Jeremy Irons addresses former stances on abortion, gay marriage, and sexual harassment
Aux Features Jeremy Irons
Ahead of the Berlin Film Festival, actor and this year’s president of the international jury Jeremy Irons took a moment to address resurfaced, highly controversial comments regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and sexual harassment. Per Variety, Irons opened the jury’s press conference with a brief acknowledgment of his role as president before cutting to the heart of the dissent that has surrounded the Berlinale for weeks.
“I should like, not as the jury president, but on a personal level to address various comments that I have reportedly made in the past, and which have resurfaced in certain sections of the press over the past few weeks. I wish I didn’t have to take up time with this, but I don’t want it to continue as a distraction to the Berlinale,” he told the room. Irons went on to address each issue individually:
“Let me make my views this morning entirely clear on these particular subjects once and for all. Firstly, I support wholeheartedly the global movement to address the inequality of women’s rights, and to protect them from abusive, damaging, and disrespectful harassment, both at home and in the workplace.
“Secondly, I applaud the legislation of same-sex marriage, wherever it has been attained, and I hope that such enlightened legislation will continue to spread into more and more societies. And thirdly, I support wholeheartedly the right of women to have an abortion, should they so decide.
“These three human rights are, I believe, essential steps toward a civilized and humane society, for which we should all continue to strive. There are many parts of the world where these rights do not yet exist, where such ways of living lead to imprisonment, and even to death.”
The issues surrounding Irons’ appointment to jury president stem from comments made back in 2011 where the actor said to U.K.’s Radio Times, “if a man puts his hand on a woman’s bottom, any woman worth her salt can deal with it. It’s communication. Can’t we be friendly?” He also defended the Church’s right to deem abortion a sin and suggested in a 2013 interview with HuffPost that legalizing gay marriage could encourage fathers to marry their sons to avoid certain taxation, though he also stated that he “[didn’t] have a strong feeling either way” on the subject. As some of the films entered in this year’s Berlinale address those specific issues, including Eliza Hittman’s abortion drama Never Rarely Sometimes Always, there was a concern that lingering sentiments made him an unfit choice for president.
Today, Irons is assuring the public that those feels remain in the past, and that he hopes to put the issue to rest: “I hope that some of the films we will be watching will address these problems, among many others we face in our world, and I look forward to watching films in this year’s Berlinale which will provoke us to question attitudes, prejudices, and worldwide perceptions of life as we know it. I hope that’s put my past comments to bed.”
167 Comments
Yeah, I remember when he made those same-sex marriage comments. They were bizarre even at the time, but I chalked it up to Jeremy Irons just being out of touch with reality since, you know, he’s Jeremy Irons.Glad to see that he’s changed his stance on those things, but I wish he would have actually apologized for saying those things in the past.
Wah. Show us where the mean comments hurt you. No wonder Gen Z is tired of your garbage.
I saw elsewhere that he said that he had already apologized for those comments, although I haven’t actually tracked that down.
I mean, he was wrong, but did he really do something that requires him to issue a public apology? Asking for a friend.
He came back to earth.
All that time spent on Titan really messed him up.
You know what they say about Jeremy Irons: Jeremy’s … iron.
Has he changed his stance or did he just not want to lose his festival president gig?
The church has an absolute right to call abortion a sin – that doesn’t mean that it’s right, it means that the church is a bigoted, racist, homophobic institution that has no place in modern, civilised society.
Right. The Church has a right to declare sins wherever they like, and we have the right to go right on ignoring them.
Exactly. Churches can make up whatever fictional nonsense they want.
As is tradition
I understand his take, I prefer yours. Have star, you Logical Fellow Commenter.
To claim it’s a sin is par for the course for pretty much every Abrahamic denomination today, hence why the pro-Lifers are almost unanimously religious: because the ultimate evidence they have is that their respective religious leaders insist that’s the doctrine of Capital G. Love the Vonnegut profile pic, by the way!
To claim it’s a sin is par for the course for pretty much every Abrahamic denomination todayActually, this incorrect: Judaism has many opinions on abortion, with Conservative and Reform Judaism both allowing abortion when it harms the mother physical or psychological and in cases of rape and incest. Hell, both Reform and Conservative Judaism have come out as pro-choice (since pro-lifers tend to want to restrict all abortion). It’s only really Orthodox Judaism that is against all abortions (unless the actual life of the mother is in danger).
Hey, here’s some hairs that I’m going to split with the tiniest razor ever made by man. Look what I did. I accomplished nothing.
