Messianic Rabbi': Send Us 10% Of Your Stimmy Check So Jesus Can Buy Himself Something Nice
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When last we heard from Messianic Rabbi Curt Landry (that's a fancy way of saying "Jews for Jesus"), he was explaining how people should listen to Donald Trump about the coronavirus and not Anthony Fauci or any other doctors, because Trump was anointed by God and doctors were not. The week before that, Landry warned his followers not to take any COVID-19 vaccines once they come out, as they are all "from the pit of hell" and will be used to create a database of people who will be willing to take the Mark of the Beast.
This week, Rabbi/Pastor/Whatever Landry is doling out financial advice, explaining that the best way for those who are struggling financially during this pandemic to get out from under is to continue giving 10 percent of whatever their income is to the church — and that if they don't do that, it's like they're robbing Jesus, who needs 10 percent of their coronavirus checks to go buy himself something nice.
Transcript via Friendly Atheist:
The first thing you need to do is absolutely keep the first fruits of your giving and get that seed in the ground as soon as possible. So what first fruits is, is the first first fruit is tithing. You need to make sure that you tithe 10% of your income — and since I'm speaking to Life Church, that 10% needs to go into Life Church, okay? And I want to say this: That 10% spiritually doesn't belong to you, okay? The Lord gives that to you to sow back into the kingdom, okay? [...]
If you have a financial problem, yes, prayer is good. Yes, fasting is good. But what really causes financial problems to break is giving. And so if you'll follow the 10 percent to the Lord — don't rob — we're in Passover week right now. You can sow a seed into Life Church for Passover, okay? That's an offering. That's a first fruit of your increase over the 10 percent, and whatever that amount, there's not really a percentage on it. That's whatever the Lord tells you in your heart, okay?
Basically what Landry is saying is that it is better that some kids go hungry or people can't pay their rent or for other necessities than they skimp out on giving him/the church money, and that if they do that, they'll then have good luck with money? I guess? I'm not totally clear on how this works, to be honest. It seems like it might be a scam!
Landry is, of course, far from the only pastor out there denying the seriousness of COVID-19 while trying to turn a profit off of it. Pastor Tony Spell, who keeps getting arrested for not social distancing and nearly running people over with buses, has called on his followers to donate their entire stimulus checks to evangelical pastors.
And I'd feel really bad for those out there who listen to them, except that they're doing this of their own volition. They're adults. Are they being manipulated? Absolutely. But they're not being forced. Is the fact that Landry is out there telling them that not giving 10 percent of their income to the church is like robbing Jesus pretty gross? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, if they weren't giving these jerks their money, they'd probably be out spending it on Brooklyn Bridges and colloidal silver. Or on those multi-level-marketing leggings people keep going broke on. What can I say? There's a sucker born every minute.
[ Friendly Atheist ]
Tags
Who is online
295 visitors
Just another one trying to take advantage of the coronavirus crisis.
Jews for Jesus is a scam, that tries to pass itself off as a real faith. It isn't. So the fact that they are trying to scare and emotionally steal money from people who really need it, is no surprise. That is what they do.
Jews For Jesus has always seemed weird. I remember them passing out leaflets on the street corners in the 70's. The name was so catchy it may have brought them more attention than they deserved.
If you enter Messianic Rabbi into an image search , which I did to find an image for this seed, you get a number of results. What is a messianic rabbi in terms of being Jewish? Is there such a thing, or are they all actually Christians?
They pretend to be Jews, but they are Christians. You can't be Jewish and believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jews believe the Messiah has yet to come, and he is just a messenger of god. There is no trinity in the faith.
I know that Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.
I was just wondering if you could somehow be a "messianic rabbi" and still be Jewish, or , I guess, how they can call themselves rabbis when they do not have Jewish beliefs.
What they do, is celebrate many of the same holidays and pray in Hebrew. They intentionally conflate the two faiths.
They can't.
Do they celebrate Christmas and Hanukah? Easter and Passover?
Ah, that is interesting, and strange.
Trout,
They do indeed! And while it's a bit harder with the Christmas and Hanukah, since they are totally unrelated events, it is much easier with Easter and Passover since "The Last Supper" was a Passover Seder, and in Christianity, that is the more important event.
