[ SECRET POST #3702 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3702 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #529.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's a case where I'm pretty loath to cut him slack because it feels like it's something that's not entirely that far from the rest of his political views.

Not to say that all Catholics, or even all hard-line conservative Catholics, are anti-Semitic, but it is a bit of a recurrent issue in that general segment of the population. It makes me a bit more suspicious.

[thewakokid]

I see what you're saying, but to my view of things you might be focusing in a bit too tight on the Catholic / Antisemitism.

I can't think of a single religion - Maybe buddhism, maybe - that doesn't have some real issues with every other religion.

I don't think the Catholics have any harder a line on Judaism than Jews have on Islam, than Muslims have one Hinduism, and soon and so forth.

[(Anonymous)]

I should have worded that better, I think. It's not just that Gibson is Catholic - I was actually raised Catholic and would consider myself culturally Catholic in some sense. and obviously as you say no religion is free from some prejudice or violence, being as they are human institutions. It's that he's specifically a very hardline conservative kind of Catholic, and that kind of Catholicism in particular has some overlap with anti-Semitism, especially when you take it as a political ideology as Gibson seems to. And even then, I wouldn't say that it necessarily means that someone is anti-Semitic. But it does mean that, if someone with those views actually goes and says anti-Semitic things, I'm very unlikely to write it off as a mistake or some random drunken mischance or something.

(also - and it's not at all relevant to the point - but Buddhism has definitely been associated with political violence; see the Sri Lankan civil war)

[thewakokid]

This is all true, and in fact - let me be real clear on this one - I am in NO WAY defending Mel Gibson. Good movies do not make up for bad shit, it's why I have never seen Chinatown.

But, - and I'm purely playing devils advocate on this one - there is one other possible element to consider: upbringing. Man isn't just a hardline catholic, he was raised a hard line catholic. The shit those motherfuckers -Heavy religious people, not catholics - put into you when you're a kid, that shit stays with you. You can try and flush it out by knowing it's wrong, you can try and un fuck yourself, but then you get old, your life turns to shit around you, you get a drinking problem... I'm just saying, it's not necessarily him that coming out there.

I don't know if I believe that, but you know, could be.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, his Jew-hatred can be traced right back to his father Hutton Peter Gibson.

[thewakokid]

Oh, wow, that first paragraph on Wikipedia.

I had no idea, but yeah, that'd do it.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess you just have to ask how far that goes. Obviously it's tremendously difficult to tease out all of these factors but I think for a 50-year-old millionaire I just don't know how far it goes.

[ketita]

The "Jews on Islam" is actually a bad example in this case, because Judaism as a religion theologically speaking doesn't have many issues with Islam at all... though Judaism also isn't missionary, which makes everything a bit more chill.
(not getting into politics, here; politics are a different story)

And like anon said, there's been plenty of violence in Buddhism. See, for example, Buddhist sects in early Japan murdering each other. There's a reason "warrior monk" is a stereotype that exists.

[thewakokid]

That Buddhism stuff is totally news to me, I have to say. We don't have much of a Buddhist presence around these parts, so all I know about them is how chill they are in the movies.

And I suppose it is the political side of things I'm seeing more with the Jewish folks not being in love with the Muslim folks.

[ketita]

Yeah, but there I think you need to separate the religion from the politics, imo. There's issues with border contention and land ownership going on there, and other religious issues that became points of contention. But that's different from, for example, the Catholics spending many years on the "Jews killed Jesus" platform and having that be a major theological point for a thousand+ years.
So I think when talking about religions having issues with each other, it's important to consider the roots of these issues, and the in-religion mandated method of dealing with the issues, and how things have been solved historically.

Either way, I do think that historically Catholics *have* had a much harder line on Jews than Jews ever had specifically on Muslims. But then you also get into power relations and blah blah blah it's all messy.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm really skeptical of whether you can ever divorce religion from politics - or to speak more generally, whether there's any sense to talking about religion as something that exists separate from specific human contexts, contexts in which it is complexly tied to politics and a million other things. I just don't know how useful it is to talk about any religion in a strictly theological sense.

Of course, that's probably a very unreligious way of looking at the world.

[ketita]

Do you also believe you can't divorce philosophy from politics?

[(Anonymous)]

Ha! Deep and dangerous waters here!

Provisionally, yes, it seems likely to me.

