Five Republican congressmen take Christian Zionist solidarity tour of settlements

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
conggroup
Left to right, Avi Zimmeman – Ariel, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1st), Tony Perkins – President – Family Research Council, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA-4th), Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R -VA-4th), Rabbi Eliezer Melamed – Har Bracha, David Ha’ivri -Shomron Liaison, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-4th) (Photo: Heather Meyers)

From the Arutz Sheva article “Congressmen with ‘Judeo-Christian Spirit’ Tour Heartland“:

On November 9, five US Congressmen ventured into otherwise uncharted territory, at least by the standards of traditional diplomatic delegations to Israel. A strong affinity to Israel and genuine frustration with repeated fatal failures of “peace processes” drove these American leaders to take a fresh look at Israel’s heartland. . . .

gohmertmesika
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1st) with Gershon Mesika, the Director of the Samaria Regional Authority. (Photo: Heather Meyers)

The historic visit began with a bus tour led by Mayor Ron Nachman along the Trans-Samaria highway, where the delegates learned about Israel’s narrow waistline, security needs and strategic provisions. At the Ariel and Barkan Industrial Parks Mayor Nachman discussed co-existence, the 4,000 Arabs employed at the factories and the indiscriminate boycotts imposed by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and European Union on products from the factories. Mayor Nachman also showed the group the layout of the Ariel Bloc of communities, and the short distance from the Tel Aviv Coastal Plain.

The Congressmen learned about Judeo-Christian teamwork and at Israel’s primary outdoor training facility, the Ariel National Leadership Development Center. From there the group proceeded to the Ariel Regional Center for the Performing Arts, where they enjoyed a private performance by Ariel’s young singers and internationally renowned dancers . . .

Rep. Randy Forbes (R -VA-4th) addressed the [inaugural Samaria] by stating his unwavering support for Israel’s peace and security. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO-5th) discussed Israel’s inherent value and the commitment of the Congressional Republican Israel Caucus and the Israel Allies Caucus which he co-chairs. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1st), who is known for his instrumental role in arranging for Prime Minister to deliver his acclaimed speech to both houses of Congress in May, 2011, explained how Israel cannot sacrifice its own security by relinquishing land to those who are committed to its destruction. They were joined by Congressman John Fleming (R-LA-4th) and Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH-4th), who shared the sentiments of their colleagues.

The mission:

The tour is a manifestation of the “Judeo Christian” teamwork that has been growing deeper in recent years, as pioneering Jews in Judea and Samaria and Christian Zionist leaders in the US and elsewhere learn to trust each other. In the face of genocidal Muslim fanaticism, leaders of the nations that have the Bible in common are seeking common political ground as well.

The lobbyist:

The 2011 Congressional Initiative was arranged by Heather Johnston, who identified the need for America’s leading Congressmen to become familiar with Judea and Samaria and develop ties with Members of Knesset.

heather
Above is a photo of tour leader Heather Johnston,
on left, from a Christian Zionist site.

It looks like Johnston is here. She’s religious, and splits her time between northern California and Birmingham, Alabama.

Heather is the spiritual director of summer staff at JH Ranch and is responsible for JH Ranch curriculum development. She helps lead our tours to Israel and overseeing the JH Ranch partnership with the city of Ariel, Israel to develop a national youth leadership program.

122 Responses

  1. hophmi
    November 14, 2011, 12:26 pm

    So? There are allegedly some conservative Christians in Congress.

    • patm
      November 14, 2011, 12:58 pm

      “The mission:

      The tour is a manifestation of the “Judeo Christian” teamwork that has been growing deeper in recent years, as pioneering Jews in Judea and Samaria and Christian Zionist leaders in the US and elsewhere learn to trust each other. In the face of genocidal Muslim fanaticism, leaders of the nations that have the Bible in common are seeking common political ground as well.”

      A few red flags raised in this para, hops.

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2011, 1:32 pm

        Oh old Hophmi don’t see no red flags in “Judea and Samaria”, all he sees is the ol’ blue-n-white, next to the red-white-n-blue. With the R.,W.,-n-B. paying all expenses green and red.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 14, 2011, 1:28 pm

      The “So” is the cooperation between these americans and the Jewish terrorists.

    • Chaos4700
      November 14, 2011, 6:53 pm

      Remind me how Israel isn’t a domestic issue.

    • Charon
      November 15, 2011, 2:06 am

      hophmi’s logic is that conservative Christians represent a large portion of Americans and therefore in a democracy they should be allowed to do such things because America supports it.

      Irrational logic. Many hasbarists use the ‘democracy’ excuase as a way to silence critics.

      “You can disagree but X amount of people are for such policies because they are y so therefore z amount of Americans are in favor of this”

      What a stupid argument. hophmi, do you go my the name Jeremy on Al Jazeera discussion? You sound exactly like that troll. I would comment there if there wasn’t so much crap

  2. seafoid
    November 14, 2011, 12:37 pm

    “Rep. Randy Forbes (R -VA-4th) addressed the [inaugural Samaria] by stating his unwavering support for Israel’s peace and security. ”

    I wouldn’t build my family ‘s future around a promise from a Republican Xtian . Randy won’t be anywhere to be seen when it falls apart. He doesn’t care about Jews.- none of them do.

    Most of them want to convert Jews anyway.

    • W.Jones
      November 14, 2011, 1:02 pm

      BTW, the term “Xtian” seems unusual to me, but I have seen it used in contexts objecting to the religion. I would like to ask if it connotes anything more than merely an abbreviation?

      • eljay
        November 14, 2011, 1:12 pm

        >> BTW, the term “Xtian” seems unusual to me, but I have seen it used in contexts objecting to the religion. I would like to ask if it connotes anything more than merely an abbreviation?

