death, and more prevalently, his ressurection. Coming back to life in full view of the public is a damn sight more impressive than switching peoples' drinks and having more fish than people think you do.

Hate to break it to you, but Christianity is based not on the teachings of Christ but on the divinity of Christ. His philosophical leanings are really secondary to the whole Son of God thing. Think about it; Christians have a pretty easy time in this modern world culture of ignoring basic precepts of Jesus's teachings, such as love your brother and such, but if a person suggests that everything Jesus did could have been faked, they get offended. The important part of Jesus's life was the end of it.

There's no way that was Brian Bendis. It's just some pathetic creep who doesn't even have the stones to sign his name to his desperate ploy for attention.

Anyone have a mop? Some dumb animal shit on the floor.

Rob

I am straight, white, and not Jewish. I work in a factory. Every week, and I tell you again---EVERY WEEK--- I hear racist, misogynistic, and homo-phobic comments. I am surrounded by bigots. It is to laugh (except it is so damned depressing) to hear how they twist their logic and words to try to justify their opinions to themselves and others. The twisting , the interweaving, the paralogia...

A bigot will never admit to being a bigot.

I find myself getting angrier with each additional comment. I can't understand how people can be this way. What part of "Do unto others..." is so hard to understand? What part of "Love thy neighbor..." is so hard to follow?

I am getting angry just writing about this.

Maybe someday I'll get a bumper sticker that says:

So Many Bigots,

So Few Bullets.

Damn! That Bendis sure can write some amazing stuff. I've never read any of that kind of stuff before. Maybe I should pick up a couple of his comics.

From various posters:

Actually, that entire statement is untrue, especially the section about the Patriot Act. But, I'm not going to change your mind on that, and it's easier to just make statements than back them up.

Where is it untrue? Are't there Arabs being held in GTMO with out being charged in any crime? Don't they have the power to monitor and take down websites that they feel to be in anyway threatening to national security? The patriot act is a little ambiguous on that one, and as a non-citizen one who lives in fear of the patriot act...>>

That's a bit misleading, isn't it? They're being held as "prisoners of war", which while not a crime is a legitmate reason to lock someone up. I think the protests are that they SHOULD be charged as criminals.

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but the Guantanamo Bay captives are actually being held as "enemy combatants", not "prisoners of war."

What does that mean? Go here:

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

Or read this excerpt:

Enemy Combatant

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President's authority is bolstered by Congress's Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized "the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" committed or aided in the September 11 attacks." Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President's traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation's history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

As you can see, the enemy combatant status is not an invention of the Bush Administration. Nor is Bush's power to classify war criminals as enemy combatants a subversion of established legal principles. The relevant question is: are the Guantanamo Bay detainees truly "enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war." If they are the former, then they should be detained for however long the Bush Adminstration sees fit. If they are the latter, then the expanded freedoms accorded to "prisoners of war" by the Geneva Convention should come into play. Not having devoured the relevant legalese, I can't say I'm qualified to the make that call.

Boy, did YOU misunderstand. Or perhaps I simply wasn't clear. What I was saying was that the conditions which lead to the Holocaust sixty years ago--which Americans blissfully say could never happen here--have indeed, to various degrees, been happening right up to modern day here in the United States. I was comparing the US from sixty years ago through to modern day to Germany at the time of World War II. Not to modern day Germany. Sixty years ago people in Germany were being deprived of liberty without having committed a crime; sixty years ago, we were doing it with the Japanese...and, as you say, we're doing it again.

PAD

But for PAD to draw an analogy between what Hitler did during World War II and what Bush is doing now with the Guantanamo Bay detainees is absurd. If Bush was rounding up Muslims (both here and abroad) at random, herding them into concentration camps and executing them on a mass scale, all in an effort to engineer some sort of "master race", then PAD would have a darn good point. But not only is the evidence lacking for that, the more modest analogy that Japanese internment camp programs here in the U.S. are being duplicated nowadays don't hold up either. Are Muslims being randomly snatched from their homes, mosques, and places of work and forced to labor in internment camps? Sorry, Peter, I'm just not seeing it. Not even close.

All I can say is if you're genuinely interested in persuading others to accept your opinions about Bush, incorporating the Bush=Hitler equation into your argument may not be the best way to go about it.

But thank you for taking our previous posts on the subject seriously enough to base another thread around it.

-Dave O'Connell

I wonder if it's too late to change PAD's mind on that whole "throwing people off the site" debate from a few weeks ago? And I thought my joking dig at my WVA cousins (none of whom I'm married to) would be the poor taste post of the morning.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to give props to Bill Mulligan. Yours was a very good post, even though it suffered a bit from the obvious handicap of not having the term "***********" in it five thousand times.

-Dave O'Connell

Isn't the Bendis post above (and if you don't know which one I'm referring to, seek professional help) exactly the sort of thing that made PAD consider banning certain folks from this site? It's a few actual sentences, with a truly massive amount of rasict and sexist words -- the same two, over and over -- repeated numerous times in between. That is barely speech, more an offensive barrage than argument, the sort of post that would not be missed, and the sort of posting that should get Bendis booted from here. No one else, on either side of the discussion, resorted to anything like that.

Mr. David Bjorlin wrote:

"I’m sorry Mitch has just noticed people are “hate-filled slime"

Actually, I've known for quite a while. It's just that these days it's become so prevelant that I've decided to seclude myself lest I snap. A little background: I work with people that throw the word 'nigger' around like we're at a klan rally. One even tries to justify it by saying that one of his best friends is black. Doesn't mean that he's not a piece-of-shit biggot. After all his friend is a "black friend" and we don't always have alot of say as far as who our friends are. Sometimes we just can't help but like someone.

Jerry wrote:

"I don't tolerate Pedofiles...guess that makes me a bigot? So when did you start tolerating pedofiles, or are you a bigot as well?"

Your choice of groups used to illustrate your point ultimately defeated your point. Pedofiles are predators who choose to abuse children physically and manipulate them (mostly through coersion) emotionally. Two gays getting married are not hurting anyone but (potentially) themselves.

On the notion of tolerance...

I will NOT tolerate anyone. I find it demeaning since 'tolerate' is synonymous with 'to put up with.' Instead I prefer to accept people for what they are and decide whether or not I want them as a part of my life. To 'tolerate' someone is to place them lower than yourself. Which I believe is wrong. Everyone has something to offer. A perspective that hasn't been previously considered. I, for one, would prefer to veiw a problem with many perspectives and have many options as opposed to a single perspective and have limited options.

End of speach (untill the next one)

Salutations,

Mitch

I would like to make two comments after I read a lot of more postings:

No, Bush is not Hitler. I agree with that. I also doubt it very much that at least in the USA and Western Europe, something similar as the Holocaust could happen again - not because human nature changed but because people nowadays are much more vigilant, also thanks to the flow of news and globalization that exists today.

That doesn`t mean that what is happening in the name of "War on Terror" is right. Especially because of what I wrote before, because it is much more difficult to keep unlawful actions a secret Bush had to find another way: to clothe it into something people would accept so that they accept it as a necessary evil. And as soon as they accept one measure, Bush can try to push further, to introduce the next step. This is not Hitler`s Germany but there is a miz of dangerous parallels here with even more sophistication.

"War against terror" is an important goal but if you act as the world police and tell others what is acceptable behaviour, you better set a very good example. Unfortunately freedoms are cut down and laws twisted to make unjust actions like locking up people without being charged, sometimes even indefinitely, to look right. The most obvious example is Guantanamo Bay. But it happens also in the USA and, yes, also in Iraq where citizens are arrested and locked up, sometimes they find themselves in prison and even the families aren`t told.

Someone said the inmates in Guantanamo Bay are "prisoners of war". No, Bush was always careful not to describe them as that because if they were, they would have rights. Locking up a prisoner of war like this would be a war crime. Therefore they are described as "unlawful combatants". Only, it seems to me, people accused as that also automatically lose their human rights, which is very serious indeed. One of my US friends keeps telling me that I should stop defending these people because "they deserve it". Pardon!? Even a convicted serial killer has more right than these people who didn`t even have a trial after two years and haven`t seen their families and got legal help! After a long struggle, five of the nine British inmates are supposed to be released "soon" (whenever that is). Some of their backgrounds has been shown on British TV and I was left with serious doubts that these men had done anything at all that links them to terrorism.

I am wondering now, what next? Should Iraq get a government the USA is not happy with, maybe consisting of extremists, what then? Unfortunately it is much easier to destroy than to rebuild, especially when dealing with a very different culture and belief system. Afghanistan is far from stable and especially the situation of women there is still appalling. I am afraid what could become of Iraq after the USA leaves.

The other one is about the "freedom of speech" issue. As I said before, I disagree with PAD here that ALL kinds of free speech have to be permitted because to do so is potentially dangerous. How anyone can defend the freedom of speech of people who obviously fall unter the cathegory of "inciting to violence and racial hatred" is beyond me.

It's just a stupid movie so I dont understand the fuss. We've had these type of movies over the years and no one has griped about em. All of a sudden jews are worried??? What for?? Those that have read the bible already know how Jesus died. And the Jews did kill him. Nothing new there. I just don't understand the hype over this. Its just a movie.

Ay, caramba. And then I found out why it took so long to scroll down here...

Peter: Your novel idea hasn't exactly been taken. The Last temptation of Christ and Morley Callaghan's A Time for Judas both play with the idea of Judas as the most loyal disciple because he knows Christ must be martyred for the religion to grow. But the conspiracy thing would be neat. You could do it like an episode of the West Wing -- people running around worried about the latest polls, etc. etc.

Cheers, Jon

A lot of people refute that there are any similarities in regards to the actions and words of many politicians today to those in Nazi Germany based solely on the fact that no one in power has attempted to exterminate the Jewish people in the US. I think sometimes people forget that while the Holocaust was clearly the Nazi's #1 most horrible act, it was not the only action that they took nor was it their only motivation. I think that sometimes people disregard other similiarities because our government hasn't done that so everything else is okay.

The Nazis also invaded other countries and occupied them for their own good of course.

They controlled the media and censored those that did not agree with them. (Notice the sudden increase in censorship since the superbowl.)

Those who still spoke out against the regime were labelled traitors and terrorists by the Nazi Party.(Notice the trend of calling people anti-american or turning the terms "Liberal" and "Protester" into labels of anti-patriotism.)

Nazi Germany swelled with Nationalism instead of Patriotism.(Patriotism is loving your country despite its flaws and attempting to change or question those flaws from within the system by improving it. Nationalism is believing that your Country and/or Leaders can do no wrong and are right no matter what they do.)

They passed laws enabling them to detain certain citizens without question and label them as second-class citizens with little or no rights that the true loyal citizens deserved. Like Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and Polish peoples.

Having said all that I think that saying that certain politicians are Nazis is way too strong and a little paranoid. But ignoring the silimilarities of the last two years worth of events in this country I also believe to be naive. I do not believe that we are heading towards another Holocaust, but that doesn't make me worry any less about where our country's current mindset is taking us. The path is too uncomfortably familiar and appears to be heading towards only the acceptance of the like-minded by those in power which appalls me as a Patriotic American who believes that our diversity is the strength of this Country.

PAD: ...the conditions which lead to the Holocaust sixty years ago--which Americans blissfully say could never happen here--have indeed, to various degrees, been happening right up to modern day here in the United States.

David Bjorlin: ...but the Holocaust is evil on a scale rarely seen even among our kind of slime.

"In 1994, in the hills of Rwanda, over the course of one hundred days, an estimated 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers were brutally murdered by Hutu extremists." - Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 7, 2003 edition

Human Rights Watch estimates that Iraqi forces killed fifty-thousand to one-hundred-thousand people during the 1988 campaign against the Kurds.

David, I don't really know your age, but those are some of the ones I remember seeing on television...I don't have to know much history to see that the part of the human spirit that Hitler exemplifies is still very much with us. Saying it won't happen because it's so horrible it's rare... I don't think that's reality. I think people are trying to do what Hitler did all the time, and when they achieve some success, they're in the news. But if the problem was a few isolated madmen, that would be easy to solve. The dangerous thing is that people latch on to an authority figure and follow without question. And when an authority figure begins to abuse that authority, the people who have seen the same thing happen in other situations get a little unsettled.

Well, maybe Passion of the Christ is not going to set off a wave of anti-Semitism...I can't see Mel Gibson whipping all of America into a Jew-hating storm, even if he was trying!

But I have seen a president use false claims to start a war. Well, there are a lot of non-bigoted conservatives out there who won't believe everything Bush says just because he says it. But it's hard to pretend that Bush didn't just have a couple of hundred thousand troops invade a country without actually having to back up his claims...and that there are many people who won't ask for evidence to back up his claims. You see, they just know he's right. And they'll overlook the fact that there are a couple of American citizens being held, not in some shadowy Orwellian future that the "hippie commies" have dreamed up, but this very second with the government denying that they have a right to a lawyer, a jury, or any kind of a trial at all, ever. Bush decides who will stay in jail forever, and you see, people just know he wouldn't ever choose the wrong person or abuse his power.

Dave again:

this Republic looks nothing like a fascist police state. Our laws and our institutions are what protect us from the hate-filled slime.

What I can even say to make you understand? In Germany before the War, certainly the average citizen didn't think of themself as an unreasonable person. Neither you nor I am unreasonable, right? (And I accept that you may disagree about me.) But most people don't want to rock the boat if it doesn't affect them. So they'll let the small things go, find ways to excuse them.

