|
Enemies of The Passion lack legitimacy, says Lapin
Rabbi Daniel Lapin excoriates those Jewish spokesman and leaders who have attacked Mel Gibson’s The Passion as anti-Semitic. He shows the outrageous double standard many Jews have practiced in defending vile cultural attacks on the Catholic faith in the name of free speech, and then turning around and launching a hate campaign against a movie that they feel is unfair to Jews. He names names. He pulls no punches. Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 16, 2003 02:46 PM | Send Comments
An Orthodox rabbi, of course. It’s traditionalist Jews rather than their liberal coreligionists who are more likely to eschew the moral double standard in their relations with Gentiles as regards such topics as freedom of speech, ethnocentrism and immigration. The best defence of Enoch Powell I’ve ever read was written by Don Feder and published in the Jewish World Review. A certain ‘Larry’ Auster – author of ‘Huddled Masses’ – is also cited: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder021698.html My only caveat as regards Rabbi Lapin’s article is his claim (in the final paragraph) that it is those Christians who are ‘most fervently committed to their faith’ who are Israel’s best friends. Is he referring to the premillenial dispensationalists who want to conserve Jews in Israel until the ‘Great Tribulation’, when two thirds of them will be slaughtered and one third will convert to Christianity just in time for the second coming? Some kind of friendship indeed. These premillenialists aren’t devout Christians – they are religious fruitcakes who are being cynically manipulated by their more savvy Jewish counterparts. That’s not about ‘building bridges’ between Christians and Jews. That’s more like treating certain cognitively disadvantaged Christians as useful idiots. But Lapin’s core argument – that ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ (read: Islam) is the most serious peril threatening the West – hits the nail on the head. Yet, at least here in Europe, many Jewish organisations are still trying to ingratiate themselves with the barbarians outside and inside our gates by lionising multiculturalism and condemning not only anti-Semitism but also ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘xenophobia’ – i.e. Gentile-baiting on a 24/7 basis. What percentage of the European population will have to be Muslim before they learn to distinguish between their enemies and their friends? How many synagogues will have to burn? When will they ever learn? Mr. Copeland mentions that he is writing from Europe. May I take it from his e-mail address that he resides in Luxembourg? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 16, 2003 4:16 PMA ‘religious fruitcake’ replies: The fact that Evangelical Christians in America (not alone among Christians of other ‘designation,’) constitute a bulwark of support for Israel and Jewish people is well known. Those ‘most fervently committed to their faith’ would, I assume, include those who actually believe what the Bible plainly says and follow it, in this case the responsibility to support the Jewish inherent in the Abrahamic Covenant, on which the Christian’s salvation is doctrinally based. Mr. Copeland’s statement on the 2/3 / 1/3 is from Zech. 13:8-9, cf 14:1-4; 12:10-11. Mr. Copeland evidently confuses cognitive disadvantage with basic literacy. Nor is it clear what “building bridges” has to do with this. My support of Israel and Jewish people has nothing to do with whether they like me and my kind or not. And why would accepting ancient Jewish prophesies preclude or affect friendship with Jews anyway? Mr. Copeland says that we “are being cynically manipulated by their more savvy Jewish counterparts.” Exactly who are these savvy Jewish counterparts and exactly how are they manipulating us? Mr. Copeland’s assertion that “[t]hese premillenialists aren’t devout Christians” is just, well, opinion, presented without anything like evidence other than our support of Israel. (?) By what yardstick does he measure our devoutness? How would we demonstrate that our support of Israel is based on other than being ‘cynically manipulated?’ And if we recognize that there are clear moral reasons for supporting Israel in addition to (or apart from) any Biblical rationale, does this enter into the equation at all? Posted by: Joel LeFevre on December 16, 2003 4:48 PMLuxembourg, 7.25 a.m. Reply to Mr Lefevre: Mr. Copeland wrote: “But if you start quoting the Bible as well, you will only end up turning most of the educated public against you…” Christians who take the Bible literally were subjected to ridicule for asserting, on the basis of Biblical prophesies, that Israel would one day reemerge as a sovereign Jewish nation. This, for some reason, is no longer heard, (since about 1948, I believe.) The criticisms now leap further into the future. They always change, once they’re proven wrong. I have no desire to waste my time any more than you do, but your assertions go far beyond a “fruitless discussion about the literal interpretation of the Bible.” Your statement concerning “the educated public” — as if Evangelical Christians have no education — parallel your other ‘dicta’ and seemingly warrant some further explanation. I’m still curious to know who our “Jewish counterparts” are, for instance, and how they manage to manipulate us, but I doubt any substantive answers will be forthcoming since there are plainly none to give. Your approval of our stating the “moral reasons for supporting Israel” at least is appreciated. :-) Posted by: Joel LeFevre on December 17, 2003 2:22 AMWithout getting into the pre-millennialist controversy, I also take exception to the idea that the Bible cannot be quoted in intelligent discussion. Whatever one’s religious beliefs may be, the Bible is central to our civilization. The idea that it can’t be appealed to is just wrong. Also, believing Christians (and Jews) are no longer willing to defer to the mandate of the secular dominant culture that we must hide our beliefs in public. For example, in a discussion about the meaning of marriage, would Mr. Copeland reject to someone quoting Genesis 2: “And for this reason a man shall leave his mother and father, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh”? Would he object to someone showing the place of man in God’s creation by quoting Psalm 8: 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; I for one would not accept any rule that says I can’t quote the Bible. This is not to say that any and all uses of the Bible are appropriate to public discussion. It depends how it’s used. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 17, 2003 7:30 AMReply to Mr Auster Reply to Mr Lefevre http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html Posted by: Charles Copeland on December 17, 2003 8:54 AMMr. Copeland writes: “But if you want to win over the ‘hearts and minds’ of nonbelievers to the cause of traditional conservativism, quoting the Bible won’t get you anywhere, since they don’t consider it to be divine revelation.” I define traditionalism as (1) a belief in the transcendent, combined with (2) a loyalty to our particular cultural tradition as an expression and embodiment of the transcendent. A complete non-believer, a person who utterly denies the divine character of the Bible, is a person who is not open to the transcendent and its embodiments as recognized in traditional Western culture. Therefore it is not possible to win such a person to the cause of traditionalist conservatism. He must first become a believer. That doesn’t mean that he must become a formally confessing Christian (or Jew). But it does mean that he must have some openness to the transcendent, and an appreciation of how it is expressed in the higher works of our civilization. For example, Romanticism is not Christianity per se, yet it maintains a belief in a higher reality and thus (at least potentially) a civilizational continuity with Christianity and Christendom. But a person who is positively hostile to the Bible as a commonly respected, authoritative source of truth is—as a simple, practical matter—not a candidate for traditionalist conservatism. So there is nothing to be gained for traditionalism by suppressing the Bible in the hope of winning such a person over. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 17, 2003 9:24 AM[These Bible passages and a Hanukkah greeting are appropriate, I feel, for posting in this thread inspired by that very great rabbi, Daniel Lapin:] “And before morrowtide they rose, in the five-and-twentieth day of the ninth month, this is the month of Caslev, of the hundred-and-eight-and-fortieth year [164 BC]. And they offered sacrifice by the law, on the new alter of burnt sacrifices, which they made betimes. […] And they made hallowing of the alter in eight days, and offered burnt sacrifices with gladness, and [they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise]. […] And full great gladness was made among the people, and the reproach of heathen men was turned away. And Judas [Maccabeus] ordained, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel, that the day of the hallowing of the alter be done in his times from year in to year, for eight days, from the five-and-twentieth day of the month of Caslev, with gladness and joy.” — 1 Maccabees 4.52-59 “But the feasts of hallowing of the Temple were made in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the Temple, in the porch of Solomon.” [Jesus had gone up to the Temple in Jerusalem for the celebration of the Festival of Hanukkah.] — John 10.22-3 [Tonight is the first night of Hanukkah, on which the first candle is lit. Best wishes for a very Happy Hanukkah Festival to those friends of VFR who are members of the Jewish Community!]
|