        Usage of “X” for “Christ”

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2011, 1:35 pm

        “connotes anything more than merely an abbreviation?”

        Probably just a good-hearted desire not to byte off more than Mondoweiss can chew.

      • W.Jones
        November 14, 2011, 1:50 pm

        As the link shows, it is an abbreviation that originally started out with a common Christian usage. I don’t think Xmas is much more than an abbreviation, but “Xtian” as a term just looks unusual for me among Christians themselves.

        The context for using the term here was a negative one. So my question was also how you see it yourself.

      • seafoid
        November 14, 2011, 3:07 pm

        I have seen it on a few settler sites. They are very wary of fundi Americans and accuse them of proselytising

        link to israelinsider.net

      • W.Jones
        November 14, 2011, 3:54 pm

        Seafoid,

        Wow, that’s alot of use of the word Xtian in one post! What is going on with the use of the term “Xtian”?

        The article you linked to was about a missionary who died. It seems to me the official story is correct, because supposedly they found the perpetrators. But in some of the initial news reports, it sounded like there was some uncertainty about what happened. Any ideas?

        Peace.

      • seafoid
        November 14, 2011, 4:20 pm

        I have some stuff about the settlers and Xtians on my work computer! so will post it tomorrow.

        Here is the other religious side of settlement- Jews. A real Ashkenazi face on why she moved to the settlement of Maaleh Adumim for a life as a womb for Israel

      • W.Jones
        November 14, 2011, 5:47 pm

        “I have some stuff about the settlers and Xtians on my work computer!”

        There that word is again. :) Do you just use it as an abbreviation? Or would you say it has a negative connotation, like in the link you mentioned?

        Peace.

      • kapok
        November 14, 2011, 11:05 pm

        I believe the greek christos is rendered like xristos. X is the sign for ch. Hence xtian. Or else I’m confused by what you’re asking because somebody else here would have pointed this out by now.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2011, 12:36 am

        If I saw an article criticizing Americans that constantly referred to them as “U.S.ians” throughout the article, I might think that the term had a negative connotation, since it is an unusual term, especially if the term is rarely used by Americans themselves.

        This is how we learn language- we look at contexts. If as a child I see a new word in literature, like “self-conscious”, and it keeps coming up in negative contexts, I might conclude it has a negative connotation, even though it theoretically might only mean being aware of oneself, which is a good thing.

        For example there was the “League for Struggle for Negro Rights” a long time ago, but today the term “negro” might be considered to have a negative connotation?

        So I am asking Seafoid whether he thinks the abbreviation “Xian” has a negative connotation, or whether he is using it in a negative way.

      • seafoid
        November 15, 2011, 2:07 am

        I use it in the context of the settlers. Otherise I write “Christian”. For the settler Xtian means something specific.

      • seafoid
        November 15, 2011, 3:40 am

        W.Jones

        Here it is.
        It is a settler thing . For the most rabid of them “Christian” is negative.

        link to myrightword.blogspot.com

        Ariel Ben Yochanan said…
        B”H – Jews are not interested in idol worshippers and their impossible new testicles. Worshippers of the golden calf State are usually interested in xtians, because they are the same.
        Sun Oct 16, 05:13:00 PM

        Ariel Ben Yochanan said…

        B”H – Yisrael, please, don’t buy into the establishment thought that differentiates between the various xtian denominations just because they say “we love you”. It has absolutely no basis, they ALL attribute godly status to subjects other than Hashem and they are now actively worshipping on the Land, an activity that exposes us to great dangers.

        We are put here to serve Hashem and if we fail to do this basic minimum, well, we’ll be in trouble G-d forbid. Are we instructed to restore and preserve their pillars and stones of worship or to destroy them? No need to answer, the question is rhetoric. The fact is that Shilo should not attract xtians, not as visitors, not as workers and not as missionaries. Shilo should repel them. It is true that we are pressed by Ishmael, but running to the arms of Esav is no solution. The war is a three front one: Ishmael, Esav AND the erev rav. We have to be alert on ALL three fronts. See The Three Front War on thetorahrevolution.blogspot.com

        Mon Oct 17, 12:43:00 AM
        Anonymous said…
        Ariel Ben Yochanan is right, we as Jews are not supposed to invite xtians to trample their dirty idol worshipping feet on our holy lnd just because they say they love us and we shouldnt whore ourselves out for a few dollars. Xtians have been enemies of the Jewish people for many years and only people suffering of short term memory issues forget their roles in the holocaust, pogroms, crsades and many other Jew killing festivals. Todays xtian is more dangerous than yesterdays because they align themselves with Jews against a muslim enemy but dont be fooled their goals have not changed, just some of their tactics…

        Additionally, from a halachic perspective we are commanded by hashem to seek out and destroy avoda zara in the holy land not preserve it and invite idol worshippers to continue their abominations..

        Conclusion, yes their were xtians here, they hated and killed us back then and they would like to do the same today as well…They kill our souls because its more politically accepted than with the sword. We need to align ourselves with Hashem for Hashem is our only savior, not xtian money, not tzahal, not yushkee or anyone/thing else.