Actually not incorrect, I intentionally left room for nuance (“pretty much every” is not end-all). To your specific example, while I don’t know specifics on Judaism (rural Canadian Prairies boy here, don’t have proper interface with practicing Jewish people), any pro-Life stance that allows for extreme cases sounds to me that they’re claiming that the “death” of the child is alright if the mother gets outside approval, which is all the more insidious in my opinion. It’s just a half-measure when we need full measures, especially in a day-and-age when there is still too big a disparity in the gender of those that get to make that call.
any pro-Life stance that allows for extreme cases sounds to me that they’re claiming that the “death” of the child is alright if the mother gets outside approvalExcept I’ve already stated that they are not “pro-life,” they are pro-choice and it’s not just “extreme” cases, it’s any case where the mother can be physical or psychologically hurt. Which, since birth is painful, is pretty much all of them.
@Alliterator thank you for continuing to advocate what in my experience is a truthful expression of how abortion is viewed in the Jewish faith. I remember back in high school attending classes taught by our rabbi where he used actual Jewish texts (I can’t remember which, probably the writings of the Talmud) to talk about the pro-choice aspects of Judaism. Similar to what you say in regards to “psychological,” he offered a wide range of reasons that a woman could choose to terminate the pregnancy, including not having the financial means or just not being able to properly care for the baby. Now, granted, much of Judaism is about who is interpreting what (I mean, that’s essentially what the writings of the Talmud are, scholars arguing over interpretations) so there is going to be a range of feelings about this topic and people beyond that rabbi may have more stricter views. It may especially vary as you move from Reformed (who take a more modern view) to Orthodox (who take a stricter traditional view). Nonetheless, the fact that it has been so discussed and written about means that even the Orthodox must have some allowances for abortion (I’m not sure exactly where they stand).@Sumner, I encourage you to use this opportunity with Alliterator to ask questions and learn more about a topic/religion/people you say you don’t know much about. The views of Judaism, in regards to abortion, seem closer to your own than to the other religions you’re trying to group it with.
I think I laid out pretty clearly that I didn’t make any claim about Judaism, I said what I said about “any pro-Life stance”. I don’t know how more clearly it can be put that my comment is directed not to any overall religion or person, but on a specific religious philosophy. If you believe that life begins at conception yet are fine with terminating pregnancies if it’s determined in a mother’s best interest, I don’t have any problem with your Judaic beliefs, I have a problem with your disingenuous, hypocritical stance.
Oh, fuck right off with this tripe. Particularly your wan attempt to label *others who caught you* as “disingenuous” and “hypocritical”.“Abrahamic denomination” is just a bullshit newly-spreadable term meant to ‘cleverly’ rope in Judaism into your close-minded evangelical branches.We’re not having it. You fooled no one, and you got immediately called out on it. Move along, you God-bothering troll.
It’s weird that OP is acting like Judaism is negligible when it’s the original Abrahamic religion.
“I think I laid out pretty clearly that I didn’t make any claim about Judaism”
And this is precicely the problem. You made a sweeping claim about “Abrahamic denominations” and left out the original Abrahamic religion as if it was inconsequential. You said “pretty much all” when Judaism represents 1/3rd of the major Abrahamic denominations. That’s definitely not “pretty much all”. Other commenters were completely right to call that out: especially since it was Jews that actually wrote all the texts that some Christians cite when condeming abortion (texts they can’t even read in the original language).An overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are pro choice. Jews are actually more pro choice as a demographic than people who define themselves as religiously unaffiliated (the catagory you would probably put yourself in).
And I’m saying that nobody should call them pro-choice because they aren’t, they are still saying the ultimate call in abortion should be outside of the mothers’ hands. That isn’t pro-choice, that’s a pro-lifer that is showing their concern over abortion has nothing to do with “baby killing”.
And I’m saying that nobody should call them pro-choice because they aren’t, they are still saying the ultimate call in abortion should be outside of the mothers’ handsWhat the fuck are you talking about? I know what pro-choice means and they are pro-choice. They have campaigned to repeal pro-life laws, like the partial abortion ban, because they believe that women should choose whether or not to get them.The question you posed isn’t “are they pro-choice,” it was “Do Abrahamic religions all believe abortion is a sin” and I’ve already proven they don’t.
You haven’t proven anything, it’s just very clear that you want to have an argument with your very blurred interpretation of anything I say, not what I actually have said Which is cool, you go ahead with your thing, I have better ways to spend my time than a silly argument you refuse to understand.
I mean, it’s pretty clear you don’t know a fucking thing about Judaism.
It’s all the more clearer that, from your first comment on, you haven’t been able to formulate a response that has anything to do with anything I said. Reading comprehension, buddy, you should trade your grumpiness for some.
Partially correct is not incorrect.
Yeah, FWIW, the mainline Protestant churches are all pro-choice to one extent or the other.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/The Christian groups mentioned that are anti-choice are all fringe groups, except for the Catholics and Southern Baptists; those fringe groups in many cases split off precisely because they found the main church too progressive. Which is to say, Catholics, Baptists, and evangelicals are anti-choice, but the other major Christian sects are all pro-choice. That’s true in terms of official stance, and also by and large the opinion of those in the pews.
