Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Art Rooney says Mel is " wacko"

by Mary Kay / February 24, 2004 1:16 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Art Rooney says Mel is " wacko"
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Art Rooney says Mel is " wacko"
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:Andy Rooney says Mel is 'wacko'
by Josh K / February 24, 2004 1:48 AM PST
On Sunday's broadcast, Rooney commented on [Pat] Robertson's January statement that he believes God has told him that President Bush would be re-elected in a "blowout" in November.

Rooney said God had spoken to him, saying, "I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos."

"They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression," Rooney said, quoting God.


ROFL. I love Andy Rooney.
Collapse -
Re:Re:Andy Rooney says Mel is 'wacko'
by Dan McC / February 24, 2004 1:56 AM PST

God spoke to me and told me that he loves Andy Rooney, too.


Dan

Collapse -
LOL Andy Rooney.....
by Glenda / February 24, 2004 1:58 AM PST

is about as wacko as they come!
Glenda

Collapse -
Didn't see 60 minutes, but I did see the Gibson interview.
by Kiddpeat / February 24, 2004 2:12 AM PST

He was very articulate, and never suggested that God had talked to him. What's Rooney's problem?

Collapse -
Re:Art Rooney says Mel is
by John Robie / February 24, 2004 2:24 AM PST

I love Andy Rooney's comments and look forward to them every Sunday.

I saw Sunday's 60 minutes and was amazed that he said Mel was wacko not only once but twice without even a HINT of explaination.

Only thing I can think of is Andy is Jewish, and that is his statement without explaination?

Collapse -
Re: Art Rooney says Mel is
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 2:49 AM PST

Hi, JR.

Ther'es been very little attention paid to the fact that Mel is a "traditionalist Catholic," which is an oxymoron. They're essentially a particularly perverse outgrowth of the Feeneyits, who say that there's no slavation outisde the Catholic Church. The traditionalists believe that the Vatican II reforms are a perversion of the "original" Catholicism, so that even Catholics who regularly attend Mass are damned to hell, because only attendence at a Tridentine (Latin) Mass counts... That sure sounds wacko to me -- about the same as the Jehovah's witnesses literal translation of poetic language in the Book of Revelations, so that they believe only 144,000 souls will ever be saved. I've never figured out why people would belong to such a religion, since the cult has millions of members...

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re: Art Rooney says Mel is
by Angeline Booher / February 24, 2004 6:46 AM PST

Hi, DaveK,

I remember well in 1953 (I remember the occasion) a Priest commenting, "I am amazed how upset non-Catholics are about our marriage laws, as they do not apply to them."

As long as Mel and his fellow parishoners don't prowl the streets calling everybody else sinners, or knock on my door insisting I listen to their spiel, it's fine with me. After all, 'tradiionalist" Catholics are not the only group that believes their way is the only way.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Treading on an edge?
by Roger NC / February 24, 2004 7:40 AM PST

"They're essentially a particularly perverse outgrowth of the Feeneyits..."

I'm unfamilair with the group, so will defer, but the phrase "particularly perverse" is definately a condemnation and perhaps even an accusation of wrongdoing and depravity?

"...about the same as the Jehovah's witnesses literal translation of poetic language in the Book of Revelations, so that they believe only 144,000 souls will ever be saved. I've never figured out why people would belong to such a religion, since the cult has millions of members..."

Calling such a large established religion a cult again is treading on shaky ground.

I'll grant there is more than one large religious group in USA that I personally consider dangerous and cult like if not purely cults. And there is one prominent one I'd considered much more dangerous and questionable than the Jehovah's witnesses by a large stretch. And a couple more that are perhaps smaller but dangerous in how their official beliefs and doctrines sometimes cause harm to their members in different ways including medical treatment sometimes.

As far as the difference in the number allowed and the number of members, wellllll, it's not much difference from any group, most secretly believe they're just a tad more favored than the rest.

Collapse -
Re: Treading on an edge?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 8:00 AM PST
In reply to: Treading on an edge?

Hi, Roger.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the phrase "perverse," as it has a connotation I didn't consider. (I use "perverted" for that meaning...) Some synonyms of "perverse" are "cantankerous," "headstrong," and "logically twisted," and those were the meanings I intended.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
A humorous read. Calvin and the 144,000.
by James Denison / February 24, 2004 1:02 PM PST
http://personal.tmlp.com/hayesboh/uu/sermons/mar1801.htm

A Congregationalist, a Christian Scientist and a
Universalist found themselves together in hell. The
Congregationalist was asked, "What are you
doing here in hell?" He replied, "I guess old John Calvin
was right. I was predestined to hell for the glory
of God even though I led an exemplary life." The
Christian Scientist was asked, "What are you here
in hell for?", and he replied, "I'm not here." Finally,
the Universalist was asked, "And what are you doing
here in hell?" And he said, "I'm here, but this is
not hell because there is no hell. This is heaven."