Our Republic doesn't look like a fascist police state? In the beginning, a fascist police state is one where the people are willing to overlook detentions, bigotry, hate, and abuse of power on a small scale, because once these things are introduced and accepted as normal by reasonable people, they can increase. The kind of "look" you're talking about (where American citizens are hauled away to jail without trial in large numbers instead of just a couple at a time; where dissenters are jailed or shot instead of just investigated; where prisoners of war are openly tortured instead of sent to other countries for the dirty work) well, that's the look of a police state that's grown to full adulthood instead of one in its innocent-looking infancy.

I truly do not believe that we live in anything like a full-fledged police state. But our laws and institutions alone can't protect us; they can be used and abused just like any other tool. If you believe it's unjust to hold non-citizens without charges, but will accept it as long as it's not citizens...And a year later you believe that it's unjust to hold citizens without trial, but will accept as long as there aren't many...Well, I will suggest a social experiment. If you haven't already decided what the unacceptable level is, decide now before something else becomes "normal". You say that this Republic looks nothing like a police state. Decide what a police state looks like. Now write down the list and put it on your wall. Make sure it's something unambiguous, because I'm pretty sure I thought a while ago that if the government put even one American citizen into jail indefinitely without a trial, that would be the start of a police state. But my life hasn't changed that much since then...Anyway, put down all the details (will 50 citizens jailed indefinitely be enough to define a police state, or will there have to be something completely over the top- suspension of the Constitution?) See if your definition doesn't change if any of these things actually happens: if 50 citizens are held without charges- but it was a truly heinous crime; if the Constitution is suspended- but it's only for a temporary emergency...

If we believe that it can't happen in America just because it's America, even if we've seen it happen with people everywhere...doesn't that make us a little bigoted?

I'm all for nitpicking at the small infractions before there's anything recognizable as a police state- like the suspension of the right to a trial. Ummm, I mean for more people. Like 50 maybe. Unless it's just a temporary emergency, or the crime was truly heinous...or if it's been done in the history of the US before.

As Dave O'Connell so eloquently pointed out by example in the post above, people will find all sorts of reasonable excuses for the abuse of power, because they would desperately like to believe not only that nothing will go wrong, but that nothing has gone wrong at all (and therefore there is no need for them to change their beliefs or rock the boat): Dave says that Bush is not actually abusing his power because there is legal precedent: American citizens were held "without counsel or trial" in WWII.

May I suggest to you as gently as possible, Dave, that an abuse of power can happen even with legal precedent? You can go with the letter of the law and still be wrong; Japanese internment camps were legal and even popularly supported in WWII; they were certainly not a "subversion of established legal principles" (at least, not then. The main question I'm asking is whether the President really should legally have the power to execute any citizen he chooses, without them having recourse to counsel or a trial. Because he claims he has that right, even if he also says he would never abuse it.

First, Some one please take that Bendis freak's "copy/paste" license away!

Second, I agree whole-heartedly with what PAD has said here.

Third, for those who have said that Bush is merely enforcing the status quo because no society has EVER endorsed gay marriage, I offer the following (and a search on the internet will give you the evidence. I'm not handy enough with HTML to link it for you, sorry.

The following non-religious societies have endorsed gay marriage in history:

The Greeks, The Romans, The Egyptians, The Chinese, Several Native American Tribes, Several African Tribes, Early Middle-Eastern Tribes.

The following religions have endorsed gay marriage at some point in their history:

Judeaism, Christianity (for 900 years, no less), Islam, Greco-pantheism (Specifically related to Dionycean sects), Roman pantheism (specifically related to the Bacchanals)Hinduism. (Buddhism did, as well, but I tend to think of that more as a philosophy than a religion.)

So the "status quo" that Bush is defending is a recent development.

Tim Lynch wrote:

Could you perhaps tone down on the massive overgeneralization?

(And on a more general note, how did this thread suddenly turn back into the gay-marriage thread? Is the issue really that all-encompassing?)

Last question first. PAD brought up the gay marriage issue in the post that starts this thread, so it didn't suddenly turn back in a gay marriage thread.

First question last: What massive overgeneralization?

I'm just curious how many people here have even read the proposed amendment, or is everyone here just going on soundbites. For the record, the amendment DOES NOT ban gay marriages.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is narrowly tailored to address negative developments in the courts. At the same time, the amendment does not depart from principles of federalism under which family law is, for the most part, a state matter. The traditional autonomy of state legislatures on family law matters is preserved by the text of the amendment.

So any state can still legalized gay marriages (I.E. Hawaii, Mass, Vermont). However, a federal judge can't just make a ruling in Hawaii that affects the entire country. Since marriage is a states right issue, this amendment would reserve it as a power to the states.

Jerry

This blig has nothing to do with the movie it's self it has turned into another Bush bashing thread.....

sigh...

Some people is crazy and the need no arguments.It's obvious Jesus death was caused by Romans and Jewish (I´m sure vikings had nothing to do with it. But in the same way I'm not responsible for what my grandfather did before I was born actual Jewish are as innocent as you and me (I don't know if that's saying much. And Jesus teaching is not based on forgiveness? I can't understand people who says "You killed Jesus, I hate you". That's pointless.

Holocaust was an horrible thing and I hope it never happens again, but I don't see some of the Jewish learned the lesson because they are doing the same with Palestinian people. I see no difference between Hitler and Ariel Sharon.

Socrates always said that is more important not cometting bad things than suffering injustices (as Jesus, Buddha... also said) but everybody looks on the other direction.

I haven't seen this movie yet but cruelty is cruelty, you can't expect seeing somebody torturing and want it to be as a Disney movie. There should be pain and blood. If suffering would be a fun thing nor Jesus nor the holocausted Jewish would be an hero. And, as I said seeing vikings killing Jesus would have been too much.

Other thing I want to say is, as my fellows XV century Spanish people was responsible for most of the atrocities of that moment now is the USA who has been screwing the world since XX century began. (Ok, now my country is also one of your allies, it's my shame. And next month I'm moving to Japan, that's not much improvement about it).

I hope someday you and I and everybody can live in a world without hate and figths.

Micko

EClark:

First question last: What massive overgeneralization?

The one that said everyone in favor of gay marriage would be cheering if Bush had suggested an amendment allowing it.

While I've no doubt hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the issue of gay marriage, altering the Constitution isn't on most people's agendas (at least most of the ones I know).

TWL

Paranoid? No. The Jews still have much to fear in the world. One need only look to the Middle East, France, Germany, or in some cases much closer than that to see that Anti-Semitism is still alive and kicking in the world.

Overreacting when it comes to this movie? Yes. I'm not hearing anyone say that this movie was intentionally Anti-Semetic, just that it might cause stupid, impressionable, suggestible people to act or feel in an Anti-Semetic manner. If this was a comic book instead of a movie, I wonder what the CBLDF would have to say to people who said that the book should not be published or sold due to these concerns?

Jerry, what I'm attempting to do is voice the corner of a group of countries and people you (and several others on this board) seem intent on defaming. The fact that you have two sources rather than one does not address my query about if the levels of anti-semmitism are comparable in the US, not does it make a difference. I'm trying to explain that you can't base an argument about misperceived levels of anti-Semmitism (or whatever) in the US by saying that 'at least its better than in Europe' without attempting to understand how things are different there. All that attitude will accomplish is misrepresentation of a group of countries which generally have the same level of intolerance for such practices as the US.

My mimicry of your own posts and demonstration of how the same words can be applied to situations outside them was indeed a way to make my point. It was an effort to show how the situation is not how you paint it, it is in fact quite similar in some places. (And frankly, I couldnt resist the last one)

If you want to get offended, I can't stop you, but you did not once reply to any of the core issues on the post I made, I am curious to see how you would.

I see no difference between Hitler and Ariel Sharon.

So are you blind, or is it something more seriously wrong with you? Because, if you honestly believe that, then you have some warped conceptions of what went on during WW2, and what is going on now.

I suggest reading a bit more, then you will sound less like a wacko. Maybe a graphic novel? Something like MAUS. Then try to find anything even remotely similar happening today in Israel.

The Israeli/Palesteni conflict has wrongdooers on both sides. Isreali citizens live each day with car bombings, suicide bombs on buses, and school bombings. Yes, they retaliate against the Palestenians. I expect most people would. But even if you can claim they should turn the other cheek, there is still no comparison to their actions, and the actions of Hitler rounding up every jew they could find and gassing them. This conflict in the middle east would have to go on for another hundred or more years to even approach the death toll of just the jews.

Unless you're going to claim the holocaust didn't happen, next?

"More name-calling. You don't like "liberal" or "right-wing", but calling someone a "monkey " is okay?"-ECLark

Uh, hopefully you're joking about that, cuz that's how I sign all my posts. I wasn't calling you or anyone else a monkey, other than perhaps myself, I guess.

Sorry, Toby, but I'm not familiar with your sig. I don't get it, but I accept your explanation.

So, when it gets used on a concervative's blog, is it a right wing epithet?

I'm sure someone would think so, don't you?

And if what the individuals being called bigots are saying/doing falls into the category or scope of bigotry, does that not make them, or at least what they say bigotry?

You are missing my point and proving it at the same time. It's irrelevant what category it falls under. Calling it a bigotry as PAD did puts a chill on the debate. Now, instead of just defending my position on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, I also have to contend with being judge on whether or not I'm a bigot. And that is completely unfair as well as wrong.

And to answer your question, no it doesn't make what they say or believe bigotry. Yes, I admit that my religious upbringing makes me see homosexuality as a sin, but that isn't the reason that I oppose gay marriage. I believe that the number one purpose of marriage the upbringing of children procreated within that marriage. And while I recognize that not every marriage produces a child, you have to at least meet the starting qualification to even try, that being one male and one female. By definition, same-sex couples don't meet that qualification. Now how does believing that make me or anyone who believes it, as I do, a bigot? Not only that, but there are many gays who don't want gay marriage either for that and other reasons. Are they bigots as well? Heck, there's one lesbian who writes a column on Salon.com who wants to see marriage ended all together. Is she a bigot, because she's against same-sex marriage as well? Or is it okay for her because she just has a different opinion? If so, why give her a pass, because she gay?

3 and 3,

You didn't present any core issues. Lay some out and I will address them. All you did was (incorrectly) attack the source of my information (unless the official police reports from France are invalid now), then mimic and mock me and my arguements. If you want to address this seriously, and rationally, let me know. Present some information besides "because I say so..nanananabooboo".

The US has the highest jewish population in the world, but the lowest per capita anti-semetic occurances. We also don't have 97% of our citizens saying there are to many muslims, or 86% saying there are too many blacks. That's scary, and that's a recipe for another holocaust type event, and that is the current xenophobic mindset in France.

I've been there, for extended periods of time. Still have relations and friend in France, and many of them are terrified by the current social and political xenophobic climate. The overwhelming majority of people in France don't want emmigrants to even have basic rights, or to be able to vote.

But hey, if this is all right with you, then that's a personal issue you have to deal with yourself.

Tim Lynch wrote:

The one that said everyone in favor of gay marriage would be cheering if Bush had suggested an amendment allowing it.

Except I never said "Everyone" in favor of it would be cheering Bush. Go ahead, find the quote. I'll wait.

EClark1849,

I'm glad someone else see that. It's amazing how PAD described bigotry as not tolerating someone elses point of view, yet then everyone here refuses to tolerate the point of view of people who are against gay marriage, and calls them bigots. Doesn't that make everone here a bigot for not tolerating the anti-gay marriage POV?

This is an invalid definition of bigot, and a poor way to win an arguement. Instead of addressing the points, we resort to the "if you feel this way you're a bigot". This is no better than what was happening from the right in the past years that if you disagreed with the war you were automatically "unpatriotic". If you don't like it on your side, don't do it back to us.

Of course, the same people who are upset about judges undermining the will of the people and affecting the presidency, are demanding that judges now be allows to undermine the will of the people, and allow gay marriage, rather than letting the populations of each state decide...hmmm..more hypocrisy.

And for the record, hypocrisy does happen on both sides, but it doesn't excuse it in either case (before someone makes that arguement). We're not 3 years old. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Bigotry has nothing do do with whether you tolerate someone's point of view. I didn't see where PAD defined it that way (and I'm pretty sure he didn't), but if he did, he's wrong. Bigotry is about not respecting (groups of) people, not individual opinions.

Rob

Why are Jews disliked? What I mean is, what are the reasons anti-semites give, and what do you think are the reasons?

As for anti-semitism in Europe, what proportion is from native Europeans, and what proportion is from immigrant Muslims?

Rob,

Here's the exact quote.

A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.

Even you're definition is wrong. I don't respect murderer's, but that doesn't make me a bigot. A bigot is defined as follows:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So one can be against gay marriage, but not be a bigot. It depends on the motives and the reasons for being against gay marriage.

I'm very accepting of alternative lifestyles. I've got both a gay uncle (in a committed relationship) and a gay aunt (also in a committed relationship). My wife is also bisexual (a choice that most gay groups attack). But I am not supportive of gay marriage for multiple personal reasons, and will vote and support politicians that will work against legalizing gay marriages. But this goes not, in no uncertain terms, make me a bigot.

I call it a "liberal" epithet because it was used in this forum and in the midst of a legitimate debate for one reason and one reason only. It was used to characterize individuals who believe a certain way in a particular light.

No, it was used to characterize an individual, George W. Bush, to describe the way I believe he perceives gays and the action he is endeavoring to take. Supporting the implementation of an amendment that formalizes a segment of American citizens as second class citizens is, I believe, a form of bigotry. A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own. Going out of his way to make them unhappy and make sure they don't have the rights of other citizens, I believe, constitutes bigotry.