Yup. If the Church wants to make it their business to openly criticize people for their beliefs, actions and self-identity… then the Church better be ready to answer for their position… as well as it’s followers.
The church being a bigoted, racist, homophobic institution has nothing to do with calling abortion a sin.
Explain please?
Calling abortion a sin isn’t bigoted it isn’t racist and it isn’t homophobic
It’s a sin because…?
Something something Jesus, be quiet or go to hell.
I just want to hear the explanation. I’m curious, but yeah probably.
Sorry I’m not a bible thumper I was merely being pedantic over the language being used. But if you’re asking me it’s a sin because they believe that killing a fetus is a the same as killing a person. It’s not a complicated issue.
The flow on effects from a “pro-life” belief do usually tend to lead to bigotry, however. Women are judged and found wanting. The subtext here is that they think these women should not have had sex, because extra-marital sex is blah blah de blah. But that fits the definition of bigotry.
Bit of a stretch if you want to lump misogyny under the banner of bigotry
Misogyny is a specific form of bigotry, surely?
Its just horrifically sexist. Essentially declaring women to be property of lippy nosy guys.
Calling abortion a sin isn’t bigoted it isn’t racist and it isn’t homophobic
wow all that just from calling abortion…a sin? someone has an agenda.
“The church”
Good thing I am Jewish. Jews are actually more pro choice than people that identify as “unaffiliated” according to Pew.
If you believe killing another human is a sin then it’s hard not to see abortion, which is killing a human, albeit at an early stage of development, as sinful. And there is no single church. It is also a non sequitur to conclude that the ‘church’ is bigoted, racist and homophobic simply from their views on abortion. I personally have no problem with abortion until you get to the point when the baby is dreaming which is probably beyond the age at which abortions are conducted.
Wow… this is not an apology. This is not an admission that he was wrong in the past and has changed his views. This is him saying, “I’ve been accused of being less than awesome, so I want to assure everyone that right now, I am, indeed, totally awesome.”
Old British guy may have out of date views, news at 11.
If being over the age of 70 made ignorance droll, Bloomberg would’ve had a much better night.
Nah he would have had to be British to get ‘droll’ out of last night.
You know, that’s actually a fair distinction. Point ceded.
Boy I sure wish we would stop normalizing bigoted and harmful viewpoints like this
Because fuck personal growth huh? Just because Jeremy Irons won’t be a good little boy and self-flagellate in front of you doesn’t mean this isn’t a positive thing. Which do you care more about, him apologizing or him actually being a better person?
Jerry Seinfeld said it best, paraphrasing: “We want to see the grovel. Are you going to grovel?”
Do you think him saying he’s a good person equals him being a good person?
Ok, and what does an apology accomplish in this situation? I guess everyone can check off that box and their feelings are magically healed, but I think his clarification is more important. Maybe his thinking has evolved, maybe he’s full of shit. An apology is pointless either way.
“Ok, and what does an apology accomplish in this situation?”ANSWER: Grist for at least five and no more than 10 thinkpieces and ineffectual online arguments. Thassit.
I mean, plainly stating he’s in line with the non-asshole side of the debate now, is surely a better outcome than the usual “I apologise if anybody was offended by my words which were my personal opinion and not intended to offend so if you were offended jeez lighten up or something.”Is it even possible to make an apologetic statement for something like this? You kind of have to repeat the horrible thing you said, to be genuine. “I’m sorry I said all gays are going to hell and marrying their dads.” Surely putting those words back in your mouth undermines your apology, however genuine you think it it?Even if you just say “I apologise for my past statements” it sort of puts the focus back on the horrible shit you said, which – even the in the context of an apology – will still hurt people all over again. Better to make a statement that only says the non-bigoted, non-homophobic things, I reckon.
“I’ve said some horrible things in the past. I apologize for them, because I’ve since learned from people who know better than me how horrible they are. I’m grateful to them for enlightening me, and I hope they continue to have the patience to help me be better than I am now.”Took me 5 minutes to write that.
Yeah, the acknowledging-your-past approach did not work well for Liam Neeson. That dude was VERY honest about some fucked up past thinking, which he clearly regretted and evolved beyond, but people wanted to burn him anyway.
How is an apology from him any more pointless than a bunch of performative self-serving statements?
Fair point. It’s basically a PR move either way. But speaking of pointless, why is there even a write-up about the sociopolitical opinions of the second best Gruber? I bet Alan Rickman never defended random buttcheek gropes. (Please don’t tell me if he did).
But non-apology apologies, are the best kind of apologies. I know my wife sure appreciates them and gives me all the lovin’ when I giver her an, “I’m sorry it hurt your feelings that I…”
This isn’t even a non-apology. This is you beating your wife, and then the next day telling her you’re totally an ally against domestic violence.
“I’ve been accused of being less than awesome, so I want to assure everyone that right now, I am, indeed, totally awesome.”