        There is also no doubt that SOME posqim have defined Xtianity as avoda zara, while others have defined it merely as shittuf. Avoda zara is forbidden for Jews and non-Jews, while shittuf is permitted for non-Jews and forbidden for Jews

        Ariel Ben Yochanan said…
        B”H

        Here is a quote from A Three Fronts War for you xtians experts:

        link to thetorahrevolution.blogspot.com:

        “No one who hasn’t been a xian can understand the way they think or talk or anything else. First of all the whole concept of tshuva is completely different for xians than it is for Jews. xians believe yeshu “paid” for their sins so they are not punished or even held responsible for their sins. So if they are claiming they have done tshuva that statement means absolutely nothing to them. I guaranty if you ask them if they believe it is a sin to tell a Jew about yeshu they will say no. Of course they can say they don’t want to convert Jews because the Jewish concept of conversion does not exist in evangelical xianity (it does in catholism). Evangelicals believe in “messianic judaism” which says a Jew who accepts yeshu doesn’t convert to another religion he just fulfills judaism by becoming a “completed Jew”. Paul teaches in the NT that a xian can use any means, including lying, or financial help or emotional support to “spread the gospel”. You have to assume that the wallers and their minions will tell you whatever it is you want to hear so that they can get closer to Jews. The number one method used by xians to spread the gospel throughout the world is humanitarian works. The xian offers help to people in need to foster trust and build relationship then slowly they will convince you that this help has come to you because of yeshu and he can solve all your problems and heal all your pain if you just believe in him. Jews who are falling for their lies should take into account that the Wallers and many if not all of the people volunteering with them have recieved alot of money from people who support their “ministry”. Why are these people supporting them financially why they are here? It is because they believe the Wallers “ministry” is to open the Jewish hearts and eyes to yeshu. Even if some Jews want to believe that the Wallers and their friends are not here to missionize, they should be worried about the judgement they are bringing on the yeshuvim for allowing idolators to read their NT, pray to their false god( while they are picking the grapes that are to be made into jewish wine), and worshipping their false god with instruments, singing and dancing.” (Credit omitted)

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 7:51 am

        It’s funny, reading these people, debating the fine points of meaningless theological nonsense, and the absolute hate that it includes, I have had it confirmed that religion is definetly among the top 3 of the worst ideas every made up in the mind of humans. How much the better the world would be if this mind-cancer called “religion” would disappear forever.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        November 15, 2011, 8:50 am

        Stalin tried to get rid of religion. Along with tens millions of people that he did threw in the soil to decay and rot.
        Now Russia GOES back to their religious roots.

        link to youtube.com

        Even though bolshevics were trying vehemently to remove them all.
        World would NOT be a “better place ” without religion.
        What a bunch of balooney. If you know even a little history, you should know that.
        World would be a better place, if people “would carry each other burden”, and ” do not do to others ,what they do not want to be done to them.”
        Simple, yet almost impossible to achieve.
        But we should try, at least with our personal lives ,on which we do have some influence.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 9:21 am

        Yeah, Stalin acted against religion in order to replace it with something equally irrational. Great. That’s no argument for religion, but an argument against Stalinism.

        And, yes, the world would be a MUCH better place without religion and every other form of irrationality.

        World would be a better place, if people “would carry each other burden”, and ” do not do to others ,what they do not want to be done to them.”

        I agree, but neither of these is religion, as opposed to mere ethics and morality, which religion has attempted to coopt as its own. Yes, let’s all adopt rational ethica and moral principles and discard the religions.

      • patm
        November 15, 2011, 10:03 am

        “Yes, let’s all adopt rational ethical and moral principles and discard the religions.”

        Agreed. How do we do that?

      • seafoid
        November 15, 2011, 10:47 am

        link to myrightword.blogspot.com

        Evangelicals who came with an open-minded commitment to hear both sides heard Mitri Raheb, a pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem deny the connection between modern Jews and those of the Bible.

        “I’m sure if we were to do a DNA test between David… and Jesus… and Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born, I’m sure the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu, you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages…. I always loved to say that most probably one of my grand, grand, grand, grandmas used to babysit for Jesus.”

      • kapok
        November 15, 2011, 10:47 am

        World would be a better place, if people “would carry each other burden”, and ” do not do to others ,what they do not want to be done to them.”

        That’s right Dum-dum: Communism

      • kapok
        November 15, 2011, 12:24 pm

        Hey, what gives? Is mention of Israel Shamir verbotten around here?

      • kapok
        November 15, 2011, 1:52 pm

        Thankyou, now go read I. Shamir, ex-Jew, Xtian, on Stalin-the-horriblest-dictator-evah(TM) and his(Shamir’s) cure for the Jews Blues. If your life is a process of disillusionment, you owe it to yourself.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2011, 3:12 pm

        “Agreed. How do we do that?”

        Oh, I don’t know, but I can’t help thinking (so call me a nut!) that not doing to others what is hateful to ones self might be a good start. It couldn’t hurt.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2011, 3:15 pm

        “We are put here to serve Hashem…”

        Well, I sure wish he would serve me some. The local bud is not that good this year.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2011, 5:17 pm

        Seafoid,

        ‘I use it in the context of the settlers. Otherise I write “Christian”. For the settler Xtian means something specific.>>
        OK, that’s what I was getting at.

        “It is true that we are pressed by Ishmael, but running to the arms of Esav is no solution.”>>
        This refers to the phrase about the two brothers: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated.”
        OK, if Ishmael are the Arabs, what group today does Esau (the Edomites) refer to? Doesn’t that mean the Idumeans, who I think included King Herod?

        I don’t think the Philistines or Canaanites included the Edomites- they seem like separate groups. It sounds kind of weird. Anyway, the differences between Palestinians and Israelis isn’t really ethnic, although Palestinians are often more Arab in ancestry.

        “destroy avoda zara in the holy land”>>=?
        ” yushkee”>?
        posqim>?
        shittuf>?

        “xians believe yeshu “paid” for their sins so they are not punished or even held responsible for their sins.”>> This is like saying that Yom Kippur atones for sins so they are not held responsible. It is like a red herring, it seems.

        “So if they are claiming they have done tshuva that statement means absolutely nothing to them.”>>
        Doing righteousness(tshuva) means nothing?

        “Paul teaches in the NT that a xian can use any means, including lying”>> I missed that one in Bible School. :p

        “The number one method used by xians to spread the gospel throughout the world is humanitarian works.”
        Awesome. A religion that spreads itself by doing tshuva can’t be all bad. Lolz.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2011, 5:30 pm

        Since many Palestinians and Israelis include descendants of Zion’s ancient inhabitants on one hand, and Arabs and European converts respectively on the other, there ironically are many instances where Palestinians descended from the ancient Israelites are denied citizenship while Europeans receive it.

        However, you cannot make a strict overgeneralization about both groups one way or the other, as pastor Raheb does (even if this would turn out to be true in the instance he gave).

        Still, this is one of the arguments I make- if you accept the idea of Zion as a Jewish homeland based on ancestral ties (an idea I sympathize with), you must also accept Zion as a Palestinian homeland for the same reason.

      • patm
        November 15, 2011, 6:19 pm

        “…,there ironically are many instances where Palestinians descended from the ancient Israelites are denied citizenship while Europeans receive it.”

        “Still, this is one of the arguments I make- if you accept the idea of Zion as a Jewish homeland based on ancestral ties (an idea I sympathize with), you must also accept Zion as a Palestinian homeland for the same reason.”

        Nicely put, W. Jones.

      • RoHa
        November 15, 2011, 7:14 pm

        “I can’t help thinking (so call me a nut!) that not doing to others what is hateful to ones self might be a good start.”

        You’ve been reading Confucius again, haven’t you?

      • RoHa
        November 15, 2011, 7:15 pm

        “Hashem” is what you say to avoid the four-letter word that you can’t say out loud, isn’t it?

      • Citizen
        November 16, 2011, 6:33 am

        Woody, they can’t sleep without a pillow.

  3. gazacalling
    November 14, 2011, 12:37 pm

    Supporting illegal settlements has nothing to do with conservatism or Christianity. It’s sheer pandering by power-hungry politicians.

    • justicewillprevail
      November 14, 2011, 4:11 pm

      And a nice little earner into the bargain. You scratch my back, I roll over for you in Congress. Attack Iran? Why certainly sir, never mind the cost to the US taxpayer, the bodybags or the interminable regional war and increased terrorism that will ensue. I, of course, will be safe at home, lying through my teeth for you Klan guys. Oyeh veh!

    • Chaos4700
      November 14, 2011, 6:54 pm

      You’d be hard pressed to ask conservative Christians and expect them to not profess undying support for Jews-only settlements on the West Bank.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      November 14, 2011, 9:41 pm

      I agree. True Christians do not encourage or support ANY violence ,( a self defense is an exception, of course).
      The ” christian” zionizm psycho-bubbling is a krypto, pseudo-Christianity. Compared to Nazis belt buckle inscription “Gott mit uns”.
      Nazis were not Christians, if so, they were persecuting them.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 9:34 am

        “Nazis were not Christians”

        This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

        Yes, the Nazis were Christians (most of them, anyway.) They may have taken actions that you reject due to your religion, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t Christians. (This argument is distinct from the argument as to whether Nazism, itself, was a form of Christianity or a Christian movement, of course.)

      • dumvitaestspesest
        November 15, 2011, 1:47 pm

        Soory but you are an ignorant in the subject

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 2:35 pm

        LOL. No, I’m not. I’ve been studying this subject for three decades.

      • Elisabeth
        November 15, 2011, 2:52 pm

        If some nasty secular ideology doesn’t agree with your delusion that religion is the root of all evil, you just conflate the ethnicity of the adherents with their local religion, and miraculously, religion is now the root of all evil again. By your reason Nazi’s were Christians, Stalinists too, Khmer Rouge were Buddhists, Maoists were Confucianists (except if they are Shining Path, then they are Christian again, how funny). And you yourself, Tanaka-san, are a Shintoist of course, even if you deny it.

      • MHughes976
        November 15, 2011, 3:09 pm

        Klaus Scholder’s The Churches and the Third Reich is very good, though saddening. It’s clearly true that many Nazis did consider themselves to be Christians. Perhaps their Christianity was inauthentic – it’s very difficult to explain what is the authentic form of any religion or indeed of any school of thought.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 4:19 pm

        “If some nasty secular ideology doesn’t agree with your delusion that religion is the root of all evil, you just conflate the ethnicity of the adherents with their local religion, and miraculously, religion is now the root of all evil again.”

        Oh, my gosh, Elisabeth, what are talking about?

        First, I don’t believe that religion is the root of all evil. I believe that irrationality is the root of all evil. Religion is one species of irrationality, however. (As are Nazism, Communism, etc.)

        Second, I cannot decypher what you mean by “you just conflate the ethnicity of the adherents with their local religion, and miraculously, religion is now the root of all evil again.” I did not make any mention of anyone’s ethnicity. (Unless you mean the mention of “Scotsman” in which case, oh, boy, you really need to google “No true Scotsman”)

        “By your reason Nazi’s were Christians, Stalinists too, Khmer Rouge were Buddhists, Maoists were Confucianists (except if they are Shining Path, then they are Christian again, how funny).”

        No, I think you are confusing the philosophy/ideology/thought and the person. For example, a “Nazi” is a person. “Nazism” is a political philosophy. So if you say, “The Nazis were not Christian” that is simply false. Because most of the Nazis (especially after 1933) were Christians. That is not to say that Nazism is Christian. These are two different concepts. You get it?

        So, yes, some Nazis were Christian, some Stalinists were Christians, that does not mean that Nazism or Stalinism are Christian.

        “And you yourself, Tanaka-san, are a Shintoist of course, even if you deny it.”

        Nope, not even close at all. I am an atheist. I was raised Roman Catholic (as were my parents before me), but I freed myself from those mental chains in my early 20s, oh, those many, many, many years ago. I find, however, find Shinto to be interesting.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2011, 5:40 pm

        Woody,

        You can go back to D.Vitae’s statement to see aht he means:
        “I agree. True Christians do not encourage or support ANY violence ,( a self defense is an exception, of course). Nazis were not Christians, if so, they were persecuting them.”