Bull crap. I can't marry a man and a gay man can't marry a man. That's equal rights. The only difference is I don't WANT to marry a man and the gay man doesn't WANT to marry a woman. What right do I have that he doesn't?

I believe your response--to try and slap an unwarranted label of "liberal epithet" to a fairly accurate definition of Bush's actions--is a fast attempt to smear me (because, you know, liberal=evil) rather than acknowledge the bigoted actions of the President.

If you see yourself as evil, PAD, that's your problem. I never implied such a thing. I didn't imply, but STATED that I think you were trying to put a chill on an honest debate by using that epithet to characterize ANYONE who supports an amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the Constitution as a bigot, and I stand by that. You may have called Bush's name, but the implication that anyone who supports his actions is a bigot, isn't very subtle. I don't have to smear you, you've done a fairly good job of it yourself.

** Why are Jews disliked? What I mean is, what are the reasons anti-semites give, and what do you think are the reasons?

As for anti-semitism in Europe, what proportion is from native Europeans, and what proportion is from immigrant Muslims? **

Both good questions. Not sure anyone can answer them. Really, I think it just has to do with the old world customs and beliefs. These hatreds go back hundreds of years. Many people still live in their same villages and communities that their families have lived in for hundreds of years. I've got relatives in both Scottland and Germany who live in the same homes (!) that their families have lived in for over 100 years. I think this is what engenders a kind of xenophobic reaction, especially as you start to see your culture changing due to television, the internet, and emmigrants.

I think you see a bit less of this here, since there is less of a defined cultural identity in the US, so less resistance. Traditionally, though, in the US, when you had the emmigrants living in sections of new york (such as the irish, or the germans, or the polish) each group was extremely xenophobic and hostile to the other groups. So alot of this I think is mere human nature.

As for the second question, who knows? Probably a mixure of both.

Jerry posted:

I'm just curious how many people here have even read the proposed amendment, or is everyone here just going on soundbites. For the record, the amendment DOES NOT ban gay marriages.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is narrowly tailored to address negative developments in the courts. At the same time, the amendment does not depart from principles of federalism under which family law is, for the most part, a state matter. The traditional autonomy of state legislatures on family law matters is preserved by the text of the amendment.

So any state can still legalized gay marriages (I.E. Hawaii, Mass, Vermont). However, a federal judge can't just make a ruling in Hawaii that affects the entire country. Since marriage is a states right issue, this amendment would reserve it as a power to the states.

The following is Rep Musgrave's version (H.J.Res 56):

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Now, careful reading of this shows specifically that NO state's decision to permit same-sex marriages (or even civil unions as in Vermont) will be permitted under the terms of this proposed amendment as specified in the last sentence.

There's nothing in it about a federal judge making a "local" decision applicable to the nation as a whole. That idea, by the way, does NOT happen anyways. If a federal circuit judge makes a decision, it applies ONLY to the residents of that particular Circuit Court's jurisdiction. Only laws decided by the U S Supreme Court apply to the entire country. Other circuit courts can use the decision rendered in another circuit court as a basis for its decision, but, for example, if the 9th Circuit Court renders a decision, it applies only to the 9th Circuit Court's jurisdiction; the 3rd Circuit Court can use that decision when judging a case before it, but the 9th's decision will not otherwise apply to the 3rd's jurisdiction unless the U S Supreme Court upholds the 9th's decision.

As the H J Res 56 is worded, however, Vermont's current civil unions (as well as SF's same-sex marriages) would not only be not recognized by the Federal gov't nor any other state which refuses to recognize them, but would, in fact, be nullified, even if Vermont were to formalize civil unions within its own state constitution.

It should be noted that already the various states which refuse to recognize Vermont's civil unions are violating the U S Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause--that's the one which allows a hetero couple married in Alaska (or in Albania or the Azores) to be recognized as married in Alabama or Arizona without having to undergo a new marriage ceremony (one presumes, of course, that the marriage ceremony was valid where it was performed). It also allows a Californian to drive to New York without the need to possess a driver's license for each state he plans to travel through. It should be noted, though, that possession of a out-of-state driver's license won't permit the bearer to violate certain state laws (tobacco laws, for instance, or even window-tinting laws; in Alabama, there's a certain amount of tinting that's permitted--an out-of-state vehicle is allowed to be in the state for only a certain length of time before the car's owner can be fined for violating the window-tinting laws), but the possession of that license does permit the bearer to travel as freely as he would in his home state.

Oh cool, someone reasonable (contrapositive) I can argue with.

I am 30. I clearly remember when the Rwanda genocide occurred; I was in college studying ethnic nationalism, coincidentally enough. Note that I said Hitlerian evil was "rare," not unique. Note that I also endorsed Mitch's description of people as "hate-filled slime." I'm a prosecutor and I have a child rape case coming up in three weeks. I see evil every day on a "small" scale (geez, there was only one victim, right?). Large scale atrocities do and will happen, froom Mongols laying waste to cities and building pyramids out of their victims' skulls, to Stalin killing even more people than Hitler, to a bloodbath in Africa a decade ago.

That doesn't mean it's going to happen here. The United States is neither Nazi Germany,as PAD intimated, nor Weimar Germany as you suggest. Daniel Goldhagen wrote a book entitled Hitler's Willing Executioners detailing how Germany was deeply antisemitic for decades before the Holocaust. The USA isn't. Hitler didn't create antisemitism in Germany; he rode it into power. It's a far stretch to equate fringe group hatred like you see in America to the massive broad and deep racism of antebellum Germany. Germany also didn't have the centuries-old history of civil liberties and democracy that we have. I agree that laws are tools that can be used, and abused (q.v. Jim Crow), but to the extent possible our nation has been an ongoing experiment in preventing such abuse. I have to believe we have learned something over the last 217 years. James Madison wrote, "Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." We elected the Congress, and yes even President Bush (repeal the elctoral college if you like, but it was valid), and we can unelect them in November if necessary. Don't blame the Federal government for pandering to us, the voters. We are what is driving this, and we as a nation are not Nazis. It's not going to happen here. (Had things gone differently in this country, it might have happened here. Harry Turtledove is writing a series about that. But that's fiction, not history.)

The other problem with your argument is that you have insufficient data to back up your conclusion. You can forecast any slope on a graph with just a few data points. For one thing, the only U.S. citizen currently being detained is Yaser Hamdi, whose case is working its way up through the Supreme Court even now. It's hard to allege a system that is still working is broken down. We survived a suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War with no ill effects, and people were imprisoned for speaking ill of the government during the Civil War, again with no long-term ill effects. Bush is less of a fascist than Lincoln. And I have no idea where you're getting the claim that the President asserts the right to execute any citizen he chooses without counsel or trial.

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

Actually, you are misreading this. This line specifically relates to judges (this was explained to me). It means a judge can't take the current constitution, or the state constitutions as justification to legalizing gay marriages. It however, does not limit states from legalizing them. It addresses concerns that the 4 judges in Mass are interpreting the US constitution as it is now, to legalize gay marriages. This ammendment would say "hey, there is no right to marriage (gay or straight) in the constitution". Oklahoma limits how you get married, the time it takes, and what blood tests must be done. But Vegas doesn't. Currently, someone could sue Oklahoma, and say that the 5 day period for filing for a license, or the blood test, violates their rights to get married when and how they want. This ammendment just clarifies that marriage is not a "right".

Now states, on the other hand, can still legalize it if they want to.

There's nothing in it about a federal judge making a "local" decision applicable to the nation as a whole.

This statement I made in regards to the "full faith and credit clause". 4 Judges, in Mass, by legalizing gay marriage (bypassing state legislature), have in effect legalized gay marriage for the entire country, since all marriages in Mass must be recognized by all other states. This causes numerous financial and legal problems. Any state that violates the full faith and credit clause can be sued, both by the couple, and by the federal goverment, and the other state.

Jerry

More Bush is Hitler bullcrap? Sheesh. Bush is like Hitler, huh?

Only in that they're both deeply religious. People keep holding up Bush's deep faith and commitment to the Bible as some sort of automatic proof of innate goodness. All I'm saying is that such piety isn't always enough. Great piety tempered with great tolerance is far preferable. You know...like Jesus had.

PAD

I agree with your argument except for the comment about Bush being bigoted. No society has ever sanctioned gay marriage - EVER! So Bush is bigoted for trying to maintain the status quo throughout the history of the human race? You've lost me here. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

The point is that no society has ever strived so mightily to be as open, free and accepting as ours...in theory.

The point is that this society has made as many advancements as it has because it refuses to accept the status quo. That is what--to use the cliche--what makes America great.

To try and revise the Constitution, or to ignore the Constitution, so that *any* group of people are specifically targeted for exclusion from a right that other Americans enjoy...whether it's Japanese Americans deprived of their freedom, Arabs deprived of due process, or gay Americans deprived of the right to pursue happiness in their own way...

It makes America less great.

It's beneath us.

That's what I'm saying.

PAD

I stand (sort of) corrected. PAD's definition, while I still don't entirely agree with it, is directed at people, not their opinions, as you previously stated.

But whatever your personal reasons for supporting the amendment, the law is discriminatory.

Rob

Beyond that, I think PAD is overreacting to a lot of things in his message.

I am reacting with cautious concern.

I'm not saying Mel Gibson is evil. I'm not saying boycott the film. I'm not saying it's anti-Semitic. I'm not saying Jews should make sure the womenfolk are secured and circle the wagons because we're all completely screwed. I'm not saying there are forces in Washington firing up gas ovens.

I'm saying I'm cautiously concerned, and explaining the personal family history as to why.

The only way this can remotely be viewed as overreacting is if you believe my only response should be a blissful, "Oh, who cares, it's nothing to worry about, it means nothing."

Which, by startling coincidence, is what my grandfather's neighbors said when he put up his store for sale and moved out of Berlin. The neighbors who later, y'know, were executed.

So I tend to think that cautious concern isn't out of line. Do you?

PAD

A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.

I don't tolerate Pedofiles...guess that makes me a bigot? So when did you start tolerating pedofiles, or are you a bigot as well?

No, I'm a supporter of laws that say you shouldn't have sex with children.

I'm not entirely sure how many times people are going to grab examples where there are victims involved (usually children, because that's always the most alarming), fuse them with situations where there are no victims, and try to act as if one equates with the other.

I'm quoting the dictionary definition of "bigotry," and you're handing me child abuse. Sometimes I think if people couldn't take an example to illogically ludicrous extremes, there'd be no discussions on the internet at all.

PAD

In comment to SER's post about the unpleasantness that gays faced under Hitler, is SER aware that most gay men found in the camps were kept there by the Allies for months after the other prisoners were liberated? The Nazis didn't simply send gays to the camps solely for violating Paragraph 175; Nazi judges also used trumped-up criminal charges (mostly for property crimes, not capital offenses--the Nazis found burglary and embezzlement charges much easier to prosecute than murder) in conjunction with Paragraph 175. It was simply easier to get a guilty verdict (even in Nazi courts) for the property crimes, since evidence could be planted and witnesses could be more easily bribed than it was for proving a man was a homosexual (normally, you had to have two, or more, men engaged in the act; simply propositioning someone could be a matter of "misunderstanding"). For some gay men who tried to protect their "family honor", accepting a burglary charge was better than being branded a "pervert". The end result, though, was that suspected "perverts" (anyone thought to violate Paragraph 175) was sent to a concentration camp.

After the Allies liberated the camps, they, of course, checked the records of all the (surviving) detainees. Since most Jews were there as victims of religious bias, and Communists and Socialists (among others) were victims of political bias--very few of these victims were listed as being in the camp for any other reason--the Allies had little reason to continue holding these people who'd suffered "enough". But, for the gay men--many of whom were there also for various "crimes against society"--there was no quick release back to the general population. Many were even transferred to regular jails where they were forced to continue serving their "sentences".

It wasn't until 1969 that the (West) German government formally overturned Paragraph 175, and from 1945 until 1969, thousands of gay men continued to be arrested under that Nazi-era law, one of the only laws instituted by the Nazis that remained on the books and fully enforceable.

As for the notion of "hate crime legislation", there is no such Federal law banning such activity against gay men and lesbians, and only about half the states have such laws on their books.

As for discrimination against gays not holding up in courts, tell that to gay men and lesbians in Florida who have been told they're perfectly acceptable as foster parents, but they're NOT allowed to adopt those children, and a recent Federal Circuit Court panel upheld Florida's right to discriminate saying that the proper venue for change is within the state's legislature which has turned aside any attempts to change the law. The mantra in Tallahassee seems to be that "gay is okay for foster care, but only straights should be able to adopt" (and the law does allow for single straights to adopt, though the state openly prefers hetero married couples).

The point is, if you honestly believe homosexuality is an immoral and incorrect lifestyle choice, believing so does not make you a bigot.

How about if you honestly believe that--based on genetics and racial development--blacks are genetically and racially inferior to whites. Does that make you a bigot?

Or if you honestly believe that Jews are money-hungry Christ killers. Does that make you a bigot?

Or if you honestly believe that all Catholic priests are actually closet pedophiles. Does that make you a bigot?

Really. I'm curious. Where do you draw the line?

PAD

PAD,

Good question PAD,..where do you draw the line?

Because, rather than argue facts, those that disagree with you are just bigots!

You "claimed" to be using the dictionary definition of bigotry, but you're not (at least not in any dictionary I can find). FOr it to bigotry, there must be a preference for people like yourself, and a feeling of superiority over others not like yourself.

