The talk on MS-NBC tonight was all about the religious right. Is the religious right over as a dominant force? Are Huckabee and Romney splitting the religious right vote? Has the Republican Party matured past the social issues to accept a McCain? (Yes, sez I, to all).
I wish the journalists would be even a fraction so candid about the religious forces in the Democratic camp, the Israel lobby, the Jewish vote, Jewish money, and so on. These forces are just as important as the religious right, probably more important, as they are helping to burn down the Middle East in the name of a clash of civilizations, even as they push for stem-cell research. Yet journalists are still afraid to bring them up, partly because they know the Democratic religious types and don’t see them as nuts–no, they’re secular–where they don’t know many evangelicals, and can easily caricature them.
I keep predicting that things are changing for the better. And they are. It’s just taking a while…
I guess a good plan here would be to put yellow stars on the Jew, neocon, judo-nazi bloodsucking zionist war mongers. This way they can be easily identified for all to see, I suppose.
Phil,
There are clash(es) of civilizations, and in the frontier of Israel, there are very very unsettling implications of increased prominence of Muslim cultural norms (which do intentionally expand, and at times by force.)
As there are class issues, that are skew to the clashes of civilizations.
And, ecological issues, that are skew to the clashes of civilizations and the class issues.
And personal issues, that are skew to the clashes of civilizations, class issues, and ecological.
An informed person forms judgements (as distinct from guesses) as to the relative importance of each (or multiple).
The reason that the left-liberal media likes to talk about the GOP religious angle (Christian, Jewish Zionist) and ignore the Democrat religious angle (Jewish Zionist, secular humanist, the church of political correctness) is that it wants to pose as above peasant proclivities. Laughable. Those who worship at the church of political correctness are easily as stupid as, for example, the Pentecostal Zionists. In fact, they're probably dumber. At least the Pentecostals know who's pulling the strings. The politically correct are too stupid to understand even that. They worship Hillary without even knowing that every Hillary position has been vetted by racist Jewish Zionists. Kind of like slaves who don’t know who owns them. But tha’s alright. Miss Hillary gonna take care us. Right. Just like Bill was the first black president. Took care o’ y’all levies in New Orleans, didn’t he? Clintons? Bushes? Same rednecks, different family. And they’re in 100% agreement on “the Palestinian problem.” What does that tell you?
Ethnic Ashkenazi American political influence has become dangerous not because of religious fundamentalism but because of ethnic fundamentalism.
Reply to Richard Witty for his racist Jewish Islamophobic incitement.
Halakhic norms are rather more backward than Sharia norms, and during the Bush administration a good number of shomrei mitzvot Jews, who follow Halakhah strictly have moved into positions of authority within the US government.
Whose Religious Norms are More Threatening?
[ from link to eaazi.blogspot.com
]
According to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a,
"Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world"
In contrast,
. . . That if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. . . .[Qur'an 5:32 --Translated by Yusuf Ali]
I can look through Jewish or Muslim religious literature and cherry-pick passages that make unpleasant distinctions between believers and non-believers, but there is one major difference between the current of Second Temple Judaism which became Islam and that which became Rabbinic Judaism.
For Muslims (as for Christians) all humans are potentially members of the community while in Rabbinic Judaism there is a qualitative difference between Jewish and non-Jewish life.
Statistic analysis have shown over and over again that the vast majority of Muslims reject and condemn terrorist attacks on innocents.
In contrast, Zionism is an inherently terrorist ideology, whose core principle can be defined as follows:
Jews may plunder and kill non-Jews with impunity.
Because the State of Israel is consolidated on the above principle, it is a terrorist state in essence and engages in state terrorism on a daily basis. Yet, according to American Jewish Committee statistics approximately 80% of American Jews identify with and support Israel.
Is it not disturbing to non-Jewish Americans and non-Jews in general that an ethnic group, among whom such fundamentally sociopathic attitudes are far too common, now counts as the most important American political, cultural, and economic elite?
—–
To be fair, I have to note that over the the last several centuries Western European Jewish scholars (unlike Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi Jewish scholars) tended to teach the Islamic version of "saving one life" and not the Jewish version.
Guess which Jewish group has become dominant in the USA!
It's seems hard to disagree with the historical view that Christianity and Islam are inclusive (by both carrot and stick, by both ideology and practice) when compared to Judiasm, which is by many degrees more exclusive. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Do not do onto others what you would not want done to you.
After his loss last night and in a shameless attempt to attract Christain Zionists to his campaign, Gov. Romney has converted to Judaism. link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
Will this madness never end?
Let's worry about Jewish money and Evangelical religious nuttiness. Let's not even look at Obama's crazy black church ( link to tucc.org
).
Keep speaking truth to power, Weiss! Maybe the paleos will let you be a kapo for a while if they ever get a chance to 'solve' America's Jew problem.
