What is surprising is that liberals listen to this mini-Mussolini. TVs can be turned off.

Daniel, perhaps you shouldn't comment after more than three martinis?
Anyway, Coulter is part of that new breed of entertainer who is paid to wear the short skirts, smirk and be "outrageous". Like Howard Stern, the advertisers know we thrive on the anticipation. The fact that she gets mentioned here is proof that the Spectacle is so deeply embedded it will take radical surgery to remove it.

I am tempted to troll rate in silence, but I have difficulty in stilling my fingers' voice. You, Mr. Greenberg, are not selective in whom you want dead. Your anger overwhelms any rational security or outright military strategic thinking, and you appear willing to keep the Israeli regional fighting going, to the last Israeli soldier, Palestinian, Lebanese, and any Americans you can get into the regional fight. You have the same kind of irrational offensive spirit of the French high command in 1914, getting your own side slaughtered, admittedly with German casualties, and blundering into a stalemate of mud, blood, and barbed wire.

You are, I trust, ready for action? Do you prefer the Galil, M16A2, M4, or trust the Uzi as better for close-in action? Perhaps you would prefer to be in an AN/TPQ-37 crew, to give the coordinates of massive retaliation to the M270 batteries?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Poor Danny boy. Sounds like the cheese slipped off your cracker. Hold on. The bitterness can be contained with proper meditation or maybe a good therapist would help.

I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.

Not that I want to carry any water for Ann Coulter, who is one of the least appealing "shock jocks" out there and who doesn't even have the virtue of being funny. But the idea that Coulter is wrong about this is, of course, ridiculous.

Many Christians do consider Christianity the "perfection" of Judaism and her statement would not appear outrageous at all to most Christians even today.  The ecumenical ideal of today is a recent phenomenon and is hardly universal.

I generally don't comment on internal US matters since I haven't lived in the US for over 20 years, but since this involves Jewish/Christian relations I feel I can weigh in. First of all, I don't know who Anne Coulter is, but we have to realize that, on the one hand, the US was founded by Christians, (or Deists of a Christian background), and we all know that Christianity is a missionary religion. On the other hand, the US also is an exemplar of freedom of religion. Thus, throughout its history, it has a majority who believe in this missionary religion and yet has proven itself tolerant of other faiths.
A religious believer can believe that his religion is THE TRUTH and yet be tolerant of other religions, feeling that they also represent universal truths, albeit in an inferior form. One can have a deep faith in his religion and its truth (in his eyes) and yet be tolerant of others and their right to be different.
Thus, I don't really have a problem with ideas like those she expressed, as long as she doesn't force others to adopt her faith or discriminate against those who don't. The US has proven that this balance can be successfully held.

Bar K, do us a favor and maintain your commitment not to comment on matters related to the US.

What is MJ smoking? Evangelicals are the staunchest defenders of Israel of any non-Jewish political demographic. They are not anti-Semitic, but they will try and convert anyone to their particular path regardless of their ethnic or religious heritage.

For the record, being pro-Israel in no way exonerates anyone from the charge of anti-semitism.
Rightwing evangelical "love" of Israel is predicated on the conversion of the Jews to Christianity. Those Israelis who don't convert, die.
Even without that, what the hell difference does it make if someone who hates Jews loves the State of Israel. Ann Coulter may indeed love Israel while hating the 6 million Jewish American LIBERALS here.
I assume she's noticed that Jews, like African Americans, never vote for the troglodyte bigots she supports.

Brook Dataski,

Evangelicals are the staunchest defenders of Israel of any non-Jewish political demographic.

Just plain wrong.  Evangelicals in no way advocate for the state of Israel.  What they seek to advance is their own messianic ideal, not Jewish national self-determination.

bar_kochba132,

...we have to realize that, on the one hand, the US was founded by Christians....

Hold the phone.  Some 17th century New World settlements were founded by Christians, but the United States of America was founded by Enlightenment Liberals and has about as much basis in Christian theology as it does in colonial architecture.

Let's not forget all those purple-heart band-aids on the convention floor and what they really say about the limits to how much Republicans "support the troops."

I'm afraid I have to give Coulter a pass here. What she said is really not out of the mainstream of Christian thought. She didn't say he was evil or driven by greed or a Christ-killer or any of that crap. She just said the world would be a better place if he converted. Even invited him to go to church with her.

I've got news for everyone; that's what Christianity says. Nobody who is not a Christian gets into Heaven, unless they lived before Christ or never heard the Gospel through isolation. It's not real clear what happens to these souls, whether they go to hell or just die or something else, but Heaven is out of reach.

That is one of the biggest reasons I made the decision to renounce Christianity. I personally do not beleive God plays games like that.

Now what Coulter did was rude as hell. She embarrassed her host. There was no need to have that discussion. But it's really pretty low on her list of bad behavior.

Oops! Coulter didn’t get Cheney’s memo- Christian Zionists, Neocons and Likudniks are partners, now- nix the Xian-speak… Of course, Coulter’s remarks are anti-Semitic even though they are shaded. She always leaves herself an out like (paraphrasing) "I can't call a certain someone a faggot." But after calling for the slaughter of “ragheads,” snarking that the 9/11 widows were pimping their loved one’s deaths, implying that John Edwards was exploiting his dead son for political gain, and that John Walker Lindh should be executed as a warning to “liberals,” it is hardly shocking.

I do think Mr. Greenbaum might take a lesson from this (and apply it to all of the other issues where the “left is just like the right”). You see, it is generally the right-wing, arch-conservative, authoritarian, nativist-types who slip into hatemongering. And it is not because liberals are all saints and Pollyannas but because it really is part and parcel of the authoritarian mindset and its paranoid cousin.

That Greenbaum and others here can equate the people who have spent their lives fighting racism, gender and class inequality, and gay and minority rights with the people who practice the soft bigotry of, well, soft bigotry and from whose ranks the true extreme racists emerge would be laughable if it weren’t so outrageous.

I can't recall the specifics, but if I'm not mistaken, Coulter was pretty open about her anti-semitism to David Brock, according to Blinded by the Right.

You are correct. The Palestinians do not deserve it. No, the USA does not deserve it either. I am just pointing out (inadvertantly) that the USA will also reap the rewards of their actions. Actions bring about re-actions.

Here is the really bad part. The USA has had a resounding success in Iraq. Just as Israel has had in Palestine. They both create the conditions for terrorists to exist, then use the inevitable attacks to gain their true goals. The USA (neocon) policy in the middle east, hand in hand with the Israelis, is nothing more than a very systematic theft.

By definition, not opinion, both Israel and the USA are fascist countries. Don't call me anti semitic because I fear (through historical precedent) the result that such forms of government bring upon themselves. Did the Germans and Japanese deserve what they got at the end of WWII? No.

There is no justification for Israel. Their actions will bring about a reaction. At present they control it and use it for their own ends, one of which is gaining more territory. I hope it does not, like Germany found out, lead to a similar catastrophe. But I doubt it will change.

Again, you try to cloud the issue. Pull away from the emotions, and look at what is happening. Don't be so quick to label people. If being against the policies of a fascist government and being sorry at the fate they build for themselves (through ignorance and fear) is being anti semitic, then I guess I must be. Sorry, but every time I hear "anti semitic" it is usually coupled with an excuse to destroy Palestine and steal more land. lately. So call me names all you want. It will still come out the same in the end. I'm just an observer.

Coulter: "Christians believe the Old Testament [sic]."

Compare the table of contents in a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures with that of the "Old Testament" in a Christian Bible, and you will find a difference in the arrangement of the books from one to the other.

Christians like Ann Coulter like to cite the Torah to support government prohibition of gay marriage, while they couldn't care less about the dietary or agricultural laws, the violation of which are every bit of an "abomination before the Lord" as the gay sex stuff.  Go figure. 

If you want to find a biblical source for the idea that life does not begin at conception (contrary to the so-called pro-life movement) check out Exodus 21:22.

I'm fuzzy on chapters and verses, but it is written in the Book of Isaiah that "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come"; while it is written in the Gospel of John that "None shall enter the kingdom of heaven but through me."  So much for "perfection" and, while we're at it, so much for the coherent consistency of any so-called "Judeo-Christian" values.

danielus,

There is no justification for Israel. Their actions will bring about a reaction.

A couple of questions asked in good faith, and with genuine interest in their answers.... 

Is there no justification for the national self-determination of the Jews in their historic homeland?  

Do only the Jews' actions have consequences in the region, or doesn't it work that way for other peoples as well?

Blah blah blah --- Anne Coulter doesn't deserve one inch of space here.  But I will say this:  Whatever church includes her in its "fold" says everthing we need to know about that church ! 