(more at link above)
Collapse -
Re: A humorous read. Calvin and the 144,000.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 26, 2004 10:43 PM PST

Hi, james.

I didn't realize that was Calvinist as well (the main things I know about Calvinism are predestination and the idea that material success only comes to those favored by God -- a message 180 degrees skewed from Christ's teachings on that subject! I assume Presbetyrians no longer believe there are only 144,000 "slots?"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
You would need to ask a Presbyterian, I don't really know.
by James Denison / February 27, 2004 12:18 AM PST

I'm not an expert on every groups' beliefs, I do try to remember the main movements though, but there are different groups that have their own unique spin on certain doctrines.

Collapse -
If I may add some light (I hope).
by Kiddpeat / February 27, 2004 9:59 AM PST

Calvin did indeed teach predestination. In that he agreed with Martin Luther, Augustine, and others. He did not believe, and I don't think the Presbyterians believe, that material success only comes to those favored by God. That's a modern heresy, but it probably is not new. It is amply contradicted by the Old and New Testaments with which Calvin was intimately familiar. He was, after all, a brilliant, well educated scholar. I believe the 144,000 comes from the Jehovas Witnesses who are not Christians at all. I don't know how they deal with the 144,000 since their membership now exceeds that number.

Collapse -
Re:Treading on an edge?
by Dan McC / February 24, 2004 11:37 PM PST
In reply to: Treading on an edge?

What's the difference between a cult and a religion?

Dan

Collapse -
Not always easy to determine.
by James Denison / February 26, 2004 12:49 PM PST

and it depends on whether the ones looking at it are religious or not. There are sites around the net that give basic elements of cults and how to distinguish them from other religious groups. One I recall is Cult Watch. I think when it's condensed the basic elements are does it give you comfort, give you inner peace, or does it give you distress and seek to gain a control over you that goes beyond simple persuasion of viewpoint. Does it seek to isolate you from others, even if they are family and long time friends? Does it promote worship of God or of an organizational figure in the group. Can you walk away from the group without fear of them taking retribution in some form? If it's a negative experience, then it may be a cult, but for sure it certainly isn't the truth.

Collapse -
Re:Re:Treading on an edge?
by Roger NC / March 2, 2004 4:14 AM PST

A hard question, and one that no one answer will satisfy all, I'm not sure even could find one that would satisfy a majority.

Any trait chosen could probably fit any religion at some time in it's history if not now.

Overcontrol of the members lives is one aspect, but where does it become overcontrol? The most obvious (to me) examples here are retreats and communes that require permission of the head official to even speak to visiting family. But then monasteries of many sects have had such rules for centuries I believe. If you can actually get someone there or someone that left/escaped to say they were afraid of physical retaliation for leaving, that is to me a clear indication to worry.

Brainwashing is a popular term, but a slippery one to define. Absolute refusal of members to recognize current events is sometimes pointed out, but there are historical instances of such in many sects again. An absolute refusal to even consider the possibility of error applies all too often to some if not all members of more recognized organizations.

Demands of all worldly goods be sold and money turned over to the group and the group will provide is another worry point. But that has occured in various sects and divisions within major religions historically too as I recall.

Sigh, it's one of those things that everyone has the feeling "I can't define it but I recognize it". Trouble is, there is often little agreement.

There is one, and another, and if I knew more probably others, large and well established religions here in the US that I regard as borderline to being a 'cult'.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
A cult is usually built around devotion to one individual who is the source of authority.
by Kiddpeat / March 2, 2004 6:17 AM PST

I think, today, there is also some sense of excessive control of the members' lives.

Early Christianity was a cult in the former sense, but not in the latter.

Collapse -
That's not what Gibson said.
by Kiddpeat / February 24, 2004 7:50 AM PST

As I recall, on the Sawyer interview, he said it was possible for people of other faiths to be saved. It seemed he went even farther toward inclusion than I would be comfortable with. Perhaps that's no consolation, but it doesn't hold to a view that salvation is only for those inside the Catholic Church.

Also, Gibson presented his film here in Chicago in a church called Willow Creek. Willow Creek is on the cutting edge, and not consistent with a narrow view.

Collapse -
Re: That's not what Gibson said.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 8:02 AM PST

Hi, KP.

That's interesting -- I only saw excerpts of the Sawyer intervie, not the whole thing. What you report are not the stated beliefs of the Catholic splinter group to which he not only belongs, but for which he's building a multi-million dollar church in California.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
'Mary' (the actress) is Jewish.
by Kiddpeat / February 24, 2004 12:12 PM PST

She seemed quite comfortable with Gibson's view (some of the cast was included in parts of the interview).

