Israeli TV's blasphemous show sparks outrage

Quote from jem:
More...

your logic sucks.

Do you really want to get into a stu vs. jem game?

I don't.

First of all every persons vote is informed by their beliefs and morals.

What?

And all this time I thought a person became informed, and then developed their beliefs and morals.

Sounds to me like you are talking about a society who has beliefs and morals due to indoctrination, not education and choice of what to accept as true and moral.

When a gay person votes for gay marriage he is voting his belief system.

And when a gay hater is against giving the gays the right to marry he is voting his belief.

It would be nice if you were going somewhere with this.

Start with freedom first, personal freedom first, then restrict that freedom only when the freedom represents a logical threat to society.

Gay marriage has not been logically or scientifically shown to be a threat to our society.

Now, logic and science have surely shown that people hold beliefs which are illogical and unscientific...that is the history of the world. Burning and hanging people for their religious beliefs (see witches) and other persecutions based on religion.

It is called holding ignorant beliefs, and I am not against people doing that in their own lives... but I would be strongly opposed to forcing you to marry several women, or forcing you to marry a man, or to restrict your marriage to anyone you loved who was of informed consent and choice... but want to force your personal beliefs unto others???

It appears you don't really want the kind of America that the framers envisioned, you prefer tyranny by a government run by small minded thinkers who want to control the personal lives of its citizens.

What makes the gay belief system more worthy of vote casting than someone else's belief system.

What makes any personal belief worthy or being pushed onto others?

Gays are not trying to have straights give up their lifestyle or to force straights to marry gays or change what straights can do when it comes to marriage. Gays are just wanting the same rights as gays...just as blacks wanted the same rights as whites, women wanted the same rights as men, etc.

They are only looking for their own freedom to live in a loving relationship of their choice.

It is the homophobes and gay haters steeped in fear and ignorance who are trying to restrict the freedom of the gays, just as we have seen historically when the white males wanted to restrict the freedom of blacks, women, minority groups, the poor, etc.

Just about every vote has a moral component.

And that "moral" votes is based on ignorance or it is based on education and intelligence. That moral vote is based on ignorance or enlightenment. That moral vote is based on the concept of equality or that vote is based on prejudice and fear.

Your concept can just as easily be flipped on you.

Obviously in your mind, you believe that to be true.

If your concept holds, then Muslim countries who legislate on the basis of their religion are logical and you support their laws because they are founded in their own personal beliefs derived from religion, rather than intellectual process to maximize the freedoms of the citizens.

I don't hear you arguing in favor of Muslim law, even though it is adopted in some countries by the majority.

Abortion is barbaric killing of an innocent life.

Could that be proved both logically and scientifically, abortion would surely be illegal. It is not illegal in America.

I wish you would leave your murderous views at home instead of voting on them.

I wish you would put down your personal beliefs derived from your own religion and stop trying to legislate on that basis, deciding rather to allow people to live freely and not under the tyranny of the dominate religion.

You argument is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how law and society are formed.

I know how other societies have been born, America was born differently, putting an emphasis on logic and reason above religions bias that inflicts tyranny over the non dominant religious bias.

The majority rules unless the constitution says the minority needs to be protected. The majority is encourage to vote the beliefs and morals.

So, if the majority rules, and if the majority wants gay marriage, then you will be happy as a clam, right?

That is if you are consistent in your thinking that the majority should dominate the minority in all situations.

Actually the framers had a different idea, to protect the innate rights of the individuals over the tyranny of mob rule.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to gays just as much to straights, and if it makes gays happy to marry each other, you have yet to provide a logical and scientific reason to prohibit them from their dream.

An argument of "that is the way it has always been" is not a sound argument in a nation that has progressed beyond slavery, women and children being treated as property and second class citizens, etc.
 
Christianity has been taking a few hits in Israel. Recently I posted on a story via Haaretz of religious Jews in Jerusalem who have been accused of spitting at Christians. In a recent case, flying spittle was aimed at a cross carried in a procession by Armenian Christians. In the subsequent brawl the 17th century cross was broken.

This week a show on Channel 10, one of Israel's three main TV stations, drew attention around the world by ridiculing and 'blaspheming' Jesus and Mary.

The show was hosted by well-known Israeli comedian named Lior Shlein. Mary is described as an unwed mother who got knocked up at 15 by a classmate. Jesus was too fat to have walked on water, in fact "he was so fat he was ashamed to leave the house, let alone go to the Sea of Galilee with a bathing suit."

Some of this is a reaction to the Pope's decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson who claimed during an interview broadcast on Swedish TV that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust and that only 200,000 or 300,000 were killed.