So believing that blacks are inferior to whites would be bigotry. Not agreeing with a lifestyle choice is not bigotry.

Believing that catholic priests are all pedophiles does not make you a bigot. It makes you incorrect, but not a bigot.

Hmm...as a writer, you should know this. Throwing the word around incorrectly devalues it. An also makes those people using it look a bit silly.

I could use your definition and treatment of the word bigot to make you out to be one 100 times over, but it would be an incorrect use of the word (much as you used it).

But hey, rather than debate this issue on facts, let's just call the president names. I thought a writer would also have more imagination than that.

Disapointed Jerry

If this was a comic book instead of a movie, I wonder what the CBLDF would have to say to people who said that the book should not be published or sold due to these concerns?

We'd say they were wrong. That people have the right to sell it and a right to buy it without being harassed by legal authorities.

Which is exactly how I feel about "Passion of Christ" as well. Expessing concerns about how people may react to a particular work is not remotely the same as saying people should be prevented from seeing it or prosecuted for displaying it.

And if you can find a single post in which you believe I've indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it.

PAD

And if you can find a single post in which you believe I've indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it.

Whoever said this, was probably directing it less at you and more at the other people who have been attacking Mel for making this movie, and others for seeing it. You've actually been very fair in your treatment and assessment of this movie, and decently consistant.

Jerry

Now, instead of just defending my position on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, I also have to contend with being judge on whether or not I'm a bigot. And that is completely unfair as well as wrong.

And yet I have to contend regularly with people claiming I'm anti-Christian (despite my being married to a Catholic.) And I deal with it. SO now you get to deal with this. That's not unfair; it's simply one person's opinion versus another person's opinion.

PAD

And yet more about gay marriage. EClark raises the "children" argument again:

I believe that the number one purpose of marriage the upbringing of children procreated within that marriage. And while I recognize that not every marriage produces a child, you have to at least meet the starting qualification to even try, that being one male and one female.

Except that if you already know you cannot have children (the woman is post-menopausal, one or both partners is sterile through injury or illness, etc.), then the "starting qualification to even try" is absent from the get-go.

I will keep asking this until I get a straight answer: why are those couples okay for a marriage and same-sex couples not? (Let's even say it's a same-sex couple who plans on adopting a child or having one via surrogates a la Melissa Etheridge and her partner.)

Go ahead. I'll wait.

TWL

I say EClark's made a generalization, namely...

The one that said everyone in favor of gay marriage would be cheering if Bush had suggested an amendment allowing it.

He responds:

Except I never said "Everyone" in favor of it would be cheering Bush. Go ahead, find the quote. I'll wait.

Okay. Found the quote. It's this:

As for the Constituional Amendment issue, supporters of gay marriage would be dancing in the streets if Bush had proposed an amendment to legalize gay marriage, and opponents would be against one.

Now, I agree that you did not say "everyone" explicitly.

However, the only reason you'd make the statement above is if you were referring to an overwhelming majority of both groups -- if three supporters were dancing in the streets and five opposed were protesting, that would hardly be worthy of comment.

So no, you never said it's unanimous -- but you certainly implied it would be a huge share of those taking sides here in this forum. I still maintain that's a substantial overgeneralization.

TWL

I'm glad someone else see that. It's amazing how PAD described bigotry as not tolerating someone elses point of view, yet then everyone here refuses to tolerate the point of view of people who are against gay marriage, and calls them bigots. Doesn't that make everone here a bigot for not tolerating the anti-gay marriage POV?

This is an invalid definition of bigot, and a poor way to win an arguement. Instead of addressing the points, we resort to the "if you feel this way you're a bigot".

Only if you're willing to completely disregard the word "tolerate."

For instance:

I despise Neo-Nazis. Despise them. Disagree with every fiber of my being over their hate--filled spew.

Am I bigoted against them?

No.

Because I tolerate them. I would not advocate, for instance, a change to the Constitution forbidding them to speak.

That would be intolerant.

George Bush thinks gays getting married is icky? Okay. He thinks it's icky. That's his opinion. Gays have an opposite opinion. Fine. That's what makes the world go around. Well...that and centrifugal force.

He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?

That's intolerance.

It's un-Christian. It's un-American. And it's bigotry.

PAD

To the poster who stated that no society accepts or condones gay marriage, might I offer as exhibit A the Kingdom of the Netherlands? That was the first nation/society to permit same-sex marriage. The Kingdom of Belgium also permits same-sex marriage, and (for now, at least) our northern neighbor, Canada, also permits same-sex marriage. Several other countries, mostly in Europe, allow civil unions (most of these are marriage in all but name; there are certain privileges that hetero couples enjoy, but most same-sex couples are essentially married--perhaps not to the State or a state-supported church, but to the couples and their families they are).

As for EClark's comment about Christianity being based on Christ's teachings and not his death, check one of the most basic statements of most Christian churches--the Apostles' Creed.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Creed notes the death and resurrection, yet pays little note to the teachings, of Christ.

Also, it should be noted that one of the most sacred of Christian rituals is Holy Communion--again, a recognition of Christ's death, and not His teachings.

Christ's teachings are in the Bible and are usually the focus of most sermons, but especially during the Lenten season, these sermons nearly always focus attention on the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Without Christ's death and resurrection, Christianity would be little more than a subsect of Judaism (and it should be noted that it was considered as such for at least the first century or so after Christ's death when the books of the modern New Testament started being compiled formally; it was definitely treated as an entirely separate faith by the time of Constantine I (the Great) who made it the formal religion of the Roman Empire.

If Christ's death weren't a focal point of the faith, the Cross (and especially, the Crucifix) would have little real import to the faithful. Early Christians tended to use a wider variety of symbols (images of doves or fish, sometimes the Greek letter "chi"--X) to indicate their allegiance, but the Cross became rather more prominent thanks to Constantine, who claimed a vision of a cross in combination with the message "in hoc signo, vinces".

You may have called Bush's name, but the implication that anyone who supports his actions is a bigot, isn't very subtle.

I'd say that anyone who supports his actions is supporting a bigoted action. An action lacking in tolerance and charity.

Now if that upsets you, you can do one of three things: You can contend it's not a bigoted action, in which case it's one opinion against another, although mine is rooted in the dictionary. Or you can just cry foul. Or you can look inward and wonder whether maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your position.

I don't expect a lot of people to embrace the third, if that's of any help. I'm figuring most will embrace the second.

PAD

He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?

Actually, no, he has made it clear that he just wants to make sure that the states have the right to decide this for themselves, and that the will of the people is followed. He has also made it clear he has no problem with states that have chosen to legalize gay marriage, or civil unions, and this ammendment woulnd not effect those laws in place in those states.

Now you can argue that maybe the will of the people shouldn't be followed in this case, but at least get Bush's intent right. This may just be a case of you taking your information from talking heads, and not the source, or it may just be a case of you being very anti-Bush. Not sure.

Jerry

Jerry questions PAD's definition of bigotry:

Believing that catholic priests are all pedophiles does not make you a bigot. It makes you incorrect, but not a bigot.

I agree that PAD's definition is substantially too broad for my tastes -- being unable to accept differing opinions can make someone a stubborn prick, but not necessarily a bigot per se.

I think it's a question of what opinions you're unwilling to see contradicted -- and I think all or most opinions characterizing an entire group as "All X are Y" is bigotry. (That would be true whether Y is positive or negative, by the way.)

"All Jews are money-grubbing and scheming."

"All gays are promiscuous and unable to commit."

"All conservatives are only interested in money."

"All people against gay-marriage are drooling Bible-thumpers."

Those sorts of things.

I think saying "all Catholic priests are pedophiles" absolutely qualifies as a bigoted statement.

I completely agree that using the term "bigot" indiscriminately can devalue it, but I don't think this particular example would be such a devaluation.

TWL

"A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own."

"Even you're definition is wrong. I don't respect murderer's, but that doesn't make me a bigot. A bigot is defined as follows:"

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Okay, obviously I lack your keen eye for semantics, but I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two.

Can we at least agree that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" and shouldn't be used in lieu of the possessive "your," and there's no apostrophe in a simple plural?

PAD

Someone upthread, on Bush:

He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?

Jerry, responding:

Actually, no, he has made it clear that he just wants to make sure that the states have the right to decide this for themselves, and that the will of the people is followed. He has also made it clear he has no problem with states that have chosen to legalize gay marriage, or civil unions, and this ammendment woulnd not effect those laws in place in those states.

Um ... what?

Bush's exact quote in the press conference was:

"The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,"

You're right that he's saying here he's fine with civil unions.

You are absolutely 100% wrong about gay marriage. His proposed amendment gives an explicit definition of marriage that excludes the same-sex option, and he says here he wants to "fully protect marriage" while giving gays options other than marriage.

How exactly is that leaving the marriage question up to the states?

TWL

Tim,

My only concern is, Bush hasn't characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn't support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?

And the act of supporting the ammendment doesn't suddenly transform someone into a bigot. They either were or were not.

The fact of the matter is, PAD is jumping on the bandwaggon, using the bigot term to describe Bush. It's no different than when republican's are reffered to as "Nazi". It's a popular leftist thing to do.

Wow...PAD is sure showing me...

Way to rise above the occassion there...

I'm gonna go sit in the corner...he smoked me so bad there....

My only concern is, Bush hasn't characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn't support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?

Did I say they were?

I was responding to someone else's inaccurate definition. Nothing more.

TWL

First of all, I believe that what you believe does not make you a bigot. How you act upon what you believe does. Believing Blacks are inferior to Whites does not make you a bigot. Burning a cross on a black families lawn does. Believing that homosexuality is a immoral lifestylye does not make you a bigot. Denying them what many people feel are basic human rights does.

Secondly, not all pedophiles molest children. Pedolphilia is a condition, some would say disease, that makes people sexually attracted to underage children. This does not mean that they molest them or even have child pornography on their computer. I believe that child pornography and molestation of any kind is wrong and should be stopped. But condemning a whole group of people for the way some act is wrong and is what most of you people are complaining about other people doing.

And thirdly, I am jewish. I have read the bible. Not extensively but I think I have a pretty good idea of what it says. I believe, and please tell me if I am wrong, that although it is true that the Romans were responsible for actually crucifying Jesus, the Jews were responsible for saying Jesus should be crucified after Pilate "washed his hands" of the whole thing.

Sorry, Jerry, but you received a flawed "explanation". The proposed amendment is quite explicit in what it says, and that is that NEITHER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOR ANY STATE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED TO PERMIT EITHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR ANY SITUATION WHICH WOULD PERMIT ANY UNMARRIED COUPLES TO RECEIVE THE "LEGAL INCIDENTS" OF MARRIAGE. That's very self-explanatory.

Of course, right-wing kooks like Phyllis Schlafly actually convinced Americans that an Equal Rights Amendment would MANDATE unisex bathrooms in public facilities, despite the fact that no rational person would get that from the actual wording. She also was under the false assumption that women would no longer be able to receive alimony in a divorce proceeding (of course, she failed to comprehend that divorce judges provide alimony to the partner who either has no outside income or whose outside income is much less than the other partner--normally, men earned more than women, but there were, even in the early 1970s, some women who were required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands simply because the woman's net worth and income far exceeded the man's).

So, I can understand how you could misunderstand the wording, but the fact remains that the Resolution's chief sponsor opposes even civil unions and would not be adverse to nullifying any state's decision to allow same-sex couples to be treated as the same as opposite-sex couples under the law.

For the record, even the 18th Amendment did NOT forbid anyone drinking alcoholic beverages--it merely outlawed the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. Anyone who owned a wine cellar or kept a private home bar was fully entitled to drink from his private stock and even serve his guests in his home (provided he didn't charge for those drinks), BUT once his stock ran out, he would be unable to replenish it, legally.

Hmm...as a writer, you should know this. Throwing the word around incorrectly devalues it.

True. But apparently using it accurately alarms people because they don't want to think about the implications.

"Bigotry: The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance."

"Bigot: A person of strong convictions or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him."

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Intolerance, folks.

Would I want to marry a man? No. Would I want to have sex with a man? No. Why? Not my thing.

I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I'm a typical guy. I watch a TV show where two guys kiss, I kinda think, "Ewww." I watch a TV show where two women kiss, I kinda think, "Heh. Cool." Like I said: Typical guy.

But do I think same sexes should be stopped from getting married?

No.

Why?

Tolerance.

Your mileage may vary.

PAD

Joseph,

I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn't make it true. The amendment reads as follows:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

What it is saying, is that the constitution of the US, and the states, shall not be interpeted by a court of law to require that martial status be a right of unmarried couples and groups.

This is an interpretation provided by the authors.

But here, they're probably wrong.

Jerry

One other thing, Jerry, the full faith and credit clause, as I mentioned, is already being violated by states which have passed their own "Defense of Marriage" laws. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the only state in which marriage has been ordered by judges (it was NOT a federal judge or judges that issued the decision, but Commonwealth/State judges). As long as any state's laws prohibit recognition of any same-sex civil union, that state does not have to abide by a marriage license issued in Massachusetts (despite my fervent belief that is a Constitutional violation--that aspect, however, has NOT been tested in any court to the best of my knowledge).

I would point out that a heterosexual couple who follows the laws in Mongolia for marriage can be married and return to the USA (and their home state) and have that marriage fully recognized by both the federal and state government. A same-sex couple which goes to the Netherlands (even if they manage to conform to ALL Dutch laws--meaning one partner must be a Dutch citizen) and returns to the US will not have that marriage recognized by either the Federal government or their own state government (Massachusetts, for the moment, would be the sole exception; Vermont might, but that would depend on the exact wording of Vermont civil laws regarding same-sex couples' marrying abroad).

