Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and the fallout

None of you can really say how drunk he was according to his reported BAC. Not sticking up for him or anything, he really seems like a toolshed here. But reading a BAC and saying 'oh, he must've had four beers and only been kinda feeling it because he is hayooge' is pretty silly. Those things aren't very accurate measures of how drunk someone is, it wouldn't take into account a million variables involved, chiefly tolerance. Just the best thing the PD has at the moment to see if alcohol can explain why you're being such an idiot, but of course it doesn't explain it here.

Yeah, my BAC is .14 right now because my orders to Kosovo got rescinded. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Mel didn't say "F-ing Israelis", he said "F-ing Jews". There's an important difference there. There is a large paranoid conspiracy theory out there that Jews are secretly plotting behind the scenes controlling all the conflicts in the world to get goyam to fight and allow the Jews to control the world by pulling the strings. Hitler articulated the clearest vision of it, but it predated him (why do you think Dreyfus was the fall guy?) It is alive and well today, though it's encoded in terms like 'neo-con'. But the lie, that Jews are secretly plotting against the rest of the world and formenting all the trouble the rest of us face... it's one of the main reasons Jews have faced such persecution over the centuries and here's Mel, a very public and influential figure, publicly espousing it. I agree with whomever above said that at BAC 0.12, you shouldn't be driving, but you're not talking to your ancestors yet either. This level of booze just loosens your tongue, it doesn't plant alien thoughts.

---

Two problems there:

1: Not everyone makes a clear distinction between Jews and Isreal.

2: While there isn't a Jewish conspiracy there is a very powerful Jewish Lobby in America and most European countries. There are a large number of Jewish bankers, lawyers and entertainers. One of the articles posted referred to "Jewish-dominated Hollywood" and people have made oblique references to it in this thread.

I believe that the banks that were passing all that money around after the Great War were influenced by Jewish bankers and it was that set up that caused the depression.

While the European prejudice against Jews in general is unjustified there was, as always, a kernal of truth to it, and still is.

Trying to whitewash the issue is just counter-productive.

So maybe Mel is just a little paranoid. Lets face it, White Germanics really run the world and impose our views on everyone else, and he doesn't like us much either.

French, Austrians, Swiss, Germans, Italians or Brits have success in banking and they're clever, hard working entrepreneurs. Jews do, and there's a cabal.

Hmmm, the facts that: the French demanded repatriation of 239 BILLION gold marks (a staggering figure that even at the draconian payment terms, would have taken Germany until 1984 to repay); the US stock market crashed due to margin buying at the rate of 90% leverage; the US had a severe crop failure in the Great Plains; there was a lack of young able bodied men to man factories in Germany, Austria, France et. al had nothing to do with the depression. Nope... had to be Jewish bankers mucking with the money supply. Always comes back to them... :dizzy2:

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/ChipBok
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cart...lino/2006/08/3
:laugh4:

I wish I could put this one in my signature...

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

“As Far as I can see, in itself, the Passion is not anti-Semitic.”; The passion is anti-Semitic. Because Gibson made a movie about the Passion, as exposed in the Gospel, it made the movie anti-Semitic… In my opinion…

“Does Holocaust denial make you anti-Semitic?” That alone no. It makes you stupid, but not anti-Semitic… The fact is the Nazis themselves never denied the Holocaust never occurred to the “denialist”… They just said it was not them but their neighbours and even if they did genocide a little bit it was just to obey orders, and THEY help a Jew…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

French, Austrians, Swiss, Germans, Italians or Brits have success in banking and they're clever, hard working entrepreneurs. Jews do, and there's a cabal.

Hmmm, the facts that: the French demanded repatriation of 239 BILLION gold marks (a staggering figure that even at the draconian payment terms, would have taken Germany until 1984 to repay); the US stock market crashed due to margin buying at the rate of 90% leverage; the US had a severe crop failure in the Great Plains; there was a lack of young able bodied men to man factories in Germany, Austria, France et. al had nothing to do with the depression. Nope... had to be Jewish bankers mucking with the money supply. Always comes back to them... :dizzy2:

---

I did not say they were the only bankers in the world, for crying out loud. All I'm saying is if you wanted to you could make a case against them, not a fair or strong one though.

As to the Brit et al. banker arguement, you could be Jewish and British. Until about twenty years ago there was a very strong Conservative Jewish lobby. Do the names Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin ring any bells? They almost ended up running Britain.