I know some churches would have a Seder to try and understand that part of their faith (which is what the Last Supper is based on). I was always cool with that and always wanted to attend one.
But celebrating Xmas and Hanukah just seems greedy.
Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews are different from what I remember of meeting some of each. Jews for Jesus are ethnic Jews who became Christian and abandoned most of the traditions while messianic Jews are ethnic Jews who maintain most of the Jewish traditions including diet and keeping the Sabbath while accepting that Jesus was the Messiah and is the Son of God.
So how can the prophecy of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a donkey be fulfilled in modern times? Since there was only one that claimed to be the Messiah that rode in on a donkey and no one since and riding in on a donkey now would be unlikely, l would say that Jesus was the Messiah.
They are one in the same.
Absolutely opposite. They keep all Jewish traditions and include Jesus as the Messiah. The same is true of what is now called "Messianic Jews". They are still Jews for Jesus. They changed their name after they got a bad rap for trying to recruit on college campuses during the late 70's and early 80's.
I could give you a long explanation, but the long and short of it, is that it is meant that the messiah serves god and therefore is modest and is the messenger of god, and not god himself. Since Jesus said he was son of god etc, the trinity, then this would not go along with the Torah.
Also, the Torah says that the messiah will come once and not twice, which would imply that there would be no second coming.
Of course, none of this is meant to be offensive to anyone's beliefs. Just trying to explain the ins and outs of it.
I'm probably wrong, but I thought it was prophesied in the OT that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Jesus knew that prophesy of course and fulfilled it so that he could be claimed the Messiah.
I could be way, way, off here
Of course he knew of the prophecy. The funny thing about prophesies is you can't change them. If Jesus came into Jerusalem riding an ostrich the prophecy would've be he rode in on an ostrich.
He fulfilled it because he read it in the scriptures. Not quite a self-fulfilling prophesy but pretty damn close
He did come as a man once, the misinterpretation about the second coming is that he would manifest as a man again. I would contend that the second coming has happened, not once, but many times and has saved the Jewish, Christians, and others as well.
Another misinterpretation is the trinity, father = past, son = present, and holy spirit = unknown (to us) future.
Once they accept that Jesus was the Messiah they have left the Jewish faith and are Jews only due to ancestry, but they are no more of the Jewish faith than Queen Elizabeth is.
So to you we are no different than a Palestinian terrorist organization? No wonder you are so indifferent to the Chinese regime attempts to persecute those there who believe as we do.
I simply picked a name out of a hat that was as far from being Jewish as I could imagine, so due to your having such hurt feelings I've changed it to someone who you should be proud to emulate. However, you do seem to be looking for any opportunity to insult me, don't you.
You don't want to be persecuted in China? Then do as the Romans do. Obey the laws of the country you are in and you'll be fine. I've lived in China for almost 14 years, I'm not a member of the Communist Party, I've not broken any laws and I've never been persecuted, or even stopped and questioned by police.
trumpsters love their fake news and fake jews. very lucrative. just ask dennis prager.
Dennis Prager is what is called a "Kiss Ass Jew". He says he is orthodox but he desperately wants to pretend that he is anglo.
meh, somebody has to harvest the low hanging fruit from the mentally challenged evangelical orchard. rwnj's do love their tokens.
I think he really does buy into all that "End of Days" some Christians believe in and he wants to be raptured with them instead of sticking it out with the rest of the heathens
yup. he's hoping that he's part of the 1/3 that evangelicals don't kill off in the end. isn't he about due for a newer model in his marital showroom by now?
I don't know how many wives he's had
he's wearing out the 3rd one now
God forbid that conservative Jews maintain friendly relationships with conservative Christians. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin bad too?
LOL, that could be. But to quote Billy Joel:
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints.
The sinners are a lot more fun,
'Cause only the good die young.
That depends on how you are using the phrase "conservative Jews". That is an actual denomination, incase you don't know. There are plenty of Jews who are politically conservative and that is their choice. I know many. I have never read Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin bend over backward the way Prager does, so I have no gripe with them. If they want to be conservative politically, that's OK. And since when should religion and faith be blended together? Can't people like each other just because they are good and nice and not because of their faith (or lack thereof) or politics?
Actually, Prager is a 'so called Jew' that has discovered the christian benefits of being a Money Changer.
I don't think Jesus intended anybody to give up 10% of their gross income and starve because of it.