/read as Jeremy Irons
“there was a concern that lingering sentiments made him an unfit choice for president.”*checks US election scene*Seems like under current standards comments like that are apparently the ONLY qualifications we look for as a President.
Well, that’s a leap.
*looks at Trump’s record**looks at Bloomberg’s record*Nope, just a shifting of venue.
There are other candidates than Trump and Bloomberg. I just don’t think I’m quite as cynical about every single American.
An old dog learning a new trick does not somehow make the shit on the carpet not there.
Some people clean dog shit off of their carpet, but you do you I guess.
Nah, man, if you fuck up? Fucked. Forever.This, apparently, is how the human mind works. I wonder if “rhetorical absolutes” could be classified as an opioid?
I’m not worried. My robot vacuum cleaner will…oh my god!
I read this as Jeremy Irons deeply scary character in Margin Call during the 4am boardroom meeting.
But what’s his stance on Jeremy’s iron?
He oddly didn’t have one, which makes it Jeremy’s irony.
Jeremy’s ironing is mostly made up of scarves
His 9 iron is much better than his 6 iron.
And speaking in class?
Jeremy’s Iron(clad opinions have changed with time). Also, Alec Guinness=genuine class
Genuine Class
He makes sure to eat a moderate amount of red meat to keep his levels up.
Jeremy’s ironing is delicious.
… legalizing gay marriage could encourage fathers to marry their sons to avoid certain taxation …Excuse me?
WTAF?
I mean they weren’t father and son, but wasn’t there an Adam Sandler movie about this? IIRC they were firemen and everything…
I love when people say things that tell us more about them than whatever it is they’re talking about. Tell me more about how your got here, Jeremy.
Exactly. It’s such a bizarre and tangential argument that it’s almost more obviously homophobic than if he’d straight-up said gay men are sinners.
“Quit whining, you spoiled diaper soilers.” should have been the only response.
“…comments that I have reportedly made in the past.” Classic asshole.
I loved (note: sarcasm) that openly hostile turn of phrase. Reportedly? Dude. They were interviews. You said those things. Then they were reported. Not reportedly. Factually.
Eh, he really didn’t want to be president anymore, remembered how Kevin Hart got out of hosting the Oscars last year, and thought it was worth a try.
A dude who apparently borrowed his fashion sense from Charles Nelson Reilly had qualms about marriage equality? I’m going back to bed.
He apologized for comments (some almost a decade old), says he’s changed his way. There ya go. That’s all ya need. Done. Time to move on.
I mean I don’t care too much about what he originally said, since what he’s saying now is good, but I still roll my eyes out of my head at this “apology.”
Where did he apologize?
As long as we’re piling on Jeremey Irons for his past mistakes: Eragon (2006)
Which is hilarious since he’s pretty much the only redeemable part of that film.
Uh, do you not remember how John Malkovich sits around in a throne room eating scenery and pointing at a giant map for the entire movie AND THEN at the end of the movie he rips open the map and A GIANT FUCKING DRAGON HAS JUST BEEN SITTING THERE THE ENTIRE TIME, CHILLING BEHIND THE MAP.Sorry, I only saw this movie because when it was in theaters my wife and I went to see Casino Royale with a friend and our friend really wanted to see Eragon so we switched theaters to watch it and spent the entire time laughing. I have very fond memories of this goofy, goofy movie and no, I have not seen it since (and I refuse to do so).
Lmfao, I always thought they wasted their opportunity to do something interesting with him. I never read the books, just saw the movie a few times over the years so I honestly have no idea if there was something missing from the movie that should have been there.
Yeah, I think I was outside of the target demographic when those books were being published so my entire knowledge of the series is that one goofy viewing of the film and then reading a few similarly funny reviews of the apparently terrible game adaptation.
Fuck you. That movie’s great.Wait. My bad. I thought you were talking about ‘Dungeons & Dragons.’
I see your Eragon and raise you a Dungeons & Dragons.
Again, he’s probably the best part of that film as well.
The Time Machine.
I will die on the hill that while not being a great film , that movie has a fantastic soundtrack , and the time travel scenes are really well done.
You are crazy, Irons is the most redimable thing in this film, also, a fantastic Elric of Melnibone and sadly, as close we will ever get to an Eternal Champion adaptation., Arioch be praise.
Dungeons & Dragons was far worse by a country mile.
What’s the movie where he wears a big coat?
Jeremy Irons is no John Hurt
Just Butt Hurt.