Shlein said that his sarcasm was "a lesson" to those Christians who deny the Holocaust. A childish reaction at best. Williamson is hardly representative of Christian views - in fact he would be viewed as a crank by most.

The Vatican's representative in Israel has lodged a complaint about the show. However the Israeli government's hands are tied on the matter to some extent because Channel 10 is a private station, not subject to government censorship except in the case of security.

A few dozen Christian residents of Galilee held a protest against the late night talk show, and claimed Shlein had insulted their religion.

Christianity is a legitimate target for satire. But this episode isn't just about religion, it has broader political implications.

Imagine a goy comedian with an attitude about Israel, mocking the Jewish religion and its God along the same lines on a major American network. He/she would be branded anti-Semitic and worse.

All those starry eyed American Christians with an unquestioning devotion to Israel are more than a little naive. Truth is, there are a lot of Israeli Jews who think Christianity is a joke. It just takes an episode like the Williamson affair for some of the underlying attitudes to surface.

Tags: Lior Shlein mocks Jesus, Israeli TV show mocks Jesus and Mary, anti-Christian sarcasm, Bishop Richard Williamson, Israel TV jokes about Jesus, blasphemy, Pope, Holocaust, anti-Christian sarcasm, Channel 10.

http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/jews-in-jerusalem-accused-of-spitting.html
 
Feb 12, 2009
Jews in Jerusalem accused of spitting on Christians

Wearing the clerical garb of the Christian religion in parts of Jerusalem can draw not just nasty looks, but also phlegm. If recent reports are to be believed Jews have been spitting at Christians and a lot of it goes unreported.

In an article that appeared in the Israeli paper Haaretz, we learn about a prelate who decided not to report a 'spitting assault' to the authorities, although he did disclose details of the incident to an acquaintance.

The cleric in question is a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman. He attended a meeting in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned from the meeting he got back into his car. A man wearing a skullcap knocked on the car window then spat in the face of the clergyman.

Apparently many such incidents have occurred, but as the story in Haaretz suggests, the majority go unreported.

On Sunday when an Armenian Archbishop was carrying the cross near the Holy Sepulchar, a yeshiva student spat at the cross. In the ensuing brawl the 17th century cross was broken.

Haaretz:

According to Daniel Rossing, former adviser to the Religious Affairs Ministry on Christian affairs and director of a Jerusalem center for Christian-Jewish dialogue, there has been an increase in the number of such incidents recently, "as part of a general atmosphere of lack of tolerance in the country."

Rossing says there are certain common characteristics from the point of view of time and location to the incidents. He points to the fact that there are more incidents in areas where Jews and Christians mingle, such as the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City and the Jaffa Gate.

The Haaretz story suggests that yeshiva students are behind many of the spitting incidents - apparently with the approval or at least connivance of at least some of their yeshiva rabbis.

Haaretz:

Former adviser to the mayor on Christian affairs, Shmuel Evyatar, describes the situation as "a huge disgrace." He says most of the instigators are yeshiva students studying in the Old City who view the Christian religion with disdain.

"I'm sure the phenomenon would end as soon as rabbis and well-known educators denounce it. In practice, rabbis of yeshivas ignore or even encourage it," he says.

Evyatar says he himself was spat at while walking with a Serbian bishop in the Jewish quarter, near his home. "A group of yeshiva students spat at us and their teacher just stood by and watched."


The spitting incidents speak to an often disguised religious truth. A percentage of religious Jews do in fact hold Christianity in disdain, it's just that some in Jerusalem appear to be getting more demonstrative about it.

It's hard to know if this is just a minority pursuit or if it is more widely approved of. Some repercussions have followed the Sunday incident in Jerusalem. The police acted in the case of the yeshiva student who spat on the cross. He will go to trial and has been banned from the Old City for 75 days. Whether or not such punishments will put an end to the flying spittle is another question.
 
Press Release from the "Assembly of the Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land"

We, the members of the "Assembly of the Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land" deplore and condemn with utter dismay the repulsive attacks on our Lord Jesus Christ and on His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, carried out on Channel 10 of the Israeli television.
In these days, during a night show on Channel 10, a series of horrible offenses were launched against our faith and consequently against us, Christians. The show directed its attacks to the holiest figures of our Christian belief in an attempt, as the director of the show himself specifically declared, to destroy Christianism. In so doing, Channel 10 was used to desecrate the holiest figures of Christianism offending hundreds of thousands of Christian Israeli citizens and of many millions of Christians all over the world as well.

