Comments on: We Can Talk About Religion in the Republican Party. But Not Among Democrats

By: the sword of gideon

the sword of gideon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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).

By: Ed.

Ed. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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?

By: J. Martillo

J. Martillo — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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 http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/01/jewish-islamophobic-web-incitement.html ]

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!

By: Charles Keating

Charles Keating — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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.

By: liberal white boy

liberal white boy — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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.

By: J. Martillo

J. Martillo — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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 http://tinyurl.com/2wpu4e .

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.

By: Charles Keating

Charles Keating — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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.

By: J. Martillo

J. Martillo — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

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 .