AmericanPapist Comments
My guess is that the editors had to shave a few seconds off the spot, and figured the Aramaic (since most of the audience wouldn't understand it anyway) was the easiest thing to trim. The point still stands, irrespective of whether it's complete.
I think it's disingenuous for the commenter to say that Caviezel - or anyone else in the video - is "putting sick people in their place." Michael J. Fox is advocating a political position; Caviezel, Heaton and the others are advocating an opposing political position.
Since when does having a personal stake in an issue make one either correct or unassailable? What that commenter is suggesting, and I suspect the people who made the commercial were banking on, is that no one would dare look like a jerk by opposing something that an ill celebrity thinks might help him.
Parkinson's needs a cure, yes. But if the amendment is so good, you shouldn't need to lie to get it passed.
I'm thinking there must have been something shaved off here, too. I certainly recognised the reference, but I think the interpretation is a bit strained.
Thank you for the credit and the link.
Believe it or not, I did get the reference, but, for me, there's a larger point here than the Apocrypha of Caviezal. For him to play Jesus in a political ad strikes me as silly (and blasphemous). It's like Charlton Heston dressing up as Moses to talk about why we all need an assault rifle in our homes.
Cadejo, I don't doubt that you got the reference, and I trust that you got the larger point of the quote in the context of the ad. I'll also agree with Mme. Sosostris that the interpretation is a bit strained. Whether Caviezel's mode of endorsement is blasphemous, however, is something that I'm quite content to leave between him, his confessor, and the Church hierarchy. Blasphemy is a serious charge, and I'm simply not qualified to make that call.
I still maintain, however, that your approach to the response ad (particularly the insinuation that it was designed to "put sick people in their place") is dead wrong. And for me, the whole mess surrounding Prop 2 (and the Prop 2 we have here in Michigan that is similarly deceptive, though on a different issue) *IS* the 'larger issue'. Whether a few seconds of the ad was appropriate to include seems to me to be a red herring. Like I said earlier, if the proposal's so good, they shouldn't have to lie about what it says.
I don't understand why people assume that Caviezel is pretending to be Christ. I thought he was simply quoting the Bible (although at first I had no clue what he was saying) kind of like saying "Whatever you do to the least among you, you do to Me." No one thinks I'm trying to be Jesus when I quote Him.
Now that I know what Caviezel was saying, it's all the more powerful. And, in all fairness, it would have been delibertly misconstrued if he had said it in English.
Kasia,
Thank you for your considered reply. There is no way to unlink this ad from the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy. Your earlier thread requesting a translation of the Aramaic had several derogatory comments about Fox (including this: " ... would they look on him as somebody who has a bad quality of life and should be mercifully put out of his misery.") The YouTube preview of the ad was billed as a "Response Ad to Michael J. Fox."
I suspect everyone here wishes Limbaugh hadn't made his unfortunate and uncharitable comments about Fox. He has drenched the entire debate with a stench that even Caviezel speaking Aramaic can't remove.
And no, none of us is likely to be confused with Christ when quoting scripture (least of all me), but we haven't protrayed the character of Christ in a motion picture, and we don't quote him in Aramaic. I think Caviezel's role in the ad was obvious. Regrettably, he created the impression (may God help us all) that Jesus is on Rush Limbaugh's side.
I was not being derogatory about Fox when I made that comment about being "put out of his misery". I was merely pointing out the the fact that he is being treated as heroic because he is a celebrity and that if was just an average citizen the same types of people who are lionizing him might be questioning his "quality of life" which is the excuse given behind the euthanasia movement. More power to Fox for trying to make something of his life despite his disability; it just happens that in this case he is wrong.
"Jesus on Rush Limbaugh's side?"
Seriously, Caviezel quoted Scripture. Sure, in Aramaic, but what's the chance the point was to merely GRAB your attention?
Though it was trimmed down (he did sound like he was picked up mid-sentence to me, even the first time I watched it), I do think that anyone who bothers to find the translation to his phrase would get the point.
And, yes, I think Jesus would be against an ammendment that kills unborn human beings. Kind of summed up in the "Thou shalt not murder" part of the Bible. But, hey, maybe that's just me.
Oh, and Fox calling the state "Missourah" was an obvious pandering tactic. Made me cringe when I heard it, and I'm not from Missouri, either. It actually ticked me off, and I went straight from being sympathetic to his plight (it was very hard to watch him) to thinking, "What a total ass." He IS being used by the Left who, as Nancy brought up, would probably otherwise be questioning his quality of life (and helping him plan his suicide for later in life - you know, when things get "too bad"). But he is also trying to use the people of Missouri.
But he did say one thing that is correct. What Missouri does on November 7 will affect everyone because if they enshrine cloning-and-killing into their constitution, along with paying women for eggs and guaranteeing tax dollars for research (there is also a provision that your funding can't be taken away if you switch over to a clone-and-kill research), then other states will follow suit. It wouldn't be good enough to just make a law for it anymore.
We need a federal ban on cloning, but I won't hold my breath.
Cadejo, thank you for your considered reply as well. Lest we find ourselves hijacking this thread, feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss this further.
"There is no way to unlink this ad from the Michael J. Fox/Rush Limbaugh controversy."
So it is impossible to disagree with Fox on this issue without endorsing Limbaugh? I strongly disagree. Is it possible to disagree with President Bush on how he's handling the War on Terror without being "soft on terror"? I would say yes, no matter how much partisan nastiness has been employed. The same could be said of any issue. I'm pro-life, but that doesn't mean I support or supported the people who bombed clinics or maintained the notorious "Nuremberg Files" web site a few years back.
The response ad, IMHO, by and large takes the high road, which is unfortunately all too uncommon in politics. I think most people here wish Limbaugh hadn't said what he said *irrespective* of political outcomes. I certainly do - it was an unkind and ill-considered comment. However, I see no reason why Limbaugh's having made an uncharitable crack about Fox's condition means that people who disagree with Fox are somehow now checkmated into silence.
As I said earlier, having a personal stake in an issue does not in itself make a person either correct or unassailable. Fox not only makes it plain that he has a personal stake, but in fact I think he uses that personal stake very effectively (lest you think I'm being Limbaugh-esque, I suggest you review the text of his ad for statements like "...give us a chance for hope" and "Americans like me" - these are statements designed to evoke compassion in the viewer). However, that doesn't mean one can't disagree with him or respond to the ad. In fact, I would argue that it is unconscionable to say that responding to the ad is "putting sick people in their place." That effectively puts a stop to public discourse on any topic in which any sympathetic person has a stake, which is to say any topic; and public discourse is essential to democracy.
I could say much more, but this post is quite long enough. As I said before, I would certainly be happy to discuss it further via e-mail, as comboxes aren't especially conducive to dialogue.
"Republicans cobbled togethjer a response"? Huh? The Missouri GOP is almost officially in support of Amendment 2, when you consider the governor and the top GOP millionaire contributors in MO. It's not a Republican ad, it's not an anti-McCaskill ad. Interestingly, Fox's ad has been construed more as pro-Amendment 2 than pro-McCaskill.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n...02915-
7231r.htm
Thanks for posting that, Tony. With all due respect to Rabbi Herzfeld, I haven't yet heard a Christian oppose stem cell research in general. The opposition I've heard has been to *embryonic* stem cell research.
Commenting by HaloScan