"...betraying her faith?"  Faith in what?  The Church of "I Hate Everyone Who Isn't Rich (and white)?"   Disgusting

Jan

While some Christians may say they consider Christianity the perfection of Judaism, a closer reading of the New Testament supports a different view. The NT taken as a whole introduces Christians as new Jews, not perfected Jews. Rather, the NT portrays Christians as Jews and everyone else in need of perfection, and Christ, a Jew, the God man who perfects man by being man and God in unity. The Christian faith is about bringing separated man back to God through the mercy of God.

From there, the NT supports the view that people, whether Jew, Greek, male, female, slave or free are all perfectible through the God man Jesus Christ, by following Him through life, death and the resurrection. One's soul is an open book at the last judgment, and what God looks for is evidence of God's image. What do we know about that image? The NT supports the identification of God as Love, Truth, the Way, and the Life.

Ms. Coulter needs to read Romans. The apostle Paul warned the gentiles that they were grafted in, and could be grafted out should they abandon God. The Jews are understood religiously at that point, not ethnically, for it would be an absurd interpretation considering that the founding Christian disciples and apostles are Jewish saints.

And by the way, perfection is impossible without God working in us, and human pride prevents this. Humility is the queen of virtues, says the Church, as this virtue opens and empties the soul for God rather than keeping him out.

It should also be said that the popular bumper stickers "Power of Pride" and the frequent marketing appeal buzzword in nearly every fictional media is "passion" and these, if viewed through the New Testament are the anti-Christ vices. By association, since Christ is the Chosen of the Chosen to save the world, these vices are anti-semitic as well.

There is good and bad in Danielus' posting, especially when he distinguishes between the actions of a country's government and the consequences for its people. You and I have different opinions of a general right of self-determination of peoples. For Danielus' information, I accept that that Zionists have as much right to claim and defend a national area as the Italians or the Vietnamese or the Irish. Americans of Spanish heritage, however, are not somehow represented by Italians in Italy and the Government of Italy. Americans of Vietnamese heritage, however, are not somehow represented by Vietnamese in Vietnam and a government in Hanoi. Americans of Irish heritage are not somehow represented by the Irish in Eire and the Irish government.

I will make a caveat for Ireland, in that they do have a limited right of return for anyone who can demonstrate at least one Irish citizen grandparent or parent. Ireland had a lesser diaspora, of perhaps a million people during the Potato Famine, roughly 1846 to 1851. I would be amazed if anyone alive today had a grandparent that left Ireland as late as 1851, so there's no long-term historical right of return.

The modern state of Israel has more formal legitimacy than many older nations, in that it was created, in international rather than Zionist decision, by UN Resolution. It was created from former Ottoman territories that had been under British trusteeship. You and I, I believe, have agreed to disagree that the perfectly legitimate Zionist movement is equivalent to the Jewish people. I define the Jewish people religiously and to some extent culturally; you have a broader definition.

That same UN resolution created an artifact that, through various wars, we now call Palestine. Its borders with Israel are those enforced by Israel, and that's not meant in any derogatory sense. Of course, actions of Israelis are not the only ones that have consequences. Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and other nations' actions have consequences.

This is where I come back in a circle to Danielus' statement. When I worked in the US government, our procurement officer, for large technical purchases, was an American proud of his Lebanese heritage. He delighted in reminding us how Lebanese were great traders, and, while he managed to save much money for our agency in incredibly complex but legal deals, felt no more represented by a government in Beirut than I did.

As far as national self-determination, I prefer recognizing peoples and culture. Tonight, I had a sandwich of Italian cold meats, and enjoyed it, but I would have much rather have had a Vietnamese salad roll. After dinner, if I relax to music, I'd greatly enjoy Irish folk. If there were any in the house, I'd love some vanilla (the greatest bean producer being in Madagascar) ice cream with Israeli Sabra liqueur poured over it.

I respect every one of those cultures. I respect the people that live in the countries associated with those cultures, who are different from, but deserve the same respect of Americans who have heritage in that culture. If any of their governments acts irresponsibly, or violates customary laws of land warfare, than individuals of that citizenship have committed a crime, and their government may be responsible.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I really don't see the big deal here.

<>The general Christian belief is that Christianity was built on the foundation of Judaism (the religion, not the ethnic identity).  Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Messiah is God in one of the three ways He exists. Jews do not (although this could depend on your definition of Jew, e.g. whether you consider Messianic Jews to be real Jews).  Therefore, if you believe in either Judiasm or Christianity, you think that those who believe the other way are significantly wrong in some aspect of their theology.  If you believe that what one believes about God is important, obviously you would want the other side to convert to your beliefs rather than continue on in what you see as error.

This is only antisemitic if you see Christianity itself as antisemitic. 

The one strange thing she said was this here:

As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins.

There seems to be the implication here that God gave us the opportunity to save ourselves by living up to the laws, and only when that failed did He send His Son (which is a somewhat metaphorical title; Jesus is an aspect of God) to die for our sins.

In fact, we have been sinful since Adam.  The law was there not because it could save us, but in part to show us how we failed to live up to God's standards and thus could not satisfy God's requirements through our own work (and thus required God to save us).

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

A columnist in the Philadelphia Inquirer recently referred to Ann Coulter as a "walking personality disorder". I think that sums it up pretty well.

I don't consider myself either pro-semitic, or anti-semitic, I'm not even entirely sure what
a semite is, but I know that the word 'antisemitism' was utilized in conjunction
with discussion about the Nazis, so we'll assume
for the nonce that they mean 'jewish'. Ah yes,
the Great Middle Eastern Sob Story, the one
where we throw good money after bad, solving
other people's problems. I don't care WHAT your
religious persuasion is, how special you think
your particular ethnic extraction makes you,
eventually, common sense and reason must prevail.
Curiously, people tend to seem to almost magically discover this forgotten long-lost
trait when left to their own devices for an
extended period of time, and it may well be
that that might just end up turning out to
be the most prudent course of action 'at this
junc-ture'. Why drop people on their butts
in a time of presumed crisis? Because self-
reliance is the ticket to personal and group
salvation in terms of re-achieving independence.
Referencing back to our own revolutionary
war, the founding of the United States, we
even had a little piece of paper that said
'Declaration Of Independence' at the top of it,
which basically told then-king George of England
to take a long walk off a short pier. It's
pretty much been a success story ever since.
I think we should go back to that, and let
a laundry list of other countries throughout
the world do likewise. Or, or, we can watch
Congress burn through ANOTHER trillion dollars
which we have to pay back later, WITH interest,
for no discernible positive gain or change
for any/all parties involved. So, party's over,
sign up with me to help end the Iraq war,
well, it's not MY website, but I added my name,
so can you in about 5 minutes, here's the URL:
http://www.impeachbush.org

Put an end to the war profiteering, give CNN
a break, improve a lot of things for a lot
of people by putting an end to a problem that
sprang from a really bad idea....

To say religion is barking mad is scary. And saying so in the tradition of Dawkins' strawman / overgeneralization fallacies is barking mad. Dawkins advocates taking away the right of families to raise their children in the family faith tradition. In support of taking others' freedom away, he substitutes his philosophy of science, not science itself. He implies that he is the fit parent of religious parents' children. If you're in his camp, Tom, then you're no scientist, you're a popularizer of anti-civil-libertarian philosophy that masquerades as science. It isn't.

Worse than that, Dawkins sets up false views of faith that he attacks with incendiaries that aren't true and aren't in context with reality of billions of individuals and their spiritual lives.

Normally I don't like to give buzz to Anne Coulter by giving more traffic to internet threads on her, unless they are funny ridicule or deconstructing the cynical shtick she does to make a living (she was a troll before there was an internet, for a living. The same rule applies: don't feed her.)

But in this case I make an exception since I know there will be people reading this thread who don't know much about Christian theology except what they read about "fundies" in the news.

The following statement of hers quoted in MJ's post would be nearly heretical nonsense to most Christians, shows total lack of understanding of basic Christian theology, maybe it's some crap from some kind of fundie cult, I have no idea where she's getting it:

"No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament...."

I'll give the version most Christians are taught in grade school, no need to get into details since Ms. Coulter doesn't even seem to know the basics: The New Testament is called the New Testament because it is the new law, superceding the old! Christ came to bring the new news, the new law. The Old Testament is merely an artifact for most Christians, it's not the law, an artifact which they might study to seek messages, concordance, about the savior's coming. The New Testament is the new "law" for Christians, Christ the messiah's words. The Jews are still waiting for the predicted messiah, they still follow the Old Testament law.

She's basically awfully ignorant about her expressed religion, at a most basic level to be arguing this way.