I could use your definition and treatment of the word bigot to make you out to be one 100 times over, but it would be an incorrect use of the word (much as you used it).

If by "your definition" you're willing to use the American Heritage definition I posted, then by all means, dude, bring it on. The unexamined life is one not worth living.

I mean it. I'm serious. Using the posted definition, prove me a bigot 100 times over. Heck, even fifty times over will do. If nothing else, it should be entertaining considering I'm also constantly accused of being a knee-jerk liberal.

Keep in mind, of course, that simply citing instances where I strongly disagree with people who hold differing opinions doesn't fit the definition. By dint of the fact that I've bent over backwards to allow differeing opinions to be posted here, I think that more than fulfills any reasonable definition of tolerance.

PAD

Joseph ,

And I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the full faith and credit clause....(just joking really. no constitutional discussion is complete without references to the founding fathers)...:P

It does bring up a pretty picture though. I can see it now. Franklin leaning over to Adams (just think jonny boy, we can get married - you know you want some of this!).

Jerry

Jerry wrote:

This statement I made in regards to the "full faith and credit clause". 4 Judges, in Mass, by legalizing gay marriage (bypassing state legislature), have in effect legalized gay marriage for the entire country, since all marriages in Mass must be recognized by all other states. This causes numerous financial and legal problems. Any state that violates the full faith and credit clause can be sued, both by the couple, and by the federal goverment, and the other state.

Thank you for explaining that so clearly. I don't think most people get that. My biggest problem with the current gay marriage debate is that so many people who are for gay marriage are willing to create that right via judicial activism, which always causes more problems than it fixes. It's also the lazy way to effect legal change -- marriage is a state's right per the Constitution, and therefore any change should be effected via each state legislature. Plus, the judicial decisions are generalized past the gay issue; they also will result in states that don't recognize common-law marriage having to do so, etc. Just creates a big mess.

And, that said, let me add that I'm not surprised the Mass. decision turned out that way. Having read the decision, I found that the state's "best" argument was that gay people can't procreate. I have to agree with Tim Lynch in his comments to EClark that the procreation argument is about the damned stupidest reason for preserving heterosexual marriage that I've ever heard (I'm paraphrasing, obviously).

Of course, maybe that's 'cause I'm infertile. Does that mean my 11-year marriage should be dissolved, since it turns out that I didn't "meet the criteria?" True, I got married before I knew that, but only because my doctors when I was a teenager were either incompetent or unconcerned and pooh-poohed my problems. So I guess I should surrender my marriage license and let my husband go participate in a "real" marriage? Whatever.

My feeling is, if you have the guts to just admit that you think homosexual marriage is immoral, especially since you'll likely be called a bigot for standing up for your beliefs, I can respect that. But don't try to create logic where there is none.

PAD -

WAIT A SECOND

If by "your definition" you're willing to use the American Heritage definition I posted, then by all means, dude, bring it on. The unexamined life is one not worth living.

You finally post the american heritage version WHICH IS THE VERSION I HAVE BEEN USING, NOT YOU, and clame it was your definition! I cry fowl.

One was not tolerating people opinions, and the other (the official) was not tolerating people.

There is a difference. I'm just amazed you're not seeing it. But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. But, by you're definition, I would say that calling people who have different opinion than you name is a form of bigotry (I don't agree, but it does fit your early definition).

Jerry

Jerry, while I agree with you almost entirely, I have to disagree with you somewhat. Assuming (which I say because I haven't checked it myself) that the amendment reads:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

then, it does prevent gay marriage. The constitutional parts are fine, and as you said above, only work to prevent judicial activism on the issue. However, the part that concerns me is the "nor state or federal law" bit. It seems to me that if you can't construe a state law to mean that, then any state law that actually says that must be invalid. See what I mean?

On the other hand, if they'd just change that part to "or federal law, and drop the state law part, I'd be all for the amendment as written, because it would leave the decision up to each state in question, by removing any potential federal legal question.

*In-bloody-deed Bill, and where do you base that snippet on? The title of this thread is 'Paranoid Jews?' and whatever religious or ethnic affiliation you are you fit the first part of the line aptly. Having lived 10 years (ages 10 to 19) in the U.K. and travelled continental Europe I have yet to see that 'sizeable percentage' and thouroughly resent your comment. The US might be a place which defines itself on its right to freedoms (with 'of worship' as one of the highest) but don't you dare spout uninformed rubbish about how the same is not true in other parts of the world as well.

"sizeable" is whatever one defines it as, so I'm on safe ground here. For what it's worth, I don't consider it anything near a majority.

Recent polls in Grmany and, I belive, France, indiated a significant (around 15-25%) number of people belived that Israel was involved in 9/11. jew hating, pure and simple.

There's so much more but my computer is broken and I'm limited in my ability to google this weekend. If this is still a hot topic next week I'll be glad to share more facts and figures on sinagogues (sp?) burned and stuff like that.

Sorry Bill, but the Passion is being propelled into the public consciousness by the right wing, not the left. You will not find nazis voting or supporting leftwing democrats or liberals. The leftwing was, alongside Jews, a target of Nazi fascim, as well as in Italy whose title for it was 'corporatism', which is what we have here in the U.S under Bush/Cheney.

So please don't tell the jewish community they need to be afraid of liberals and left wingers, cause you'd be 100% wrong.

MYOB**

Well MYOB, (if that's your REAL name, I live near a few campuses. Never seen any Nazis or Republicans walking around with anti-semitic signs. Seen a few so-called socialists do it though. So maybe, just maybe, I'm only 98% wrong? 72%? 31%? I'll need to get out more and get a bigger sample.

Walk arond with a pro-Israel t-shirt for a while and have a friend walk around with an anti-israel t-shirt. Get together after a few hours and compare asses to see which one got his kicked the most. I volunteer to be the control, I'll wear a shirt that says AUSTIN 3:16 just to eliminate the possibility that it's KICK THE ASS OF ANYONE WEARING A T-SHIRT DAY in Chapel Hill or something.

Jerry wrote:

I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn't make it true. The amendment reads as follows:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

What it is saying, is that the constitution of the US, and the states, shall not be interpeted by a court of law to require that martial status be a right of unmarried couples and groups.

This is an interpretation provided by the authors.

But here, they're probably wrong.

Jerry, you're flat out wrong here. It says that no federal or state constitution or law can be interpreted as granting the legal incidents of marriage. Not just the US constitution; it's clear as day right there. You're technically right in that state legislatures could pass all the laws they want allowing gay marriage (as, technically, they can pass laws instituting slavery now) they just couldn't be enforced.

This law bans any gay civil unions or marriages from being passed in any state. Any other interpretation of it is inaccurate. This is very, very clear.

I agree that PAD's definition is substantially too broad for my tastes -- being unable to accept differing opinions can make someone a stubborn prick, but not necessarily a bigot per se.

If it's of any consolation, Tim, that definition is substantially too broad for my tastes as well. Thank God it's not mine. Which isn't to say I'm not a stubborn prick: I am. There's lots of differing opinions I'm unable to accept. I will keep shouting against them for as long as the air in my lungs holds out.

But I tolerate them. "Tolerate: To allow without prohibiting." American Heritage Dictionary.

"I think gay marriage is icky. But hey...whatever."

"I think gay marriage is icky, and I think every legal recouse should be investigated to make sure it doesn't continue."

One fits my definition of bigotry. One doesn't.

Hope that clarifies it.

PAD

Jeeze, reading all the spelling errors on my last post made me wonder in someone slipped me a roofie. Please God, give me my computer back. This laptop thing is like typing on a calculator with a viewing sceen the size of a postage stamp. Shoot me now.

My only concern is, Bush hasn't characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn't support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?

If they advocate changing the Constitution to try and prevent it, hell yeah.

Personally--my guess--either Kerry or Edwards or both really do support gay marriage. My guess is that it's a non-issue to them. But they won't come out and say so because the majority of this country doesn't support it. Which doesn't make them bigots; just gutless.

PAD

EClark posted:

I can't marry a man and a gay man can't marry a man. That's equal rights. The only difference is I don't WANT to marry a man and the gay man doesn't WANT to marry a woman. What right do I have that he doesn't?

The right to marry the person he loves? Unless you're not telling us something, the gay man WANTS to marry another man, while you don't. There's a very important distinction there.

Now, you might not want to be involved in an interracial or interfaith marriage, and that, of course, is your "right" (freedom of assembly, and all that; no one's forcing you to date someone you don't wish), but if that's your personal feeling, that doesn't give you the right to bar another hetero couple from choosing such a marriage. Why then should your decision not to date and marry another man be of any consideration as to a gay man's decision to date and marry another man? The gay man certainly isn't going to stick his nose into your choice of woman that you would date and marry (unless, of course, it's his sister and he would prefer she not date a bigot; but even then, it would ultimately be her choice and yours, not his).

You know, when Robertson lost out in his bid to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2000, I heaved a huge sigh of relief. Robert Heinlein had been a fair predictor of broad social trends before - I had feared Robertson would be our Nehemiah Scudder.

Maybe I felt that relief too soon...

(Okay, for the under-read present, find Heinlein's story, "If This Goes On-", most easily available as the first half of the paperback, "Revolt In 2100".)

I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn't make it true.

YES IT DOES!!!!!

(Actually, I don't even remember what his interpretation was, but I couldn't pass that up. Sorry. As you were.)

This statement I made in regards to the "full faith and credit clause". 4 Judges, in Mass, by legalizing gay marriage (bypassing state legislature), have in effect legalized gay marriage for the entire country, since all marriages in Mass must be recognized by all other states. This causes numerous financial and legal problems. Any state that violates the full faith and credit clause can be sued, both by the couple, and by the federal goverment, and the other state.

Thank you for explaining that so clearly. I don't think most people get that.

I know I sure didn't. Cool.

My biggest problem with the current gay marriage debate is that so many people who are for gay marriage are willing to create that right via judicial activism, which always causes more problems than it fixes.

I keep hearing this phrase and have little comprehension what it means. If the Mass court said, "Our constitution doesn't allow us to ban gay marriages," which is what I understand was the case, how is that activism?

Saying, "Our constitution doesn't allow us to ban gay marriages, but screw it, we're doing it anyway," now THAT would be activism.

PAD

You finally post the american heritage version WHICH IS THE VERSION I HAVE BEEN USING, NOT YOU, and clame it was your definition! I cry fowl.

You're shouting for birds?

One was not tolerating people opinions, and the other (the official) was not tolerating people. There is a difference.

I suppose, but not a huge one. The key is intolerance, not what you're being intolerant of.

I've been perfectly consistent. If you believe two men getting married is icky, okay. Fine. Whatever. If you believe two men should be stopped *because* you find it icky, that's intolerance. By any definition.

PAD

In re: the "ick factor":

I've got an analogy I use that I find often helps.

I find (male) gay sex icky. As Peter said earlier, typical guy thing.

Then again, I also find braised calf's head icky.

I find Kenny G's "music" icky.

I find the Teletubbies icky.

My reaction to that is simply to not have gay sex, eat braised calf's head, listen to Kenny G, or watch the Teletubbies. And really, I think that's all anyone else who feels the same should do.

I think banning gay marriage akin to banning Kenny G concerts - sure, most of America would likely be in favor of it, but so what?

More on the definition of bigotry.

Me:

I agree that PAD's definition is substantially too broad for my tastes -- being unable to accept differing opinions can make someone a stubborn prick, but not necessarily a bigot per se.

PAD:

If it's of any consolation, Tim, that definition is substantially too broad for my tastes as well. Thank God it's not mine. Which isn't to say I'm not a stubborn prick: I am. There's lots of differing opinions I'm unable to accept. I will keep shouting against them for as long as the air in my lungs holds out.

But I tolerate them. "Tolerate: To allow without prohibiting." American Heritage Dictionary.

Hmm.

I see the distinction you're trying to make here, and I agree that using "tolerate" rather than "accept" is definitely better ... but I still can't quite swallow that.

Take, for example, the premise "the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the reverse." I'm firmly of the belief that this is established fact -- and I'm frankly of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with that statement is a fool of the highest order.

I think one could advance a plausible argument that I am intolerant of the Flat Earth Society, given that -- but I have difficulty with a definition that it means I'm a bigot. In this case, I think it means the evidence isn't there.

I think the place where our definitions differ is what I said above: the "differing opinions" one's unwilling to tolerate have to be about groups of people. Bigotry seems such a people-specific term that I really can't expand it to not tolerating dissenting opinions on any random topic.

So yes -- it clarifies it. I think I've still got to disagree. (On this particular issue, though, I think our definitions are converging pretty well.)

TWL

I once participated in a debate on the topic of gay marriages (well the actual topic was 'This House Believes Social Security is a Fundamantal Human Right' but the 1st Prop speakers squirreled it into 'If you don't agree with gay marriage then you are a meanie' Go figure, guess they just didn't want to debate on the health and social services...) and my team had to oppose. Do you know what the only line we could take was?

"You're bloody right we diagree with gay marriage! We disagree with all marriage! Don't arrange it so the homosexual people are subject to its wicked ways too!"

:)

It was the only way we could think to go. And we won.

3 and 3

PAD wrote:

I keep hearing this phrase and have little comprehension what it means. If the Mass court said, "Our constitution doesn't allow us to ban gay marriages," which is what I understand was the case, how is that activism?

Saying, "Our constitution doesn't allow us to ban gay marriages, but screw it, we're doing it anyway," now THAT would be activism.