I'm not making the arguement, I'm showing how it could be made. The depression had far more to do with the repayments, which comes back to the treaty, which comes back to the French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

---

Actually crucifixtion was an "example punishment." which the Romans used on anyone they wanted to make an example of and plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows. The type of punishment used depended on the governor. You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water. Palastine was a Roman province, under Roman administration and law. What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple, whom Jesus was going againt. Which is why the temple wanted an example made of him.

Quote:

---

“As Far as I can see, in itself, the Passion is not anti-Semitic.”; The passion is anti-Semitic. Because Gibson made a movie about the Passion, as exposed in the Gospel, it made the movie anti-Semitic… In my opinion…

---

Thats a foolish opinion, since the hero of the Gespels and the passion is a card carrying Jew. The Gospels were written by Jews, at no time is Jesus reffered to as anything other than a Jew.

Quote:

---

“Does Holocaust denial make you anti-Semitic?” That alone no. It makes you stupid, but not anti-Semitic… The fact is the Nazis themselves never denied the Holocaust never occurred to the “denialist”… They just said it was not them but their neighbours and even if they did genocide a little bit it was just to obey orders, and THEY help a Jew…

---

There you go then. So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?

From what Gibson said he was clearly tanked, as Mee said, its a good job they stopped him when they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

---

Only Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion. Any other criminals, rebels, and general ne'er do wells could be, and were, crucified. Jesus was not a Roman citizen. It was not just reserved for 'rebels against Rome'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“They crucified criminals all the time in horrific fashion”: Crucifixion was reserved to the rebels against Rome (Spartacus for ex), not for criminals… The fact that Christ was crucified is a proof by itself it was done by the Romans, for Roman reasons… Who can imagine that the Roman will ask their opinion to the Jews and the Priests how to deal with rebels…

---

Crucifixion was a popular local punishment. The Phoenicians used it quite extensively, as did their relatives in North Africa. After the Mercenary War (described by Polybius as the most horrific in history) Hamilcar Barca crucified all his prisoners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I believe that the banks that were passing all that money around after the Great War were influenced by Jewish bankers and it was that set up that caused the depression.

While the European prejudice against Jews in general is unjustified there was, as always, a kernal of truth to it, and still is.

---

While there may be a kernel of truth, the various truths tend to be self-perpetuating and often unwholesome. AFAIK Jews were barred from most trades except those which Christians found immoral but vital, so in order to make a living they had to turn to these immoral trades. Since Jews thus proliferated in moneylending, which was demonised in the New Testament, it showed just how immoral they were, which justified further measures against them.

The fat Jewish banker was a stereotype with a fair basis in truth, but it's worth looking at its history.

IIRC we have had a Jewish PM in the past, Disraeli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Only Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion. Any other criminals, rebels, and general ne'er do wells could be, and were, crucified. Jesus was not a Roman citizen. It was not just reserved for 'rebels against Rome'.

---

Would that mean that it was a form of shaming a former Roman citizen (traitor) by crucifying them? Much like hanging a samurai or burying someone face down in a pit of lime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Would that mean that it was a form of shaming a former Roman citizen (traitor) by crucifying them? Much like hanging a samurai or burying someone face down in a pit of lime?

---

It is possible that it could have been used in that way I suppose, but I cannot think of any examples. Sometimes Roman citizens would be crucified, but illegally by unscrupulous Roman governors in the provinces. Such cases are highlighted by Cicero in his prosecution of C. Verres the rapacious ex-governor of Sicily.

As somebody has already alluded it was a practice adopted from the Carthaginians in the wake of the Punic Wars. It became quite a routine punishment until it was ended by Constantine, not because it was cruel but because of its association with Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

It is possible that it could have been used in that way I suppose, but I cannot think of any examples. Sometimes Roman citizens would be crucified, but illegally by unscrupulous Roman governors in the provinces. Such cases are highlighted by Cicero in his prosecution of C. Verres the rapacious ex-governor of Sicily.

---

IIRC it wasn't crucifixion per se which was banned for Roman citizens, but capital punishment in general. Officials with imperium could inflict it on Romans under arms, but in peacetime the death penalty had to be ratified by one of the assemblies (the plebeian?). Same with corporal punishment.

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mores/law/citizenship.htm
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mores/law/legalsystem.htm

Just realised that most of what I know relate to the late republic rather than early empire, but AFAIK Augustus didn't change much in that area. The main exception to the immunity of Roman citizens from the death penalty is the exercise of authority by the paterfamilias, although presumably crucifying a son would be considered OTT.