[ketita]

Well, if you do think that theology/politics are inseparable and that philosophy/politics are the same, then I can at least thumbs-up at you for being consistent XD

There are lots of schools of thought that subscribe to that, btw - the idea that really, everything is political. I personally lean away from that because I think it's not the most useful way to categorize things - as in, if everything is political, then you need to create subdivisions within the "political" if you want to talk about nuances of things, so "political" becomes effectively a non-classification, and kind of loses its meaning.
But that's just my angle on things.

[(Anonymous)]

To be clear here, I'm not necessarily saying that everything is political, but that things can't really be understood as divorced from their specific historical and social contexts - so it's not that theology and politics are the same, or that philosophy and politics are the same; it's that they are things done by specific people in times and places with a myriad of contexts including politics.

So, like, what I'm really saying is there is no such thing as a transhistorical essence of Christianity or Judaism; there are Judaism and Christianity as they have been understood and practiced and interpreted and understood by actual people in a myriad of different ways. And one of the dimensions of those different ways is the relationship to the political context. That doesn't mean that Judaism or Christianity is only its political context, but that it can't be divorced from it.

Of course, this is a very difficult and complicated thing to talk about for a lot of different reasons; but one of the obvious ones is that Judaism and certainly Christianity would completely reject the idea that there's no transhistorical essence of religion. Which is what I was getting at when I said this wasn't really compatible with a religious world view.

[ketita]

Hm, I see what you mean. And yeah, that's not really compatible.

The thing is, there are certain political issues - such as the ones brought up here, actually - that you could argue about its political presence within certain religions. For example, neither Christianity nor Islam existed when Judaism first showed up, so you can argue about how deeply rooted in Jewish theology political responses to these religions are. And I would also argue that not all theological responses are political ones, because to me they're dealing with fundamentally different aspects of life. But I can also accept if you disagree with me on that one.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah I mean I don't think we're going to sort this one out, it's a pretty central and deep philosophical question. Like I said, deep and dangerous waters.

I guess for practical purposes I can rephrase my initial point as: there might be some limitations and issues with considering religions from a purely theological point of view.

[ketita]

I can get behind that. It's not that I'm saying that there can never be any political element to religion, but I do think it can be useful to differentiate between theological and political and elements that are a mixture of both within a religion.
For example, Religion A saying "all members of Religion B are evil hellspawn born of the Destroyer" may have political roots, but it's being couched in theological concepts, so I'd lean towards theology for that specific issue.
Then again, the question comes down to what exactly we're trying to define and discuss etc. in each situation.

[(Anonymous)]

It's because they all still believe the Jews killed their Jesus.

(It was the Romans, not the Jews.)

[(Anonymous)]

The Catholic Church specifically disagrees with that idea, so if they're Roman Catholics in communion with the Church, they shouldn't believe that.

Sedevacantists and other traditionalist Catholics might believe it, and I'm sure some Roman Catholics do, but Roman Catholicism does not endorse, promote, or agree with that view.

[thewakokid]

Well, now, the Jews didn't come out looking like heroes from that one.

I will say, given that Jesus was a jew, I do struggle to understand the scoring on that. Like how we british still seem to hate the germans, but then we never look too closely to our own royal family.

Plus, I mean, the jews never killed any christians, they killed a Jew, like, he was one of their own guys. That's an own goal, surely. Plus he knew it was coming and knew it was necessary, so really, it's more like he Killed himself when you think about it. And when you think of all the miracles the guy did as part of the jewish faith, Those were Jewish miracles.

[(Anonymous)]

early christianity was considered to be a type of judiaism. you had to be jewish either by birth or conversion to follow jesus. after the conversion of paul (saul), paul started to preach to non-jews and said that you didn't have to be jewish to follow jesus. that's when jewish-christianity (aka followers of jesus the christ) slowly changed and pulled away from judiasm and became a separate religion. these followers of this new religion -- christianity -- tried to completewly separate themselves from their jewish roots and justified the fact that jesus was jewish by saying that jews rejected jesus as "the true god" so jesus wasn't "really" jewish anymore in christian eyes.

[(Anonymous)]

New Testament says Herod Agrippa killed at least one of the Apostles...

[(Anonymous)]

I do have to wonder though if it HAD been the Jews why that would even matter when the subject should be Jesus himself, a Jew. It baffles me how that part--the only relevant subject--gets so ignored.

[(Anonymous)]

Early christianity, etc, etc, etc