These excerpts from a simple "allexperts.com" entry about dietary laws which I got from a quick google will serve as well as anything else as one small example, Christ's coming throwing out the old laws:

The Old Testament is filled with hundreds of dietary and other laws, some of them specific to the culture of the times and some of them obviously sound in any culture....Many of these prohibitions are sound by modern standards while others are questionable in the sense, that some "experts" today question whether or not they have value--there is no particular proof that they don't have value. A good example of this is circumcision...

The New Testament specifically says that if we have asked forgiveness from God using the name Jesus, then "we are not under the law, but under grace" and that "nothing is to be refused" (in reference to food and drink) if taken with thanksgiving. Eating pork, which apparently Paul and others of the New Testament engaged in from time to time, was probably viewed by them as a liberating experience against their own strick Jewish culture and heritage.

The bottom-line seems to be according to both Paul and Jesus is that eating or refraining from eating certain types of food and drink is of minimal importance when compared with things that do matter, such as practicing Human Rights by loving our fellow human beings and searching for the truth....

P.S. I threw in the circumsion part in my paste cause that's another example. Christians can be circumcised or not, whichever they want, there's no law fer/agin, the practice of it or not is entirely according to local culture.

Modern medicine could help her. If she could just get laryngitis and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, she could contribute...something...by sitting around in one of her dominatrix outfits unable to say anything.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

uprated for the perceptive ad hominem. i am also drinking. cheers!

I think there is a major misunderstanding of the issues involved due to the failure to conceptually differentiate between Jews as an ethnic group and Jews as adherents to the Jewish religion. There is, of course, a large overlap here due to the fact many people that belong to one group also belong to the other, which causes the two groups to get confused. But they are separate entities.

A person can be an atheist and still be and ethnic Jew or even a Christian and still be an ethnic Jew, as was the case with St. Paul and all the apostles.

On the other hand, one can be an adherent of the Jewish religion and not an ethnic Jew, as was the case with Sammy Davis Jr.

Anti Semitism is prejudice directed against ethnic Jews, not against the Jewish religion. Therefore, for example making disparaging remarks about Jesus or St. Paul, who were ethnic Jews, is anti-semetic.

On the other hand, if a militant atheist makes disparaging remarks against the Jewish religion, whether he is Jewish or not, he is not being anti-semetic.

What Ann Coulter said was directed against the Jewish RELIGION and not against ethnic Jews and therefore was not anti-semetic. Therefore one should not be surprised that she did not criticise Israeli policies on the west bank, which has to do with ethnic Jews. (After all an ethnic Jew who is an atheist can be entitled to live in a West Bank settlement.)
As a matter of fact she most likely supports the Christian Zionist postition that Israel should have all of Palestine.

This is probably the first time I have ever defended this obnoxious hate mongering woman. But the charge of anti-semitism agaist her in this case is in error due to the failure to differentiate between ethic Jews and the Jewish religion.

I have another theory/comment to add, here, and
that is that D(ann) is trying some of the old
triple-reverse-whammy-with-a-half-twist cereal
box psychology to drum up some support for
the whole Jewy thing with her faux criticisms.
Nah, politicial pundits who freely admit they're
nothing more than sock-puppet neo-con shills
compensated by BushCo would NEVER resort to THAT
kind of crap....nooooo.....keep digging along
in that same vein, and you have to start asking
questions about the genesis/funding for the
'environmental movement', Mencia's 'beaner' jokes, and the resurgence in racism stuff in
general, and while we're at it, let's take A
Closer Look at all these people that've found
Religion(R) in the meantime...
No, no, say it isn't so, people in politics NEVER lie, what EVER could you be
saying/thinking? These people are
of the HIGHEST moral caliber...they'd never
stoop to knifing their peers in the back for
a measly 20 bucks, literally or figuratively, or advocating for a war so they can cram their pockets full of promissory war dollars...LOL

Actually, the responses here are pretty good and enlightening.

Religion and science are, in most cases, parallel kinds of knowledge. There is a great deal of useful philosophy that comes out of religion, but doesn't require the acceptance of specific theology. Offhand, I'd mention the formative work on Just War Theory of Augustine of Hippo and the further ethical work of Thomas Aquinas that addressed Just War, but also has an immense role in bioethics. For me, in a special category, is the work of Pierre Teilhard du Chardin, who, while both a qualified priest/theologian and paleontologist/geologist, did not believe science and religion needed to be in conflict; that they were essentially parallel.

It's very hard to encapsulate one's personal spirituality in a few words, but while I have trouble in accepting a singular personal deity, I feel a shared experience in certain neopagan traditions, but with a strong flavor of Jung and Maslow, with a dash of Michael Harner. That being said, with all respect, if there is a singular conscious deity, I would hope, in all the meanings of that word, that such deity is much like Teilhard proposed.

I always find it amusing to compare the current "Intelligent Design" movement with Teilhard's The Phenomenon of Man, which deals with a model created by what some might call an Artist, but certainly an intelligent, if not personal, deity.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"...her statement would not appear outrageous at all to most Christians even today."

I think you are misinterpreting Christianity. The statements she made only appeal to the wingnuts and, although they call themselves Christians and evangelicals, they most certainly are not; they are only a political tool.

As for Her saying our law is "Christ died for our sins", she apparently never went to Sunday School or at least was absent when this text was discussed:

"One of the scribes asked him, 'Which is the first of a1l the commandments?' Jesus replied,The first is this: 'Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with al1 your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." Matthew 12: 28 to something

Captain Video,

I think there is a major misunderstanding of the issues involved due to the failure to conceptually differentiate between Jews as an ethnic group and Jews as adherents to the Jewish religion. There is, of course, a large overlap here due to the fact many people that belong to one group also belong to the other, which causes the two groups to get confused. But they are separate entities.

To an extent.  I tend to agree with your overall point, but would add that such distinctions over a history as long as the Jews' are bound to frustrate and confuse (I think it was Sartre who said that medieval and modern philosophy are distinguished by the predominance of essence or existence, respectively).  When the Jews last lost their political sovereignty in ancient Israel and Judea, the rabbinate emerged (albeit over time, and not without conflict) as the people's government-in-exile.  Such a leadership model, spanning as it does across ancient, medieval and modern historiography, is bound to blur the lines we have grown accustomed to distinguish between the ethnic/national and religious components of Jewish identity.  Further, like any peoples, Jews as a unit will tend to fray the further one travels from its core (for lack of a better imagery).

emmons,

And what about colonial architecture?

What I mean by that is that the religious faith of the founders is about as relevant to their Revolution as their architectural preferences, if for no better reason than they had made the conscious and responsible choice to avoid religious tests to qualify for US citizenship or its leadership.  Similarly, you can live in a victorian frame house or an art deco apartment building without having your citizenship or patriotism called into question. 

Liberals may presently be taking it on the proverbial chin in America, but that does not alter the historical and political fact that the professing of any religious faith is irrelevent to American ideals, nor does it relieve us of the responsiblity for the necessary vigilance to sustain them.

I think it is very important for people to hear about Coulter's moronic and certainly, IMHO, unChristian comments.

It is especially important for those on the right who (whether Jewish or Christian) do not believe this sort of garbage. Why? Because that is what most of today's American "conservatives" believe. The difference between Coulter and most of those folks is they aren't dumb enough to actually say it even though it is their heartfelt belief.

It is important to confront so-called "conservatives" who claim not to be a part of the radical right with the plain fact that if you associate with the right in any way, shape, manner or form you are in league with precisely these sorts of people. In a different era many of them would have been secret, or perhaps not so secret, members of the German Bund, the John Birch Society, the American Nazi Party, and/or the Ku Klux Klan.

That is why I am genuinely glad that she said this and I would hope that more of her ilk would come out of the closet and put their sickening bigotry and repugnant beliefs, in all their ugliness, on full display.

The reality is that today's American conservative is a hateful, bigoted, ignoramus whose level of thought is no more advanced than the typical brownshirted thugs in Germany prior to 1933. Our side needs to start talking about them in these harsh terms so that there can no longer be any mistake about who or what we are dealing with. That today's "conservatives" are overwhelmingly this sort of person with these kinds of beliefs ought to be of concern to every decent human being in this country----not only the Jewish community.

This is not what Christians believe anymore than "Christians" believe adulterers should be stoned. Universalist Christians completely reject this point of view for example.

Literalists and those who believe in fundamentalism do believe this kind of crap, but many Christians understand that men, not God, wrote the Bible and that all of the writings of the Bible are, of course, flawed.

Many Christians understand that the hocus pocus, fairy tale stuff in the New Testament is just that and has to be understood in the context of the time it was written and so forth. The dogmatic insistence of the New Testament on salvation only being through Jesus is nothing but a product of it's time IMO. I might add that goes for the rest of the Christian dogma in the New Testament as well. Truth is not dogmatic.

You have to discern what content in the Bible is of value in today's world and in one's life and what content is a product of it's time that should be ignored or discounted. There are some universal truths in the Bible and there is some bullshit whether in the Old or New Testaments. This is nothing new. Calvin believed that Revelation shouldn't even be included in the Bible and thought it worthless. This is terribly ironic given the strong emphasis on and how preoccupied so many modern day Calvinist types are with that book, but there you are.

I certainly can understand and respect your decision to reject Christianity on the basis you state, but millions around the world of very faithful people who are Christians do not believe in that kind of Christianity. This is something that has been debated and argued since the early days of Christianity and is by no means accepted by all Christians as truth or even valid.

Thus, I do not give Coulter or anyone else a pass on holding and spreading this sort of ignorant, bigoted, dogmatic belief.

I don't consider myself either pro-semitic, or anti-semitic, I'm not even entirely sure what a semite is

For what it is worth 'Semite' is a generic term which covers most people in the Mideast including Arabs. It derives from the notion that all peoples of the world are descended from one of Noah's three sons Shem, Japheth, and Ham. Details on the Intertubes.

On the other hand 'anti-semitic' is a term that is specific to Jews, the only putatively semitic people widely resident in medieval europe. Generically it mostly derives from Christians imposing collective responsibility on Jews for the Death of Christ (which given the central tenets of Christianity is kind of odd, Christ being born precisely so that he would die and in so doing save humanity, then again most anti-semites are not that bright) and got tied into some other concepts like 'blood libel' and 'greedy moneylender' and in the end led to the Holocaust.

There is a sea of history out there, it wouldn't hurt a bit to dip your toes in it.

Well I suggest someone needs to reread the Book of Joshua (sixth book of the Old Testament). It makes for some disturbing reading (particularly when read in the context of the Holocaust). It very explicitly makes the case for both Jewish exceptionalism and eliminationism with Joshua and his people marching from city to city in the 'Promised Land' killing everyone man woman and child except for the one city whose inhabitants were saved to serve as slaves (Josh 9:27 'Hewers of wood and drawers of water').

I suppose one could reject Joshua altogether but you can't accept it and reject the concept of 'chosen people'. The story is set down in black, white and red. And really no one is in a position to make a claim about God's partiality 'Such is certainly not the case'. On what basis of authority could you make that claim?

And I don't even want to touch the kind of historicism behind Jews and Christians being historical 'failures'. It is hard to see a theological case for God's choices to be wrong to start with, with Noah being a possible exception (God deciding to take a Mulligan and start over).

"The lovely Ann Coulter"?  M.J., that's like writing "The lovely brain-eating amoeba."  I know, I know...you wanted to rattle us.

Neoboho

uprated because of the niggling downgrade. The ratings should be abolished. They are pointless.

I doubt that Israel would be annihilated if the USA withdrew suppport given that Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons. These weapons are not good for much except for deterring threats to the existence of a nation. This is why they are not apt to give them up.

Daniel, many posters here have suggested that Israel is asking for it -- in some cases for actions taken now and in some cases for the audacity to provide a home state for the one major religion that doesn't dominate in any other location. You triggered the accusation that you are antisemitic by suggesting that because the Germans hated the Jews this showed that the Jews did something which triggered the Holocaust. Classic blame the victim. The Holocaust was not about the individual behavior of the Jews: eradication applied also to those who were fully Christianized but had a Jewish grandmother who they didn't even know was Jewish. Holocaust studies should be a branch of Germanic studies as to what went wrong with the German culture to allow this to occur.

When some people talk about Israel stealing land they are referring to the current border disputes and the current settlers. Others refer to the initial establishment of Israel out of a piece of the then Ottoman Empire remains as ratified by the UN.

Try looking at it from the point of a Jewish parent in Nazi Germany.

1. I have been living in what I thought was one of the most culturally advanced countries in the world.

2. They propose to kill me and my chldren and eradicate my culture.

3. Where shall I flee and whom shall I trust?

4. I see that many who attempted to flee to America are turned away.

5. If I flee to Palestine I can help establish a country to protect both my chldren and my culture but I will need to displace the people currently there.

6. So, what is more moral -- shall I let myself and my children perish and my culture vanish or is it a lesser evil to push another people off part of their land?

It's supernaturalism that's bad.

Dan...we hardly knew ye.

It's also important to understand, I think, that within Judaism "the Jewish people" is a religious concept--it plays a central role within Jewish theology. It was the Jewish people who received/heard the Torah. It was the Jewish people who had a mission to be a light unto the nations.

But the Jewish people were always "just people" and thus have had a history, language and culture.

Generally speaking, it isn't important to Christians to know Greek, though that was the original language. It tisn't important to them to know Aramaic, even though that was Jesus' native tongue. And for Protestants, it isn't even important to know Latin. There is no, or little, spiritual gain to be had in learning those languages.

The words of the NT speak in any language just as well--Jesus' original message comes through.

It is a much different story for Jews and Hebrew.

Government exists in large part because people do evil to one another or neglect certain social duties. It is precisely because of this lack of human trustworthiness that people hear the gospel of repent and follow Christ within a supernatural government in which no one except God has ultimate authority.

This site's content frequently centers around conflict over trustworthiness of our fellows. A belief in supernatural God recognizes a greater Personal possibility not evident in what we now are, and a greater cause and existence behind the universe to which it is possible for man to journey. Counterintuitively to this world of taking and taking credit, it begins with humility and giving.

I don't claim a faith but yours seems like a very limiting definition to me.

How about this definition?
Christian= One who follows a creed or philosophy inspired or guided by the New Testement, or by the story of Jesus as otherwise related.

"All Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, by definition. "Christians" who do not believe this are not Christians. I would also argue that "Christians" who fail to accept the divinity of Jesus (and the concept that He and the Father are one, as opposed to Jesus being a separate divine being) are not really Christians either. I mean, "Christian" has to mean something other than "calls himself a Christian."

Well we differ. Unitarian/Universalists are clearly part of the Christian Tradition, but they would never agree to the Messiah idea. Most of the Transcendentalists would not agree precisely. Quakers would not really agree, though some would and others would not, and they would find a way to reach consensus without resolution in the interests of conflict resolution.

These are not Majority Christian positions, but they are well grounded in American History and culture. Time to explore them.

Captain Video.

Anti Semitism is prejudice directed against ethnic Jews, not against the Jewish religion.

I can’t say I’m knowledgeable on this subject, but this black and white definition of anti-Semitism just strikes me as incomplete. Of course, racism and tribalism usually is about a whole continuum of cultural differences, religion included. And anti-Semitism has often been of a different nature than racism in other cases. It seems like racism against Jews has often come in the form of scapegoating instead of direct imperialistic exploitation as with many other ethnicities. But I don’t think that , historically, Jews that converted to the religion of their various occupiers were subject to persecution, which argues for a religious motivation.

The simple fact of sentiments like “Jesus-killer” seems to undermine the proposition that it’s only ethnic. White supremacist groups are often Christian-based. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition involved attacking Jews and were religious events. Still, most anti-Semitism today is probably ethnic or tribal first and foremost, but even ethnically motivated racism will include religious aspersions.

Therefore one should not be surprised that she did not criticize Israeli policies on the west bank, which has to do with ethnic Jews.

Even given your assumption that anti-Semitism isn’t about religion, I don’t see how this follows. Criticizing Israeli policies anywhere isn’t of itself anti-Semitic. But as far as Coulter is concerned, she has made more blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past, every couple of years it seems. I don’t know what’s in her heart (it can’t hold much) but I imagine her whole philosophy is a combination of cultural, religious and political promotion rolled in a big ball of white-trash ignorance, fear and scandal-mongering. IMHO.

Well, if there's no evidence something is true you can't claim it's true because you wish it was true for covenience sake. If there's no evidence supernaturalism is true then the only way you can have people believe it is to teach them to think uncritically. Then you have a declining society because people can't think and are more easily deceived by a charlatan such as Bush.

Re: If she had said that Christianity were no better than, or worse than, Judaism she would have been betraying her faith.

She said a bit more than just that. I can say that I think Pepsi is superior to Coke without saying that Coke should be eliminated and everyone should drink Pepsi.

It's telling, isn't it?, that the Christian downraters drop their bombs and slink away without even attempting to refute one word. Big Religion depends on unthinking, ultra-loyal drones such as them to perpetuate its policies of murder and enforced penury on the bulk of humanity.

Thanks for the examples of religious behavior, Devon and Xeno!

I agree that Daniel Green is one sick puppy. I disagree that he should be banned.

Unless I occasionally read his type of hatred, I fear that I often forget there there is more native hatred in America than just simple anti-Black Race hatred. As Coulter demonstrated, the two hatreds are associated, but they are not always the same thing.