I’m not a christian, but I’m pretty sure sins are things you don’t like about other people, and really important sins are whichever ones you don’t commit not the ones you do. Which is why religious people are willing to lie cheat and steal while pointing fingers at sinners.Not to mention, not every sin is equal, if abortion is a sin that isn’t a big deal, smoking and drinking are sins, if a religion decides they don’t want to actively encourage or remain completely neutral on people getting an abortion, I don’t see why people think it isn’t the place of a religious institution to decide that…it’s like most of what they do. But that also doesn’t mean it is punishable by death. Also, yes I know I’m not allowed to say this, but there are people in the world who wind up getting an abortion because of their own carelessness. Now, I don’t think a baby is a baby until it is born and lives (and I think it would be ok to abort some people like Stephen Miller today), but I don’t see what’s wrong with that being a sin. Maybe I’m behind the times.
That is a common misconception. Sins are things that affect you and those around you (humans) making life harder. The belief is; your body was created by an all powerful being and thus it should be taken in consideration everything you do to it and put in it. Like wise, you should also consider anything you do with your body (including mind) to someone else. The theology is that no one can sin against god but sins are an affront to god if they affect his other living creations. The only true “sin” against god is mocking his existence. Every evil deed (or sin) is based on hurting yourself and other people. Western “Christianity” sees deeds from a external view (devil made me do it) while Judaism has always been a proponent of personal liability.
For the record, no where in any translation of the bible does a woman choosing to terminate her own pregnancy equal a sin, and I here openly challenge any user to post a bible verse countering exactly what I typed.The sin is what the Catholic Church and later US evangelicals have retranslated from the book of Leviticus, and from a second hand quote from Jesus about knowing people in the womb.You may personally consider a woman choosing to have an abortion a sin, but it is not stated in the Bible anywhere.
No the bible doesn’t. But then Christianity is a Roman appropriation and bastardization of Judaism which they (Roman church) tried to dismantle for 300 years then came up with their own antisemitic religion 800 years later to subvert it some more (thanks Constantine). Judaism, actually talks about abortion in the Talmud (Yevemot 69b). The chapter details certain situations like rape by a slave, miscarriage, or when a baby is a baby (before 40 days). Either way the woman doesn’t have a say – which isn’t good.
Either way the woman doesn’t have a say – which isn’t good.You are being too kind:Yahweh himself has demanded mass abortions at least seven times in the Old Testament.
Either way the woman doesn’t have a say – which isn’t good.
Doesn’t Yahweh break pretty much all of his commandments with impunity? He even coveted Joseph’s wife so hard he knocked her up. And then there’s all the murder.
But then Christianity is a Roman appropriation and bastardization of Judaism which they (Roman church) tried to dismantle for 300 years then came up with their own antisemitic religion 800 years later to subvert it some more (thanks Constantine). Wat?Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, but Christianity didn’t become the state religion of the Roman empire until 380. Where does the 800 years later come into it?
In the Middle Ages, not sure exact dates, the Catholic church assigned a higher penance for having a child out of wedlock than for having an abortion. So, pretty much tacitly endorsing it. Times sure have changed.
You know the internet exists, right?Exodus 20:13 You shall not murderRomans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit
adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not
covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Genesis 9:5And
for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an
accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will
demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
proverbs 6:16-17m There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent bloodMatthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
Personally, I’m not a theist, nor am I “pro-life”. But pretending Christians don’t have a moral leg to stand on is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Your reading comprehension is bad:Noting you posted counters one single thing I earlier wrote – now where in the bible is it prohibited for a woman to end her own pregnancy. No where in the Bible is abortion called murder. No where in the Bible is a pregnanacy equal to the life of another human being.Keep making up crap and saying it applies to the Bible or my original argument: you can’t disprove what I said, at least from the Bible’s actual text without inserting words or making anything up. Even if a man causes it maliciously, it’s a civil dispute, like the book of Leviticus states.Go ahead – do it: post where a woman choosing to end her pregnancy is a sin
“Your reading comprehension is bad:”So is yours.“No where in the Bible is abortion called murder.”Never said it was. But to approximately 1 billion of your fellow human beings, abortion is murder and you’re a hair-splitter. That was my point.
I am cool with my higher power, and I wouldn’t bother to wipe my spiritual ass if half a million clown calling themselves Christians are quoting BS they falsely claim is in the Bible.It’s in the Bible or it’s not and you are making shit up to condemn others. to which I say: GTFOWTBS
You might want to look into exegesis. Most Christians might be drooling idiots, but it still doesn’t give you the right to tell them how their faith works.
See, they ain’t reading the Bible. They’re all about the Bibble.
-The extra ‘b’ is for BYOBB.
I wrongly claimed Captain Splendid deleted a reply: They did not.
I mean…I’d like to see your reasoning. Because if the concept of an unborn child (NOTE: in the period in which it was written, there was no way to determine the vital signs that we use to messily establish “personhood”) isn’t “innocent life” (again, speaking Biblically), I don’t know what is.
It’s nowhere in the Bible. No where and in no translation..Is my stance based on a troll of Christians and the Bible? : no.Is my stance based on hateful trolls calling their selves of Christians who are making shit up, saying falsely it’s in the Bible, and then harming/imprisoning others over a BS standard they call a sin? : probably.