The Catholic Bishops in the Holy Land consider such program a symptom of greater problems disturbing the society, such as intolerance, refusal to accept and respect the other and inherent hatred. More important, the Heads of Churches view this recent incident in the larger context of continuous attacks against Christians throughout Israel over the years. Only a few months ago, copies of the New Testament were publicly burnt in the yard of a synagogue in Or Yehuda. Since years, Christianity has been doing a lot to stop some manifestations of anti-semitism, and now Christians in Israel have to find themselves victimised by a low profile manifestation of anti-Christianism?

While condemning this and all other intolerant acts, we call on all concerned parties to investigate the matter and to take the necessary actions in order to put an end to such horrible desecration of our faith. It is unconceivable that such incidents have to occur in Israel which hosts some of the holiest shrines of Christianity and which rely to a great extent on pilgrimage from Christian Countries.

Therefore, we ask the Israeli people and its Authorities to take the appropriate measures against such unacceptable offense and its perpetrators. At the same time, we urge Channel 10 to acknowledge its responsibility and to officially and publicly apologise for this incident and never to allow its repetition.
We want also to express our understanding and appreciation to the deep reaction of our Christian Communities and Institutions as well as to the many reasonable representatives of Moslems and Jews who were themselves shocked and appalled and expressed their dismay and protest at this fact. Actually such programs have nothing to do with freedom of expression, art and entertainment. They can only work against national integration and harmony in our society.

We call on them all to exercise the utmost seriousness and restraint and to follow their Ecclesial Authorities in dealing with this very important and delicate matter.
Jerusalem, February 18, 2009.

His Beatitude Fouad Twal, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, Emeritus Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
His Excellency Elias Chacour, Greek Melkite Archbishop of Akka
His Excellency Paul Sayya, Maronite Archbishop of Haifa
His Excellency Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, Latin Patriarchal Vicar / Israel
His Excellency Pierre Melki, Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Exarch
His Excellency Yousef Jules Zerey, Greek Melkite Patriarchal Exarch
His Excellency Butros Mouallem, Emeritus Greek Melkite Archbishop of Akka
His Excellency Kamal Bathish, Emeritus Auxiliary Bishop of Latin Patriarch
Fr. Pier Battista Pizzaballa, ofm, Custos of the Holy Land
Msgr. Rafael Minassian, Armenian Catholic Patriarchal Exarch
Fr. Paul Colin, Chaldean Catholic Patriarchal Exarch
Fr. Pietro Felet scj, Secretary General
 
I have taken your framework and then added my comment....

"1. First of all every persons vote is informed by their beliefs and morals.

What?

And all this time I thought a person became informed, and then developed their beliefs and morals.

Sounds to me like you are talking about a society who has beliefs and morals due to indoctrination, not education and choice of what to accept as true and moral."


----
Sounds - to me like you have no desire for serious debate. You did not dispute my statement about how votes are informed.

Instead you go off on a tangent. You seem to be implying that human beings have "education" which is free of morals, bias or belief...Which is a joke - the education system is the place where entities fight for the right to pound "morals" and "beliefs: into our children.

Just look at the fight for the right to teach "tolerance" of lifestyles formerly classified abnormal by doctors (sp) ... or the fight to teach nationalism vs multiculturalism or many of the other thousands of culturally choices we see being deleted or included in our childrens test books and class programs.

The premise of your argument is utter bullshit. Human being have no virturally no access to bias free knowledge before the age of consent. School is biased, parents are biased.

Votes are not being cast by bias free liberals vs some other group. You confuse liberals with bias free voters.


I have no desire to waste anymore time today with your distortions. you manifest a lack of understanding of how laws are formed. Who decides what murder is? Bias free individuals? Or societies which were formed by a judeo christian ethic?

You need to study the law and learn the difference between constitutionally protected rights and the rights of the majority to determine how society should run.
 
Quote from jem:

I have taken your framework and then added my comment....

"1. First of all every persons vote is informed by their beliefs and morals.

What?

And all this time I thought a person became informed, and then developed their beliefs and morals.

Sounds to me like you are talking about a society who has beliefs and morals due to indoctrination, not education and choice of what to accept as true and moral."


----
Sounds - to me like you have no desire for serious debate. You did not dispute my statement about how votes are informed.

Votes are formed through the combination of new and existing information.

The new and old information may be formed, or may have been formed through a reasonably informed information gathering process grounded in reason and objectivity, or it can be information that is the direct consequence of subjective religious training. Quite a difference between the two.

Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are both thinking through the filter of their religion over secular rational processes.