Like you say Pannonian, different rules applied in different periods, but even during the Republic capital punishment (poena capitis) could be inflicted, as stated in the 12 Tables (including burning for arson and hanging for using magic!).
However, the Romans devised ingenious evasions of capital punishment such as effective rights of appeal and the practice of voluntary exile. Commendably, they were squeamish about spilling each other's blood, in this fashion at least. How much this protected lower class citizens we don't know, but capital punishment seems to have been rare for citizens because of these legal precautions and circumventions. However, technically you are correct because these punishments would be accompanied by stripping of citizenship, which allowed them to inflict the harshest sentence on a now non-citizen. Anyway, during the Republic most people in the imperium Romanum did not have Roman citizenship and they were easy prey for a ruthless magistrate wielding imperium.

“which comes back to the French” which were guilty to have been attacked by Germany in 1914 and their territory battle filed and ruined by 4 years of war…

“You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water”: Done by Romans, how can I have a better case?…

“plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows”: Well, what a surprise!!! The Jews never STOPPED to rebel against the Roman Empire!!! It was a land of permanent rebellion until the final destruction of the Temple… And where did you find this? Because for what I know, there is only one archaeological evidence of a crucifixion in Palestine…

“What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple”: Oh, some Jewish soldiers come to arrest Christ; a Jewish Court established he was guilty and a Jewish Governor sent him to death… Using a Jewish way of punishment… THAT is the TITANIC (to answer about not holding water). What was Christ guilty for the Priest? Nothing which deserved death penalty… No, the guilt falls on the Roman and the myth of the Jewish involvement in Christ Death was made up to exonerate the Romans and Rome (becoming the Christian Centre) to have killed Christ…

“The Gospels were written by Jews”, and translated, re-written by Christians. Never heard about the Council of Nicea? And if Jesus was a Jew, what was his crime? Why the Roman would have spared the life of a guy pretending to be the King of the Jews? They would be the first to kill him… Well, this is exactly what they did…

“So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?” No, but he is a stupid… To deny the holocaust or the extermination of the Jews, The Gypsies and others Slavs by the Nazis is just pure and plain stupidity.

Pontius Pilate:
'He's a wobber, wabble-wouser, wapist and an Austwalian. He sounds a notowious cwiminal. Cwucify him!'


Nisus Wettus:
'Mel Gibson? Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross each. Next. Crucifixion?'

Sad. I really liked Mel Gibson. My wife is a nut for him, worshipping him since she was a kid. In fact, I bought every one of his damn DVDs for her xmas present last year except Attack Force Z, which wasn't on DVD yet.

I agree with Don on this one. Alcohol does lower inhibitions and it does amplify feelings. And as a drinker myself who has eaten his own shoe plenty of times, I can see both sides.

It's clear to me that Mel Gibson has a serious problem with Jews.

What if he started yelling N***er? And blamed blacks for wars and violence? He would be totally "F***ed", as he put it. But since it's just the Jews again, nobody gives a damn. I'm more angry at the response than the actual comments.

The Jews are the world's scapegoat. They killed Christ, they control the media, they are to blame for middle east violence, etc, etc. Racism disgusts me to no end. Mel's tirade is proof of his hatred and nothing more.

My favorite comment on the whole sad business so far:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...myaward_ad.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“which comes back to the French” which were guilty to have been attacked by Germany in 1914 and their territory battle filed and ruined by 4 years of war…

---

Germany did not start the war, they attacked the Ally of their ally's enemy. I don't want to argue this further, as its off topic. Lets just disagree.

Quote:

---

“You arguement that crucifixtion proves it was the Romans holds no water”: Done by Romans, how can I have a better case?…

---

Rome had no state prosecution service, the prosecution was brought by the priests, not a Roman. Rome acrried out the punishment once the Judge (Pilate) decided the accused was guilty. So while the Romans were guilty of executing him they were carring through the judgement pressed for by the priests.

Quote:

---

“plenty of inconsiquencial people were crucified in Palastine, as the archaeological record shows”: Well, what a surprise!!! The Jews never STOPPED to rebel against the Roman Empire!!! It was a land of permanent rebellion until the final destruction of the Temple… And where did you find this? Because for what I know, there is only one archaeological evidence of a crucifixion in Palestine…

---

It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain. Such unrest was not unusual in a Roman province and is not of particular note. Northern Britain was never fully pacified, for example.