Neither do I Trout. Kind of the anti Jesus thing to do.
the same commission rate the money changers charged...
religious tax.
Yeah. A tax on the religious for being religious. Brilliance in its purest form.
God asks for 10% as His and did in the Old Testament as well and promised abundant blessings to those who do so. I choose to do so.
Good for you!
But this so-called Messianic Rabbi has a lot of balls asking people to give up their stimulus checks to him. WWJD?
I did so with both my state and federal tax refund and the stimulus. It is going to all sorts of faith based charities reducing human suffering around the world and domestically.
If he’s part of an organized denomination or church tithe is dispersed by the individual member as directed or is done so by the denomination to its ministries and personnel not by a single person as might be the case in an independent ministry or church. I get an accounting as to what every dollar I give goes to.
And National Socialism takes another step forward. The assurances that this time will be different are not that reassuring.
Stories like this are a two-fer for National Socialists. Establishing a well ordered secular society requires eliminating both Judaism and Christianity.
Nobody's talking about eliminating any religious faith.
We're mocking this guy because he's attempting to take advantage of his flock. Those people need the money way more than he does, but he wants them to hand over their stim checks
I don't want to eliminate them. I just want them to stfu about their beliefs outside their homes and off church property, where bible blabber belongs.
Norm,
You seem to miss the entire point of this article. This is not a real faith. It would be like calling the Moonies a real faith. Stop jumping to conclusions on something I am pretty sure you never ran into. I have.
What I see is that the underlying point of the article is being glossed over. From the article:
"Landry is, of course, far from the only pastor out there denying the seriousness of COVID-19 while trying to turn a profit off of it."
That is portraying those who do not submit completely to secular authority as a danger to society; seeking personal benefit by defying secular authority. There isn't anything in the article that suggests accommodating those adhering to theological authority. National Socialists used these types of propaganda tactics to portray one bad example as a defining characteristic for all.
National Socialism is rising in the United States. The National Socialists put into practice all the liberal criteria for establishing a well ordered secular society. The National Socialists asserted authoritarian control over industry during time of crisis to create jobs, distribute prosperity, and make the country safe. The National Socialists invested in education, arts, science, public works, and infrastructure. The National Socialists invested in health and medical research. The National Socialists promoted social responsibility based upon a secular ethic. The National Socialists imposed secular authority on all facets of society. What was best for society was good for the individual. And those who did not submit completely to secular authority was a danger to society.
Nazi Germany, before the war, was the liberal nirvana. And now we see how the Nazis obtained the willing participation of the German people. It's happening today in the United States.
Do not forget. Assurances that this time will be different are not reassuring.
Hate to burst your bubble but our government and laws are, have been and should be secular.
The government and laws have no business being or picking religion nor acting out in any particular faith.
Get a grip. Nerm. You and a few others see the Commie Boogie Man every where you look
Perhaps. But establishing an exclusively secular society includes a high degree of intolerance.
A purely secular government and body of law cannot be achieved without excluding others from participating. Those who practice a theologically based ethic must be restricted, disenfranchised, and barred from participating.
It's only a small step to begin removing those who do not conform to secular standards from society. The only thing required is willing participation and support from a secular majority. Genocides are justified and condoned by democratic majorities.
Are we really that far from repeating history? Have we forgotten?
Having secular laws and a secular society are different things. A pure secular society could never be achieved. Secular laws are a must.
No one is blocked from participating, we all must adhere to the same laws.
Theists cannot make their own laws or we could end up like some places in the Middle East.
Secular laws are designed for all people, not tilted toward one religion or another.
The only argument some theists have is they want to circumvent certain laws and enact others. That is what should never be allowed to happen.
Our founding fathers provide for both separation of church and state and for freedom of religious practice, so I am not sure what you are talking about. We are not a purely secular society, but our government is secular to guarantee religious freedom for all. And you are way off with genocide.
What history? Depending on when and where both secular societies and religious ones have committed genocide.
A secular system of government is best as it remains religiously neutral by design and encompasses everybody. Religious belief and worship is left to the purview of the individual, as it should be. Allowing religion to seep in only poisons that system and allows religious favoritism towards the particular religion.