So, to be clear, you’re outright rejecting the Biblical verses the other guy provided? Which are, in fact, Bible verses that speak to the sin of taking innocent life?Dunno man. Reads to me that pride might be fucking with you, if you’re going to disregard direct citation. I’ve read two different versions of the Bible, and have studied the Judeo-Christian concept of good and evil extensively (two theses, FWIW). If I were to post the same citations, would you dismiss them as well?
And note that I’m not saying that the Bible explicitly mentions abortion. It does not, that I can recall. I’m talking about verses that are, logically speaking, fuel for that philosophical discussion.
The Bible has specific civil rules for dealing with abortion in the book of Leviticus.No where does it say ending a pregnancy is taking an innocent life or equal to murder.Nothing he provided deals with Leviticus which directly addresses abortion, therefore he is making up unrelated shit that has nothing to do with abortion as the Bible defines it, as the Supreme Court defines it; and as the laws of the US defines it.Here are the verse: Leviticus 27:6any thing else is a rismade up and added tot he Bible,You can call abortion asin, murder, or whatever, but the Bible has no punishment for a family choosing to end a preganancy.What is laughable is users trying to claim the Bible prohibits abortion at all.Yahweh himself – according to the OT prophets has demanded hundreds of throuands of abortions.My challenge stands – provide me one verse from the Bible that directly prohibits a woman from ending her own pregnancy.You can’t do it without making up unrelated offenses – like calling abortion murder – and you know and Captain BS know it.
You are apparently fragile enough to dismiss my replies though.
*yawn*The sin of fragility; not everyone on the internet agrees with me; I can sit here and blame Kinja, as I thought you had deleted my earlier reply or I can say you deeply hurt me and my priceless Kinja fame by calling me fragile.Whatever penitence you want; either way you still can’t prove that a woman choosing to end a pregnancy is a sin in the Bible, without of course lying that abortion equals murder. It’s nowhere in the book of Leviticus.I got what I wanted: watching someone lie and dance around the fact that no where in the Bible is a woman choosing to end a pregnancy is anywhere near murder.Keep lying; it buries the imaginary sin for which you condemn others under the goofy resentment on which you need to judge other.
“Keep lying”Once again, I can see why you went with “reading comprehension” as your original insult. It’s always projection with you internet tough guys.
Blah, blah, blah. You still can’t provide one single verse where the bible states a woman can’t end her own pregnanacy, you liar.
Of course I can’t, I already admitted to that in the posts you dismissed. For some reason though, you can’t wrap your head around the concept.
Go ahead – repost it. I won’t delete it.You posted 10 verses which talked about murder – not about a woman ending her own pregnancy. No where in the Bible is abortion equal to murder.Keep lying. It’s pretty funny. Your forced birth need to accuse others of murder is pathetic but entertaining.
“You posted 10 verses which talked about murder – not about a woman ending her own pregnancy.”Yup.“No where in the Bible is abortion equal to murder.”No one’s saying otherwise. Which is why I mentioned exegesis. Go educate yourself.“Keep lying.”Randos on the internet accusing me of shit they can’t even prove = fucking pathetic.“Your forced birth need”So, If I’ve already told you I’m pro-abortion, and I’m the one who “lies”, what does that make you?
Someone who has read the Bible cover to cover multiple times.There is no sanction for self-determined abortion in the bible. All the text and repeats of verses that have no mention of a woman choosing to end her own preganancy will not change that fact.There is only a Leviticus mention of a man maliciously harming a woman to abort a pregnancy to go before a judge – no mention of murder; no mention of innocent life, nothing equating to murder.I’ve read the book and yet, here my challenge goes unmet – find a verse, a single verse which says a woman choosing to end her own pregnancy is a sin. Twisting in to knots trying to say otherwise or quoting 20th century made-up “look it’s murder” logic will not change that fact.I hate forced birthers and I hate folks who lie about great spiritual works to push their local, modern and progressive agendas. If either cover your stance, it’s a so what to me; the Bible has never mentioned voluntary pregnancies as sinful.
“here my challenge goes unmet”Cradle that. Maybe it will provide you the warmth your lack of personality and good faith don’t bring you.
Given your clear experience in those areas, I’ll take you at your word.