        In other words they were not really Christians, ie true Christians, even if they may have called themselves that. In Christianity, the requirements of being a “real” Christian include: A. identifying as Christian (accepting the religion as an idea) B. doing what it says (ie following Christianity). The NT talks alot about this.

        However, I can imagine that in some other religions, the requirement of being considered part of the religion could be purely rituatlistic.

        I admit that alot of arguments can be made on this subject, but this is how I see it: the Nazis are a lesson about people imagining they have the right religion, but failing to actually be Christian and then doing bad things to good people, including to true Christians (eg. German pacifists).

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 15, 2011, 6:02 pm

        W.Jones,

        Again, this is the No True Scotman fallacy. You define “Christian” means one who follows the two requirements that you set out. Yet the examples of people who do not meet those requirements, or people who do not accept your limited definition, yet are still considered Christian, are legion. That’s the essence of the fallacy.

      • Elisabeth
        November 15, 2011, 6:14 pm

        Oh, so now irrationality is the root of all evil. Well, I guess you and I just believe in different ‘goshes’. Your ‘gosh’ seems to be rationaity my ‘gosh’ happens to be kindness.

        I know a lot of irrational people who are are kindness itself. Irrationality is not evil. It can even be a lot of fun. Where is your sense of humor? (Rigid rationality is boring… That is a major objection I have to it)

        “And you yourself, Tanaka-san, are a Shintoist of course, even if you deny it.”
        “Nope, not even close at all. I am an atheist. I was raised Roman Catholic (as were my parents before me), but I freed myself from those mental chains in my early 20s, oh, those many, many, many years ago.”

        I was blind but now I see. From the rooftops I will sing. I was bound but now I’m free. (Strings, growing stronger and stronger and finally trumpets…)

        (Actually, I did not expect you to take the Shintoist bit seriously, but then, rationalists and humor… Not a happy marriage.)

        ” I find, however, find Shinto to be interesting.”

        Interesting, yes, and DEFINITELY irrational. (And therefore evil?)

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2011, 6:22 pm

        Perhaps this means Christianity has this fallacies as one of its doctrines? ;)

        In any case, this is a problem that will continue to come up- many people claiming to belong to a religion, which in fact defines its adherents as those who actually do good.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        November 15, 2011, 6:36 pm

        Depends what “sources” you have been using.

      • patm
        November 15, 2011, 10:31 pm

        “– it’s very difficult to explain what is the authentic form of any religion or indeed of any school of thought.” MHughes

        I agree, and the *many* schools of thought (or sects) in the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions add more layers of complexity to the question.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2011, 10:01 am

        Elisabeth,
        “Oh, so now irrationality is the root of all evil.”

        LOL. No “now” about it. I’ve found irrationality to be the root of all evil from quite some time now.

        “ Well, I guess you and I just believe in different ‘goshes’. Your ‘gosh’ seems to be rationaity my ‘gosh’ happens to be kindness.”

        Nothing inconsistent between rationality and kindness. Indeed, so long as you don’t credit the existence of kindness to supernatural forces or act kindly because you think it will get you heavenly brownie points, I don’t have any criticism with an approach that stresses kindness.

        “Irrationality is not evil.”

        That is why the sentences “Irrationality is evil” and “Irrationality is the root of all evil” are different sentences.

        “ It can even be a lot of fun. Where is your sense of humor? (Rigid rationality is boring… That is a major objection I have to it)”

        There is nothing irrational in humor or fun. (Again, unless you think that “humor” is the result of a god tickling your funny bone or that “fun” is borne on the backs of angels or some such stuff.)

        “(Actually, I did not expect you to take the Shintoist bit seriously, but then, rationalists and humor… Not a happy marriage.)”

        Actually, they make for a very, very happy marriage. For example, people who are religious believers cannot see the humor in many of their religious rituals. (Not to mention the fact that they rarely find humor in jokes which poke gentle fun at those rituals and religious beliefs. Blasphemy, you know. )

        “Interesting, yes, and DEFINITELY irrational. (And therefore evil?)”

        Definitely irrational. (unless you can present evidence that the Japanese Emperor really is descended from the goddess Amaterasu.) It’s not necessarily “therefore evil.” It was certainly at the root of much evil in the Shōwa era stemmed from irrationality accompanying Shinto, and even today, it has hindered Japanese relations with its (real, actually existing) neighbors, in connection with the Yasukuni Shrine. But there is no reason that it cannot be as benign as, say, reading a horoscope but not really believing it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2011, 10:08 am

        W.Jones,

        “Perhaps this means Christianity has this fallacies as one of its doctrines? ;)”

        No, it’s simply a matter of the fact that “doing good” is not an objective criteria, in defining who is not a Christian.

        “In any case, this is a problem that will continue to come up- many people claiming to belong to a religion, which in fact defines its adherents as those who actually do good.”

        First, there are many unquestionably Christian sects which do not agree that there is any definitional component in doing good. Some say, if you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you’re in. Some say, if you’ve been baptised and/or confirmed, you’re in. Some say that it doesn’t matter if you do bad, so long as you seek forgiveness, etc.

        But this is all just a subset of the problem that it isn’t an objective criteria that was being used to discount those Nazis. It was subjective.

        (And the real solution is to say “Christian or not, their actions were bad, so we reject them.” Whether they were or were not Christian is irrelevant to the non-culpability of another Christian who was not, himself, a Nazi.)

      • W.Jones
        November 16, 2011, 11:40 am

        Woody Tanaka,

        (“Perhaps this means Christianity has this fallacies as one of its doctrines?)
        No, it’s simply a matter of the fact that “doing good” is not an objective criteria, in defining who is not a Christian)
        If true, this would mean Christianity uses subjective criteria.
        As I remember, Jesus once said they would know whether you were Christian based on how you loved people.

