Critics are raving over danceswithcats’ masterful performance as a misunderstood patriot trapped in a horrifying Liberal Pit of Doom in Cecil B. de Adams’ epic blockbuster “The Straight Dope: Bigger, Longer and, Well, Longer”. The early buzz is that the never-nominated journeyman is a lock for an Oscar nod, edging out a strong finish by Brutus in the comedy smash “I’m Surrounded by Retards”, Starving Artist’s engaging turn as a naive, fresh-faced optimist in Rainbow Over the Desert and Ryan_Liam’s brooding portrayal of a young Irishman battling a muslim conspiracy in They Hate My Freedom. Helping the chances for Dances is the controversial decision of the Academy to disqualify early contender Aldebaran for his sensational swordplay in the swashbuckling remake of the classic 1001 Arabian, or maybe Belgian, Nights.
Really? I didn’t think so. I note, for the record, that the Jews did, in fact, kill Jesus Christ. We won’t get into the whole theological discussion here, but suffice it to say that Jesus’ death was necessary, so how could anybody hate the Jews over something that was essential in the first place? For that reason I completely disagree with you. It wasn’t anti-Jew, only the bigots that watched it were anti-Jew.
Anyway, about Moore’s polemic: He refused to allow it to be nominated as a documentary, so it’s on his head. His ego got in the way, not that that’s a big surprise for Michael Moore. Too bad, so sad.
Good lord, Airman, have you learned nothing from the religion threads here?
“The Jews” had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. The Romans did it. Crucifixion was exclusively a Roman form of execution forbidden by Jewish law.
The arrest and trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin in the synoptic Gospels is an apologetic fiction created by Mark to minimize Roman culpability. The trial narrative is so riddled with procedural and factual innacuracies that serious scholars no longer regard it as historical.
I can explain this in more detail if you want but I don’t want to hijack this thread.
I’m honored to even be mentioned in the same breath as Brutus, Ryan, danceswithcats, and yes, Aldeberan. No matter who wins, simply being nominated is award enough for me.
Thank you, thank you all so much…
:: takes hand of beautiful actress girlfriend Charlize Theron, turns away, smiles and waves to adoring crowd as he proceeds down the red carpet ::
Polycarp’s tour de force as the chain-smoking suffragan Bishop of Raleigh in Holy Smokes! makes him favorite for Best Actor, but he faces stiff competition from Liberal for his star turn in The Man Who Typed Too Much, tomndebb, who plays the title role opposite duffer in Sense and Hypersensitivity , matt_mcl, who got top billing in the bodice ripper Pride - ooh yes - but Prejudice - no thanks, Dearie, and iceland_blue for his one-man show Suppose I Gave a Quiz and Nobody Came.
Gum is a shoe-in for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in Coppola’s haunting drama Assimilate Now!
Kaitlyn creates history this year by being the first person to be nominated for both Best Actor and Best Actress.
It seems to me like I probably reacted more emotionally than I should have to your post. You were only iterating the traditional position of your faith and there was nothing malicious or anti-semitic in your intent. My apologies if I came off too harsh. I was just kind of surprised to see that a long time Doper hadn’t encountered this subject before but maybe you just don’t read the religion threads that often. No law that says you have to.
I’ll try to give you a really condensed summary of the case against the trial.
Like I said before, it’s full of details which contradict what is known of trial procedures at the time. The trial in Mark is held at night, on Passover, on the Sabbath and away from the Temple. All of those things violate Jewish law. It also has a death sentence pronounced immediately when the Law required a 24 hour interval between trial and sentencing for capital crimes.
Lastly, the Sanhedrin convicts Jesus of “blasphemy” for claiming to be the Messiah, but claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy under Jewish law, and in fact was not a crime at all (the Jewish conception of the Messiah is not God but a human king).
Mark was written in Rome during a time that Rome was at war with Palestine and ultimately destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. In order to avoid pissing off the Romans, gentile converts to Christianity began to shift the blame for the crucifixion to the Jews and Mark painted Pilate in a more sympathetic light which intimated that he had allowed himself to be bullied into killing Christ by the Jewish Temple Priests. This was utterly out of character for what we know of Pilate. The Temple Priests were hand-picked toadies of the Romans at that time and were despised as collaborators by the populace. While it is possible that the priests helped in facillitating the arrest of Jesus and handing him to the Romans, it was the Romans and only the Romans who were in charge from start to finish. Everything we know about the history of that time tells us that if anyone got crucified it was because he had done something to piss off the Romans. It was never done at the instigation of the Jews.
And for his next post, danceswithcats will take schadenfreude at the news that Michael Moore didn’t win a single gold medal int he 2004 Summer Olympics. :rolleyes:
Guess Mike will have to make do with Palme d’Or, the numerous other awards, being the director of the three most successful documentaries of all time, a guaranteed next project and his millions of dollars.
Airman’s a sweet guy, and I really love him a lot, so when he can say “the Jews killed Jesus” despite years of information to the contrary, I gotta chalk that up to the influence of Gibson’s movie.
As for my opinion of it (and Gibson’s) anti-Semitism, I base that on two scenes from the movie–the scenes when the devil is shown in the crowd of Jews, inspiring them to ask for Jesus to be crucified, and then to revile and abuse Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, and the destruction of the Temple at the crucifixion. The Gospels only mention that the veil in front of the Holy of Holies being rent in two, indicative of the superseding of the Law by the Atonement, but Gibson expanded it to indicate that Jewry itself had been crushed by God’s wrath.
The departures from the Gospels were added by Gibson from the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century Austrian nun who wrote about her ghastly visions of Christ’s suffering and the involvement of the diabolical Jews.
I’d just like to thank the Academy and all the little people who made this possible. To begin, I’d like to thank Dr. Redwine and Nurse Crowell for delivering me from my mother’s womb. My thanks also to the intern who assisted my mother in filling out the birth certificate. Next, the volunteer who prepared my bassinet, and her supervisor, whose attentive care made it possible for me to be seen by several passers-by, all of whom I’d like to thank. I also greatly appreciate the efforts of the orderly who changed my first diaper, and the janitor who smiled at me late that evening. On the second day…
I was thinking about this is a round about way a few days ago. For some reason, I wondered who would ever watch Fahrenheit 911 again.
Isn’t the movie moot now anyway? Who is going to watch the film now that Bush won reelection?
I saw the film (at my wife’s behest) and thought it was pretty much electioneering propaganda. I wasn’t a Bush supporter when I saw and I’m still not a Bush supporter now, but I still found the film biased.
Fahrenheit 911 was the only movie I saw later year and I hardly thinking it was more than a passing chuckle at Moore’s politically transparent polemics
The film is SUPPOSED to be biased and transparent. Moore says himself that it’s biased. He maked no pretense at objectivity. His films are opinion pieces and he’s the first to say so.