"Judicial activism" just generally means that a judge is using his position to create new law, or change law that he disagrees with, rather than requiring the state legislature to change the law to the desired effect. It would apply in both instances you described.

Most state marriage statutes do not ban gay marriage as such; instead, they define marriage by the standards set out by each state legislature, standards which already vary by state to some extent. By saying that the Mass. Constitution does not allow the state to ban gay marriage, the courts have re-defined marriage, which is the job of the legislature. Also, in doing so, they have left the statute open to further re-definition by any other group which asserts its constitutional rights (this is where the polygamist argument, where ordinarily asinine, begins to have some weight to it).

This is why I think judicial activism is so dangerous; in effect, you end up decimating the current law rather than changing it, which breaks down the entire checks-and-balances system. It's not just a problem with the marriage issue -- it's a problem any time a judge tries to circumvent a standing law just because he does not like the way it affects particular people.

The best (and most extreme) example I can think of is Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, who went as far as to violate his own oath of office over a big rock.

But what the justices in Massachusetts are saying is that the state law is in violation of the state constitution. That's their part of the "entire checks-and-balances system".

Now, if the Massachusetts legislature could craft a version of the law that didn't violate their own constitution, or if they amended their constitution to make such discrimination legal, the jusges would have no choice but to go along. Failure to do so would make them "activist" judges, by the proposed definitio of the term.

Similarly, San Francisco's Mayor Newsom holds that Proposition 22, which, last election, defined marriage as "one man and one woman", is in violation of certain clauses in California's constitution. He's on a little shakier ground, not being a judge and all, but there is some small degree of precedent, if I'm not mistaken.

Moore was in violation of the US Constitution, and worse, ignored a court order to remove the rock, thus placing himself in contempt of the very court system he was supposed to represent.

I just want to add a point about something which I think is very relevant about this asinine perception about "judicial activism". Back in 1967, the U S Supreme Court, in the Loving vs Virginia case (text can be found at http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp) ruled that Virginia's antimiscegenation laws violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. That, to me, would be a case of "judicial activism" (the original trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court both ruled that the law was valid). There had been no legislative action in Virginia designed to overturn the existant law which was used to prosecute Mr & Mrs Loving (who had been married in DC in accordance with the District's policies--he was white, she was black, just for the record).

The final summary of the Supreme Court's decision notes

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So for anyone who claims that marriage is not a civil right, the U S Supreme Court already made the determination in 1967 that, in fact, it is.

Now, why all this is so pertinent is this: Just a couple of years ago, the State of Alabama finally placed an amendment to the State's Constitution which would formally overturn the State's anti-miscegenation law (even though there had been no enforcement of the law since the Loving case--despite the silliness in Wedowee over an interracial couple's attending the high school prom and the school principal's intent to cancel the prom over the matter). To no one's surprise, the amendment passed, but what did surprise people was that more than 25% of the voters opposed the amendment--whether these people were opposed to interracial marriages or just opposed the State's amendment process is hard to determine, but it's rather unpleasant to imagine the state has that many bigots (one almost hopes the majority of the opponents really opposed the process, but I don't recall the other amendments on the ballot having that much opposition).

Take, for example, the premise "the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the reverse." I'm firmly of the belief that this is established fact -- and I'm frankly of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with that statement is a fool of the highest order. I think one could advance a plausible argument that I am intolerant of the Flat Earth Society, given that -- but I have difficulty with a definition that it means I'm a bigot. In this case, I think it means the evidence isn't there.

Well, I can only adhere to my definition, and by my definition, I wouldn't try to paint you as a bigot because you're not *being* a bigot. Not unless you're advocating legislation to shut the flat earthers up.

PAD

From where I'm sitting, this whole "gay marriage" thing started when someone in San Fransico illegally married gay people. It is my understanding that this was against the law. Then it started to snowball. So, the law was broken, then it was broken a lot. Then it started to spread to other states. This was when Bush stepped in. It looked to me like he was pushed into action. In other words, he wasn't waiting for the opportunity to jump on gays.

Posted by Rich (way further up the list):

The Nazis also invaded other countries and occupied them for their own good of course.

They controlled the media and censored those that did not agree with them. (Notice the sudden increase in censorship since the superbowl.)

Where? What censorship? Are you talking about the Grammys, and the Oscars tomorrow, being broadcast with a 5 second delay? That's not censorship. The purpose is to prevent certain offensive words or actions from hitting the public airwaves. You do realize that most radio stations use a 5-7 second delay when taking any calls from the public, don't you? And this was goin on LONG before this year's Superbowl incident. And the delay at the Oscars is for that alone. If Tim Robbins or Sean Penn (or any other person in front of the microphones) want to go on a rant like Michael Moore did last year, there are no time constraints. The only thing that might get cut off is a word or two if they fit the FCC's definiton of obsecnity.

Well I have two possible solutions that should please everybody.

One. Make it a states issue. This is Dick Cheneys idea, he says that people will come to different decisions so to make it Federal seems incredibly stupid.

two. Have it be up to the churches or synagouges or whatnot, and get rid of all taxes and everything else that the government has become involved in. Have the government have nothing to do with marriage.

So there are two solutions. They sound a lot better than having to kill or lobotomize anyone who is anti-gay, which you guys seem to want.

And I'm not anti-gay, I'm anti-dramaqueen.

Jerry: Imagine I (I supose I'm a person you don't sympathize for right now) get into your house with a gunshot and claim for your bedroom to be my property. Next day I take your living room and refuse to go back. Wouldn’t you fought back to recover your pertinences? Then you’d be a Palestinian.

I’m not happy with any people dying (at last that’s what I want to think) but I can understand what’s going on there (and in other places, go and see captain Marvel v4 #13). I prefer victims than oppressors. Remember the terrorism form the state or Sabra and Shatila.

Is there any qualitative moral difference between a man who kills 100 persons and other who kills 1000. I can’t see it. It’s a matter of time.

I’m hurt by you saying I’m going to say Holocaust never happened. That’s pointless and not an argument against me. Go and read again my last post and you’ll see I’m saying “Holocaust was an horrible thing” and later I’m talking about that Jewish as heroes like Jesus.

Of course I love Maus, I got it signed by Art Spiegelman. I imagine you’ll love Persepolis too. If you haven’t read it go and take a look, you’ll enjoy it.

I’m sorry because I can’t speak my mind as I’d like to. I’m Spanish, and my English… is the one of a man who never lived in England nor USA (Although I’ve visited both).

Yours,

Micko

I love how the anti-equality crowd always bring up the "I, as heterosexual, can't marry another of my gender, so those homosexuals aren't being treated any differently, because they can't marry someone of the same gender, either."

"They want special rights to be able to marry the same gender."

"Yup, we're not treating anybody any differently. I'm not allowed to marry anybody of a different race, and neither are you. So everybody's treated equally."

One cannot claim this is not the exact argument, replacing "different race" with "same gender".

To do so is utterly ridiculous.

Of course, the anti-equality crowd will always attempt to come back with "Yes, but the couples in question are of opposite gender".

Sexual discriminiation, rather simply. A woman can marry a man, it's discriminatory that a man can't. A man can marry a woman, it's discriminatory that a woman can't.

One would realize that, when multiple state supreme courts find that there are NO VALID SECULAR REASONS for denying same-sex marriage under the equality of law, their arguments are simply garbage, pure and simple.

It's either the "ick", or religious bigotry.

And if you are going to bring religion into the mix, there are quite a number of CHRISTIAN churches out there (along with non-christian churches) that accept, and celebrate gay marriages.

So their "freedom of religion" is being trampled on, by trying to exclude them.

The "tradition" argument does not hold - it was rather "traditional" to own slaves, it was "traditional" that women and blacks could not vote - if you're going to hold up something because of "tradition"...

And finally, as for "working to change the laws", and "when the majority feels like accepting it" - when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for "the majority" to be comfortable with it?

If this country would have had to wait for things of that nature, the Civil Rights movement never would have occurred.

And for those who claim that "the people must vote on it" - please name one of your rights that you will be willing to put up for a popular vote. - say the right to marry your spouse.

And if I can get 50.01 percent of the people to say you can't be married any more, that you will give up all the "legal incidents thereof" immediately, without fighting it.

"I've got my copy of the Principia Discordia -- the only religious tome published by Steve Jackson Games -- and I'm a'headin' for a hot dog. Now that I've confused everyone..."

Not me. I'm mentioned

in the Principia Discordia. :)

On a more serious note, I hope the fake Bendis-hacker is outed soon.

Oh, and I'm fairly sure there have been cultures in history that have allowed and encouraged gay marriage. Not that this is anything but tangentially related to Peter's paranoia post.

From where I'm sitting, this whole "gay marriage" thing started when someone in San Fransico illegally married gay people.

You must be sitting in a hole in the ground.

This has been an issue for years and years, and is only now finally snowballing into a front and center issue.

The mayor of SF handing out marriage licenses to gays is more likely due to the Mass. Courts ruling on the issue.

I wonder how many more mayors and such will step forward in the coming months to do the same.

I also find it funny how, now that Bush has opened his big mouth on the issue, some in Congress aren't as keen to try and tackle the issue immediately.

And just to annoy the Bushies further, I post the following for consideration:

"President Bush on Friday replaced two members of a panel that advises him on issues such as cloning and stem cell research, drawing criticism that he is stacking the bioethics group with ideologically friendly members."

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

PAD,

Ahh, this explains a lot of our disagreement. You quoted the definition for tolerate as follows:

"Tolerate: To allow without prohibiting."

While the complete American Heritage definition which you pulled it from reads:

To allow without prohibiting or opposing.

To me, if you place oppose in your original definition of bigot, it would read :

A bigot is a person who opposes people whose opinions differ from his own.

That was the definition I took exception to. Since you only took the prohibit stance of the definition, I could see (by stretching it) how you could use that definition.

And finally, as for "working to change the laws", and "when the majority feels like accepting it" - when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for "the majority" to be comfortable with it?

Unfortunetly, all of them. That's just how the world works. It's not right, not fair, but it's fact. Until the majority of people feel something is acceptable or unnacceptable (such as slavery or racism), it rarely ever gets changed.

That being said, many people would not agree that same sex marriages is a civil rights issue. (I'm not looking to fight this out. Just stating a fact).

Jerry

I have no problem with gay sex. I have a problem with redefining marriage to make it simply about love and partnership between adults rather than about stabilizing the family bond (mother, father, kids). I think it's unfortunate when children are intentionally raised without mothers and fathers.

Now, we can debate the merits of my position for days but I don't see a legal justification to ban gay marriage. I think this is not the best step for the culture, but a free society has to remain free to choose its own path. Our social lives should not have government interference.

Wait, I'm confused.

Since it was brought up, does hating Kenny G make me a bigot?

Somebody tell me what to think!

I remember I was about 7 or 8 and I got to thinking.

My parents - Italian.

Rome in Italy.

Romans killed Jesus.

One of my relatives might have killed Jesus.

Bawled my eyes out.

I was kid. Give a brother a break.

Similarly, San Francisco's Mayor Newsom holds that Proposition 22, which, last election, defined marriage as "one man and one woman", is in violation of certain clauses in California's constitution. He's on a little shakier ground, not being a judge and all, but there is some small degree of precedent, if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken. City mayors are not permitted to unilaterally abrogate state laws. Having started a kulturkampf (note the ironic reference to Hitler) he's now doing what he should have done to begin with, by filing a lawsuit to have the issue determined by the courts, which is how the constitutionality of statutes has been determined for more than 200 years. Had he done this he would have been on perfectly firm ground. Violating state law because you disagree with it is the sort of thing we impeach people for. Civil disobedience is all fine and good if you're a civilian. You break the law, you make your point, you go to jail, and you hope public opinion changes the law. If you're an elected official choosing which parts of your oath you're willing to enforce, you should be fired.

And by the way, I am a card-carrying Republican and I was completely in favor of former Chief Justice Moore being thrown out on his ass. Blatant violation of a Federal court order was even more egregious than what the Mayor of SF is doing.

The lack of response to the first post-Bill Mulligans- paralels the world outside.

Make a big deal out of a Christian movie, and ignore the REAL and HORRIBLE anti-semitism that is happening in Europe and the middle east NOW!

Why?

Christians have no Fatwa.

Extrapolating this argument backward to what (I hope) you will recognize as its absurd conclusion, are you suggesting the government should never have recognized African-Americans' civil rights, because now gays want them too? Becuase something got THIS ball rolling, and the ball before that, and the ball before that. Maybe it was giving women the right to vote?

Having read your spiel rather quickly I'm not certain what you're talking about.

At all.

Here's something... this sentence only makes sense in a Bizarro language that I can't speak nor understand:

"Extrapolating this argument backward to what (I hope) you will recognize as its absurd conclusion"

I can't extrapolate something backward to a conclusion. You can go back to a beginning or forward to an ending, but not the forward to a beginning or back to an ending. You can do one but not the other.

Now... read this very carefully and don't try and extrapolate anything. I'm describing what I am starting to believe is now a valid door opening to a slippery slope. I never genuinely believed in or endorsed slippery slope arguments before.

Legalizing or endorsing gay marriage would be creating a new prescendent. Where once stood something that was fairly rock-solid (despite the increasing occurence of divirce) as an institution there would stand a new prescendent: marriage as a fluid institution.

By transforming marriage from a solidly-defined institution to a one of fluid nature, one allows nearly anybody to demand a shift of the boundaries defining what marriage is and what marriage isn't, at any given time to fit any given group's new demands on what it should be. The problem being is that these boundaries can only be expanded and not detracted according to the prescendent.