        (((“In any case, this is a problem that will continue to come up- many people claiming to belong to a religion, which in fact defines its adherents as those who actually do good.”
        ‘Some say, if you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you’re in. Some say, if you’ve been baptised and/or confirmed, you’re in.’))) That’s the kind of views I am talking about that disagree with the religion’s qualifications for defining membership.

        (((‘Some say that it doesn’t matter if you do bad, so long as you seek forgiveness, etc.’)))
        Seeking forgiveness is doing good. And if God forgives you, then it cleans away the bad. In any case, that’s the religion’s idea that following Christianity is also a criteria, not just ritual or self-identification.

        I am not 100% sure of this, but it’s my understanding of the religion.

        (((And the real solution is to say “Christian or not, their actions were bad, so we reject them.” Whether they were or were not Christian is irrelevant to the non-culpability of another Christian who was not, himself, a Nazi.)))
        Both answers can be correct.
        The argument is often that Christianity is shown to be a bad religion because of the Nazis. However, the Nazi leadership were to a significant extent pagans or occultists. Further, the persecutions were actually against the teachings of Christianity, and the religion itself apparently doesn’t consider them Christian.
        Then you can throw in the fact that nearly all Christians reject the Nazis’ actions. So there are lots of answers.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2011, 12:44 pm

        “If true, this would mean Christianity uses subjective criteria.”

        Yes, it does. In part.

        “As I remember, Jesus once said they would know whether you were Christian based on how you loved people.”

        So? The issue is how people in modern times define who is and is not a Christian and whether or not you can exclude people who self-identify as Christian (and who are Christian by some measures) simply because you don’t like their actions. Again, the issue is the statement “Nazis are not Christian” and whether that is fallacious.

        “That’s the kind of views I am talking about that disagree with the religion’s qualifications for defining membership.”

        But, again, there is no objective basis for saying that those disagreeing people are wrong in their assessment and you are right. You can make an argument for your view, but so could they.

        “Seeking forgiveness is doing good.”

        If that is your measure, then it would be wrong to assert, in blanket fashion – as was the case here – that Nazis are not Christians. Because, then, by your definition, they could be, if they sought forgiveness.

        “In any case, that’s the religion’s idea that following Christianity is also a criteria, not just ritual or self-identification.”

        But if that is the case, then the statement, “Nazis were not Christians” is false, which is all I was arguing.

        “Both answers can be correct.“

        Not really. One is a fallacy and the other is not.

        “The argument is often that Christianity is shown to be a bad religion because of the Nazis. However, the Nazi leadership were to a significant extent pagans or occultists. Further, the persecutions were actually against the teachings of Christianity, and the religion itself apparently doesn’t consider them Christian.”

        But, again, the issue here isn’t whether Christianity is or is not a bad religion because of the Nazis or whether individual Nazis were or were not Christian, but the blanket statement made that Nazis are not Christians.

        (And it is interesting that you provide, here, a fairly objective measure of non-Christianity, i.e., if one is a pagan or an occultist [putting aside for a moment that 1) these terms are difficult to actually define, and 2) the fact that the notion that the Nazi leaders were pagans or occultists is more urban myth than truth {except, perhaps, for Himmler}] than one is not a Christian. Saying that a particular person who was a Nazi is not a Christian because he was a pagan is not a fallacious statement, even though “Nazis were not Christian” is.)

        “Then you can throw in the fact that nearly all Christians reject the Nazis’ actions. So there are lots of answers.”

        I don’t disagree, but, again, the point at issue is the statement that “Nazis were not Christians.”

      • Elisabeth
        November 16, 2011, 1:35 pm

        Rationaliy/irrationality and good/evil are unrelated categories. Being kind can be irrational. (Why hide a Jewish girl like my grandparents did, when it only endangered themselves and their children?) And evil deeds can be rational. (You can really profit from massacring and taking over the property of an ethnic group that is weaker than you.) Your disdain for religion and your constant suggestions that religious people are more prone to do evil things than atheists like yourself stem from your obsession with rationality. There is no need to think in this way, as the link you make between irrationality and evil is baseless.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2011, 2:09 pm

        “Rationaliy/irrationality and good/evil are unrelated categories. Being kind can be irrational. (Why hide a Jewish girl like my grandparents did, when it only endangered themselves and their children?)”

        First, I am not saying that irrationality always leads to evil, but that the root of evil is irrationality. Further, I would not consider what your grandparents did to be irrational. There is nothing irrational about wanting to save another human being. Are you kidding? Do you even know what the word “rational” means? You seem to have it mixed up with some kind of Randian objectivist nonsense.

        “And evil deeds can be rational. (You can really profit from massacring and taking over the property of an ethnic group that is weaker than you.) ”

        No, what you are describing is very irrational. And history has shown countless examples of how that irrationality manifests.

        “Your disdain for religion and your constant suggestions that religious people are more prone to do evil things than atheists like yourself stem from your obsession with rationality.”

        You are clearly reading things into my words based on your own preconceived biases. I would recommend you consider them and perhaps reason through them. First, I do not believe that relgiious people are any more prone to do evil things than atheists. I beleive that irrational people are more prone to do eviil than irrational people.

        And you are, of course, entitled to your beliefs about the supposed absence of a link between irrationality and evil, but you would be wrong.

      • Elisabeth
        November 16, 2011, 3:12 pm

        I was hoping to make you reconsider some of your more rigid beliefs, but I guess I failed. Cheers Woody.

      • john h
        November 16, 2011, 3:55 pm

        “This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.”