I think the issue is them deciding life begins at conception, and murder to be a mortal sin. It doesn’t need to be a specific biblical reference to be abortion when those are the parameters. For the record I think both those points are bullshit
It doesn’t need to be a specific biblical reference to be abortion when those are the parameters. For the record I think both those points are bullshitCorrect. If shit were cut and dried, you wouldn’t have had various ecumenical councils convening to decide the particulars.And you don’t have to believe the verses or the teachings to recognize that said verses/teachings – including interpretations thereof – do, in fact, exist. 🙂
Well yeah, I mean it wasn’t really until 19th century medicine and embryology that people even started to really know how reproduction worked, and that human development is basically a continuous process from implantation to dying of old age. Prior to this medical research, most people, even doctors, thought humans were basically not even alive until the mother experienced “quickening” (i.e. noticeable kicking and movement from the baby). Not that I’m a Biblical sholar or anything, but I do know that lots of the old Testament is quite relaxed about killing as a punishment in general. You’re allowed to execute your kids for talking back to you, so an abortion being allowed would hardly be much of a reach.
You understand me very well, Dom.I completely agree that abortion is not a normal and routine part of any family’s goals, but it is completely their choice and their choice alone.For the Bible’s sake, I have mainly one stake: pointing out the insane hypocrisy of forced birth clowns claiming its explicitly in the Bible and condemning other people of murder.If a member of society wants to build a patriarchy built on controlling women’s bodies and forcing them to give birth if sexually active, then just admit it openly.If you want to dishonestly insert crap into a 3-x-times translated collection of bronze age scripts, infallibly condemn others for doing something that is not even listed in those writings, and then hold your garbage dishonest lies as a form of morale superiority….Then GFTOWTBS.
Sounds like we may be confusing a “stance” with a “snarky verbal vomit vomited in the spirit of not giving a fuck.”
It’s good to see that his opinions were not Ironclad.
I guess I always assumed that Jeremy Irons was gay. Huh.
Hey, I’m straight, not a fan of straight marriage.
Nah sometimes you may debate it, but then you remember ohhhh British. Especially true with fancy British folks.
Me too. TIL he’s apparently not. It also doesn’t help that I worked with a gay man for a number of years who looked and talked like Jeremy Irons and he always kept a delectable selection of gourmet snacks in his desk drawer.
“Let me make my views this morning entirely clear on these particular subjects once and for all.” The phrase “once and for all” is so dangerous. It reads like another old white man who is saying “can’t we stop talking about this because it makes me uncomfortable and I’m old?”It’s a process, Jeremy: be open to continued learning.
heard he’s hosting the next Oscars now that the apology is already out of the way
When’s he going to apologize for stealing all that gold from the Federal Reserve Building?
i really love how a womans choice is now more important than the life of a child. we can not get any more amoral now.
I have always felt that Irons’ comments/controversies were taken out of context (same with the sexual abuse, smoking and what he said about Batman v Superman, where the media pretty much highlighted things that were very different to what he actually meant). Having actually read and seen the sources that had the discussions the comments were made in rather than relying on hearsay, I personally (and disagree all you want, it’s just my opinion) have never thought for a minute that he was ever against same sex marriage or that he was misogynistic. And this is coming from a very sensitive person who takes offense easily. I also don’t think he has ever intended to cause offense with what he has said in the past, mostly from nearly a decade plus ago. The sexual harassment controversy was an example of political correctness being taken too far, I can see where he is coming from with that but could have worded it better so that it didn’t mislead people, and the gay marriage comments was when he was responding to an idea put into his head by the interviewer when they were talking about marital laws being too broad and narrow and just questioned any motivation behind it, clumsily. My sister is in a same sex marriage, when she understood the context she and her wife didn’t have a problem and were actually more offended by the actual homophobic comments of Boris Johnson, Jim Davidson and the church. Have I agreed with everything he has said? No, he could have used another example for the political correctness and a case of a confused argument being thought aloud without thinking. And the fathers marrying sons comment was stupid and can see why it was and still is mocked. My feelings on abortion are negative personally, I think that any baby has every right to a life, but do acknowledge that people won’t agree. It is a controversial topic, with strong opinions on both sides. I’m not sure whether Irons was completely negative about abortion and I think he just had reservations of what it would do to the woman long term (it would be different in every case). What he said was not a minority opinion, as scary as that may sound to some. If he left out the comment about the Church’s views on the issue, his argument would have stood better as that was the part that people had issue with, with having never liked pretty much all the Church’s opinions. What it said about same sex marriage recently made my stomach churn in disgust, that was pure homophobia and was blatantly something that couldn’t be misunderstood. I think it depends on the circumstances as well, like if the woman was raped, if the baby had a serious medical condition where he/she would have little chance of surviving, any medical conditions with the woman and the age of the woman. Irons has been right about a lot of things though, he has condemned violence (in a big speech at a film festival after an activist strike), he is right about the negative effects of social media, waste/trash, he recognises the importance of education and is also a patron to many charities where a lot of his money goes. Can see where he comes from regarding the death penalty.Regarding what he said here, I think it was good of him to clarify/reinforce his views on what was addressed, though