Friday, September 08, 2006

Media Hypocrisy - Yahoo News headlines

Dutch Priest charged in Madonna Threat -

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Amsterdam prosecutors said Friday a 63-year-old priest has confessed to phoning in a fake bomb threat to a Madonna concert in the Dutch capital city last week.

"He was hoping to stop her from performing her famous 'crucifixion' act," prosecution spokesman Robert Meulenbroek said, referring to a scene in the 48-year-old pop star's latest show.

The scene, a mock re-enactment of the crucifixion of Christ, offended some Christians during earlier concerts in Italy and Germany ....


British Jews Facing Rising Prejudice

British Jews are more vulnerable to attack and abuse now than for a generation as anti-Semitism becomes part of mainstream society, an all-party committee of MPs is warning.
In a report published today, the MPs say that the Government, the police, prosecutors, universities and the Jewish community need to take urgent action to stem the rising tide of prejudice.
The report says that there is evidence of a steady increase in attacks on Jewish people and property since 2000, aggravated by growing tension and violence in the Middle East.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Puck,

What does one story have to do with another? Other than the fact they are seen through your prism of hatred for things Jewish as examples of media hypocrisy?

The basic fundamental principle of law here in the U.S. is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial. For instance, if a specific law exited in the U.S. regarding holocaust denial that necessitated proof that there had to exist specific evidence of intent to promote racial hatred, then you would be considered innocent unless someone could atest that your intentions were malicious (e.g., a neighbor heard you state that you intended to foment racial hatred through your blog).

So unless you have direct proof that Yahoo placed those headlines with malice towards the priest and respect for the Jews, I go back to my original concept. This is just the application of your prism (which is your right on your blog or elsewhere under the protection of freedom of speech), but the general viewpoint should be that the news organizations are innocent of your charge until proven guilty.

BTW, were you a fan of Floyd before he joined Phonak, after he joined or once you realized an old-order Mennonite was about to win one of the hardest competitions ever devised by man? FYI, as an avid cyclist and cycling fan who has attended many of the Core States/First Union/Wachovia/Commerce Bank U.S. Pro Cycling Championships, my opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Floyd is innocent and that the system is either incompetent or corrupt with these charges against him. I have a slew of reasons, but then again, they would just be the basis of my opinions but would not be proof that my accusations are correct.

9:44 PM  
Blogger PuckPan said...

Your comments show how completely religion affects ones worldview.

Christians can be offended anytime - defending them is defined as hate. Jews are exempt from offense by law.

Offending Christians is generally rewarded (do it for the right audience and the NEA will pay you for it). Remember when the Bnai-Brith gave Robert Mapplethorpe a freedom of speech award for Piss Christ?

A law against holocaust denial is an abrogation of freedom of speech. You may achieve the political power to make that happen in America - but it is still just a lot of "emmanations and penumbras" lingo designed to quash debate on a fundamental Jewish religious doctrine.

I didn't know Floyd Landis before his recent publicity. Yes I do like him because he's from a politically incorrect family - old-fashioned Christians. They live n America too - much to the displeasure of most of you at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

4:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Puck,

I think you missed the point of my post. I tried to create an analogy to a previous post that you hade made regarding Holocaust Denial laws in Europe. IF, theoretically, such a law were to exist here in the U.S. and REQUIRED proof of intent to promote racial hatred, the presumption of innocence in a criminal case would mean that your blog alone, which could be introduced as evidence in court, would not be enough for conviction unless the prosecutor could provide proof as to your intent. Intent being the key here. Nowhere on your blog do you state an intent to foment racial strife.

The purpose of my analogy was to demonstrate that no proof exists to validate your claim of media hypocrisy. As you noted at the beginning of your response, you believe the perception of difference is dependent on worldview. I don’t disagree, but difference in worldview is not the same as stating that you have proof of intent. So, in essence, you avoided my question and answered a different question that allowed you to whine about being part of the persecuted majority. Just like a politician would do when confronted with a question for which he could not (or does not want to) answer.

As to your belief that I’m looking to see a Holocaust Denial law come to pass, you couldn’t be more off-base. I agree with you that such a law would violate the First Amendment. I might detest most of what you write on this blog, but as I wrote above “This is just the application of your prism (which is your right on your blog or elsewhere under the protection of freedom of speech)”. It would be wrong to muzzle your blog based on what you have written just as it would be wrong to silence someone who was writing a blog promoting some worldview which with you disagreed. For the First Amendment to have any meaning it must apply equally to all. BTW, remember that it was the Leftisit organization the ACLU that defended the rights of the National Socialist Party of America to march through Skokie This is the same organization that would defend someone like Maplethorpe. It’s funny. If the situation (Skokie, blogs that question the Holocaust, …..) fits your worldview, you’re all for it. But if it goes against your worldview (Maplethorpe, Madonna, …), then they should be decried. The only hypocrisy I can detect here is yours.

While responding here, I’m going to address your Rocky post. I don’t doubt Mr. Sheldrick’s feelings. However, I think it’s a mistake to make blanket accusations accusing any group on any point. That’s the general rationale behind all my posts here. I don’t consider myself a “leftist” (though you might), and Rocky is one of my all-time favorite movies. I still remember the goose bumps that I got seeing it in the theatre for the first time. The funny thing is that you could insert “Million Dollar Baby” for “Rocky” and “assisted suicide” for “class structure” and “Leftists” for “Religious Right” and the statement would have the same validity, depending of course on your worldview. (BTW, I personally preferred the Rocky statue down at the Spectrum since I could see it as I trekked into Lincoln Financial Field 8x a year when I attend Eagles games for that violent sport I enjoy so much: football).

Finally, I’ll finish with my Floyd question. He has never denounced/renounced old-order Mennonites by word, but by his actions he decided that this was a worldview which he could no longer abide by. He had to wear sweats for his first race since the lycra shorts were not allowed by his religion. He left home at the age of 20 and moved to California. He nows sees movies and drinks alcohol. There’s nothing wrong with you being proud of Floyd. Just realize that he is not out there promoting the religion/worldview.

8:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker