A lot of the stuff I write for this blog is critical or
angry or mocking, reflecting my angst over the state of the Jews and my anger at the neocons for pushing the Iraq War. Today I’m sitting down to write with a positive excitement. I still can’t believe how good I felt last night in a very Jewish space, and I am thinking about the ways I can invest this piece of writing with the pleasure I experienced so that others will feel it too.
My friend Menachem had sent me a link to a lecture on "Modern Myths of Muslim Anti-Semitism" at the Jewish
Theological Seminary in New York,
the leading conservative seminary in the States, and when I got there I was
filled with trepidation. There was the usual security you go through at Jewish institutions in New York–basically, black employees going through your bags–and I remembered that Gabriel Schoenfeld used as his leading
image for a book on antisemitism the fact that to get to work at the American Jewish Committee, he had to pass among heavy concrete barriers. I.e., the world is not safe for Jews.
When I got into the hall, the lecturer and the man who was going to introduce him, both wearing yarmulkes, were getting the slide show ready on stage– and projecting a repulsive cartoon from a Jordan
newspaper in 1994 of two fat Jews, a boy in uniform handing a bottle of blood
to his mother, both of them with big sweaty noses, and the caption was: The Blood of a Palestinian Child, A Gift for Mother's Day.
Oh man. We’re in for it.
And what followed was just a fabulous lecture. Mark R. Cohen is a rabbi and a student of Judeo-Arabic history. He has
written histories of Jews in Egyptian society in the middle ages and Jews under
Christianity and Islam. His subject was, What to make of anti-Semitism in
Islamic societies in the last 100 years or so.
There are two ideological theories about this antisemitism. One is that it goes back to the
Koran, the other that Jews have always gotten along with Muslims and it is only
since Zionism that this has happened–so actually this is anti-Zionism, not anti-semitism.
Cohen would steer the middle path, and yet the weight of his
lecture was almost fervently against Islamophobia. I will set out his main points without
a lot of quoting. (I have a tape but I don’t have the time.) Islam contains a "nucleus of pluralism" that is absent in Christianity. The Koran does contain a lot of anti-Jewish statements, but they
must be understood as the disdain that each of the monotheistic religions
expressed against the other, and that they all expressed toward paganism in that
period of civilization. There was a lot of invective. Tolerance was not a virtue. In fact, intolerance was praised by all three religions, as the firm way to
behave toward people different from oneself.
Antisemitism is a more virulent feeling: the belief that Jews are enemies of society, a
degraded class of humanity that conspires to wield power over other people and
to prey on them for religious ritual.
Jews generally lived alongside Muslim Arabs without persecution, while in Europe Jews were routinely persecuted and expelled by the Christians. Classical Islamic texts are remarkable for their
lack of anti-Semitism. Even the Koran’s famous expression that Jews are pigs
and apes he read in a way that is not simply racist.
In Islamic societies, Jews participated in the scientific and
administrative realms, they practiced philosophy and mathematics,
they often shared businesses with Muslims and respected the ability of Muslim judges to adjudicate matters of family and even personal life (compare to Isaac Bashevis Singer's father's court in Warsaw).
They were second class citizens, to be sure. They had to defer to the Muslim
religion and be humble. They had to pay a tax. They were dhimmi. They were not free in the modern
way we think of a minority as having freedom. There were sporadic episodes of antisemitic violence. But Jews had freedom of religion and
assembly, freedom to travel, and could participate fully in markets. They also looked like their Arab neighbors.
Islamophobes ignore this evidence. The people who talk about Islamic anti-Semitism don’t know
what they're talking about; in journals, in books, in the
blogosphere, they lack a context or sense of history.
How did the relationship change? Several factors. The rise of Arab nationalism. The
intervention of western imperialism, which sometimes granted special status
to Jews. And the arrival of the Zionists.
Cohen turned to the cartoon. He pointed out that it was neither fully anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist either. Who does this lady remind
you of? We all shouted at once, Golda Meir. Exactly. And the man is a soldier.