Collapse -
Re: 'Mary' (the actress) is Jewish.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 24, 2004 12:23 PM PST

Hi, KP.

Oh, I don't think the film is intentionally anti-Semitic, at least now that they've taken the key verse out ("His death be upon us, an on our children.") I just find it ironic that Protestants whom his sect considers damned are embracing the film.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
I, for one, don't care what his sect believes. I am impressed
by Kiddpeat / February 24, 2004 12:33 PM PST

that he's tried to tell the story of the crucifiction EXACTLY as it's described in the four gospels. A lot of other evangelicals, and others as well, are obviously impressed with the same thing. I was also impressed with Gibson's grasp of theology. I'ld say he's done a lot of thinking, talking, or studying on the subject.

Collapse -
BTW, Diane Sawyer was quick to point out that
by Kiddpeat / February 24, 2004 12:37 PM PST

the caption for "His death be upon us, an on our children." has been taken out, but the actors still say the words in Hebrew(?). Gibson explained that he decided that the nuances of interpreting the phrase could not be adequately covered in the film, so the caption was taken out.

Collapse -
Too bad they removed it.
by James Denison / February 24, 2004 1:18 PM PST

I can see that some would interpret it the way they wanted, it would have been good if they had put in an earlier scene where Christ looked over Jerusalem and said how often he would have gathered her to him like a hen gathers her brood, but that she would not have him. It would have made it clear that the phrase refered to that generation alone. They did have the blood come upon their head since the Romans eventually did to them, what had been done to Christ. The high priest saying it was expedient for one man to die rather than a nation is interesting since not only did that one man die, but later also the nation.

Collapse -
Re: Too bad they removed it.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 26, 2004 10:46 PM PST

Too bad!? That one line is the genesis (or at least excuse) for anti-Semitism throughout two millennia, leading ultimately to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. And you say "too bad" it's gone? What chutzpah!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Nevertheless that line is scripture, written centuries before
by James Denison / February 27, 2004 12:41 AM PST

the events you describe, and I think lends understanding to motivation or excuse for the various periods of Jewish sufferings since those days. There are those who do believe that was a curse Jews pronounced upon themselves, others that it was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. The phrase itself may be one that was commonly uttered when one wanted to show they believed they were innocent of any wrong doing concerning an execution, since it was used by the crowd I suspect that is true, just as Pilates ceremonial washing of his hands would have signified the same. In other words each side was claiming innocence regarding any wrong in the execution of Christ. One thing that verse does not do is give permission to persecute Jews, nor were the Christians of that day persecuting the Jews, it was the other way around and became more intense immediately following the crucifixion of Christ. Christ pointed out the sequence of events and when the vengeance from God against the Jews would occur and what it's end would be, it is a definite time frame related in Luke 21 for one place.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them
which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and
let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
and let not them that are in the countries enter
thereinto. 22 For these be the days of
vengeance, that all things which are written may
be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with
child, and to them that give suck, in those days!
for there shall be great distress in the land, and
wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by
the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of
the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Collapse -
Re: Nevertheless that line is scripture, written centuries before

Hi, James.

IS it really even Scripture? It only occurs in one of the four Gospels (Matthwew). Many Scripture scholars are very sceptical of details that are only found in one Gospel (unless it's that of John, the only one of the four Evangelists who was actually an Apostle).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
We know it existed as scripture as early as the second century.
by James Denison / February 27, 2004 12:52 PM PST

Here is an article I found that is very similar to what I've posted. I think he glosses over a couple of points that would take exception to his belief, but overall I think it's a good article and the basic tenets are correct.

http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

Below is the type view that upsets the Jewish groups who are objecting to Mel Gibson's film. It is an Hispanic Catholic belief. This site is associatted with the Aztlan movement as proposed by Mecha, a group that Bustamante in California belongs to and has not renounced his association with, not even in the recent California Governor's race against Arnold Schwarzennegger.

http://aztlan.net/judex_injustus.htm

Collapse -
We know it existed as scripture as early as the second century.

Here is an article I found that is very similar to what I've posted. I think he glosses over a couple of points that would take exception to his belief, but overall I think it's a good article and the basic tenets are correct.

http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

Below is the type view that upsets the Jewish groups who are objecting to Mel Gibson's film. It is an Hispanic Catholic belief. This site is associatted with the Aztlan movement as proposed by Mecha, a group that Bustamante in California belongs to and has not renounced his association with, not even in the recent California Governor's race against Arnold Schwarzennegger.

http://aztlan.net/judex_injustus.htm

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) bump bump
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.