A few years ago I worked for a guy I liked and respected a lot (rare among my bosses) and I learned that he had two strong passions. One was for his Jewish religion, and the other was for conservatism. That seems to me to be a major contradiction, since conservatism in Texas is also Coulter-style Racism and Antisemitism.

I suspect that Alan was able to deal with the contradiction because conservatives avoided expressing their Antisemitism around him. Alan really needed Daniel Green to explain conservatism to him.

Dan makes it a lot more difficult to compartmentalize economic conservatism away from the Racist and Antisemitic hatreds that fuel conservatives.

An excellent point about the Yiddish cultures and their contributions, given that Harry Golden is among my favorite writers. It's significant, I think, to note that the first edition of his book, The Joys of Yiddish, was revised as The Joys of Yinglish, to better describe the cultural interactions.

I've probably mentioned it before, but I prefer the more recent "salad bowl" metaphor to the older "melting pot". Melting pots were homogeneous, where a salad has distinctly identifiable elements that contribute to a greater whole. I am made uncomfortable, however, when the elements are rigidly separated. If ever we are both in Virginia, I'd like to take you to a favorite self-service restaurant in Falls Church, the Bamboo Buffet. It seems perfectly reasonable that they have serving tables for more exotic Chinese dishes, pizza, Vietnamese, American-Chinese, sushi, Korean, and "classic American". I mix eclectically; when I was in Japan, my only request to my hosts were that it had to be dead and no fugu, please.

I'm wandering a bit, but creative wandering is very hard to avoid when one thinks of Harry Golden. There are blurs between assimilation in the melting pot and places like Bamboo Buffet. Our disagreements about Israel being the home of the Jewish People, I think, come to a cusp right here. I see the Yinglish as part of America, just as I once went to a classical Mexican restaurant in New York, to find, on the appetizer page, "Genuine American Nachos, adapted for the Mexican palate."

Colin Powell is far more fluent in Yiddish than I am. When in such situations, I speak my fractured German, with random Yiddish expressions, and hope to be understood.

It's not even fair to say there is a Jewish-American people, as opposed to a Jewish people that seeks national self-determination in Israel. Some posters have spoken of how Israel became a haven for survivors of the Holocaust, and that few refugees were allowed into the US, both being true.

When I look at, for example, the contributions of Yiddish culture to the broader American culture, I see a multicultural salad bowl in which most Jews don't need to have another form of self-determination. As I've said before, I accept Israel, in no derogatory way, as the place where people believing in Zionist self-determination do create a nation -- but are not universally representative of the Jewish people.

When one comes to the peculiar culture, or set of related cultures, of America, was it Louie Armstrong who said that if you had to have jazz defined, you wouldn't get it?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The Soviet Union discouraged and in some cases persecuted ordinary organized religion; the state did not abolish it.

Abolishing religion is as likely as abolishing drunkeness. If either were to happen, though, people would surely continue to find reason to kill each other. But they would have to be more honest about their motives for doing so.

Call me a bigot, then.

But first, you might want to dispute my assertion that the named religions normally and regularly exploit every opportunity to persecute outsiders.

Demonstrate to me, if you wish to label me, how I am wrong to point out the similarity between religious and tribal xenophobia.

Show me how Ms. Coulter's attitudes about non-Christians are rebuked and disowned by most of the faithful hypocrites who equate atheists with cannibals.

Otherwise, please spare us your unctuous sanctimony and refrain in the future from displaying your posterior to folks who prefer to think rather than believe the absurd.

I agree that people will always find reasons to kill other people for their own greedy purposes. 

However, I think those same selfish narcissists will have a hard time convincing young people to strap explosives to their bodies and detonate themselves on a bus full of children without the promise of a reward after their deaths (oh, and just for good measure, a second promise that all the dead children are martyrs for the just cause and will ALSO go to heaven -- have they NO SHAME?).  I mean, who but religious leaders promise 70 virgins if you just kill a bunch of innocents?  How else could such shit be justified?

And where would our very own fearful leader be without calling his many, many enemies "evil?"  How would he be able to convince normal young people from Iowa to go and kill in a foreign land for oil and Halliburton  if he didn't make constant references to god (oh, and 911, which is his latest religion?)

Yes, bad people will always kill for their own selfish reasons, but convincing others to do their killing requires manipulating the faith of the herd; there is no substitute for lack of objective thinking if you want to make one part of a population feel all-powerful against another (eg Hitler and Stalin) or if you just want to invade another country to make yourself and your pals richer and richer.

Jan

Al Sharpton is not at all in the same sty as Ann Coulter.  He has backed some bad horses in his day, but he is an articulate and witty person.  Ann spouts only venom; as you said she thrives on audacity and nastiness. 

I really enjoy hearing Al Sharpton debate; he is knowledgable and brings an interesting point of view to the discussion.  He can actually talk to people he disagrees with without insulting them.

Ann is only about insults and threats.  She is even lower than Sean Hannity, and is just about the same (bottom-feeder-wise) as Rush L.

Jan

Jan,

I agree, he's quick witted, mostly well informed and entertaining in any debate or interview. I attribute this to his confidence that he can't hurt himself with his constituents, so he can say things others in public life would be reluctant to say.

Over the last 3 or 4 years I thought Sharpton finally matured enough (had enough money and fame?)in that he didn't need to hustle anymore, but then I saw him revert to form in the Jena Six story. He was back hustling again. I was disappointed in him.

Tankard,

And we would, of course, relegate the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" to the dust bin of History.

Re: But first, you might want to dispute my assertion that the named religions normally and regularly exploit every opportunity to persecute outsiders.

I do dispute it. "Every" opportunity? Well maybe if "every" is equal to some number less than 1%. Most of the times religions are peaceful and decnt. Every now and then some nutcase or demagogue uses religion to further his own ends and yes, then, a great deal of evbil is done in the religion's name.

Re: how I am wrong to point out the similarity between religious and tribal xenophobia.

Christianity and Islam (and throw in Buddhism too) are multi-ethnic religions. At their best their preach a human universalism which transcends the narrow loyalties of tribe and nation. Yes, there is such a thing as religious natiionalism (for good examples see today's Iran, 16th Century Spain, WWII Japanese Shinto) but this is the exception not the rule.

Re: Show me how Ms. Coulter's attitudes about non-Christians are rebuked and disowned by most of the faithful hypocrites who equate atheists with cannibals.

???
I have never heard anyone equate atheists with cannibals. Though I would not be surprised if Ms Coulter had lobbed that bomb. The woman is a loon-- and I do my best to avoid listening to her meaningless babble. I am more likely to receive sensible communications from my cats than from her and her ilk. And yes, I very much doubt that the average Christian shares her views, just as I doubt that the average Muslim shares the views of bin Laden and company. Again, don't tar the whole group with the wrongs of the few. This is indeed bigotry and it stinks.

Re: Otherwise, please spare us your unctuous sanctimony and refrain in the future from displaying your posterior to folks who prefer to think rather than believe the absurd.

Blind hatred and unthinking prejudice are evil in all their fornms. If that's an absurd view then I guess I'll just have to be absurd.

I don't claim a faith but yours seems like a very limiting definition to me.

Of course it is.  That's the point of definition, to limit who is put under a particular label.  If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, he should be happy to call himself something other than Christian.  Otherwise, why can't I define myself as black (although I am, as far as I know, of completely European ancestry) and claim qualification for scholarships from the UNCF?

Trying to expand the definition of Christianity is simply a way to try to make the term meaningless.  Once you deny that belief that Jesus is the Messiah is necessaryt to be Christian, the next step, of course, of the definition game will be to read the people out of Christianity who actually believe Jesus to be the Messiah, if they are not in keeping with the liberal "Christian" beliefs.  For example, an atheist can be considered a Christian, but someone who opposes gay rights or feminism will be considered un-Christian, or "Christianist," or some other term.

I will not accept the inversion of a word's actual meaning, which is the real goal here.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

"Every" opportunity?
You got me there JPF. I'm sure that Popes and their ilk have missed as many as 4 or 5 opportunities to repress, exploit, and generally make life miserable for both their followers and their enemies over the past 3000 years. Pick a nit or two, why don't you?

Most of the times religions are peaceful and decnt.
Most of the time, serial rapists are peaceful. I will have to do more research to determine whether they are decnt, since I am not familiar with the word.

a great deal of evbil is done in the religion's name.
Finally, you get something correct. That is, if evbil is anything like evil.

Christianity and Islam (and throw in Buddhism too) are multi-ethnic religions.
This is twice you have attempted to change the subject. It won't work. I didn't say that religion was necessarily nationalistic or directly tribal. I said it was equivalent, a proxy for, the modern analog to tribalism.

Yes, there is such a thing as religious natiionalism (for good examples see today's Iran, 16th Century Spain, WWII Japanese Shinto) but this is the exception not the rule.
Good examples, but you omitted the most obvious instance: 21st century America.

I have never heard anyone equate atheists with cannibals.
Really? Even though you are nit picking again to avoid the point, let me help you out:
Here's one

Here's another

Here's another

It took 30-seconds on Google to find these, but of course you wouldn't bother to check out the facts. As long as you believe what you say, it's true, whether it contradicts manifest fact or not, right?

How many religious leaders have renounced Ms. Coulter's attacks on liberals, Muslims, atheists, and Jews? None. Count 'em. None. (It was your boy, Archbishop Thomas Becket who said, "It is a proverb among the people of our nation, that 'silence looks like assent'.") They may privately cringe at having such a despicable ally, but they depend on her, Rush, Hannity, Beck and the like to keep the non-Christians cowed. And of course, it works.

Blind hatred and unthinking prejudice are evil in all their fornms.
Which is precisely the argument for avoiding religion and religious zealots.

I guess I'll just have to be absurd.
Sadly, I guess you will.

OOOOPS. Would you convey apologies for my mental slip to Mr. Rosten, via, of course, H*y*m*a*n K*a*p*l*a*n? Brain slip. Both are wonderful writers.

There were a variety of factors in the destruction of the European Jews. Part of that, perhaps, was both a sense of being a "good citizen", but also a lack of a certain training. You may remember that two men were key to the revolt at Treblinka, and one, Zelo Bloch, had been a Czech military officer. I don't have my references at hand, but when Bloch would despair in planning the revolt, not because it was suicidal but because he didn't see how to carry out details, one other key man -- IIRC Rudi Masaryk -- always strengthened his will.

Historical discussions, usually lubricated by beer, are popular with soldiers and military analysts. I remember one where "what if it happened here" came up. I'm not trying to make one of those NRA "they can have my gun when they pry in out of my cold dead fingers" arguments, but the consensus was that if Nazis came to deport here -- and yes, I'm fully aware of Stanley Milgram's studies -- there would be effective resistance, not by Jews alone, and not with guns alone.

You are correct that the European Yiddish-speaking community was destroyed, but I contend that a viable variant continued here. There was much more assimilation and intermarriage, but the contributions to American culture were immense.

I think I am correct that it was Golden, not Rosten, who said, after Barry Goldwater was nominated in 1964, "I always knew the first Jewish President of the United States would be an Episcopalian." There are multiple levels to that line, many worth analyzing.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

MJ, it occurs to me that Coultergeist's conversion fantasy is the flip side of her and her ilk's fear of Islam--that the 'other side' is just itching to do to Coulter et al what the batshit xtian fundamentalists dream of doing to Jews and other 'non-believers.'

Traditional Islam does not promote proselytization; though there are plenty of historical examples of forced conversion, I think a quick look at the contemporary landscape, and the amount of money and resources spent by xtian missionary groups around the world will show this to be a very one-sided affair.

Al Sharpton does not have any money. He pays no taxes, everything he collects is a charitable donation. Maybe he has changed since this 2000 article in the NYT, but I have no reason to think so.
Asking How Sharpton Pays for Those Suits; Case Offers Glimpse of His Finances

He says he owns no suits, but has ''access'' to a dozen or so. He says he owns no television set because the one he watches in his home was purchased by a company he runs. He says he has no checking accounts, no savings accounts, no credit cards, no debit cards, no mutual funds, no stocks, no bonds, no paintings, no antiques. The only thing he admits to owning is a $300 wristwatch and a 20-year-old wedding ring

Opinions vary on whether Sharpton is a racism hustler. But there is little question that he is a tax cheat. He simply launders it all through his production company.

Rev. Als Productions is the vortex of Mr. Sharpton's fiscal universe. It appears to act as his corporate alter ego, although Mr. Sharpton seems intent on divorcing the company from the man who controls and owns it.

The company, he says, pays part of his rent and all of his utilities for the family home on Ditmas Avenue in Flatbush, Brooklyn. It bought some of his furniture and a couple of his business suits. It pays for most of his telephone calls. He says it now pays the $15,000 tuition for each of his two young daughters who attend the prestigious Brooklyn private school Poly Prep Country Day School.
Imagine what he would have done if actually elected mayor?

Well I am not a believer either but I think you are overgeneralizing here.

The Ten Commandments are hardly "rockbottom basic universal values". Hindu's would have a pretty hard time with the First Commandment, while personally I neither keep the sabbath (I am on my way to have a couple of beers and watch football) nor particularly take care not to take God's name in vain (I capitalize it for style reasons alone). And lots and lots of people fall pretty short on the 'idol' and 'covet' fronts.

Yet Christians take it pretty seriously, just look at how ballistic they go when people challenge monumental versions on public grounds.

And while "the rite of baptism serves as the main signifier of one's acceptance of Christ's new "law" over the old law" may be a reasonable description of those sects that practice adult baptism, it seems an odd way to describe infant baptism, even indirectly via the Godparents.

Its not particularly important, I just don't think most Christians would draw that stark a line, even among Southern Baptists. The things they tend to get worked up about (evolution, gay marriage) all are fundamentally Old Testament issues.

...even among Southern Baptists. The things they tend to get worked up about (evolution, gay marriage) all are fundamentally Old Testament issues.

As a former southern baptist, I can say that you left out a biggie :(at least it was a biggie in the 50's):

DANCING!!!!!!!!!!

Joke: 

Why don't Baptists make love standing up?

So no one will think they are dancing! 

Jan

Howard,

You are correct that the European Yiddish-speaking community was destroyed, but I contend that a viable variant continued here.

Yes, but my point remains that the American Jewish community was powerless to intervene against the destruction of European Jewry.  Together with the British White Paper of 1939 restricting emigration of European Jews to the yishuv in Mandatory Palestine, these circumstances amounted to an unprecedented level of support for Zionism among diaspora Jewry due to the increasing consciousness of the unsustainability of ongoing Jewish statelessness.

I agree that in WWII, the American Jewish community was powerless to intervene against the destruction of European Jewry, except indirectly by the destruction of the Third Reich.

Today, the situation is reversed. If some arbitrary "Q-bomb" went off and removed every Jew in Israel and surrounding territories, the American Jewish community again could not physically intervene, but I cannot conceive of any of Israel's national enemies being able to cause the destruction of American Jewry. Ignoring the threat of Christian Dominionists in the US, and the limited destruction possible by radical Islamists; the latter isn't dramatic compared to the threat of a major nuclear exchange between the US and USSR, American Jewry, and presumably other Jewish communities outside Israel, would continue.

To say that Israel, then, is the home of the Jewish people seems illogical, if its physical destruction would leave a significant part of world Jewry safe.

The situation is even more different than before and during WWII, because Israel can reasonably be assumed to have a survivable nuclear force that could, even if the State of Israel were destroyed, cause massive damage to its presumed enemies. In theory, that could even extend to weapons that give even the wilder nuclear war theorists pause, such as cobalt-jacketed weapons that would cover large areas with persistent deadly radiation.

In other words, it isn't 1938 any longer. Even the Cold War is over, and the US and Russia are exploring cooperation, with the obligatory finger and saber rattling. Had the 1939 Wehrmacht squared off against the current Israeli Defense Forces, depending on the geographic location of such a confrontation, the Nazi forces would be destroyed in hours to days. The Kuwait City to Basra road is a kindler, gentler idea of what would happen to the Panzergruppen, much less the foot soldiers.

In summary, my major concern is that too much thinking by Israeli political factions and their US supporters is that they are stuck in 1939, or perhaps 1943.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Perhaps a historical counterexample, going back to Muhammad himself?

I'm not speaking of dhimmitude here. Occasionally, I've had posters challenge me if I wanted to be a live dhimmi or a dead hero, and I pick live hero every time.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Uprated. It's a coherent and polite statement, if disputable (I don't).

Daniel, it's clear you know nothing of the history of Israel or the peace negotiations that have been going on for over 30 years now.

There is a reason that Egyptian and Jordanian citizens do not fear Israeli tanks rumbling through their cities -- mainly that the two nations have signed a peace deal (with clearly defined borders) and they respect those borders. Palestinians have never signed a peace deal nor have they even come close to articulating a position that can be used as a starting point for negotiations. So, you could just as easily argue that they get what they deserve, because they refuse to make peace and do not cease for a moment attempting to kill Israeli citizens. These kinds of arguments do nothing to advance the cause of peace. Both sides have behaved atrociously and both sides are going to have to be willing to make compromises. Anyone who doesn't understand and agree with that and wants to take a side in this issue is naive beyond belief.