Quote:

---

“What is important is that the arrest and prosecution was carried out by the temple”: Oh, some Jewish soldiers come to arrest Christ; a Jewish Court established he was guilty and a Jewish Governor sent him to death… Using a Jewish way of punishment… THAT is the TITANIC (to answer about not holding water). What was Christ guilty for the Priest? Nothing which deserved death penalty… No, the guilt falls on the Roman and the myth of the Jewish involvement in Christ Death was made up to exonerate the Romans and Rome (becoming the Christian Centre) to have killed Christ…

---

Jesus was arrested by Temple Guards, having been betrayed by Judas.

He was accused by the priests, they condemmed and beat him.

He was then taken before the Roman judge, where the priests put the case before Pilate.

He was exucuted under Roman law.

Quote:

---

“The Gospels were written by Jews”, and translated, re-written by Christians. Never heard about the Council of Nicea? And if Jesus was a Jew, what was his crime? Why the Roman would have spared the life of a guy pretending to be the King of the Jews? They would be the first to kill him… Well, this is exactly what they did…

---

Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal, unlike Herod, who was neither. The Romans would more likely give him the throne and set him up as a puppet monarch. He committed no crime against Rome, Rome had freedom of religion.

His crime was herasy against the temple and insulting the Pharasies and Sagucies, as well as humiliating them publicly.

“So can you even prove Gibson Snr. is a Jew hater?” No, but he is a stupid… To deny the holocaust or the extermination of the Jews, The Gypsies and others Slavs by the Nazis is just pure and plain stupidity.[/quote]

Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages

These are from the book of Mark, which iirc was what Gibson used.

His hereasy against the temple:

Quote:

---

Jesus Clears the Temple

12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[c]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[d]" 18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Marriage at the Resurrection

18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"
24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[d]? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
Whose Son Is the Christ

35While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ[h] is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '[i] 37David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
The large crowd listened to him with delight.
38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

---

His arrest and condemnation:

Quote:

---

Jesus Arrested

43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled. 51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Before the Sanhedrin

53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.

---

His trial and torture:

Quote:

---

Jesus Before Pilate

1Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

2"Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
3The chief priests accused him of many things. 4So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of."
5But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
6Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12"What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them.
13"Crucify him!" they shouted.
14"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The Soldiers Mock Jesus

16The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" 19Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

---

So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well.

So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?

Its certainly anti-establishment but that is a purely theological, not racial, issue.

As to the issue of crucifixtion in general, I can think of at least two cases, one in which the man had his legs broken and one in which he had to be physically cut from the cross.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Pontius Pilate:
'He's a wobber, wabble-wouser, wapist and an Austwalian. He sounds a notowious cwiminal. Cwucify him!'


Nisus Wettus:
'Mel Gibson? Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross each. Next. Crucifixion?'

---

Well I wasn't going to....nah I will.

Nail him up. Nail some sense into him.

The man was drunk driving! Who cares what he siad he is one man and this is America what he siad isnt agianst the law what he did was agianst the law.

I think the drunk driving punishement goes without saying, SFTS. Although, along those lines, I was startled to learn out of all of this that California has pushed their excessively drunk limit down to 0.12.

For our European friends....

Back in the mid '80s, when we first started treating drunk driving as a serious crime, almost all states set the limit for impairment at 0.10, which I believe to be a fairly reasonable limit.

Soon, states began adopting what they referred to as 'excessively drunk' statutes. In other words, if you got picked up on your first offense, but you were beyond this limit (usually 0.20), you got either 1) a felony charge instead of a misdemeanor or 2) it counted as your 2nd offense the first time. I could argue this, but for the most part, there is logic to be found here.

Well, time goes by, and Americans actually learn. Drunk driving fatalities go down. Alcohol involved accidents go down. Arrests go down. One that a DUI arrest does, beyond anything else, is generate a LOT of money for the local municipality (typically on the order of $2500 US, including court costs). Well, the municipalities noticed the river of cash reducing to a stream, and finally a brook. So, in the mid to late 90's, there was a big movement afoot to reduce the impairment levels. Very few actually use 0.10 any more. Most are now at 0.80 (as was California when Mel got picked up). Some are at 0.07, some 0.05 and some consider any positive reading as impairment (no kidding).

What I hadn't realized was that they had brought down the excessively drunk charge limit down along with it. To give folks an idea of what 0.08 is, go visit one of the online blood alcohol calculators. To get a number of 0.05, even though I weigh over 200lbs, it would only take me 2 glasses of wine (and I'm pretty darned sure I'm not in the least impaired at that point).