Instead you go off on a tangent. You seem to be implying that human beings have "education" which is free of morals, bias or belief...Which is a joke - the education system is the place where entities fight for the right to pound "morals" and "beliefs: into our children.

The education system either indoctrinates, or teaches a child how to think for themselves and come to their own conclusion. Indoctrination attempts to shape the mind of a child in a particular direction, real education gives a child the tools to shape their own opinions.

I trust you know the difference between indoctrination and teaching a child to reason for themselves to their own conclusions.

Just look at the fight for the right to teach "tolerance" of lifestyles formerly classified abnormal by doctors (sp) ... or the fight to teach nationalism vs multiculturalism or many of the other thousands of culturally choices we see being deleted or included in our childrens test books and class programs.

Formerly there were diseases that doctors couldn't cure.

What is your argument again?

Formerly is the way to go, or should we go with the progress that science has brought us to overcome the indoctrinations of religion?

The premise of your argument is utter bullshit.

You really want to do a stu vs. jem thingy, don't you?

Not interested in that.

Human being have no virturally no access to bias free knowledge before the age of consent. School is biased, parents are biased.

Human beings have free will and the ability to reason to their own conclusions, and can throw off the indoctrination of religion if they wish.

Votes are not being cast by bias free liberals vs some other group. You confuse liberals with bias free voters.

Bias is always there, it is either a personal bias arrived at through a logical rational process, or the baggage of indoctrination.

You seem to prefer a bias in founded in religious indoctrination to govern our society, I prefer that people reach their own conclusions free of such indoctrinations.

I have no desire to waste anymore time today with your distortions.

More jem vs. stu.

you manifest a lack of understanding of how laws are formed. Who decides what murder is? Bias free individuals? Or societies which were formed by a judeo christian ethic?

Were are all currently formed from the past, I am interested in moving forward to the future by not being retarded in our thinking by the indoctrination of religions from the past, just as I prefer modern medicine to leeches and other primitive medicines of the past thousands of years.

You need to study the law and learn the difference between constitutionally protected rights and the rights of the majority to determine how society should run.

I don't need to study the law. Constitution exists to provide freedom for and from religion, not to provide an avenue to implement religions bias to control the lives of others.

Please study the basic concepts of the founding of our country, and the enlightenment that brought forth our republic. It was not a religious movement, it was a group of reasoned men who understood the danger in religious indoctrination who formed this society. They were not religions zealots pushing their religion onto society, they came here to avoid that kind of thing, they wanted to be free, not be the prisoner of a government that took away their innate freedom.
More...
 
Wow - I have never seen such confused rhetoric.

I compliment you on your ability to deceive.
You try to posture yourself as some sort of good tolerant american - yet you do not want to allow other Americans to vote their consciencen -- if their conscience is informed by some method other than one approved by you.

If I had not read it for myself I would not have believed anyone could be so deceptive.

You have raised the act of intolerance for thoughts of others to Orwellian levels. I really do congratulate you.

You ignore a few concepts.

1. Our society was formed to allow Christians to vote their conscience or inform their vote with their beliefs and morals now matter how they were formed.

Your core concept is not only intolerant of others beliefs it is fundamentally un american and at odds with the constitution.

2. Where do you get the balls to say your beliefs are superior to the beliefs of a Christian when it comes to informing their vote. You intolerance comes very close to the worst beliefs exhibited by Nazis.
 
It appears that you want to go the way of jem vs. stu.

Not interested.

If you want to tone things down and be rational, let me know.

"1. Our society was formed to allow Christians to vote their conscience or inform their vote with their beliefs and morals now matter how they were formed."

Patently false. Many of the framers were not Christians, they were deists or other beliefs.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

"2. Where do you get the balls to say your beliefs are superior to the beliefs of a Christian when it comes to informing their vote. You intolerance comes very close to the worst beliefs exhibited by Nazis.

You seem to think Christian religious beliefs are superior to reasonably derived secular beliefs which are free of the dogma and fundamentalist indoctrination of religion.

If that line of thinking is true, that past fundamentalist thinking is the way to go based on the dominant religion of the past and those ancient beliefs, then Sharia law is superior to the kind of democracy of Israel and the democracy we have installed in Iraq and Afghanistan...simply because we installed secular governments, not Christian governments.

The bottom line difference is that I don't want to force Christians to become gay, or marry gays, or have abortions, etc.

I want the freedom for people to make their own choices about their marriage, sexual preference, their own body, etc.

I am not trying to force Christians to do anything...but perhaps learn to leave non Christians alone to do their own thing, the things which are none of the Christian's business.

Live and let live would be nice. Application of the Golden Rule would be nice, because I doubt sincerely that you would want Muslim Sharia law forced on your simply because they were the dominant majority religion.