Do we need another clarification?

CJA

From The Telegraph: Jailed Palestinian terrorist justifies targeting Israeli children.

Although Khalil wanted to blow up soldiers in her planned attack in Tel Aviv she said it was legitimate to kill Jewish children because one day they would serve in the Israeli army.

Do you think she watched the movie?

Sorry for confusing you with the "extrapolating backward" thing -- I agree it wasn't worded well.

My point is that your "slippery slope doesn't begin here. It begins with the recognition of civil rights for ALL groups -- blacks, women, whoever. To use the slippery slope argument is to argue against prior advances in civil rights, since they led to the position we're at now. We're ON the slippery slope. And it's a good place to be, because it means we're making progress.

Therefore, each case must be argued on its OWN merits, not the merits of what it could possibly lead to.

(Apologies for any typos on this post -- I'm on a friend's computer, typing quickly, and it's one of those damn ergonomic keyboards I can't get the hang of...)

Rob

I keep hearing the phrase "One man, one woman." being applied to marriage. I assume that when many of the people talk about gay marriage they are referring to "one man, one man." or "one woman, one woman." But since one of the main arguments of the pro gay marriage people is that they just want to be able to marry someone they love, which i agree with, then i am curious as to how many pro gay marriage people would be against getting rid of the anti-bigamy laws. To me it seems the same thing. I have no doubt that there are many people out there in plural relationships with people they love and they should be allowed the same legal rights as people who are married to just one person, whether gay or straight. Now there may be no pro gay marriage people who are against plural marriages, but i tend to think there probably are. And i just dont see how you can say that the state should not be allowed to tell you whether your marriage is legal or not, but only because you love just one person that way.

(me)

And finally, as for "working to change the laws", and "when the majority feels like accepting it" - when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for "the majority" to be comfortable with it?

(Jerry)

Unfortunetly, all of them. That's just how the world works. It's not right, not fair, but it's fact. Until the majority of people feel something is acceptable or unnacceptable (such as slavery or racism), it rarely ever gets changed.

That being said, many people would not agree that same sex marriages is a civil rights issue. (I'm not looking to fight this out. Just stating a fact).

Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry - but you don't know what you're talking about.

Over 90% of the people in the State of Virginia opposed inter-racial marriage - and 15 other states had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.

And SCOTUS (the courts, not the "majority when they were comfortable with it") struck down those bigoted laws.

As for it not being a "civil rights" issue:

From the SCOTUS opinion

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

So, most definitely is this a "civil rights" issue.

The fight for equality has rarely waited around for "the majority" to find it acceptable or not.

That's why the courts have time and time again stricken from the books discriminatory laws, and given people redress against those who would attempt to maintain them.

Just like the Lawrence vs. Texas decision that abolished those ridiculous "anti-sodomy" laws.

Oh, and I'm a heterosexual male, btw. But I know bigotry when I see it, and the Shrub's "protection of marriage" is bigotry, pure and simple.

Hmm,....Khendon....your opinion is pure and unbiased. I mean, anyone who refers to the president as "the shrub" is sure to give him the benefit of the doubt. And as for calling it bigotry. I can call shit a flower all I want, but it doesn't make it so.

And like I said, I'm not interested in debate the marriage as a civil rights issue. Like I said, people don't agree it is. Did I say me? I don't think so. Try reading comprehension.

And second, at the time the inter-racial marriage laws were overturned, I believe a majority of the people in the US opposed them. You can always pick one state (and I'm not even sure of your numbers - got anything to back them up)!

The fight for equality has rarely waited around for "the majority" to find it acceptable or not.

I still contend that it has. That's why things change. That's why it took 100 plus years of us being a country for slavery to end. That's why it took so long for women to get the vote, and segregation to end. When such an overwhelming majority support that action.

In fact, if the overwhelming majority in this country was against inter-racial marriage, then when it was deamed legal there would have been an armed revolt.

There has never, that I can point out, been any major social change that the overwhelming majority was against. You've got to change the minds of the people before you can change the laws.

Remember, politicians vote to get reelected, and politicians appoint judges (at the federal level). That's why the stance of the Supreme Court has changed over the years. The appointed judges have reflected the political stances of the politicians who appoint them.

Jerry

"Oh, and I'm fairly sure there have been cultures in history that have allowed and encouraged gay marriage"

Really? None of the internet references linked to this comment reference any culture where same-sex marriage was an accepted norm.

Regardless, my earlier comment was focused on use of the word "bigot" with respect to Bush and this issue. I think PAD's reply pretty much answered my question.

Regards,

Dennis

While the complete American Heritage definition which you pulled it from reads:

To allow without prohibiting or opposing.

To me, if you place oppose in your original definition of bigot, it would read:

A bigot is a person who opposes people whose opinions differ from his own.

That was the definition I took exception to. Since you only took the prohibit stance of the definition, I could see (by stretching it) how you could use that definition.

Yeah, I left out "oppose" on purpose when quoting the AH because, to me, the definition context clearly meant that "oppose" meant taking an action to try and go against someone (such as, say, urging a constitutional amendment.) But I could see how someone else might simply take "oppose" to mean "disagree," which wasn't what I intended at all. Which meant we'd have yet *another* discussion about definitions of yet *another* word, and I just didn't want to get into it.

If that's cutting corners, so be it. I wanted to use the dictionary to clarify what I meant, not muddy it further.

PAD

Jerry,

Never any social change that the overwhelming majority of people were against? Have you heard of Prohibition?

As I found on another thread, people, it is useless to talk sense to Jerry. He has his own opinion and will not change it for any argument, no matter how well thought out. The best thing to do is ignore him if you disagree with him. He refuses to see any side but his own.

Jesus' murderers were, en masse, all of those present who did not believe that the son of a lowly carpenter from Nazareth and his wife could be the promised Savior from King David's heritage they had been waiting so long for.

Irregardless of whether those non-believers could be 'officially' considered Jewish, Roman, Roman Jewish, or whatever term you wish to use; the non-believers just could not or would not allow themselves to believe that their God would keep His promise when, where, and how He did.

They were expecting somebody more 'royal' to arrive in a more grandeur manner, and just could not accept that someone from such humble beginnings could be the one.

Food for thought people!

In regards to using the full faith and credit clause to say that 4 judges in Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage has failed to remember the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, which basically eliminates the full faith and credit clause from having any bearing on marriage, since states now have the right to ignore any same-sex marriage performed in another state.

>May I suggest to you as gently as >possible, Dave, that an abuse of >power can happen even with legal >precedent?

Well, no one's talking about the subject anymore, but hell, I'll bite.

You're absolutely correct. I was heading in that direction in my post when I said the real issue was whether or not the Bush Administration was correctly classifying the detainees, but thank you for picking up that loose thread.

I brought up the legalese because there was some talk of the detaining being something that the Bush Administration cooked up after 9/11 as part of the Patriot Act. It goes back further than that. This isn't Bush being Hitler II and capitalizing on the mood of a nation by passing all kinds of anti-Muslim laws. This is Bush using a weapon in his arsenal to try and solve a problem. I certainly hope that Bush is right and the enemy combatants are truly enemy combatants. Even if they aren't, I'd chalk it up to overzealousness, which is definitely worthy of scorn and reprimand (assuming the judicial review of it wasn't fatally flawed), but hardly a reenactment of the atrocities of Hitler and terrible mistakes of FDR.

But yes, your point is well taken. Bush has to be vigilant about not abusing his power in a time of war.

-Dave O'Connell

(from Karen)

As I found on another thread, people, it is useless to talk sense to Jerry. He has his own opinion and will not change it for any argument, no matter how well thought out. The best thing to do is ignore him if you disagree with him. He refuses to see any side but his own.

Yes, it's becoming quite obvious.

Show him the words that clearly define the issue "fundamental civil right" and he'll try ducking the issue.

And he seems to feel that civil rights come about when society is ready for them, rather than the fact that quite a number of them have been necessarily put through by the courts.

(Remember Brown vs. Board of Education, Jerry? Such an "overwhelming majority" were ready for that to happen. And Gov. Wallace was merely waiting at the schoolhouse with open arms to welcome those students.)

Nope, the courts are there to protect minorities from "the tyranny of the majority".

Civil rights are NOT up for a popular vote - no matter what the current "regime" of this country would want to believe.

Never any social change that the overwhelming majority of people were against? Have you heard of Prohibition?

Which was how successfull? You sort of made my point. When a change is made before a large majority is ready, it rarely is successfull.

Remember, I'm not saying this is a good thing. Merely a fact. It's a shame it took manking thousands of years to realize slavery was bad. It's a shame it took the US hundreds of years to realise that all races are equal. But that doesn't change the fact that it did. And these changes didn't happen because of some almight courts, but because society and people changed. True change only comes from society.

Oh, and Karen, way to move on the issues. Really. Make your point by attacking me. Out of grade school yet? (see, I can sink to your level as well).

Khendon,

Are we having reading comprehension? NEVER did I use the majority rule as a reason for outlawing gay marriages. NEVER. Don't put words in my mouth. I can make other arguements against same-sex marriages, and this won't be one of them.

I clearly said UNFORTUNETLY change comes when a majority of society comes to welcome the change. Notice I said UNFORTUNETLY. And yes, the majority of the people in the US were ready for the Brown Vs. Board of Ed decision. Yes, there were idiots, such as Gov. Wallace, and even in the region, the majority may have been against it. But the country as a whole was ready for the change, and that's why it went through.

If that's not the case, and it's not a matter of society changing, then explain to me why it didn't happen earlier? What was different about the time period vs 50 years earlier, or 30, or 80?

Or maybe you'd rather just continue to attack me personally, and dodge the point?

Jerry

Like I said, I now see where the difference lies. I took the definition of tolerance to be never opposing any viewpoints. So your statement was reading to me that a bigot was someone who opposed a viewpoint. Evidently a couple of others thought that was a little broad as well.

Through further discussion, it's now clear that's not your intent. That's the value of discussion!

I still disagree with your label of bigot, but now it's a matter of opinion, rather than definition.

And the only agreement I'll ask, is if others promise not to equate being anti same-sex marriage with racism, and being a KKK member, then I won't equate homosexuality with pedophila :)

Jerry

Sorry, I meant that last comment to be TO: PAD, and was not thinking clearly when I put that in the name spot.

Jerry

Sorry, but when I hear you say stuff like this I think you come off as way too over reactionary (and not only with this subject). Also, I like how you manage to put our president's name in the same sentence with Hitlers as if they're one and the same. Nice.

Re: the definition of "bigot"

I can't say my definition of "bigot" would have the words "conviction" (a neutral term)

or "intolerant" (good or bad depending on what is being tolerated---it is bad to tolerate bad things and it is good to tolerate things that are good, or at least not bad). It would probably have the term "extreme prejudice" somewhere in there and include something about the "unwillingness to use reason as a basis for judging people and the issues pertaining to them" or "replacing reason with negative emotion as a way of judging people and the issues pertaining to them". Something like that.

So, a person whose anti-gay marriage statements are like, say, the National Review Online's Stanley Kurtz would not, in my opinion, fall into the category of a bigot. He's using reason, and his argument is worth perusing, but it just isn't persuasive enough.

(That article, by the way, can be found at http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp .)

Judging from PAD's remarks, I wonder if he might consider even Kurtz to be a bigot simply because of his opposition to gay-marriage. If so, I'd have to disagree. I think the word "bigot" should be reserved for those loathsome types who jettison all reason and traffic in violence and extreme verbal denigration. I don't even think President Bush falls into that category. I think he sincerely believes that he is protecting marriage and if gay marriage has to be prevented for happening, well, nothing personal, but that's what has to be done. I diagree with him, I think he's misguided on the subject, but a bigot? I wouldn't go that far.

-Dave O'Connell

Dave,

I wish I could be as elequently spoken as you on this subject. You have stated my feelings on this very well.

Jerry

PAD said:

No, it was used to characterize an individual, George W. Bush, to describe the way I believe he perceives gays and the action he is endeavoring to take. Supporting the implementation of an amendment that formalizes a segment of American citizens as second class citizens is, I believe, a form of bigotry. A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own. Going out of his way to make them unhappy and make sure they don't have the rights of other citizens, I believe, constitutes bigotry.

Sounds to me that the people who refuse to tolerate the people who do not support gay marriage are bigots themselves as well.

I think the word "bigot" should be reserved for those loathsome types who jettison all reason and traffic in violence and extreme verbal denigration.

And here I thought that was the definition of "troll"...

PAD

Heh (couldn't help myself)

Sounds to me that the people who refuse to tolerate the people who do not support gay marriage are bigots themselves as well.

I tolerate them. Do you see me deleting their posts?

PAD

All this talk about toleration makes me think of the "Toleration Paradox":

If the intolerant are tolerated, they may eventually prevail and make an end to toleration. But if they aren't tolerated, one has already made an end to toleration.

I just love paradoxes!

~Brad

"In regards to using the full faith and credit clause to say that 4 judges in Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage has failed to remember the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, which basically eliminates the full faith and credit clause from having any bearing on marriage, since states now have the right to ignore any same-sex marriage performed in another state."

I'm sorry, but should Massachusetts, or any other state, specifically permit homosexuals to marry, the hollowness of the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act would be exposed. No act of Congress is supposed to be permitted to contradict the Constitution, and DOMA clearly violates both the spirit and the word of Article V.

