Mar. 5th, 2004

arisbe: (Default)
What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness – its crude honesty, if you like – in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.

So Kerry will be elected, and the course of evil will be unchecked, at least in its international manifestation. Though the stupidity with which our present leaders conduct their policy may entail evils of its own. And there may be some hope that the juggernaut of domestic repression will slow somewhat.

If I had money, which I do not, I might be tempted to take my Irish passport and buy a home in the Netherlands Antilles. Or one of the smaller Greek islands.
arisbe: (Default)
Zmirak's Passion piece in TAC is even better than the one in Godspy:

Make no mistake: as the Gospels make clear, Jesus did indeed say things that contravened the law of Moses—divinely imposed, the highest, purest religion existing on earth. In the high priest’s presence, Jesus asserted His own divinity. Faced with this, the high priest had only two choices: bow down and worship Jesus or put Him to death.

There is no room in the Gospels for the liberal 19th-century myth of Jesus as a great moral teacher, unjustly persecuted. As C.S. Lewis has written, Jesus was either the Son of God or a wicked, perhaps deranged, imposter. Religious Jews who reject His divinity but affirm Him as a noble ethicist are being extremely generous.


I don't know about generous. Liberal Jews and liberal Christians have agreed on the cover story that Jesus was a great teacher, but none of his followers got the point. Some great teacher! The teachings of Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad are well preserved in the movements to which they gave their names. Christianity alone is a total fraud. Or so the mainstream churches tell us -- and a great many Catholic theologians are being sucked into the mainstream -- and any Christian who doesn't follow the party line runs the risk of being denounced as a closet Hitler.

It seems to me, though, without seeing the movie, that Zmirak has a much clearer idea than Gibson of what it is all about. The Temple authorities had very good reasons for acting as they did. But for Mel, the Devil made 'em do it, and that says it all. Which is, when you come to think of it, pretty close to anti-Semitism, though that might not be the motivating factor. Mel is just too much the authoritarian to want to see Jesus as a challenge to the religious authorities of his day, so their animosity must be attributed solely to supernatural (sorry, John, preternatural) intervention.

The JDL, ADL, whatever, has gone off half cocked and shot itself in the foot by presuming that Mel is anti-Semitic in so far as he follows the Gospels, not when he departs from them. The Jewish propaganda machine has discredited itself in the eyes of all fair-minded folks of any religion and none. And just as well, as long as false accusations of anti-Semitism are the weapon of choice against any who question the indiscriminate slaughter of Arabs.

But there I go again.

Profile

arisbe: (Default)
arisbe

March 2011

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
202122232425 26
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 05:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios