In each generation, it appears that Hollywood produces one centerpiece sermon-movie to instruct the goyim on their most serious besetting sin of the time, including an “application” section on how to make progress in sanctification. This movie was the chosen vehicle for the 60s generation, presumably to make sure the free speech/sexual revolution did not stop short of full consistency. The denounced sin appears to be resistance to miscegenation. To ensure an impact, heavyweight Hollywood legends Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy were marshaled for service as the parents of the gushing bride-to-be. Continue reading…
race
According to a report by British Parliamentarians (Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism, September 2006), an anti-Semitic incident is one in which a person’s actions are “perceived” to be anti-Semitic by the “Jewish community.” In other words, it does not matter whether somebody’s speech or actions are anti-Semitic, it only matters whether they are perceived to be anti-Semitic by Jews. So like Berkeley’s world, to be is to be perceived.
This reminds me of a scene from Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall.” After a tennis match Allen asks his partner:
“Did you hear what that guy we were playing against said to me?”
“No, what.”
“I asked him if he ate yet and he said: `No. D’you? Did Jew eat? Jew?’ “How could he say that?”
Norman Finkelstein offers a fuller analysis of the Report.
The PCA has been beating its breast for several years now on the subject of racial reconciliation.
The 30th GA, which I believe was in 2002, adopted Overture #20 from Nashville, which declared in part:
“We therefore confess our involvement in these sins. As a people, both we and our fathers, have failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded.”
I hope to some day deconstruct the entire overture and its backwash. Right now, I’m just stuck on the phrase “both we and our fathers.”
By their “fathers” they obviously mean their great-great-grandfathers who may have owned slaves and/or defended the practice.
They are repenting, in other words, for something their “fathers” did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of.
When someone repents of his fathers’ sins, which his fathers did not even believe were sins, is this a sign of being humbled under conviction of sin, or is it more likely a noisy bit of self-righteous posturing?
Moreover, since the statement defines the fathers’ sins very broadly (“failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded”) I presume that everyone could justly follow in the footsteps of the PCA and repent of the sins of his fathers (if the PCA can justly do so).
I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their “father” Adam and repent of original sin.
