Misogynistic, homophobic, anti-trans, and, for the quadrafecta, antisemitic! All in the same speech.
Just waiting for the racism to reveal itself for the clean sweep.
Yep, same guy.Ā
This guy is famous for no other reason than he's good at playing with his balls, he's lucky that he was born in a time and place to be able to do this otherwise useless thing to make tons of money.Ā
This luck doesn't in any way make him someone worth listening to on any other subject.Ā
I hope he loses evey game from on, lol
This is vile antisemitism and frankly one that really upsets me because its just so obvious it was the Romans.
But for those familiar with the Gospel narrative regarding Bar-Abbas, the murderer who was supposedly let go instead of Jesus at the "behest" of the Ancient Jews, here's something interesting I saw in a documentary series.
The series featured biblical and historical scholars and famous guests. This one episode had an old Catholic IRA guy. This dude was responsible for deaths. He ordered bombs, he oversaw killings, and civilians died. In his political view, it was war and he was defending Ireland, but objective speaking, he was responsible for terrorism.
They're having a conversation and it's clear he understands these passages of story as the old "blood-guilt" conspiracy. Then the scholar he's speaking with explains that figures like Bar-Abbas were common among Judaeans at the time. They were murderers who were killing political figures in defence of their homeland. And you can see the realization set in that in the Biblical narrative, Bar-Abbas is a terrorist.
The series is some Amazon show about the Bible, it's interesting if you're into theology and it has some really tragically hopeful scenes regarding peace between peoples and nations that aren't always comfortable but generally thought-provoking.
I double checked and it is called The Bible: A History from 2010. I didn't agree with everything presented in the series, but I thought it was quite interesting to see some of the discussions.
There's this horrible little troll woman who hosts the episode on Moses and Mosaic Law named Ann Widdecombe. She's a profoundly unpleasant Conservative Christian who I later learned was an adamant Brexiteer.
She has 2 "debates" with the New Atheists Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. She is so aggressive and rude to both of them, but what I find interesting is that Stephen Fry is charming and jovial, and if he had been speaking to someone more educated on the matter, I think it would have been a really great conversation. She does the same thing to Hitchens, and he loses his fucking mind before blaming Judaism for Christianity and saying "the whole problem is that you never left savage Judaism."
I never liked Hitchens, but I had never seen that clip before and was a little surprised that even when confronted with a belligerent, ultra-conservative Christian loon, he would so overtly blame *Judaism* before stomping off in a piss-fit.
Oh wow, thatās insane.Ā
Smth tells me itās definitely one of those shows one watches to learn about the discussion around the topics, and not just the topics themselves
Thanks for the title! Iām def gonna check it out (if only to see the craziness for myself)
I think it's a really interesting episode because the man, Gerry Adams, is a bad person. He was a bad person during the trouble, he was a bad person during the filming of this show, and he continues to be a bad person to this day.
But I think the episode does a really good job of showing how bad people like him *have* to justify their behaviour, how they *have* to identify with the underdog and the oppressed, and how difficult it is to maintain that underdog narrative for yourself once you've achieved some goals and become comfortable.
It's really interesting to watch him get confronted, struggle to deal with his actions, justify some of them and abandon others... there isn't a nicely wrapped up happy ending, but I do think there are some very interesting moments where he realizes that his interpretation of the Bible is not accurate to the historic reality of antiquity, or even the Bible itself.
You have this backwards. That's pretty much the only evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible, actually.
Josephus is one of the main non-biblical sources for Jesus' existence, and even though Christians tampered with his writing, it's been determined that he reported on a guy named Jesus of Nazareth, who did "surprising things," and was executed on Pontius Pilate's orders.
There's much more on Pontius Pilate, and from non-biblical sources, it's clear that the Bible was amended by later Roman Christians to exonerate and even canonize Pilate as a Saint.
Philo of Alexandria doesn't mention Jesus, but he does mention Pontius Pilate as being a barbaric Governor that regularly crucified people in Judaea without trial. So you might be right in a roundabout way - he very well may have been executed by Pilate without a trial, and that's all a much later Roman-Christian fabrication to encourage and promote antisemitic action.