Secular "authority" isn't demanding anybody hand over their stimulus money. Secular "authority" is being decidedly non-authoritarian, and allowing people to be penniless fools if they choose.
The founding fathers knew what a bonding of religion and government had done to Europe for centuries , aka, pretty constant war (internal and external), and did not want to repeat that mistake in their new country.
Hence, separation of church and state.
One of the best decisions they made.
I'd say it's probably the best decision they ever made. It boggles the mind that some people disagree there is separation or think separation is 1 sided by allowing religion in the government. They either never took high school civics, or have a religious bias or agenda.
What gets me is normally rational people thinking a secular government could be bad. When that is mainly what we have had all along.
It is not like there are other options.
Of course donald and the republicans are putting people with religious dogma on judicial benches, which I think is very long term detrimental.
If people think a secular government is bad, then I doubt they're being rational.
To some, there are no other options. It's their religion or religious influence in the government, or nothing. Anything else is automatically bad by default.
Agreed.
Gordy,
I think Nerm is referring to communism as "secular", since usually religion is banned.
That is not why they did it. It had to do with why people came here in the first place, which was religious freedom, which they had none of in Europe.
I think we're both right.
In England, which was most dear to the founding fathers, there was a history of persecution and repercussion between the Protestants and Catholics, notably in the Tudor era, and manifested from the throne , and the founding fathers wanted to preclude anything like that in America.
A purely secular government can operate for a society replete with religion. The idea of secular government is to not base decisions / laws on belief systems but rather engage in the practical administration of civil society using objective reasoning. This means that every religion can engage as long as it does not violate laws.
Yes of course a secular government could impose laws that bar religions. A government of any sort could impose laws on any aspect of society. But the logical fact remains true that a secular government can indeed coexist with a religious (and/or irreligious) society.
Was the intent to bar religion from participating in government? Or was the intent to prevent government from becoming a religion?
The history of deifying political leaders.
Both!
Wow, what an utter load of bullshit.
Secular merely means to have no religious or spiritual basis. It doesn't require 'intolerance' of for ANYTHING to be excluded. Our courthouses are 'secular buildings' yet they don't exclude religion or spirituality. In fact, through the action taken within them, they PROTECT them.
Neither.
Oh so you're asking if we will continue to repeat what has been occurring since the beginning of human history? I'd think the answer is self evident.
Those barred from participating in government have no representation in creating laws. That lack of representation allows the government to exercise absolute authority by prohibiting challenges to that authority.
When religion is denied representation in government then that government has unchallenged authority to become a religion.
Atheists are not necessarily without religion; atheists are not necessarily secular. Religion does not require theism. Several pagan religions, such as Gaia and Wicca, are not based upon a deity. Gaia and Wicca are atheist religions.
Separating theist religion from government does not necessarily mean the government remains secular. Using the separation between church and state to deny theist representation removes a check and balance that would prevent the government from becoming an atheist religion. An atheist government does not guarantee a secular government.
The National Socialist government of Germany was an atheist government. But the political leaders exercised god-like authority over the German people. And the political leaders were treated as deities are treated. The National Socialist government became a pagan religion; therefore, could not have been secular.
I am pointing out that we are allowing history to repeat itself. And we are being assured that this time will be different.
A government that advocates and celebrates Earth Day is not neutral. Earth Day may be atheist but is still very much a religious celebration.
No one is being barred from participating in government. Representatives are elected into office. So our system generally works.
Religion is a personal choice, not a political institution (even if it tries to dabble in politics). The government cannot become a religious authority per the Constitution! Saying it can become a religion is just absurd.
Atheists are not convinced there is a god. That's it. Atheism tends to correspond with a lack of religious belief.
Atheism and secular are not interchangeable terms.
Theism is the belief in god/s. Most religions incorporate god/s in their belief systems. But Gaian's and Wiccans do have beliefs in deities. Just not a central deity authority like the monotheistic religions do.
The government by design is supposed to be secular.
The government represents the people, not the religion. Seriously Nerm, do you not understand that or the separation of church and state?
Earth Day is not a religious celebration. Do you seriously think only atheists celebrate it? It is a societal show of support for environmental protection. By your logic, fans cheering on their favorite sports team is a religious celebration.
You're redefining words to suit you.
LOL I saw this on my tracker and knew the context without any further information.
Some things never change, huh?