I wouldn’t say it was modifying or re-assessing as I do feel his initial comments were misconstrued from personal view (sorry, just my thoughts) and that he was not anti-gay in the first place. Now that he has said that, people should make some kind of effort to accept what he said and not talk about it anymore because there are people including me that are sick to death of the controversies being brought up. And he has shown regret in the past, the festival spoke on his behalf when his jury presidency was challenged (hypocritically too in one journalist’s case) and it was said that what he said in those interviews didn’t reflect what he really feels. He did say around the time of the gay marriage comments that he wished he had not said it/buttoned his lip, that’s regret. Also, I don’t think it has been said anywhere in other sources that the statement was going to be an apology as such, just extra reinforcing and that he actually condemned what he said in the past. When he said reportedly, I don’t think he was trying to be an ass like a couple of people already here have called him but merely that he felt and always felt his statements were taken out of context (in a couple of cases too misquoted) and that was his not-so-well-worded way of saying so out loud. I do think this has been blown out of proportion, not helped by that the media and online comments relish vilifying and discrediting him and others with slanderous comments/lies and distortions of the truth at every opportunity (with baity headlines, bad photographs that make him look worse than he actually is, non-existent research and taking one or two comments from big discussions and make it bigger than it actually is), and that Irons deserves a second chance. He has at least acknowledged his mistakes, showed regret and clarified his opinions. That cannot be said for the likes of Katie Hopkins, Jim Davidson, Piers Morgan, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and some others (not to mention the Church and Russia’s attitude for a long time against same sex relationships) who have said far worse than anything Irons has said and not only do not apologise but they refuse to accept what they said was wrong, don’t acknowledge or take responsibility for them. Even shifting the blame on others. Irons has done none of those things from my understanding, ever. Plus, unlike the above, he actually has talent in his profession and was more than qualified for the jury presidency.He has constantly been painted to be an evil-incarnate person, stalked by the media and lied about, by people who actually believe what the media tells them and join in on the act because it seems to be the fashion to hate on celebrities. The more controversial, the easier the target. I have seldom had a problem with how he comes over in interviews, actually love how he is when promoting films and question and answer session and when he hasn’t come over well a lot of the problem is with the interviewer. I follow his Facebook and Twitter fan pages, being a big fan of him as an actor, and know people who have met or know him, and I do have it on good authority to say that Irons is the complete opposite of how he’s portrayed in the media. And I believe them over the press and online trolls that criticise him constantly for what he has said in the past and say things about him and any celebrity actually that are not much better. The press have never been known for telling the truth and twist so much of what people say, just to get money, a story and baity headlines and too many people are not realising that. They are constantly persecuting and stalking the Royal Family for instance, with a lot of lies said about them, and they and online comments drove Caroline Flack (who needed help that she didn’t get and not constant persecution and discrediting) to committing suicide a few days ago. They are not to be trusted and should be boycotted. People do need to take what newspapers and such say with a big pinch of salt and not rely on hearsay to make a false judgement on someone. Irons has his faults but he is not deserving of the slander he gets. Just my opinion, sorry for it being long too and at times irrelevant but I had a lot to say about this and had to get it out of the open. With no offense intended in any way if it comes to that, hope not as I know that I am going out on a limb.
“Now, with that out of the way, let’s move on to the reason I know you’re all here: for me to do a live performance of ‘Be Prepared’!”
comments that I have reportedly made in the past“Reportedly”?No you idiot, you did make them.
The important thing about growing older is recognizing your mistakes in the past and trying to make up for them. Good for you Jeremy!
I suspect that a lot of these comments stem from Jeremy Irons wanting to be seen as kind of an eccentric kook. That’s not an excuse, but a lot of his comments come across as someone thinking he’s an interesting philosopher when really he’s an idiot. The gay marriage comments were just bizarre as much as they were bigoted.
So just to confirm, Jeremy Irons “controversial” statement on abortion that he’s supposed to apologise for was not even that he is personally opposed to it, just that he thinks other people are allowed to be opposed to it?
You left out a few of his other greatest hits, like the time he said he felt sorry for people accused in the Jimmy Saville scandal. And then there was this prize (bolding mine): Paedophilia should be treated as a disease, he says in a BBC interview to be screened next week. But it must also be recognised that children are attractive and that parental love has a “sexual” element.“It is very difficult because children under 16 are immensely attractive,” he says. “Any father will tell you. I think our children have to be protected. But I don’t think we need to have hysteria.”Referring to his family, he describes the difficulties of judging the line between natural affection and paedophilia.“I remember when my son was 12 and he was like a god. He just went through that sort of golden time for about 18 months. I don’t have a daughter but they do the same.“Parental love is sexual. Children practise on their parents. Girls will flirt outrageously with their fathers because they are practising. But we should know that that is practice. Boys will flirt outrageously with their mothers in a different way.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3350939/Jeremy-Irons-critical-of-hysteria-over-paedophilia.html
Whoa, this is like Piers Anthony levels of fucked.
Well this will certain add multiple other dimensions to future viewings of his movies. Like Damage, for example.