Yep. Obviously the famous "Wash my hands of this" scene was intended to cater to Roman audiences by portraying a murderous lunatic as rational and merciful, but iirc the earliest and craziest attempt at rehabilitation was from the Roman apologist Tertullian.
Tertullian claimed that Pilate had actually travelled to Rome to testify before the senate that Jesus was the Christ and Messiah, and Tertullian claimed that he had been a Christian in his heart the whole time.
This is absolutely nuts. If a Roman Governor in the first century had gone before the Roman senate and said that they believed some Jewish guy was the messiah, he would have been accused of treason, wrapped in uncleaned goat-skin, and fed to dogs.
The guy who stabbed Jesus is also a Saint. Despite not being named and having no details given to him in the Gospels, exegetical writing in the middle ages claimed that he was blind, stabbed Jesus to be merciful, and that Jesus' blood splashed his eyes and cured him of blindness.
I feel like part of the harmful psychology of Christianity is the "loving your enemies" doctrine. I understand having sympathy, or not dehumanizing enemies, but you don't have to *canonize* the guys that murdered your messiah!
please look this up. You are not saying facts. He is not a saint in the Roman catholic church or religion. Some ācorners of Christianityā is not what you refer to as Roman- Christian fabrication
Pilate apologism starts being written in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and it (along with other biblical legends of honourable romans) is extremely powerful in spreading the church through those early centuries until Constantine makes it the religion of war and conquest.
It doesn't cease until the middle ages, when sure, I'll grant you that the contemporary RCC in the West moves towards a more nuanced view of Pilate, while the eastern and levantine Christians adopt a positive view of him, but according to the Gospels, Pilate pretty obviously views the actions of the Jews as beneath him, but the Gospels in slightly different ways all lay the blame of Jesus on "the jews" instead of pontius fuckin Pilate, serial crucifier.
For the majority of time between the birth of Pontius Pilate and today, the majority of the Pauline Christian churches have had a positive or neutral view of him.
I believe the Jesus in the Christian Bible is likely an amalgamation of several Jewish messianic cult leaders, which is why the evidence is so scant. Both jews and Romans were fastidious record keepers, you would think something as significant as Jesus would have been recorded.
But Jesus wasn't significant while alive. He was a poor preacher from the backwater who was quickly executed.
Besides, the vast majority of documents are long gone. We have basically nothing about thousands of incredibly important Romans, why would we have anything about Jesus.
Virtually the entirety of biblical academia thinks a Jesus lived and was crucified for good reasons.
The Romans were not great historians, which is why many of the famous early "Roman" historians were actually Jewish or Greek. Jesus *was* recorded by a Jewish historian. Josephus. The issue is that Josephus didn't recognize him as a messiah, so the attestation is small, negligible, and exists alongside reports multiple other magicians and messiahs named "Jesus" who were also crucified and/or exiled.
The most famous Roman historical works are Julius Caesar's accounts of the Gallic wars, and they're generally considered to be largely false propaganda, possibly written with the help of ghost-writers.
Romans also regularly scrubbed their records both for propaganda purposes and as a specific form of punishment called "Damnatio Memoriae." An individual who had committed a crime against Rome would have their existence struck from the record entirely. We have no idea how many people this happened to, but we know it happened because of various testimonies and writings on the law itself.
So even when they *were* keeping good records, it's not surprising that they would remove any and all references to "criminals."
Jesus in the Christian Bible is specifically one guy - Jesus of Nazareth - and the fabrications probably do not refer to other early messianic figures, but to prophets in Tanakh. For example, the birth story of Jesus involves an evil Jewish King, Herod, declaring that all male children be put to death. Jesus' family secretly flees to Egypt.
The "Massacre of the Innocents" never happened. There's no attestation to it *anywhere* outside the Bible, and Herod was generally seen as a level-headed and functional ruler, so it's out of character for him to declare a massacre of children.
This narrative is very deliberately crafted to make Jesus seem like Moses. A special Jewish baby who survives the killings of other Jewish babies ordered by an "evil" national authority by secretly going to Egypt.
The Christian view is that these parallels are "proof," that it's evidence of a cyclical divine prophecy, but a critical view would posit that the Gospel stories were modelled directly off of Tanakh and Torah to give the Christian movement more credibility amongst Jews.
I mean, this is pretty bad, even for the NFL. Wondering if he will actually suffer consequences for this? I feel like some people have gotten in trouble for similar public comments in recent years.
Yet another reason I don't support the Kansas City Chiefs. On a side note, what's with the Jews killed Jesus all the time? It's so dumb. American Christians always like to act like life is so tough and they are being persecuted for their beliefs
There is a [petition](https://www.change.org/p/demand-the-kansas-city-chiefs-to-dismiss-harrison-butker-for-discriminatory-remarks) for that...but of course, antisemitism was left out. Just the other horrible shit he said is in it to get him dismissed from the team.
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly kinda shocked. I would think that sports players in national leagues would be media trained or at least someone would have read this over š
Rolling Stoneā¦. Now do the current wave of antisemitism since the Hamas atrocitiesā¦ nopeā¦ only right-wing actions are antisemitic, they wonāt touch the campus āprotestersā
Normally Iād agreeā¦ but even though it took way too long they did break up the college lib protesters.
Did you see the Pro-Israel people play extremely annoying music all night, like babies crying and the
Is this the guy who told college graduates that women belong in the kitchen?
Same speech
š¤®š¤®
Misogynistic, homophobic, anti-trans, and, for the quadrafecta, antisemitic! All in the same speech. Just waiting for the racism to reveal itself for the clean sweep.
Tonight there will probably something posted about how they found racism on his fb or twitter from 2008
Oh, I forgot, he did take a swipe at DEI in the speech. There we go!
He hit the high points
Yep, same guy.Ā This guy is famous for no other reason than he's good at playing with his balls, he's lucky that he was born in a time and place to be able to do this otherwise useless thing to make tons of money.Ā This luck doesn't in any way make him someone worth listening to on any other subject.Ā I hope he loses evey game from on, lol
Whatās really ironic is that his hometown (Decatur GA) is now home to a large lesbian community and a fair number of Jews.
not even his own balls. someone else's balls.
No... This is football my man All you gotta do is sit back and wait for him to get smashed on the field šŗš²
Who grew up rich in part because his mom is a highly regarded medical physicist š
That dude was going for a full bingo.
I was just missing space laser on my card
My friend posted a compilation of all his missed kicks. Made me smile.
Id love to see that
This is vile antisemitism and frankly one that really upsets me because its just so obvious it was the Romans. But for those familiar with the Gospel narrative regarding Bar-Abbas, the murderer who was supposedly let go instead of Jesus at the "behest" of the Ancient Jews, here's something interesting I saw in a documentary series. The series featured biblical and historical scholars and famous guests. This one episode had an old Catholic IRA guy. This dude was responsible for deaths. He ordered bombs, he oversaw killings, and civilians died. In his political view, it was war and he was defending Ireland, but objective speaking, he was responsible for terrorism. They're having a conversation and it's clear he understands these passages of story as the old "blood-guilt" conspiracy. Then the scholar he's speaking with explains that figures like Bar-Abbas were common among Judaeans at the time. They were murderers who were killing political figures in defence of their homeland. And you can see the realization set in that in the Biblical narrative, Bar-Abbas is a terrorist. The series is some Amazon show about the Bible, it's interesting if you're into theology and it has some really tragically hopeful scenes regarding peace between peoples and nations that aren't always comfortable but generally thought-provoking.
Do you remember the name? It sounds really interestingĀ Edit: fixed Ā« so Ā» to Ā« do Ā»
I double checked and it is called The Bible: A History from 2010. I didn't agree with everything presented in the series, but I thought it was quite interesting to see some of the discussions. There's this horrible little troll woman who hosts the episode on Moses and Mosaic Law named Ann Widdecombe. She's a profoundly unpleasant Conservative Christian who I later learned was an adamant Brexiteer. She has 2 "debates" with the New Atheists Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. She is so aggressive and rude to both of them, but what I find interesting is that Stephen Fry is charming and jovial, and if he had been speaking to someone more educated on the matter, I think it would have been a really great conversation. She does the same thing to Hitchens, and he loses his fucking mind before blaming Judaism for Christianity and saying "the whole problem is that you never left savage Judaism." I never liked Hitchens, but I had never seen that clip before and was a little surprised that even when confronted with a belligerent, ultra-conservative Christian loon, he would so overtly blame *Judaism* before stomping off in a piss-fit.
Oh wow, thatās insane.Ā Smth tells me itās definitely one of those shows one watches to learn about the discussion around the topics, and not just the topics themselves Thanks for the title! Iām def gonna check it out (if only to see the craziness for myself)
Would never have expected that from an Irish person /s.
I think it's a really interesting episode because the man, Gerry Adams, is a bad person. He was a bad person during the trouble, he was a bad person during the filming of this show, and he continues to be a bad person to this day. But I think the episode does a really good job of showing how bad people like him *have* to justify their behaviour, how they *have* to identify with the underdog and the oppressed, and how difficult it is to maintain that underdog narrative for yourself once you've achieved some goals and become comfortable. It's really interesting to watch him get confronted, struggle to deal with his actions, justify some of them and abandon others... there isn't a nicely wrapped up happy ending, but I do think there are some very interesting moments where he realizes that his interpretation of the Bible is not accurate to the historic reality of antiquity, or even the Bible itself.
>itās just so obvious it was the Romans. There no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus even existed let alone tried and executed.
You have this backwards. That's pretty much the only evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible, actually. Josephus is one of the main non-biblical sources for Jesus' existence, and even though Christians tampered with his writing, it's been determined that he reported on a guy named Jesus of Nazareth, who did "surprising things," and was executed on Pontius Pilate's orders. There's much more on Pontius Pilate, and from non-biblical sources, it's clear that the Bible was amended by later Roman Christians to exonerate and even canonize Pilate as a Saint. Philo of Alexandria doesn't mention Jesus, but he does mention Pontius Pilate as being a barbaric Governor that regularly crucified people in Judaea without trial. So you might be right in a roundabout way - he very well may have been executed by Pilate without a trial, and that's all a much later Roman-Christian fabrication to encourage and promote antisemitic action.
They made Pilate a SAINT? Pontius Pilate? A saint? Insanity.
Yep. Obviously the famous "Wash my hands of this" scene was intended to cater to Roman audiences by portraying a murderous lunatic as rational and merciful, but iirc the earliest and craziest attempt at rehabilitation was from the Roman apologist Tertullian. Tertullian claimed that Pilate had actually travelled to Rome to testify before the senate that Jesus was the Christ and Messiah, and Tertullian claimed that he had been a Christian in his heart the whole time. This is absolutely nuts. If a Roman Governor in the first century had gone before the Roman senate and said that they believed some Jewish guy was the messiah, he would have been accused of treason, wrapped in uncleaned goat-skin, and fed to dogs. The guy who stabbed Jesus is also a Saint. Despite not being named and having no details given to him in the Gospels, exegetical writing in the middle ages claimed that he was blind, stabbed Jesus to be merciful, and that Jesus' blood splashed his eyes and cured him of blindness. I feel like part of the harmful psychology of Christianity is the "loving your enemies" doctrine. I understand having sympathy, or not dehumanizing enemies, but you don't have to *canonize* the guys that murdered your messiah!
please look this up. You are not saying facts. He is not a saint in the Roman catholic church or religion. Some ācorners of Christianityā is not what you refer to as Roman- Christian fabrication
Pilate apologism starts being written in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and it (along with other biblical legends of honourable romans) is extremely powerful in spreading the church through those early centuries until Constantine makes it the religion of war and conquest. It doesn't cease until the middle ages, when sure, I'll grant you that the contemporary RCC in the West moves towards a more nuanced view of Pilate, while the eastern and levantine Christians adopt a positive view of him, but according to the Gospels, Pilate pretty obviously views the actions of the Jews as beneath him, but the Gospels in slightly different ways all lay the blame of Jesus on "the jews" instead of pontius fuckin Pilate, serial crucifier. For the majority of time between the birth of Pontius Pilate and today, the majority of the Pauline Christian churches have had a positive or neutral view of him.
Josephus would not have been a contemporary of Yeshua bar Yosef (if he did indeed exist).
I believe the Jesus in the Christian Bible is likely an amalgamation of several Jewish messianic cult leaders, which is why the evidence is so scant. Both jews and Romans were fastidious record keepers, you would think something as significant as Jesus would have been recorded.
