crucifying a man for what he believes? is it right?

[kyleb]

what i am referring to is not a literal crucifixion but a verbal one, and one that i consider to be completely absurd. congressman Jim Moran is being labeled as an anti-Semite for making the statement "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." i think he is wrong in the sense that i imagine this war would be happening regardless of any Jewish support or not, but i see it as nothing close to anti-Semitic. i am even more disturbed by my inability to see where people who support the war could propagate such notions as the idea that something claiming that a group of people support that same cause is against those people. i have even talking to one of my Jewish friends about this already and he feels that this is absurd as well, and he is even one of the Jewish people who's opinions, and that of his family, were discounted by the comment.

here is two slants on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/moran.jews/index.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31555

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm not going to bother reading the particulars. And it's not surprising of the "victim" you chose to bring the RHETORICAL topic up.

No, verbal crucifiction ("character assasination") because of a difference of opinion is not right. No matter what the issue, or who the person. Does anyone really disagree with this in principal?

This applies to those supporting Israelis, or supporting Palestinians, or supporting something inbetween.

Incidentally, it ALSO applies to verbally crucifying certain presidents who are labeled as "cowboys", "stupid", "wreckless", etc., precisely because he has nothing more than a difference in opinion.

 

[kyleb]

And it's not surprising of the "victim" you chose to bring the RHETORICAL topic up.

i think you left out a word or two there, i don't follow you.

No, verbal crucifiction ("character assasination") because of a difference of opinion is not right. No matter what the issue, or who the person. Does anyone really disagree with this in principal?

i have seen quite a few who do seem to feel otherwise, and many who think that such things are justified when "assassinating" far more than just character. this does play a part in why i brought the topic up.

This applies to those supporting Israelis, or supporting Palestinians, or supporting something inbetween.

Incidentally, it ALSO applies to verbally crucifying certain presidents who are labeled as "cowboys", "stupid", "wreckless", etc., precisely because he has nothing more than a difference in opinion.

i agree, we are all equal under god and should work to show the same respect to all mankind. granted, we all will fall short of perfection, but my complain is with the way such imperfection is often willfully propagated by the few and unwittingly accepted by the many. from what i have seen, playing the imperfections others against them and using our own advantages to manipulate popular opinion is an exploding trend at the moment, and most definitely not a good one.

 

[RussSchultz]

I think the problem that most people have with this guy's statements is that they insinuate that

a: The jews want the war
b: The jews have control over the government

Which both stike me as watered down versions of popular anti-semetic myths.

 

[kyleb]

understood Russ, but that requires plenty of initiation on its own and piling insinuation on top of insinuation does much to cloud the truth; and that is something i have never been fond of seeing.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I was intriqued enough to read a bit more on this.

This mirrors the situation with Trent Lott quite similarly, btw. From one of the links above:

"Oh, come off it. What Moran said was wrong and insensitive, and he has apologized repeatedly, but from reading the Post, one would think he was over at St. Anne's passing out the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and recruiting for the Black Hundreds. "

Replace "Moran" with "Lott" and "passing out Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with "passing out KKK Cards".

but that requires plenty of initiation on its own and piling insinuation on top of insinuation does much to cloud the truth;

Yup.

The root cause of the problem?

It's much easier to try rile people up to "your side" (not personlly you Kyle, just generally) by using emotional pleas, than it is to educate them with the facts....especially when the facts don't paint a clear picture that people should be on your side in the first place.

It's the same reason why the media and politicians sensationalize. It's easier to sell your content if readers get emotionally attached to it. And honestly, I don't see the situation changing.

 

[RussSchultz]

Buchannon also said:

"But hold on. Would it really be outrageous to say that were it not for the Cuban community in Miami, America would be easing the embargo on Cuba? Would it really be anti-Christian to say that were it not for the Christian Right, the GOP would have abandoned its pro-life and anti-cloning positions?

Is it really outrageous, reprehensible and anti-Semitic to say that were it not for the power and influence of the Israeli lobby and Jewish community, Israel would never have gotten $100 billion in foreign aid in the last three decades? "

These two paragraphs are completely off topic. The Cuban community would naturally be interested in Cuba. The religious right would also similarly be interested in abortion and cloneing issues. Similarly, the Jewish community would naturally be interested keeping Israel alive.

But how that relates to the jewish community wanting war, is anybody's guess.

If Moran meant to say "if community leaders and lobbyists were against it", then he should have said that.

p.s. Buchannon, with comments like:

"It is a power elite who use smears like "anti-Semite" to censor and blacklist anyone who stumbles too close to the truths they seek to conceal." strikes me as the wrong person to be turning to for advice on who's anti-semetic or not.

 

[Vince]

Seriously, whats the problem with this situation? The man made some dumb comments and stuck to them. He then, later, stated that he probobly shouldn't be in the Congress.

His own party rallied against him from within. This is a non-issue. On the brink of war, you don't make a statement that our young Americans in uniform are fighting for Jewish causes and nothing else. What a prick.. kinda like Senator Tom.

 

[kyleb]

It's the same reason why the media and politicians sensationalize. It's easier to sell your content if readers get emotionally attached to it. And honestly, I don't see the situation changing.

i know Joe, i was just hoping this might be a wake up call to some and inspire a drive to change such things; call me foolish if you like, but i prefer to be called a fool than to be a pessimist.

 

[Nagorak]

His own party rallied against him from within. This is a non-issue. On the brink of war, you don't make a statement that our young Americans in uniform are fighting for Jewish causes and nothing else.

Why not? If it's true, then he should say them. I'm not saying I agree with his comments (the reason we're going to war is due to an entirely different group of people than the jews), but just because a war starts doesn't mean everyone should turn off their brain and turn into a mindless patriot.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

but just because a war starts doesn't mean everyone should turn off their brain and turn into a mindless patriot.

And who suggested that?

We're suggesting it's a dumb-ass comment. And making dumb-ass comments, that are rooted in political partisanship. You can be a patriot and disagree. That doesn't mean you should play the same old partisan politics in times of war.

But you probably don't know the difference anyway...