        Woody, you said to google it and I did. Take a look at this one: “Why is the “No True Scotsman..” a fallacy with respect to religion?” (answers.yahoo)

        It is apparent that opinions differ as to its plausibility. So it is a moot point.

        “Yes, the Nazis were Christians (most of them, anyway.) I’ve been studying this subject for three decades.”

        I am not sure what you mean here by “this subject”, other than that it is central to what is being discussed. But as this concerns religion, in this case Christianity and who is and isn’t Christian, your own personal position as an atheist is what I think must be taken into account.

        You and others have cited various criteria thought to answer this question of who is or isn’t. I would suggest that the only valid criteria is what comes either from the founder of Christianity and/or those of his followers who wrote the New Testament.

        Thus what you as an atheist or I as a Christian have to say on this, or popular opinion, has no validity. In that sense, we are all mere bystanders.

        But there is this one key difference between us two, which is that you are an outsider and I am an insider.

        Both of us may have studied for thirty years, but who, I ask you, is the one more likely to know what those criteria are and how they are to be understood and applied?

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2011, 3:57 pm

        Elisabeth, I can assure you that I am more than willing to reconsider any belief I have and will change my beliefs if the evidence warrants it. (It is those last 5 words that always disappoints people, though.)

        Cheers Elisabeth.

      • john h
        November 16, 2011, 4:16 pm

        Religion is one species of irrationality, however. (As are Nazism, Communism, etc.)

        I do not believe that religious people are any more prone to do evil things than atheists. I believe that irrational people are more prone to do evil than rational people.

        Woody, these two statements of yours, on the face of it, are an actual and logical contradiction.

        I don’t think I need say more. The ball is in your court. See if you can get it back into mine!

      • W.Jones
        November 16, 2011, 6:39 pm

        ((“That’s the kind of views I am talking about that disagree with the religion’s qualifications for defining membership.”
        But, again, there is no objective basis for saying that those disagreeing people are wrong in their assessment and you are right. You can make an argument for your view, but so could they. ))
        If I and my opponents agree that the Bible decides the religion, and the Bible explicitly requires following Christian teachings, then there is an objective decision.
        I am right, they are wrong (I say it with alittle humor)

        ((“Seeking forgiveness is doing good.”
        If that is your measure, then it would be wrong to assert, in blanket fashion – as was the case here – that Nazis are not Christians. Because, then, by your definition, they could be, if they sought forgiveness.))
        Correct. Nazis could become Christian if they repent of their wickedness (eg. genocide). Generally though, if they repented of it, they would probably choose to stop being Nazis (unless they were working undercover or something).

  4. Kathleen
    November 14, 2011, 12:46 pm

    How Israel and the I lobby continues to get around the legislation passed to stop this type of hanky panky is par for the course. Move over Aipac
    Visiting the Office of Congressional Ethics about AIPAC Junkets to Israel
    link to moveoveraipac.org

    gohmert is truly a nutcase
    gohmert with a map that does not show any illegal settlements
    link to youtube.com

    gohmert kissing Netanyahu’s and Israel’s ass

    • Mndwss
      November 14, 2011, 4:42 pm

      link to youtube.com

      Was that in the congress?

      And everyone was silent?

      The congress should have the treatment that Alex DeLarge got in A Clockwork Orange.

      They should have to see and expirience/suffer the evil they support. With eyes forced wide open.

  5. Kathleen
    November 14, 2011, 12:48 pm

    “She’s religious, and splits her time between northern California and Birmingham, Alabama.”

    Not religious…racist. Ignoring the brutal treatment of the Palestinians while supporting Israel no matter what they do. Not religious

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 14, 2011, 1:28 pm

      Oh, I disagree. I think that there is, for the Christians, a lot of religion involved.

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2011, 1:38 pm

        I concur. There’s probably a whole lot of religion in their racism.

      • richb
        November 14, 2011, 2:08 pm

        You’re both right. It’s an amalgam of both. The “tribe” is both racially and religiously based and there is a natural distrust of others outside the tribe. (This is why white and African American evangelicals have radically different politics.) Ironically, a Christian virtue taught in the New Testament is hospitality which comes from the Greek word φιλόξενος, literally meaning lover of strangers or foreigners.

      • Mndwss
        November 14, 2011, 3:37 pm

        I googled φιλόξενος and the result with the address trismegistos.org made me think about Gaza, and how it is hermetically sealed.

        “The word hermetic comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, via the vocabulary of alchemy. The alchemists invented a process for making a glass tube airtight, which was used in distillation. The process used a secret seal whose invention was attributed to the legendary patron of alchemy, Hermes Trismegistos.”

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        I will stop praying to Hermes / Hermes Trismegistos (Thoth) until his seal is not used to hurt people anymore…

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2011, 4:18 pm

        “The “tribe” is both racially and religiously based …”

        And bound by the holy ritual of mutual digital vertabratular abrasion.

      • annie
        November 14, 2011, 4:23 pm

        lol, you crack me up all the time

      • john h
        November 14, 2011, 4:59 pm

        “mutual digital vertabratular abrasion”

        Watch it. Someone might think you’re a wittycist.

      • CloakAndDagger
        November 14, 2011, 5:13 pm

        Is that like scratching each other’s back?

      • Kathleen
        November 14, 2011, 6:08 pm

        Would you add “culturally based” to that mix? I have known non religious Ashkenazi Jews who go blind when the I/P issue comes up. Often do not know about any facts on the ground

    • john h
      November 14, 2011, 5:34 pm

      “Not religious…racist. Ignoring the brutal treatment of the Palestinians while supporting Israel no matter what they do. Not religious”

      The term religious can be taken in two ways. One is how Kathleen has used it, because it was in what she quoted from. In this case that would mean Christian, and she correctly states why they cannot be said to be religious. It is a contradiction of and denial of that religion, an oxymoron.