I am not a fan of Obama, but as far as I can tell the defamation of his church starts with Investor's Business Daily, which is a third-rate financial journal pandering to the prejudices of Jewish retirees in Florida.
See link to tinyurl.com
.
The article seems quite obnoxious and criticizes African Americans for the sorts of things that Euro-Americans do all the time.
I have never seen the IBD criticize Jews for subordinating US interests to Israeli interests, and to tell the truth I would be much more concerned about a Jewish President of the USA than about a Muslim president.
Too many American Jews subordinate US interests to those of Israel and ethnic Ashkenazi tribalism. In contrast Muslim Americans immigrant origins generally have no political loyalties whatsoever to their ancestral countries, and Muslim loyalty to the Muslim community is generally weaker than that of Catholics to the Catholic community or the papacy no matter how much Jewish Islamophobes babble about the Ummah.
A Muslim president unlike a Jewish president would without doubt put American interests first.
Why so? How's this for a speculative theory: Relatively speaking, both Christianity and Islam view earth as a temporary place, while Judiasm seeks survival at all costs in the here and now? All three religions say "God (or G-D) told me so." Is the Old Testament an ancient ethnic revisionist history text book when compared to both the New Testament and the Koran? Talk amongst yourselves.
I try to discuss the relationship between Christianity, Islam and Judaism in
http://tinyurl.com/2pg88g
and to a lesser extent in
http://tinyurl.com/3yhv2m .
"I am not a fan of Obama, but as far as I can tell the defamation of his church starts with Investor's Business Daily, which is a third-rate financial journal pandering to the prejudices of Jewish retirees in Florida."
Investor's Business Daily is a respected national paper and is published out of Los Angeles. Its editorial accurately describing Obama's church's teachings isn't defamation, and similar concerns about Obama's church have been raised in Slate and the Washington Post, although credit should go to bloggers Steve Sailer for exposing this first.
"The article seems quite obnoxious and criticizes African Americans for the sorts of things that Euro-Americans do all the time."
No "Euro-American" could run for President belonging to a similarly bigoted church.
Martillo say:
Islam Good
Judaism Bad
Chrisitanity Better than Judaism, not as good as Islam
Muslims Good
Jews Bad
Christians in between
Repeat over and over until you get it.
I've studied the demography of IBD's readership, and I simply am not impressed with the quality of its business coverage in comparison with the WSJ and the FT, but I could envision the quality of the WSJ dropping precipitously over the next few years.
I've now read the IBD editorial three times, and I simply don't see the big deal.
>>"It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.">In short, Obama's "unashamedly black" church preaches the politics of black nationalism. And its dashiki-wearing preacher — who married Obama and his wife and now acts as his personal spiritual adviser — is militantly Afrocentric. "We are an African people," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright reminds his flock, "and remain true to our native land, the mother continent."<<
Also sorts of Americans consider maintaining an authentic European heritage to be important. So what if Blacks or Asians want to mix in loyalty to African or Asian heritage?
I could go on, but it would be too boring, and BTW the editorial writer insinuated that a mainstream black leader like Jesse Jackson is not patriotic.
The IBD may be headquartered in LA but its politics is situated in Mississippi about 50 years ago.
I can't believe that anyone takes the crap that appears on its editorial pages seriously.
I worry the fundis will always outnumber the most liberal of each "religion." The Jews worldwide want to survive and be left alone to develop individually. The Christians worldwide want to enter Heaven. Ditto the Islamic devotees. The leftovers in both Christianity and Islam also want to survive and be left alone to develop individually. The Enlightenment pointed the way. I like to think Phil's blog centers in the discrepency.
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
I consider them to be very similar and to have all more or less incorporated Jesus' message (or at least what people believed Jesus' message to be as expounded by James the Just) as a way of dealing with the destruction of the Second Temple.
Jewish chauvinists tend to get upset when I note that Judaism is not the older sister, but the historical data is quite clear.
Christianity crystallizes first.
Shaye Cohen argues that Jewishness begins as a response to Constantinian Christianity in the late 4th or early 5th century, but to me his position is untenable because the Babylonian Talmud does not exist at that time period and he is not taking into account recent work of Peter Schäfer.
I argue that Medieval Rabbinic represents a break for some very specific reasons from Geonic Judaism in the 10th century and incorporates the theological and legal apparatus of Islam almost as an entirety with some minor differences in emphasis.
I should also have mentioned link to eaazi.blogspot.com
.
Not only does it address a current political issue in Malays, but it also explores connections between Christianity, Islam and Judaism before the Medieval period.
IBD: "… patronizing black-only businesses"
Something tells me "patronizing black businesses" would have been more accurate didn't sound threatening enough.
And the church doesn't sound all that scary here–
link to youtube.com
Of course for many Jews ALL Christian churches are scary.
I don't know what to make of this commentary. Is it some historical proof for the mudande, i.e., each ethnic group in turn has its moment–and fight for that ever after?
Sorry, I mean "mundane." My question remains.