M.J., you said "There is only one crime like the Holocaust and it's the Holocaust." That simply isn't correct. Mass murder has happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. It is going on right now in the Congo and Darfur. And there have been many as bad as Hitler: Stalin, Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, to name four. Why would you not consider those crimes equal to the Holocaust and there perpetrators as horrible as Hitler?

My apologies. I was mocking people who say that. I wasn't saying it. I'll try to fix.

I just saw online somewhere that the ridiculous Dennis Prager has, as I predicted, defended Coulter.

These right-wing Jews are damn funny. Let anyone criticize Netanyahu's haircut and they scream "anti-semitism" but let a fascist nut say her ideal New York would be Jew-free and they defend her.

Similarly with Nazi analogies. They are not allowed. Congressman Ellison said the Republicans used 9/11 like the Nazis used the Reichstag fire (he was on target) and the Jewish right went insane.

These clowns say: "How dare Ellison compare antone to Hitler except HITLER. That is beyond the pale. There is only one HITLER and he was HITLER. There was only one crime like the Holocaust and it's the Holocaust."

But now Podhoretz and Pipes and the other neos are all screaming that that little nothing, that tinpot nut, Ahmedinejad is worse than Hitler.

Hard to keep up with these people. Fortunately, the neocon fringe of the Jewish community is about the same size as the Clarence Thomas wing of the African-American community.

Get ready for Bill O'Reilly's annual onslaught against the Jews for taking Christ out of Christmas. FOX loves that issue; also watch Prager, Medved and the other rightwing Jews go on FOX to denounce Jews for commercializing Christmas and forcing good Christians everywhere to say Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas.

It just promotes killing everyone who doesn't convert.

Really? Got a source for that? My understanding is that, historically, Muslim true believers simply didn't have to pay taxes in Muslim countries, but infidels did. Not quite killing them, but a fairly powerful incentive to convert all the same.

Brook Dataski,

If you want to convert someone to your religion it doesn't make you a bigot, MJ.

When there is an article of faith that proclaims that the way a certain group thinks, acts or believes is problematic, and that only those who hold that article of faith can fix the problem, then how does such a level of arrogance not cross the line into bigotry when it is acted upon by asserting it in public discourse?

Evangelicals, like virtually any other group, are not monolithic. I've been enraged by Evangelical groups taking aggressive political stands against issues I hold dear.

At the same time, I've had a fascinating friendship that's taken a number of years from battling in newsgroup to deep mutual admiration. We each had to recognize what was important and what was not. Chris could quote all the Biblical quotations he liked at me, with little effect. I could speak of individual rights in general, and that had minimal effect.

Little by little, we were amazed, over the years, that our end goals for social issues were often quite compatible, although we got to them in completely different ways. We found, for example, that we were deeply interested in third world health, but while I might do things in a laboratory and spending time in medical study, he was a lay assistant to medical missionaries, giving immunizations and carrying bedpans. In the past, he's had a prison ministry, and we've taught each other much about understanding, and perhaps altering, criminal behavior -- and neither of us looking at it optimistically.

Just as I have Muslim friends that would dearly like to be my witness in proclaiming the Shahada, and Evangelical friends who would love to be with me in being born again, they now understand and respect a lot more in me. A couple of Thanksgiving ago, when we had dinner with a clan, into its second generation in the US, from Sierra Leone, friendly coexistence between the Muslims and Christians in the family was a given. At one point, I was slightly amused by realizing I was eating what may have been the best glazed ham I had ever had, the secret recipe of one of the others, while having a deep conversation with an elder about his thoughts on his upcoming Hajj.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This is an interesting point and/or question. She seems to say that this is Christian (Catholic?) doctrine, and it makes sense that it would be. I read somewhere today (sorry, can't cite) that Christians (Catholics?) have specifically broken with this notion. Does anyone have any actual information about this?

My understanding is that "unbeliever", in this context, applies to pagans and apostates, but not Jews and Christians.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The fact that you have to ask what truth is says a lot about believers.

You can dig through the scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions and find similar language. And you can review the history of all three religious groups and find examples of both tolerance and violent intolerance. Muslim Spain was certainly more tolerant than the Christian Inquisition that succeeded it. Other Muslim regimes were as tolerant--or much less tolerant--than Muslim Spain. Christianity has its same extremes. And while Judaism has only recently had a ruling regime again, it certainly had its fair share of intolerant regimes in the past (at least if some of the stories in its scriptures have a basis in fact).

Religion has always been a tool societies and individuals use to justify their good deeds and their bad ones, and trying to determine the inherent goodness or badness of a religion seems unproductive at best.

to improve your state of being informed, daniel, allow me to point out Al Qaeda sponsored attacks in Thailand, Phillipines, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Tajekistan, Indonesia, Singapore, and other Asian countries. What do any of these attacks have to do with US foreign policy, Daniel, and did all the victims of those attacks deserve to die in a "righteous jihad" perpetrated by the attackers?

I suspect what you want is for the rest of Americans to be informed only within the narrow boundaries of your own limited information pipeline. Sorry, Daniel, some of us actually still read out here.

Adding another question: what is valid evidence to you? Is it only that which is perceivable with the senses?

And are there rules for how we may render the evidence? There are many different kinds and categories of evidences. I believe in leaving them intact and letting each of us study their relative values in arriving at truth. And there is also the question of relevance of the truths we seek to our priorities.

I think that some people I've read here think that civilization's highest priority is the end of faith and religious devotion to the God of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Persons with strong subjective priorities like that will likely interpret scientific evidence of any kind in keeping with their priority.

I take it not as an agenda to wipe out atheism though I am a believer. I take it as an agenda to guard religious freedom and protect religious communities' and individual equal stakes in society with others.

When the evidence hits the brain, different brains do different things with it. If there were one way only to render or derive truth from the evidence, then you would say this was a dogma, wouldn't you? Is there free intellect? And can the free intellect include a soul of faith if that is how one renders it?

For me, I see the brain as a form. It is a physical form of wonderous function in which various energies may be measured, and various phenomena can and do occur. I am not certain that all of the function is determinant on the physical form, however I am certain that the physical form is involved in the happening of the phenomena experienced in the brain by what we are. It seems rational to me to believe that we are souls gifted with brains and we have brains gifted with a soul. And each of these are not unrelated to other things around us.

There are different values in what one finds important about evidence that are no more science than religious values. If you call this the human element, I say you may be rendering it that way by the values and dogmas you attach to what a human being is or what this means. Persons with and without faith in God may see these matters differently and science hasn't determined the truth of the matter.

Are there other ways of knowing than science? Is there one facet of knowing only? Are emotions involved? Is it only rational, cool analyses that determine truth from evidence, evidence, and what is permitted to be evidence?

Shall we make falsifiability a dogma when some matters may not be falsifiable because we do not have the ability to test them, not because they are not true beyond our ability to test. We must be able to operate intellectually beyond our limits of empirical testing. This has a value, and the relationship of faith to intellect itself is not fully understood. I realize many judge it, however, that is a prejudice, not a wise conclusiveness.

Frequently those who say faith is not real, spirituality is not real, and that God is not real say all of these things while I go through life experiencing them as real.

To say that personal relationships are not possible with unprovable beings simply because they are unprovable could very well be akin to saying that breathing oxygen molecules was not possible long before they could be viewed by the eyes.

Then you "look" at how we accepted oxygen molecules. We "saw" them, and so we believed in them even though they were equally real before we could see them. We'd said it was air we are feeling when we breathed in, but we could not prove by sight what it consisted of for some time. There may have been larger collections of matter we'd seen that someone may have analogized. Yet analogies are not empirical, they're vehicles of reason, guessing and seeking clues from the familiar. They're also rooted in a belief in laws or rules of nature which are rational mental constructs derived from observations.

For the longest time, no one suspected "neutrinos." And yet they'd likely been streaming through the particles we had accepted as true particles all along. It was our "sight" or our "technology" that translated something from the insensible to some form in which our senses and our thinking processes could "make" sense of them. In other words, there is some creative process in defining and rendering evidences.

Part of this is want. We want to know. We want to control. We seldom want to believe, and depend and adapt. We more often want to know, control, and determine. The latter could actually alter better truths by changing them before they could be experienced outside of empiricism. And of course, where empirical efforts are adaptations to problems to attempt to resolve them, I'd suggest we differentiate those times when we sought to control something outside of ourselves to suit ourselves rather than understand what was outside of ourselves and control ourselves in the larger context where this choice was possible.

Perspectives and interests do apply. I'm living where quite a few people are farming corn for ethanol. Such people put bumper stickers on their trucks that say, "Renewable Energy Is National Security" which is quite an admission about the war in Iraq while stating a position which implies that if we'd changed our own habits we would not be out controlling others to suit our energy "needs."

where are the bigoted evangelicals out there trying to silence Muslims, Buddhists, and even Catholics for their views?

America is an example to the world of how religious tolerance should work. Unlike, say the Saudi's who use the power of state to punish non-Muslims. Now, those folks are bigots. I think you're confusing bigotry with a passionate defense (or even offense) of deeply held personal beliefs.

Brook Dataski,

Unlike, say the Saudi's who use the power of state to punish non-Muslims. Now, those folks are bigots.

I never said they weren't.  Both assertions of bigotry can be factual at the same time.  But we were discussing the bigotry of Ann Coulter and Evangelical proselytizers, not the House of Saud's.  Must American society descend to the level of Saudi Arabia before we allow ourselves to condemn the bigotry of our own homegrown religious authoritarians?

This may be the point of your second sentence here, but it's worth stating. One doesn't have to be a believer--in fact, one could be an atheist and a student of the Jewish religion--to appreciate that Judaism is a communal religion at its core. Even the mystics married and carried out the obligations of day to day life. The mitzvot, whether you "believe" in them or not, are going to inevitably give rise to a "people." And that people is going to have a language, customs, and, over time, a history. It's going to look out and see other peoples that are different and similar to themselves--more and more similar as time has gone on.

This is a very different conceptual framework from one that says, "We are one in Christ." That is, we come together, are unified, within a spiritual "entity." Even though a Jew did say this, the Jews as a people couldn't have said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God." This thought represents a spirituality divorced from the material world, and history, that is largely alien to Judaism (though, of course, there are always exceptions).

Perhaps it is just an ambiguous day for second sentences, which is far better than it being a good day to die. :-)

Let me make sure I am reading you correctly: Judaism is a religion, and its religious practices are communal. To take your example of "one could be an atheist and a student of the Jewish religion", something with which I happen to agree, that person, in a religious definition, is not a Jew.

There is a fair bit of historical evidence that the existence of a Jewish people, as opposed to a Jewish religion, is the foundation of Zionism. The idea of "We are one in Christ", to me, comes closer to a description of a "people" rather than a "religion".

Not all belief systems work this way. While Islam traditionally divides into the House of Islam and the House of War, the former is clearly based on a shared religion. I suggest that the different views of "racial" versus "theological" definition are at the heart of many arguments here.

At times, giving due regard to the reality that Zionism preceded Naziism, it is interesting that both share a "racial" definition, where assimilationist religious Jews make the definition based on religion. While it is indeed true that a pseudo-scientific racial definition was one of the rules of the Holocaust, it is not universal that the racial definition is accepted.

Self-identified Jews in countries such as the US do not seriously think that a genocidal movement will arise, separate them from their neighbors, and kill them. While this was a fair description of the situation in Germany during the Third Reich, there is a sufficiently strong tradition of civil rights in the US that someone, either self- or other-defined as a Jew, can reasonably expect a common defense.

It appears to me that one of the basic motivations of Zionism is that such defense cannot be expected from other than Jews. Those commemorated by the Avenue of the Righteous at Yad Vashem are honored, but, in the Zionist tradition, such actions are not expected. In the American tradition, I would expect the majority of citizens to act in such a manner -- with due regard to Stanley Milgram.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

petermschwartz52,

But looked at today, is it still true that statelessness for Jews is unsustainable?

Who knows?  If you have a perfect faith in a progressive trajectory of history and civilization, then make the argument.  I don't have such faith.  I can only know the history.

Most Jews live outside Israel and life for them is, generally, easier than life in Israel. Could all the Jews in the world fit inside Israel? Would it be a smart move from a survival perspective for Jews to put all their eggs in one basket and make mass aliyah?

I believe this is a false choice.  That any individual Jew chooses to live in Europe or the Americas or Australia or Israel is quite irrelevant to the ideal that there be one state out of the entire family of nations where a people rightfully controls its own political destiny.  In our case, a place with historical continuity where Jewish legal and ethical traditions may be refined and the Hebrew language sustains the legalistic and cultural aspects of Jewish society free from the compulsory permission of any higher socio-political authority. 

The dilema between diaspora and aliyah should be no more of a burden on any Jew than the comparable populations of ethnic Polish communities should be the cause of a dilema for any individual Pole to choose between Chicago and Warsaw.

I offer up the Saudi's as an example of real bigotry, not pseudo-bigotry created in the minds of the agenda-driven who want to demonize one sector of society or the other. It's the Al Sharpton strategy of accusing anyone opposing his views as a racist.

I'll put you in the same boat with MJ, Zion, and conclude you don't know any evangelicals, because none of the ones I'm acquainted with think according to the ideology you're suggesting. If you'd care to take a trip to the Katrina-raveged coastline of MS and LA, Zion, you would discover very quickly that these demonic bigoted evangelicals have carried the lion's share of the NGO rebuilding efforts down there, and they don't check for religious or party affiliation, before they help anyone.

Sorry Howard, I missed this one.

Let me try to clarify...

As to the atheist student of Judaism, I was responding to what I thought was Z's point to me--that what I was proposing was actually an article of faith when I said that the Jewish people heard the Torah.

(Midrashim often state that ALL Jews, not just the ones alive at that time, stood at Sinai and received the Torah.)

So I responded by saying that one could be an atheist and still say what I was saying, namely that Judaism is FUNDAMENTALLY a communal religion. Whether you agree with its tenets, its tenets gave rise to a people with a language, culture, and history. Of course, because of the dispersion, those three things have lost some, but not all, of their unity.

(That is, all Jews no longer speak just one language, have one culture, or share one history.)

My point, at bottom, is there is not a COMPLETE divide between Jews as a people and Jews as members of a religion. That's why, from a religious perspective, it has always been important to know who the mother of a child is. To be sure, from a religious standpoint, it is not enough, not sufficient, that one be born a Jew to be a Jew--but it is a factor, it is "something." That's why the Lubavitcher are always trying to bring non religious Jews back into the fold. They still regard these backsliders as Jews, as possessing a Jewish soul, if you will.

The distinction between the "religious" and "secular" spheres is foreign to Judaism's original vision. Over time, Jews have adapted well and even eagerly to this distinction, but it never fits precisely.

As to Zionism--hard to generalize here--but I would say that many of its tenets are political/secular versions of concepts that were originally religious concepts. That is to say, originally, this distinction didn't exist and these concepts got passed down as part of the culture.

I agree that if one leans too heavily on the secular side of things, one runs the risk of a "racialist" definition of what a Jew is. But one doesn't have to go down this path. There are many ethnic groups in the world whom we simply accept as ethnic groups, or as "peoples." The discussion can end there: Defining them as a "people" doesn't mean they are any better or worse than any other people, regardless of how they may regard themselves in their own mythologies or religions.

In other words, to define Jews as a people--a definition with a certain biological ingredient--in no way justifies negative or anti-Semitic attitudes toward them, e.g., a drop of Jewish blood dooming someone to the gas chambers.

Moreover, it's clear, since Ruth, that Jews have always accepted converts, even if they don't seek them out. So one can become part of this "people" by converting to it, and this goes back to a much more primitive pastoral time, when blood tended to be much thicker than it is now. I believe that converts to Judaism are told they are joining a "people," rather than proclaiming a certain set of beliefs, e.g., that Christ is the savior. The number of beliefs in Judaism are actually quite few.

As to defense. It's my reading of Zionism that the founders concluded that Jews' stateless condition was not sustainable, as Z has said. They looked at history and concluded that the Jews' last best hope--the Enlightenment and assimilation--wasn't going to eradicate anti-Semitism. So building a Jewish state was the only recourse. Ironically, becoming MORE like other people--by having one's own state--was the only way.

It was and is a judgement call. Who knows if it was correct.

I personally agree with you about the American tradition.

I imagine that secular French Jews expected their secular Christian neighbors to stand up for them, too.

I guess none of us can see into the future. So only time will tell if the American tradition is sufficiently robust to serve as a safeguard.

So far, it has (mostly).

Howard, I have this sneaking suspicion that I may be talking passed your points. But I'm grappling with many of these issues, so my thinking isn't always crystal clear.

It's clearly wrong to say that anti-Semitism is directed at Jews as a people and not at Jews as a member of a religion.

The original anti-Semitism was all about religion: The Jews failed to recognized "their" messiah and killed him.

Until modern times, the passion play was the most common expression of anti-Semitism--a tradition Mel Gibson resuscitated for his movie of the same name.

Most would not call me, in honor of that lovely song from South Pacific, a "cockeyed optimist", and I certainly don't feel like one. Nevertheless, when I read

And I agree with her to this extent: The Holocaust and previous oppression is too recent to completely ignore it. Even with exceptions like Denmark and now the US, living people still remember and had connections to those who were lost.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]