Anyway, my point is, it would seem as with all laws American... started for a good reason, but in time, the logic degrades and it becomes yet one more way for the State to put a boot on the neck of the people.... :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So, in the mid to late 90's, there was a big movement afoot to reduce the impairment levels. Very few actually use 0.10 any more. Most are now at 0.80 (as was California when Mel got picked up). Some are at 0.07, some 0.05 and some consider any positive reading as impairment (no kidding).

---

I see that creating some serious problems....

A couple of years ago there was a debate about lowering the acceptable alchool level here in Portugal.......and one of the things that was discussed was that you can actually have a positive reading without drinking ANY alchool.

This could be caused by situations like eating fruit and the fruit fermenting slighty during the digestive process.....and in this case if you had a low legal limit people could be injustly charged.

Now...if the legal limit is ZERO.......:dizzy2:

In Britain the rule of thumb is "One Pint" which is.....

0.08 in US terms apparently. Doctors want it lowered to 0.05. As far as I'm concerened any alcohol is a bad thing, but as Ronin says, a 0 limit has its own problems.

Wigferth Ironwall, we will always disagree. You accepted the world of the Christian Church, I don’t. I don’t BELIEVE that a Colonial Power like the Romans will give the power to their salves to give justice… I am not a specialist in antic history, but it is the only time they would have… So, for me, all this is a big lie to exonerate the Romans of the crime…
In doing that they (the Fathers of the Christian Religion) reject the blame on the Jews, as you rightly noticed “quote: So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well“ therefore, the all Gospels are anti-Semitic, as it was proved by history and the persecution of the Jews in all the Christianity, but as well in the Muslim world (even if in less bloody), because they were the Christ murderers… You can’t deny that, can you?

“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…

“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...

“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?

“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Wigferth Ironwall, we will always disagree. You accepted the world of the Christian Church, I don’t. I don’t BELIEVE that a Colonial Power like the Romans will give the power to their salves to give justice… I am not a specialist in antic history, but it is the only time they would have… So, for me, all this is a big lie to exonerate the Romans of the crime…
In doing that they (the Fathers of the Christian Religion) reject the blame on the Jews, as you rightly noticed “quote: So you see the priests were the root cause of his cucifixtion, though the Romans come off badly as well“ therefore, the all Gospels are anti-Semitic, as it was proved by history and the persecution of the Jews in all the Christianity, but as well in the Muslim world (even if in less bloody), because they were the Christ murderers… You can’t deny that, can you?

---

So I was dreaming when some Sicilians prosecuted their governor (Veres) in the Roman courts, admittedly that was during the Republic but the system of government was fundamentally the same at this point.

All those Sagucies and Pharacies would likely have been Roman citizens, as was Paul. As such they enjoyed the same rites and privilages as a man born in Rome. Your big conspiracy theory falls flat because copies of the Gospels have been found which predate the formation of the Church by as much as two hundred years. They all match up in terms of the arc of the story. Rome was not a great evil Imperialist power, much of her Empire was gained almost by accident and Roman rule was deciedly benevolant, so long as you were loyal and the Emperor was sane.

Bottom line, they weren't slaves.

Quote:

---

“It was in a state of unrest, not rebellion, as was Britain”: After the Rebellion of Bouddica, all was quiet along the Thames, same in Gaulle after Vercingetorix… No, Judea was a particularly violent territory, scene of unrest and rebellions which will drive to Jerusalem destruction…

---

Here you show a lack of knowledge, NORTHERN Britain (Brigantia) was never fully pacified, one reason for building Hadrian's Wall was to split the terretory in half and make it easier to control the tribesmen.

Quote:

---

“Jesus was a popular and legitimate claiment to the throne of Isreal”: According to?...

---

The Bible, but if the Bible was full of blatent lies it wouldn't have caught on. The same goes for the Gospels, there were plenty of people who would have met Jesus and still been alive in 70 AD.

Quote:

---

“Since you don't seem to want to look this up, I shall provide you with the pertinant passages”: What passages of Bible have to do with the Holocaust? Can you explain me why the events which happened (allegedly) to Christ when in the Temple have a link wit the Anti-Semitism of Gibson Snr?

---

Nothing, it has to do with the Passion not being anti-Semetic and therefore Gibson's film not being anti-Semetic.

Quote:

---

“So, again, how can the Passion be anti-Semetic if Jesus was a Jew?” That is casuistic… I had some Arabs friends saying that to be anti-Semitic is to be against Arabs because they are Semite. Technically right but it is absolute distortion. In the case of the Jews and Christianity, it is the same story. Christians were (and some still are) anti-Semitic, even if Jesus was Jew (and his wife, his father, his brothers, friends and followers). BECAUSE when Jesus became Christ he became Christian…

---

Okay, here's the part you need to wrap your head around. When Jesus came along there were those who followered him and those who didn't, the Christians persecuted the Jews because they did not follow Jesus and had him killed, the proof of this was that they were still Jewish.

If all the Jews had followed Jesus they would all be Christian now.

So, yes, you have half the arguement there, the bit you have missing is that Jesus would not have wanted his followers to persecute anyone on his behalf. The Passion is the fulfilment of prophecy, it had to happen according to the Bible.

The persecution of Jews was because of their religion, we had wars with Muslims because they didn't except Jesus either

You have a point Brenus, but you have taken it too far. Wigferth's description:

Quote:

---

Jesus was arrested by Temple Guards, having been betrayed by Judas.

He was accused by the priests, they condemmed and beat him.

He was then taken before the Roman judge, where the priests put the case before Pilate.

He was exucuted under Roman law. (my addition - by Romans)

---

is pretty close to the Gospel accounts, although they also give some blame to the crowd, who demanded Jesus's crucifixion. (Mt 27:15-26, Mk 15: 6-15 Lk 23:13-25, Jn 19: 12-16). However the accounts (apart from Matthew) are muddled as to whether it is the chief priests or the Jewish crowd that are making the demand for cruxifiction. The Passion of the Christ is meant to follow the Gospel accounts so it would be wrong if it portrayed anything different. Whether the account is true or not is irrelevant. It can only be described as anti Semitic if extra things are added to make it anti-Semitic or if the accounts are anti-Semitic themselves.

I am not sure I agree that all the Gospels were written by Jews, and they were written at a time when it was wise to play down the role of the Romans in the events and must be read with that in mind. Even so, they are not anti-Semitic, after all, almost everyone in the account are is a Jew (Pilate is the only one who is not) but I would have to admit that they have been used as a justification for anti-Semitism. To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself. Certainly Jesus and all the apostles would have called themselves Jews.

There is a shameful history of anti-Semitism running through Christianity although I could not give any examples in the first millenium, but that does not mean that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

You have a point Brenus, but you have taken it too far. Wigferth's description:

I am not sure I agree that all the Gospels were written by Jews, and they were written at a time when it was wise to play down the role of the Romans in the events and must be read with that in mind. Even so, they are not anti-Semitic, after all, almost everyone in the account are is a Jew (Pilate is the only one who is not) but I would have to admit that they have been used as a justification for anti-Semitism. To describe Jesus as Christian is incorrect because Christians follow Jesus and you can't follow yourself. Certainly Jesus and all the apostles would have called themselves Jews.

There is a shameful history of anti-Semitism running through Christianity although I could not give any examples in the first millenium, but that does not mean that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

---

Thankyou, regardless of whether the Gospels were actually written by Jews or not they were not written by the Roman establishment.

For the record I would not deny the history of anti-Semetism, it seems to have started when living memory of Jesus ended. The problem with Christianity it is its an "all or nothing" deal. Either you're out or you're in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

For the record I would not deny the history of anti-Semetism, it seems to have started when living memory of Jesus ended. The problem with Christianity it is its an "all or nothing" deal. Either you're out or you're in.

---

Actually, I have a different theory about anti-semitism. It's worthwhile to remember that some people have been actively hating the Jews for most of recorded history, so don't go pinning it on Christians personally.

My theory: Even when Jews live in another culture, they remain Jews. This creates a bit of separateness, and the weak-minded will turn that into fear, suspicion and hatred. Much the same problem, historically, for Gypsies and Sikhs. Any group that does not integrate fully into the dominant culture will inspire a certain amount of hatred.

What do you think, is this my worst theory ever? Or just a runner-up to my "evolutionary role of gayness" theory?

The Jews have been labelled as "Deicides" and "Christ-killers" throughout Christian history and many still believe it, inspired by:
Matthew 27:25,
"His blood be on us and on our children"
John 8:14
"Ye are of your father the devil."

The rot really set in when Christians came to power in C4 after their adoption by Constantine and his successors.
St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the AD 300s:

"The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them."

These views are echoed by many of the Church Fathers, from Origen to Ambrose. Ironically, no wonder the Jews welcomed the Muslims with open arms.

There is a special history of hatred towards the Jews by Christians, and it is not merely 'just because they are different religions'.