Quote from jem:

Wow - I have never seen such confused rhetoric.

I compliment you on your ability to deceive.
You try to posture yourself as some sort of good tolerant american - yet you do not want to allow other Americans to vote their consciencen -- if their conscience is informed by some method other than one approved by you.

If I had not read it for myself I would not have believed anyone could be so deceptive.

You have raised the act of intolerance for thoughts of others to Orwellian levels. I really do congratulate you.

You ignore a few concepts.

1. Our society was formed to allow Christians to vote their conscience or inform their vote with their beliefs and morals now matter how they were formed.

Your core concept is not only intolerant of others beliefs it is fundamentally un american and at odds with the constitution.

2. Where do you get the balls to say your beliefs are superior to the beliefs of a Christian when it comes to informing their vote. You intolerance comes very close to the worst beliefs exhibited by Nazis.
More...
 
you are incorrect on both counts. First you do not understand the concept - if anything many states required you to believe in th God of the bible or a Christian to hold office or to take an oath to give testimony. Second when it comes to voting - it was frequently stated a vote should be informed by a well formed Christian conscience.

Not that it had to be Christian - but that is the polar opposite of the crackpot concept you were proposing.

Regarding Deists. You should do some research about their beliefs. Or check elite's previous threads on the subject...

At the time of the constitutional convention a majority of the states had ties to churches. Public schools taught religion and many state constitutions required office holders to be Christian. The point of the 14th amendment was to stop the Federal Gov't from picking a national church. Check your history.

2. I do not consider any vote superior to any other vote. You were the one who made that Orwellian argument.
 
1. I never claimed the founding fathers were atheists. Just that they were not necessarily Christian. Deists don't tend to be dogmatic about the rules of some particular scripture, they prefer to think God gave them a mind to think...not a mind to simply regurgitate mindless scripture that was written, re-written, changed, etc. many many times from thousands of years ago.

2. Many states approved of slavery, child labor, second class citizen status for women...etc. So what is the point?

We have progressed in so many areas, but the fundamentalist Christians want to retard progress in other areas, just like they wanted to keep blacks from basic human rights, women from human rights, child labor in force, etc., etc., etc.

Regressives don't want societal evolution which this country has seen over hundreds of years.

Progressives want the people to live to the full potential of human life, and keep religion in the churches and in the hearts of men in their effort to be better people and keep their life right with God.

3. My vote is not superior, it counts for one vote, it is equal on the level of a tally of one vote. However, a vote is either an educated vote, or a mindlessly indoctrinated vote. Idiot voters vote in boobs like Bush, twice, because they don't know how to think for themselves and just follow the pundit herd shepherds.

The progress America has experienced would be due to thinking, not mindless indoctrination.

Fortunately we don't have a national Church, for if we did it would be a Christian Church which would trample the faith and beliefs of the minority.

---------------------------------

The great framers followed Deism, and the principle that God gave man a mind to think for himself, decide for himself how to govern himself.

If they wanted it differently, they would have set up something like Sharia Law in Islam which follows a literal fundamentalist reading of Muslim scripture.

They also wouldn't have allowed the Constitution to be changed, as the word of God isn't supposed to change.

ARTFL Project: Webster Dictionary, 1913
Check out our new site which features an updated interface for Webster's Dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, the French-English Dictionary, and the French Verb Conjugator. Searching for: deist
Found 1 hit(s). Deist (Page: 384)

De"ist (?), n. [L. deus god: cf. F. déiste. See Deity.] One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; a freethinker. &hand; A deist, as denying a revelation, is opposed to a Christian; as, opposed to the denier of a God, whether atheist or patheist, a deist is generally denominated theist. Latham. Syn. -- See Infidel.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=deist



If you want to pull a stu and argue with a dictionary...I can't stop you from that.


Quote from jem:

you are incorrect on both counts. First you do not understand the concept - if anything many states required you to believe in th God of the bible or a Christian to hold office or to take an oath to give testimony. Second when it comes to voting - it was frequently stated a vote should be informed by a well formed Christian conscience.

Not that it had to be Christian - but that is the polar opposite of the crackpot concept you were proposing.

Regarding Deists. You should do some research about their beliefs. Or check elite's previous threads on the subject...

At the time of the constitutional convention a majority of the states had ties to churches. Public schools taught religion and many state constitutions required office holders to be Christian. The point of the 14th amendment was to stop the Federal Gov't from picking a national church. Check your history.

2. I do not consider any vote superior to any other vote. You were the one who made that Orwellian argument.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top