That allegation needs substantiation .
Celebrations are not inherently religious, for one. Unless one redefines one or both terms, as you choose to do.
Be specific Nerm. WHAT part of history? Date, event.
This time WHAT will be different this time. Again, be specific.
Wow, you really are all over the place. WTF are you talking about Earth day for when the US 'advocates and celebrates' Christmas and Easter? How about we add St. Valentine's Day and Fat Tuesday and Mardi Gras and St. Patrick's Day?
I did not claim that celebrations are inherently religious. What I said is that Earth Day is a religious celebration.
Earth Day was conceptualized and proposed by John McConnell based upon McConnell's interpretation of Biblical scripture, such as Psalm 115:16 .
Weren't you aware of the Christian origin and Biblical justification for Earth Day?
Specifically, the history of National Socialism .
National Socialism provided the political and ideological basis for public acceptance of Nazism .
See comment @ 4.3.32
That's pretty fucking vague Nerm. Make a connection. What SPECIFIC event occurring NOW is 'allowing' the repetition of National Socialism HERE?
That doesn't answer my question. Why harp on Earth Day when you had so many examples of the US 'advocating and celebrating' OVERTLY religiously based holidays to choose from?
You understand, of course, that the label 'National Socialism' was pure propaganda. Hitler ran the actual socialists out of town.
So when you speak of National Socialism in the USA, you apparently are referring to the ideology of Hitler. Which then means that you consider the National Socialists in the USA to be, in effect, Nazis. But you have described the National Socialists in the USA as liberals.
Do you distinguish between the USA ideological liberal and progressive and the ideological Nazi? Who, in your mind, are the National Socialists in the USA who are taking these actions?
Be specific.
Neither. The intent was not to favor one faith over another. To have complete freedom to practice any faith.
How is that political ldeifying leaders? That is the abuse of power to push a specific agenda.
Earth Day for the vast majority is not religious, regardless of McConnell's religion, and McConnell was hardly the only person in on the founding of Earth Day. McConnell insists that Earth Day should be celebrated on the northern hemisphere's spring equinox, BTW, not on April 22nd, as we currently recognize it, to McConnell's apparent dismay.
Earth Day is a recognition that we need to protect and maintain the health of our habitat in order to survive, ourselves. Such recognition requires no belief in the supernatural, nor worship of, well, anything. If recognizing that maintaining a livable habitat is important to survival is religious, then disinfecting my kitchen counters after cutting up chicken is a religious ritual.
If religion is banned in China there are a hell of a lot of practising Buddhists, Christians and Muslims other than the Uyghurs all over China who must be apparitions and the Temples, Churches and Mosques in which they pray don't seem to appear burned to the ground, but then I'm here, and not seeing religion being banned. Granted it is not encouraged, and proselytizing is a sure way to be detained.
Not according to the 25 points of the National Socialists party. The Nazi Party was, indeed, a socialist workers' party. While it's true not all 25 points can be considered socialist, nevertheless the fundamental goals of early 20th century socialism were prominent in the Nazi program. The Nazi Party actually put their 25 point National Socialist program into practice.
National Socialist Program
Many of the 25 points are consistent with the stated goals of workers' parties during the first two decades of the 20th century. Prior to World War I, National Socialism represented a small, disorganized faction withing the socialist movement. Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, and Industrial Unionism were embryonic forms of thinking about National Socialism. The National Socialist Party was a pro-war faction of the British Socialist Party established during World War I. No, the socialists of the United Kingdom were not tied to German socialism or the Nazi Party.
National Socialism, as the name suggests, differed according to nation. The Nazi Party was strictly German. And the history of the Nazi Party has overshadowed National Socialist movements in other countries.
The labels used to describe modern politics in the US do not conform to dictionary definitions. The liberal faction in the Democratic Party are pursuing the more socialist goals of the 25 points. The conservative faction of the Republican Party are pursuing the more nationalist goals of the 25 points. Political moderates are establishing a compromise between the more socialist and more nationalist factions.
The political system of the United States has been slowly creating a watered down form of National Socialism since the end of World War II. Keep in mind that the Nazi Party obtained power during a time of economic hardship and global crisis caused by the Great Depression.
The failures of the recovery from the Great Recession has diminished the influence of moderates over public opinion. Now the fallout caused by the pandemic has provided incentive for the socialist and nationalist factions in our politics to work directly with each other.