So it has an anti-Zionist component. But you cannot remove the anti-Semitic
component, the blood libel, the disgusting degraded caricatures. And the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are translated all over the Arab world now.
The
political use of the Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab societies post 48 is overdone.
There is actually, he said, some great nostalgia among these Jews for the societies that
they left. They were happy there. They had existed there for ages. They did well. There was not the long
narrative of persecution that the Ashkenazi Jews have. The popularity of the term "Judeo-Christian ethic" in
the years after the Holocaust was actually a form of penance by the Christian
world and is misleading. As Bernard Lewis has stated, Islam and
Judaism have far more in common.
We came to the end of the lecture. What is going to
happen? There are two scenarios, or maybe three. If there is a peace deal, and
the occupation and oppression of Palestinians that has lasted 40 years ends, the anti-Semitism might "fade away." It's not deeply rooted, and "it's largely fueled by the conflict itself." Please note that at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Cohen used the word: "oppression," without a qualifier. Good on ya, mate. Though of course he insisted on two states.
On the other hand, even with the Arab-Israeli conflict gone, the years of Arab militancy and resistance and terrorism may have entrenched this hatred in Arabs to the point that people won't give it up. And maybe Israelis won't give up "anti-Muslimism," either, he said. Antisemitism may continue as a "veiled protest against normalization" of relations with Israel or as an answer to domestic problems not easily resolved.
Cohen's third scenario was a scenario without a peace deal: Absence of agreement, "the very worst case scenario," with consequences we don't even want to imagine. "Terrible" developments that will make the issue of Muslim antisemitism irrelevant. Let's hope for good news. This was a reference to Iran, I think.
"Thank you," Cohen said. He had spoken for 50 minutes.
In the Q-and-A, there were two interesting questions. One guy asked about the Damascus riots of 1840 that targeted Jews. I knew someone would ask me about this, Cohen said. He insisted that it fell within his theory. Christians had introduced the idea of a blood libel into Damascus. It was Christian-fomented. The sultan had repeatedly rejected the idea of the blood libel.
The second question was mine. I never ask questions at these events; but I rushed to the microphone. The provocative question I was tempted to ask was, How do you answer the idea in both Ian Lustick's recent paper and Trita Parsi's book that Israel has helped militarize the region and helped propagate in the west the idea of "radical Islam" as a way of preserving its joined-at-the-hip relationship to the superpower, the U.S. In my provocative youth, I would have asked that question.
Instead, I asked about assimilation and intermarriage. Was this a factor in the relations of Moslems and Jews?
Cohen seemed a little surprised by the question. It is inspiring to watch a learned man turn on a high inside fastball. He instantly took up the subject and said a few interesting things. There was no assimilation in traditional Muslim societies. You were one thing or another. You could convert; and a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman–marriage between a Jewish man and a Muslim woman being barred under Muslim law–and in such a marriage there was an expectation that the Muslim man would respect the Jew's religion.
Assimilation, Cohen said, is a term that describes the secular, neutral space in a society between religions. This space was first created in modern Europe, with the rise of liberal ideas. (Immediately I thought of Jacob Katz's classic, Out of the Ghetto.) When that space exists, people can give up religion and take on different attributes of the other.
What you had in Muslim societies were "acculturated" Jews. Arab Jews. They spoke Arabic, they wrote in Arabic, they felt home in the places they lived. Indeed, he said, it is almost verboten in Israel to speak today of being an Arab Jew, "it is dangerous" to be so identified, but this is how the Jews who were forced out of Arab societies after '48 often thought of themselves.
"You would be amazed to know how much they felt a part of the Arab world. They were Arabs. They were immersed in Arab culture."
At a great lecture, you learn something about yourself. I walked out past the paintings of the legendary leaders of the Jewish Theological Seminary and realized that I am most comfortable in that secular space between religions. I grew up in that space, I've always made friends in that space. And there is a wonderful tradition of it, across human civilization. The problem with Zionism and more generally Jewish parochialism, for me, is that it says That space is a dangerous one. Well it never has been for me. Our great task is to create that space across the Middle East.
Finally I'd say that while Cohen is a Zionist, he is intimate with the Arab world, and for me, his lecture described a tragic aspect of Zionism, the end of acculturation. Today in Jerusalem you see no Arab artifacts on Jews' walls. Yes, it's true, Cohen said that the origins of Muslim antisemitism were manifold. But in his final scenario, what was the most important factor in his considerations? Resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict. If this is resolved, he seemed to say, a new golden era of relations could begin. And, by implication: who knows what new cohesion Jerusalem, the nucleus of pluralism, might again produce.
A great post! This is why I read this blog; Phil goes out and reports back to us about people and ideas we are never going to see in the mainstream media.
There is a fourth scenario: the end of Israel and the formalization of Judonia. Jews return to their former countries and receive, if desired, a formal legal status as judonians once that is clearly defined. Maybe that sounds absurd now, but once more researchers join Martillo in understanding what Judonia is and what is not maybe there comes the possibility of a pact of coexistence with cooperation. Humans have done that before, they can do it again. Plus the judonian model may have the potential to solve other seemingly intractable geopolitical problems.
Ditto
Maybe one day somebody passes that is interested in the Assimiliatonist project.
Islam contains a "nucleus of pluralism" that is absent in Christianity.
Since I read Mondoweiss, I wonder if something similar to this "nucleus of pluralism" was suspicious for 19th German authoritarians in Judaism and led to Reformed Judaism. One day I'll look into that.
*************************
RE: At the Jewish Theological Seminary…..
Wonderful post! Quite sublime.
Just a few observations on an interesting post Phil:
"They were not free in the modern way we think of a minority as having freedom."
connects logically with "the intervention of western imperialism, which sometimes granted special status to Jews, and the arrival of the Zionists.", because "the modern way we think of a minority as having freedom" has been defined as tolérance, the special spelling indicating a special meaning, as with the deconstructionist usage différance. This special meaning is, the 'minorities' as defined by the rulers will be 'tolerated' providing they perpetually, publicly, and humiliatingly prove and re-prove their devotion to the rulers who 'tolerate' them, in ways that are important and lucrative for the ruler.
"You would be amazed to know how much they felt a part of the Arab world. They were Arabs. They were immersed in Arab culture." is an implicit reproof to your assumption that 'Jews' and 'Arabs' can be distinguished genetically, an assumption which is probably inaccurate and certainly uncalled-for.
ha ha – ehud potato-head on amos oz:
It did sound like a good lecture.
The middle way is the right way though.
If you are going to compare historical Christian anti-Semitism to Muslim anti-Semitism, the Christian anti-semitism has been more consistent, more violent, more permanently suppressive, more externally orchestrated.
In my read of the Koran to the extent that I've read, there are MANY references to the inferiority of Judaism to Islam, and from my sense resulted from a specific theological debate between Muhammed and Arabian Jews. At first Muhammed studied with the Arabian (not as a Jew immersed in culture and practise, but as an external judge of the theology). As a result of that study, he expressed great respect, AND gradually great contempt.
I personally reject and worse, profoundly doubt, the reference to Muhammed's work being authentically prophetic, authoritative.
Phil,
You should read Koran. There are great reminders, and some great insights. And, there is also falseness now imprinted as "uncontestable" truth.
Also, to give cover to non-acceptance of Zionism, as "there wasn't anti-semitism before Zionism" as justification for actual current anti-semitism in many Arab states, is to give cover to hatred in fact.
It is not rationalizable.
For a real assimilated humanist, it SHOULD be the content of your study, and should be opposed vehemently, even if you know that it is "none of your business". It IS your business.
to give cover to non-acceptance of Zionism, as "there wasn't anti-semitism before Zionism" as justification for actual current anti-semitism in many Arab states, is to give cover to hatred in fact. It is not rationalizable.
I know you weren't speaking to me, but I disagree with you. Though you may find Muslim flirtation with European anti-Semitic ideas distasteful, in fact this is merely a matter of political style. If they were flirting with Stalinism you would find that pretty distasteful too.
Thanks for a great post.
You had me 100% up until your statement that "our great task" is to create secular space across the Middle East.
Huh? How are we going to do that?
Quick correction: It's Mark Cohen, not Martin.
Besides Phil and the dude who asked about the Damascus riots of 1840, there's no description of the people in the audience attending this theological seminary.
(Knowing Phil I think that means it was a veritable "sausage factory," as we used to describe vaginally challenged events.)
But I am concerned, because I know theological seminaries usually occur in intimate spaces, and this one had the unfortunate duty of housing not only one, but several full-grown elephants, within its trying, though well-secured, confines.
I can imagine it must have been tough to get a seat.
And what with those black dudes, armed and licensed to poach, and The Eternal Goy out there as well, armed and waiting to strike again, one suspects that those elephants, those poor elephants in that room that night, may very well expire in that room, some night.
But in a mysticaldream, which I want to share here with you now, I could see a rugged, mysterious figure, someone I vaguely recognized as none other than Dr. Shlomo Sand, and he was dressed like Indiana Jones, rugged, straddled bareback on top of just such an elephant, a huge one, named Metalepsis.
It had just busted through the bunker walls, sending yarmulkes and metal detectors flying everywhere.
Now this beast and the elephant-mounted officer of truth were bounded free and untethered down Park Avenue, the professor cracking his whip at the myriad muppets claiming to speak on behalf of, for, about, and to The Jews™.
The Jews™
LOL
Can I bank The Poles™ and The Russians™? and is Jews™ without "the" free?
and is Jews™ without "the" free?
Sure it is, if you want to spend the next 12 years in litigation.
I sense in the subject in-between space the bulldozed Rachel Corrie, the nearing attack on Iran, and that 20% end time American
Christians waiting for the rapture.
Hmm,I should add that I dittoed James North, and not Anonymous in the above comment.
Avner Falk was on my mind. I asked myself, if Cohen was listed in his extensive bibliography, if he somewhere joined the extensive discussion on the Arab Mind, that Avner surveys. There was at least one Cohen maybe more?
And concerning this: What you had in Muslim societies were "acculturated" Jews. Arab Jews. They spoke Arabic, they wrote in Arabic, they felt home in the places they lived
I remembered from his study that an "Arab Jew" now is an "Oriental Jew" in Israel, obviously since "Arab Jew" would be close to an insult in Israeli society, but that Druze, who ultimately are Arabs too, now in Israel is registered as nationality (if I remember correctly).
Maybe I should get a own copy of his study of the "Arab mind" versus the "Israeli mind". I should at least have kept a copy f his bibliography.
"Hmm,I should add that I dittoed James North, and not Anonymous in the above comment."
Too late. The whip cometh and that right soon.
Anonymous, honey, I am not so sure about Joachim's "Judonia research", as you should realize by now. But then, I have to admit that there are many researchers around that hunt patterns as Joachim does, that is: looking for evidence that supports one's preconceptions, not the other way 'round.
If they are not satisfied by simply replicating.
What is "scholarship"? Were are the exact borders between history and fiction, both historically and now? Were between interests and reality?
Look at this highly interesting book:
Historics: Why History Dominates Contemporary Society
As the technology of technologies history, is the key element of the social reality principle. Designed to be used by social interests, it gets abused by them. … History, like any other branch of knowledge, requires professional specializations and this follows disciplinary conventions rather then social reality
More relevant in our context, and missing in Google Books Germany:The faith of fallen Jews, on the reliability of history Unfortunately, here too, there is a gap. It brings me back to MY hobbyhorse no 1 at the time.
Anyway you look at it, the Arab Jews came to Israel with a definite
marxist mindset, which they converted to a Zionist mindset to get ahead in the usual practical terms, leaving Israeli arabs as the
usual working class segment. This tells one a lot about the real Israel.
The Arab Jews came to Israel with a definite marxist mindset.
um … they did? if we are talking about the various populations of what I prefer to call Mizrachi Jews (Jews from Muslim lands) then I should be very surprised if any of them were marxists, apart from the usual small proportion of student radicals.
greenspan, paulson, bernanke, volcker, rubin, geithner, summers, orszag, israel rahm, pointless(to americans) cluckers of tv:
let me introduce you swindlers, thieves, robbers, liars, (for a real thankgiving for america), to the turkey grinder behind gov palin.
you are the beginning. he will be employed and very busy. the beginning of job creation in usa.
"the Koran’s famous expression that Jews are pigs and apes he read in a way that is not simply racist. "
Sorry, that's just inaccurate. The Qur'an doesn't call Jews pigs and apes, it uses those terms to describe those who violate the Shabbat.
Also, the oppression of the Palestinians has lasted 40 years? No, sorry, that's horribly inaccurate, whichever way one looks at it.
‘Islam contains a "nucleus of pluralism" that is absent in Christianity.’
What is the stated background of this blog? Didn’t it come out of a conversation where someone said something along the lines of “My rabbi told me the Iraq war would be good for Israel.” That is basically shorthand for organized Jewry plotting to use its host nation to pursue organized Jewry’s own interests at the host nation’s expense.
This is the reason that Christianity and Western civilization demand assimilation into their ethic–because those who refuse to assimilate (including socialists and money worshippers) will inevitably eventually put their own group’s interests and values ahead of the best interests of the Western society and its values. Is demanding melting-pot assimilation into Western values “intolerance,” or is it simply common sense?
I also note that the only way that Islam and Judaism have successfully co-existed is with Jews as second class citizens and Muslims basically holding a whip at the ready. The ugly reality of worldly existence is that tribes seek to subjugate tribes, which is why Western civilization demands assimilation into and under the Christian ethic. It simply can't work as a collection of tribes scheming and angling against one another for their own selfish interests. That takes us back to civilizational square one.
'Good on ya, mate.'
Been working on the novel Phil?
'Assimilation, Cohen said, is a term that describes the secular, neutral space in a society between religions. This space was first created in modern Europe, with the rise of liberal ideas.'
Was it really? No peaceful commingling of faiths ever existed in a single polity before Enlightenment?
The same human instinct toward tolerance informed the behaviour of tribes thru prehistory and while there is evidence of conflict, there is far more to support the idea that tribes developed protocols of decent behaviour toward Others, to facilititate trade and to allow ingress and egress thru foreign territory to access seasonal food sources, and also, crucially, to maximise security by minimising the prospects for disagreement.
This often took the form of offerings to the Others, gifts of food or clothing or bodily decoration. These early exchanges were one of the foundries of ritual, but more germane is the fact that they insitutionalised a concept – which may be called 'manners' for want of a better term – by which human relations can be managed most effectively. So effectively at times that the individual cultures are free to flourish in concert, providing the conditions necessary for 'civilisation' .
We often lose sight of the worth of that simple concept, which the Christians usefully pared down to the basic 'do unto others' formulation (of course, Xn's ended up being among the worst offenders) . Elites, being further way from the sharp end of failures to treaty with others, have a tendency to lose sight of it's intrinsic worth.
I feel many of Phil's tribe have lost sight of it; emblematic of this is Irving Kristol musing that statesmanship is being able to identify your enemies, when surely trying to make even enemies friends (or at least, no longer enemies) is it's essence. Statesmanship should involve being prudent about the capacity of others to hurt you, but it must approach the Other with an extended hand if it is to work – that hand can't be holding an Uzi from the get-go.
What the Nazis most signally lacked from the perspective of more normal and less traumatised societies, was basic human decency and a sense of proportion – manners, in a word. In recent years Israel and what Joachim calls Judonia also, from a non-aligned POV, display some of those same characteristics. SOG gives us a taster of attitudes that exist very far upstream.
These too are born of trauma; in fact, it is difficult to imagine the whole crazy edifice of Zionism and it's attendant fascist monsters without the wound the Nazis inflicted. In the same way, the Nazis had been thru the humiliation of WW1 and Weimar – never again.
But whatever the origin or the cause, these attitudes cannot be permitted to dominate. They were unacceptable in the 30s and they are unacceptable now. We failed to stop the Nazi freight train from ploughing into the 40s and mashing up much of the rest of the century. I hope the Zionist juggernaut will prove easier to derail. It is presently gathering speed on a beeline for Tehran, with the rest of us hanging on to the cars for dear life. We have a lot less going for us, and a lot less to fall back on than 'the rest of us' did 70 odd years ago – when most of our oil was still in the ground and the planet hadn't started to boil.
Still, the outlook has changed for the better recently, the abomination of Iraq being the primary driver. Awareness of the Lobby and it's machinations has never been higher and tolerance for it's intolerance is diminishing daily. The spotlight is shining in formerly dark corners and creatures scurry this way and that. This blog has done as much as anyone to promote this necessary effort.
' Western civilization demands assimilation into and under the Christian ethic'
There is still work to be done on all sides, obviously. If that's true Ed, our civilisation is doomed, and that may not necessarily be a bad thing.
'The ugly reality of worldly existence is that tribes seek to subjugate tribes'
That is one reality. There is another one, and a failure to recognise it dooms you to your first option. Seems to me that's what some people really want. Bring it on, eh? What a deluded 'left-liberal' I must be!
'It simply can't work as a collection of tribes scheming and angling against one another for their own selfish interests.'
No it can't. But it can work, if those tribes operate under an agreed protocol of tolerance. This is the essence of 'being civilised' and if you rule out it's possibility, you are implicitly admitting that ultimately, in the long run, peace is never possible.
I like to think I have a fairly hard-nosed apprehension of the world, but if that's what I truly believed, I'd think seriously about ending it all. Or drinking a lot more.
"looking for evidence that supports one's preconceptions"
LeaNder, there is a whole field of engineering called system identification which amounts to no much more than that. But if you had any idea of the power of its methods you would be perhaps a little less dismissive of this approach. The key is to have well educated "preconceptions" and lots of ingenuity. Certainly those qualities are not lacking in mr. Martillo.
By the way, as a non english speaker I, like you, take a bit more time to write than what would be ideal in a blog environment. Once I saw your comment I knew exacly what had happened. But my attempt to turn the incident into an extension of a very intelligent mystical dream with elephants, muppets and whips went unoticed, it seems.
It's not only a matter of language, but of a fitting response. I have overused "brilliant" a bit. But it definitively was a highlight.
Although a question remains: If the Muslim can marry a "Jewess" what rule defines the religion of the kids? I am assuming they are Muslim, but what are they in Mitzahi law? … Or are they Jewish? I can't believe. (see, I have preconceptions concerning the Arabs too)
there is a whole field of engineering called system identification which amounts to no much more than that.
I once discovered an English artist engineer on the web. His theory was, that the most complicated machinery works in spite of scientific laws through experiment and practice. (or something similar)
No, the muppets and elephants didn't escape my attention. I simply had a void in my brain, and didn't want to bore anyone.
Sorry, I did it again!!!!! I didn't use preview. Hopefully there is soon a new comment page.
only "in spite of" was meant to be bold.
'The ugly reality of worldly existence is that tribes seek to subjugate tribes'
@GC ‘That is one reality. There is another one, and a failure to recognise it dooms you to your first option. Seems to me that's what some people really want. Bring it on, eh? What a deluded 'left-liberal' I must be!’
I really don’t view the Bush “bring it on” global-democracy-at-gunpoint mentality as inconsistent with the globalizationist/socialist left-liberal will to order mentality. They are both universalistic, coercive, ostensibly secular and rational, utopian, and fated to either disastrous failure or totalitarianism, or like Communism, both. I believe those who want to implement them are more interested in their own power and intellectual conceit than they are the peaceful coexistence of mankind.
GC: [Peace] “can work, if those tribes operate under an agreed protocol of tolerance. This is the essence of 'being civilised' and if you rule out it's possibility, you are implicitly admitting that ultimately, in the long run, peace is never possible.”
Acknowledging the tribal character of humanity is essential to achieving that protocol. So is preserving Western civilization. But Left-Right utopianists want Western civilization to both abandon its own identity and go all out implementing their uniform globalizationist agenda/vision. They are, in short, both insanely ambitious and consequently suicidal, because their insane ambitions are impossible to achieve. Their ideologue mentality is similar to Armageddon-seeking Christian Zionists who are suicidal because an entirely Christian world is unattainable and we’re all currently going to hell in a hand basket, except the socialists are less superstitious and their suicidal tendencies are based on “rational” analyses.
My vision allows for a multi-polar world and a rough, jostling, imperfect peace to be attainable between the different spheres of influence, with the key, coordinating role played by Western civilization. It is the most qualified for this role due to its proven ability to manage pluralism (that is, until the globalizationist "elite" took its reins).
Ed, your supposed distinction between the oppressive behaviour of Islamic society in treating non-Muslims as 'second class citizens', versus Christian society (you seem to mean, christian global colonisation) treating everyone as 'equal', is completely 'ideological', i.e. fictitious, dishonest, imaginary.
@RB
I don’t pretend that Western Christian civilization doesn’t have its own bias’ and value system, and I explicitly called for multi-polarism, not “christian global colonization” as you dishonestly interpreted my argument. But given the choices for a vision of the West — tried and true Western Christian civilization vs. globalizationist Neocon/Bushcon Zionism, or globalizationist left-liberal socialism, or globalizationist Neoliberal Zionism, I have concluded that tried and true Western Christian civilization is the best and most humane path, all things considered. It doesn’t surprise me that a neo-Bolshevik socialist with fantasies of worldwide feminist, homosexual, and atheist tyrannical “rights” delivered and guaranteed at gunpoint would disagree. Of course, such a system could only last about as long as the Soviet Union, at best. One would think you people would have learned the first time around how untenable a system comprised of a foundation of insane, atheistic, materialistic, totalitarian screwballs ultimately is.
I just cannot believe the way you keep stringing these words together in patterns that are quite consistent despite having no objective content. You are in my assessment a great case of "auto-brainwashing", and I cannot think of any humane cure.
Rowan Berkeley, you have not really taken in what Ed says. Please
reread his comments.
there is no objectively verifiable content to take in.
While researching the long-covered-up history of the "pre-tribulation rapture" view promoted by Lindsey, LaHaye, Hagee etc., historian Dave MacPherson has gone deeper than most and discovered much documentation that the same 178-year-old escapist view actually sprang from a decidedly anti-Jewish foundation in early 19th century Britain! He has also raised the question that if evangelicals love Jewish persons as much as they say they do, why are they so anxious to be raptured off the earth before the Antichrist's "tribulation" instead of wanting to remain on earth to minister love and comfort to Jewish persons during the predicted time of "Jacob's trouble'? MacPherson maintains that if Jewish persons could share the documented evidence in his book "The Rapture Plot" (which I obtained at Armageddon Books online) with media heads, the widespread airing of it could finally shut the mouths of anti-Semites everywhere (many of whom have been poisoned by "rapture" theology!). He calls the rapture fantasy the greatest hoax in religion in the past 200 years. Even though his book is banned in many evangelical bookstores, amazingly enough many evangelical scholars are among those who have endorsed his findings (Google "Scholars Weigh My Research")! If you like books that read like detective stories, read this one! Fairmack
"He calls the rapture fantasy the greatest hoax in religion in the past 200 years."
Unlike all the other stuff which has come to pass? Yeah okay, but I'm still keeping myself "rapture ready, bub!
I'm strictly a belts-and-suspenders type, eschatologically speaking