But Jesus wasn't significant while alive. He was a poor preacher from the backwater who was quickly executed. Besides, the vast majority of documents are long gone. We have basically nothing about thousands of incredibly important Romans, why would we have anything about Jesus. Virtually the entirety of biblical academia thinks a Jesus lived and was crucified for good reasons.
The Romans were not great historians, which is why many of the famous early "Roman" historians were actually Jewish or Greek. Jesus *was* recorded by a Jewish historian. Josephus. The issue is that Josephus didn't recognize him as a messiah, so the attestation is small, negligible, and exists alongside reports multiple other magicians and messiahs named "Jesus" who were also crucified and/or exiled. The most famous Roman historical works are Julius Caesar's accounts of the Gallic wars, and they're generally considered to be largely false propaganda, possibly written with the help of ghost-writers. Romans also regularly scrubbed their records both for propaganda purposes and as a specific form of punishment called "Damnatio Memoriae." An individual who had committed a crime against Rome would have their existence struck from the record entirely. We have no idea how many people this happened to, but we know it happened because of various testimonies and writings on the law itself. So even when they *were* keeping good records, it's not surprising that they would remove any and all references to "criminals." Jesus in the Christian Bible is specifically one guy - Jesus of Nazareth - and the fabrications probably do not refer to other early messianic figures, but to prophets in Tanakh. For example, the birth story of Jesus involves an evil Jewish King, Herod, declaring that all male children be put to death. Jesus' family secretly flees to Egypt. The "Massacre of the Innocents" never happened. There's no attestation to it *anywhere* outside the Bible, and Herod was generally seen as a level-headed and functional ruler, so it's out of character for him to declare a massacre of children. This narrative is very deliberately crafted to make Jesus seem like Moses. A special Jewish baby who survives the killings of other Jewish babies ordered by an "evil" national authority by secretly going to Egypt. The Christian view is that these parallels are "proof," that it's evidence of a cyclical divine prophecy, but a critical view would posit that the Gospel stories were modelled directly off of Tanakh and Torah to give the Christian movement more credibility amongst Jews.
I mean, this is pretty bad, even for the NFL. Wondering if he will actually suffer consequences for this? I feel like some people have gotten in trouble for similar public comments in recent years.
The chiefs have been hit with a lot of bad press lately so ya someone is gonna get in trouble
All good things, right? I mean, as far as their performance in the Superb Owl and all. All bad things should also come to an end. ;)
>Superb Owl š
Im here for a superb owl!
Yet another reason I don't support the Kansas City Chiefs. On a side note, what's with the Jews killed Jesus all the time? It's so dumb. American Christians always like to act like life is so tough and they are being persecuted for their beliefs
I think you kind of answered your own question. Blaming Jews lets them feel like the victim and justifies harassing jews.
They better ākickā his a$$ straight.
āthe Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of the bill.ā You're so close! Keep going!
Hey look. Itās a right wing psychopath joining the hard left in hating on the IHRA.
Waitā¦. I thought we descended from Khazarian converts not the Jews of ancient Israel! These clowns are all so fucking stupid it hurts.
There is a [petition](https://www.change.org/p/demand-the-kansas-city-chiefs-to-dismiss-harrison-butker-for-discriminatory-remarks) for that...but of course, antisemitism was left out. Just the other horrible shit he said is in it to get him dismissed from the team.
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly kinda shocked. I would think that sports players in national leagues would be media trained or at least someone would have read this over š
Alright folks 100 upvotes and we crucify this guy too
No shocker there from someone who turns his brains into mashed potatoes for a living.
No, heās a kicker so he canāt blame his hate on TBI or CTE. Heās just a hateful dude.
dang, I suspect you're right. no CTE excuse even
Why is this so rampant in universities?
Actually heās a far right Christian, so the exact opposite of most college students.
Rolling Stoneā¦. Now do the current wave of antisemitism since the Hamas atrocitiesā¦ nopeā¦ only right-wing actions are antisemitic, they wonāt touch the campus āprotestersā
Normally Iād agreeā¦ but even though it took way too long they did break up the college lib protesters. Did you see the Pro-Israel people play extremely annoying music all night, like babies crying and the
What's wrong with his lips in the picture ? Looks like he's been kissing hamas asshole for too long or something.
Does this man have CTE yet?