Public opinion really has become more socialist and more nationalist. We aren't that far from repeating history. The United States won't become Nazi since that was strictly focused on Germany. But the United States could easily become a National Socialist country.
Note how you equated National Socialism with the Nazis:
When you make a reference such as above
you are providing a definition of a term (as you use it) to your readers. If you are going to define terms this way then you need to be consistent. Yes, National Socialism differed greatly per nation. So you cannot simply equate the term National Socialism to Nazism and then turn around and apply that term to the USA without the tie to Nazism. That is doublespeak.
That is what I mean by propaganda Nerm. The Nazi party used the word 'Socialist' because it had positive connotations. What it implemented directly defied those positive connotations. The label was pure propaganda.
A meaningless statement because the operative term 'National Socialism' is undefined. And if you are now going to apply the Nazi version of this (which you seem to be trying to still) then note the 25 points which define it :
How on Earth do you apply this to USA liberals and progressives?? There are items in this list that most nations would adopt, but for the most part this is the Nazi playbook. These item could, arguably, apply to liberals and progressives:
Define a term (or use a common definition) and then consistently use it. It is irritating to try to parse an argument when the meaning of the operative terms changes. That is why I often do not even bother.
What do you mean by 'socialist'?
"National Socialism?" Seriously? You're beginning to sound like DJTF#1.
Don't forget to add the 'secular' in there.
I have to wonder, if some do not want a secular government or secular laws, what is the other option?
If it were not secular it would be theocratic.
"Secular" seems to be a trigger word for some theists. They seem to view it a's a threat. But some also clearly want, or wouldn't mind a theocracy. As long as it's their religion. Just look at Christian dominionists. Of course, if you don't have a secular government, then you have a theocracy, just lie the Middle East. Is that the system of government and laws some want to emulate? Such a mentality is as un-American as it gets.
What worries me is if they get their way. Will they throw out the 1st Amendment, that amendment that currently guarantees them their right to worship freely? Isn't that a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face?
I really want one of the theists to answer this question for me.
Most theists here, I'm fairly sure, support separation of church and state. Some don't, and some don't, but pretend to.
There are a few here who pretend to support separation of church and state but they really want their religion enacted into every law Congress writes
Mmmmhmmm.
Is that "I agree with you" or "I'm thinking that over" mmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmm?
LOL!
That's "I agree with you", both that there are people here who think that way, and probably about who those people are.
LOL!
How many different religions and faiths can there be...
I do know a lot of people in the Methodist faith tithe. Yet it is not specified and and does not have to go to the church. It can go to another person that may need it.
most charitable offerings shouldn't pass thru church hands
Agree. Better to give to a family in need.
These mega churches are a scam.
Ya know if you don't fall for their spiel and ignore the harm they do to others loons like this guy are pretty entertaining
About as entertaining as skin rash.
This is why I DESPISE the religious. The belief system is a breeding ground for the corrupt and ill and weak minded.
This reminds me of Suicidal Tendencies song " Send Me Your Money "
It also requires the suspension of rational & critical thinking, which only promotes willful ignorance.
That;s an understatement. We can't leave out the dependence on circular logic.
And some certainly ignore or make excuses for the logical fallacies within religion and/or religious texts.
And use their religion and/or religious texts to justify some of the most abhorrent acts like slavery and murder.
As an example, note how neither god nor the bible condemns or prohibits slavery or deems it immoral. Rather, it provides guidelines for proper slave handling. Also note how some theists either ignore that or try to make excuses for it and/or their god.
I only know one Messianic Jewish family. I went to college with the wife. I had to stop following her on Facebook when she was on there putting out feelers about getting her children betrothed. At the time, one was in elementary school and the other was a toddler, I believe.
Arranged betrothals of young kids, here in the US. And some folks are worried about secular authority.
Good grief.
Amen sister!
"Gimme that old time religion....! Gimme that old time religion....!
Everybody sing!
"Gimme that old time religion.... It's good enough for me...!
The movie "Inherit the Wind" should be made mandatory along with "To Kill a Mockingbird" in American high schools.
Just like all German high school kids are required by law to visit a concentration camp like Dachau or Auschwitz-Birkenau and learn about the Holocaust.