Based on the ideas behind DOMA, perhaps I should petition my Congresscritter to work on passing legislation saying that creditors in one state cannot force debts to be paid by residents of another state - that'd sure clear up my credit rating! :)

"In regards to using the full faith and credit clause to say that 4 judges in Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage has failed to remember the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, which basically eliminates the full faith and credit clause from having any bearing on marriage, since states now have the right to ignore any same-sex marriage performed in another state."

I'm sorry, but should Massachusetts, or any other state, specifically permit homosexuals to marry, the hollowness of the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act would be exposed. No act of Congress is supposed to be permitted to contradict the Constitution, and DOMA clearly violates both the spirit and the word of Article V.

Based on the ideas behind DOMA, perhaps I should petition my Congresscritter to work on passing legislation saying that creditors in one state cannot force debts to be paid by residents of another state - that'd sure clear up my credit rating! :)

Posted by Rich (way further up the list):

They controlled the media and censored those that did not agree with them. (Notice the sudden increase in censorship since the superbowl.)

Where? What censorship? Are you talking about the Grammys, and the Oscars tomorrow, being broadcast with a 5 second delay? That's not censorship. The purpose is to prevent certain offensive words or actions from hitting the public airwaves. You do realize that most radio stations use a 5-7 second delay when taking any calls from the public, don't you? And this was goin on LONG before this year's Superbowl incident. And the delay at the Oscars is for that alone. If Tim Robbins or Sean Penn (or any other person in front of the microphones) want to go on a rant like Michael Moore did last year, there are no time constraints. The only thing that might get cut off is a word or two if they fit the FCC's definiton of obsecnity.

I'm fairly certain that is a form of censorship, and yes I'm aware that it occurs on the radio. Which brings me to an example of what I was thinking about. Howard Stern and other radio personalities are being removed or fired from certain radio stations based on new pressure brought on by the FCC because of the Superbowl incident. Bleeping is one thing, but removing programs from the air which were acceptable the day before and for 20 years before that is too much censorship in my opinion. I advocate people's rights to watch and listen to what they want to, and I also advocate their rights to not do so, but I do not advocate other people telling me what I can or can not watch, listen or read. I don't even listen to Howard Stern or any radio personalities on a regular basis, but I support other people's rights to do so.

Regarding Guantanamo: we held prisoners for years during WWII. If anything, they're too lax. One of the released detainees went back to fighting with the Taliban. Some Russian detainees mothers don't want them released, since it's better than a Russian prison. One called it a resort. Meanwhile, france has been holding prisoners in a 1995 bomb plot without a trial for seven years.

Anti-semitism: French Jews are beaten on the streets of Paris -- and their parents are arrested for saying it's anti-semitism. The chief rabbi warns men not to wear yarmulkes in public. The problem is so bad the EU commisioned a study on it, which they promptly suppressed. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583

Enter jpost/jpost.

Here in the US, it's mostly at universities: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014360.php

Adbusters is naming Jews in the vast neocon conspiracy: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/002366.html

As George Will said, anti-catholism used to be the anti-semitism of the left. Now anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of the left. PAD seems to be in denial of this.

Opposing gay marriage: if this makes one a bigot, then so are a lot of Jews. One prominent Orthodox rabbiwas recently criticized for forming a group of religious leaders opposed to gay marriage that included a Muslim cleric with terrorist ties.

Full Faith and Credit Clause: "Historically, marriage has never been one of the "public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over inter-racial marriage. As soon as one northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically, is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license.) It has long been established law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts' marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that activist courts these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won't recognize such marriages; with the Defense of Marriage Act backing that up; the likelihood is minimal." From Andrew Sullivan.

I don't understand the arguement that somehow expanding marriage to include gays somehow reduces the sanctity of marriage somehow. Heterosexuals have already done that since the beginning of the institution. I do not believe that the majority of heterosexuals marry because of love or because they want to preserve the ideology of the family unit either. I believe that the cause of all the divorces is because people get married for the wrong reasons. I've met so many people who have married because of greed or loneliness or simply because it was expected of them and if they didn't they would be looked down on by their peers. Those reasons are all bull! I also believe that marrying simply to maintain the family unit and no other reason is morally wrong. People need to be in love to create a positive and happy environment for themselves and any children they may have. I have seen so many people live miserable lives and raise children with psychological wounds simply because they stay in a marriage that exists without love its mind-numbing. People who marry without love in their hearts are usually the ones who abuse their spouses and children, who cheat on their husbands and wives, or people who just flat out argue on a daily basis with each other. I really don't see how gays can screw marriage up any worse then the heterosexual community can and I've seen just as many long-term gay couples in happy relationships as I have straight ones. Lets give the gays a chance, maybe we'll learn something.

On a different note, I just rewatched V and V: The Final Battle miniseries and boy was I surprised at the similarities to the current political climate and the way the Visitors take over the Earth. It is scary close to reality right now. (Minus the aliens of course.)

Rich posted: I just rewatched V and V: The Final Battle miniseries and boy was I surprised at the similarities to the current political climate and the way the Visitors take over the Earth. It is scary close to reality right now. (Minus the aliens of course.)

Not sure about the "minus the aliens" part. Perhaps that's just what they WANT us to think... ;)

I'm fairly certain that is a form of censorship, and yes I'm aware that it occurs on the radio. Which brings me to an example of what I was thinking about. Howard Stern and other radio personalities are being removed or fired from certain radio stations based on new pressure brought on by the FCC because of the Superbowl incident. Bleeping is one thing, but removing programs from the air which were acceptable the day before and for 20 years before that is too much censorship in my opinion. I advocate people's rights to watch and listen to what they want to, and I also advocate their rights to not do so, but I do not advocate other people telling me what I can or can not watch, listen or read. I don't even listen to Howard Stern or any radio personalities on a regular basis, but I support other people's rights to do so.

Except that it was clear channel that pulled him, not the government, and all that will happen is another station in the market will pick him up.

I semi-agree with their actions as well. They came out a couple of days earlier and said look: "Here are our standards, and here is was we can and cannot do on our radio stations. You want to be on OUR stations, you follow these rules". Two days later, Stern broke those rules (and yes, I know it was a caller, but radio has run on a delay for years to solve that issue. It's called a "cough" button). It was obvious that Stern wasn't interested in following those rules, so his show will be switching stations in a whole SIX markets. Whoop De Do!

DJs have been fired from the beginning of radio by the stations for saying things on the air they shouldn't. From playing records out of rations, to cussing, or just because the station owners thought they were ugly. Not censorship, but business.

Now if the government came in the said they had to fire Stern, then it might be. (Even then, the use of public airwaves changes everything).

Jason

I personally don't listen to Howard Stern either, but he didn't do anything he hasn't done many times before WITHOUT being fired. And part of the problem is that so few people own the airwaves today, that it is not so easy to find another market. We are slowly, but surely being forced to listen to fewer and fewer points of view. This is the trouble in all media today. How many of you live in a city with more than one major newspaper?

Look, if it's "all for sanctity of marriage", as most people against gay marriage say, could we make an amendment banning divorce?

Do THAT first, then talk to me about the sanctity of marriage.

Peace,

Larry

Except that it was clear channel that pulled him, not the government, and all that will happen is another station in the market will pick him up.

I semi-agree with their actions as well. They came out a couple of days earlier and said look: "Here are our standards, and here is was we can and cannot do on our radio stations. You want to be on OUR stations, you follow these rules". Two days later, Stern broke those rules (and yes, I know it was a caller, but radio has run on a delay for years to solve that issue. It's called a "cough" button). It was obvious that Stern wasn't interested in following those rules, so his show will be switching stations in a whole SIX markets. Whoop De Do!

DJs have been fired from the beginning of radio by the stations for saying things on the air they shouldn't. From playing records out of rations, to cussing, or just because the station owners thought they were ugly. Not censorship, but business.

Now if the government came in the said they had to fire Stern, then it might be. (Even then, the use of public airwaves changes everything).

Jason

Except as I said, the FCC is pressuring companies like Clearwater to remove these people from the airwaves. Granted, it was their decision and they folded like cardboard. Its not like Stern was suddenly picked up by them and they didn't realize who they had. Their feelings on his program clearly changed even though Stern's program had not. Just because it hasn't been signed into law yet, doesn't make it any less a form of censorship.

This thread, and some of the previous ones, is a great example of the internal conflict going on in our culture. On one side we have a morality coming from God as an extension of His character, and the on other side we have a combination of pragmatism, relativism, and universalism. The Old morality vs the New morality. Objective Truth vs subjective experience. If history shows us anything it is that human nature prefers to be in the dark, and will go through every means necessary to remain so. Society prefers that the wise man be on a mountain top somewhere far away, and the last place they want him is in the middle of everyday life. Just look at where it got Socrates and Jesus.

It boggles my mind how mankind can be so confused about things that should be pretty simple, such as morality.

Personally, I have a simple moral code that has always served me extraordinarily well. If I go through the day without causing harm to my fellow human beings, I've earned the right to look at myself in the mirror at night and say: "You did okay, pal".

That is it.

If someone wants to have sex with 1, 5, or 10 partners of the same or different sex, what is the goddamn problem? If you want to worship God, Allah, Gaea or none of the above, be my guest. If you want to use drugs that will damage only yourself, go ahead.

The line is crossed when you hurt other people.

If a man (gay, straight or bissexual), forces someone, anyone, to have sex with him, then there is a problem. If a guy knows he has AIDS but fails to inform his partners of it, then there is a problem. If a guy snorts coke and then goes on to beat his Mom, then there is a problem. If a religious person wants to force someone else to abide by his own codes of behaviour, then there is a problem.

Simple.

And before someone accuses me of being a bleeding heart liberal, I also think it's not moral to forbid people from owning guns (using those guns in others is a different matter, of course) or forcing people to pay taxes to grant reparations to african-americans who happen to be descended from slaves.

Jim Burdo wrote:

Full Faith and Credit Clause: "Historically, marriage has never been one of the "public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. . . . So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken.

What you have described is true of individual marriagaes. The Mass. case, however, is just that -- a civil court case like any other, a separate judicial proceeding involving mulitple couples rather than an individual marriage, with the state an actual party to the litigation. So the Full Faith and Credit clause most certainly does apply.

Add in the Massachusetts constitutional issue, and the fact that the 10th amendment reserves this right to individual states, and the Mass. law does start to encroach on other states.

Of course, sometimes bigotry can be wacky. Just take this excerpt from Dictionary.com's entry for the word "bigot".

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

And then there are these three definitions for the word "troll", bringing the word count for that word's entry up to an inexplicable 1,228 words. The amusing thing about the following is Dictionary.com's academic rigor in exhausting all possible Internet uses of the word "troll". (I, for one, can hardly wait to read their dissertation on the Internet acronym "LOL".)

v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To

utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable

responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase

"trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream

"trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a

likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post

that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look

even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate

troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See

also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by

the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly

creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming

characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of

life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower

category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing

some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See

also Troll-O-Meter.

Two other thoughts come to mind:

1) If frequency of use is the sole criterion for numerically ordering definitions, then numbers 1 and 2 ought to be switched around, since number 2 seems to be the one people have in mind when using the word "troll".

2) I've literally never heard of definition 3 before. Is troll used in this context in computer labs outside of Berkeley?

-Dave O'Connell

That is mostly due to a very overworked and very, very slow justice system. For now, we don't have anything like plea bargaining in France (although our Ministre de l'Intèrieur wants to introduce it, which lawyers don't like at all). Every case has to go on a full trial, and such things take time here. But at least, those suspects were sure to get a trial. But France isn't the only country in this case. Witness the Marc Dutroux case which comes into trial today in Belgium... eight years after the facts.

As for the resurgence of anti-semitic acts, most of them are done by hooligans of north african origins, and are fueled by them siding with the Palestinians in the Middle East mess (which, every time I read about it, makes me think that Judge Death has the right idea). Nothing to do with the anti-semitism that was too prevalent in the western world before WW II (I'm sure Leo Franks would have wished he had been treated as captain Dreyfuss was).

Discord:

Can you provide references to back up your statements? Checking out the case law can be enlightening...

Probably too far down on the thread to be read by PAD (and if it is, ain't procrastination a great thing?) but I have a question. It's personal, none of my business, and so if you refuse to answer, no problemo:

(I'm not sure how to phrase this question, so please discern with a forgiving eye) What kind of Jewish person are you? Do you celebrate Jewish ceremonies? Believe Jewish theology? Or is it a racial/cultural thing?

No offense meant, I'm just curious. In the other thread I was going to make a naive statement about not being aware that anti-semitism actually exists in anyone under 50 (outside radical Muslims), but I checked myself. I really don't understand it, at all, don't know who exactly it's directed at. Find it very sad.

And if you can find a single post in which you believe I've indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it. PAD

Just to clarify, I do not believe that you feel that way nor have I written anything to indicate that you did. The facts that a.) there quite a few large groups of people who do not wish for this movie to be seen and are pushing anyone they can to have it removed from theaters and b.)Mel Gibson has been threatened with blacklisting sets up a lot of red flags for someone who is used to seeing this site serve as a beachhead for free speech. I thought the point of view had been given short shrift here of all places and thought I would throw it into the mix.

I apologize if you inferred anything other than that from my comments. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

I'm going to go with the argument that Mel Gibson used in his interview on 20/20, when asked if he believed that the Jews killed Jesus, he replied No, they didn't, I did, we did. Jesus didn't let the Jews kill him so that we could say hate all the Jews, He let them kill Him because He wanted to forgive us all of our sins. If they hadn't killed him, we would all be doomed to suffer eternally, or, someone else would have killed him.