      The other way is how I, and others like me, use it. The Christianity of the New Testament is not religion or religious, which Jesus was radically opposed to. Religious in this sense is following a set of rules or making up your own; being bound to certain ways or ideas so that you don’t care for the oppressed, only for what you imagine is the right way or the right people.

      It’s all summed up by the word “hypocrisy”, which Jesus constantly used in his denunciation of the religious leaders of his day, the scribes and Pharisees.

      Christian Zionists fit this like a glove.

      So, as in the quote “She’s religious”, but, as in what Kathleen said, “Not religious”.

  6. rensanceman
    November 14, 2011, 12:48 pm

    .. In the face of Muslim genocidal fanaticism…..it seems Zionism must always have an existential threat to maintain the rationale of their inexorable accretion of Palestinian land and the subjugation of its population. Our Congress have been bought body and soul to it’s cause. And the U.S. continues to kowtow to this dispicable Zionist government. When will Obama finally say: enough!

  7. patm
    November 14, 2011, 1:06 pm

    “Supporting illegal settlements has nothing to do with conservatism or Christianity. It’s sheer pandering by power-hungry politicians.” gazacalling

    Why do power-hungry politicians support illegal settlements? To whom are they pandering and Why?

    • Kathleen
      November 14, 2011, 1:25 pm

      Because they would more than likely get bounced out of the house if they did not pledge allegiance to Israel.

      Former Rep Findley knows this has been going on for decades

      link to en.wikipedia.org
      “Findley is a frequent critic of U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel. In 1985, Findley wrote the best selling book[7] “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby” in which he states that the pro-Israel lobby, notably AIPAC, has vast undue influence over the United States Congress. He refers to the lobby as “the 700-pound gorilla in Washington”.[8] He closes his book with this plea:

      The government of the United States must assert, at long last, its own national interests in the Middle East. … The world views our nation – accurately – as Israel’s essential partner in its military adventurism and its suppression of human rights. America must clear its good name of this complicity. … The next logical U.S. steps: declare that the people in occupied territories have the right to self-determination and, if they choose, independent statehood; demand that Israeli forces cease the detention of Palestinians without due process, as well as halt the beatings of Palestinians, the destruction of their homes and the use of plastic bullets and other lethal weapons against them; demand that new Israeli settlements in the occupied territories be prohibited. The United States has ample leverage with which to force compliance with these demands. At some point – the sooner the better – the United States must issue a clear ultimatum: notify the Jewish state that all U.S. aid will cease unless Israel, in exchange for border guarantees, withdraws its forces from Arab territories.”[9]

      The Washington Post reviewing They Dare to Speak Out said: “Stripped of all the maudlin martyrdom, former congressman Paul Findley’s message is straightforward and valid: Israeli influence in the United States, including in the inner sanctums of government, is very strong.” [10] The New York Times review by Adam Clymer, described the book as “an angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents … [it] does not really accept the idea that people of any political point of view are entitled to organize, support their friends and try to defeat the people they think are their enemies”.[11]

      Findley lists the Israeli lobby as one of the factors contributing to his narrow defeat in 1982, alongside the serious national recession of 1982 and the substantial change of his district’s boundaries after the 1980 census. “In seeking gains for Israel, they rigorously stifled dissent and intimidated the entire Congress. They still do. They defeat legislators who criticize Israel. Senators Adlai Stevenson III and Charles H. Percy, and Representatives Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl F. Hilliard, and myself were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces. McKinney alone was able to regain her seat in Congress.”[12] (McKinney lost her seat again two years later.)

      Findley spoke to NPR about the publication of Mearsheimer and Walt’s controversial 2006 working paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy : “You can’t imagine how pleased I was [...] I think I can pose as a foremost expert on the lobby for Israel, because I was the target the last three years I was in Congress.”[13]”

      Findley’s efforts created the Council for the National Interest
      link to councilforthenationalinterest.org
      Re-examining our Policies

      Many of the most serious dangers facing Americans today stem from our highly unusual relationship with Israel.

      Our uniquely massive support for Israel has cost trillions of dollars and multitudes of lives. It has diminished our moral standing in the world, lessened our domestic freedoms, and exposed us to unnecessary and growing peril.

      The majority of Americans – as well as our diplomatic and military experts – oppose this unique relationship.

      Yet, special interest lobbies continue to foment policies that are disastrous for our nation and tragic for the region.

      If we are to have sensible, effective policies that promote safety rather than danger, then it is essential that all Americans become active and informed. Lives depend on it.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 14, 2011, 1:26 pm

      “Why do power-hungry politicians support illegal settlements? To whom are they pandering and Why?”

      They are pandering to the vast group of American citizens who are loyal to the Zionist ideology above all else. They’re a lot of them and they donate money to poiticians.

      • annie
        November 14, 2011, 1:33 pm

        the vast group of American citizens who are loyal to the Zionist ideology are not the ones filling their coffers. they are pandering to the very very rich ones.

      • patm
        November 14, 2011, 1:41 pm

        “the vast group of American citizens who are loyal to the Zionist ideology…”

        Does this vast group have any idea what has become of the Israel Project? i.e. that it has become the plaything of the radical Spitting Jews? Is this not a concern?

      • seafoid
        November 14, 2011, 3:09 pm

        Those Christian Zionists are poorer than the American average.

      • patm
        November 14, 2011, 3:36 pm

        And only listen to and watch “Church News”….. We are all doomed!!

      • john h
        November 14, 2011, 5:10 pm

        Yeah, talk about ziocane, they put hasbaracentral to shame.

    • Kathleen
      November 14, 2011, 5:23 pm

      Why do power hungry politicians allow the I lobby and Israel to undermine US security by supporting illegal settlements?

  8. Nevada Ned
    November 14, 2011, 1:32 pm

    I wonder whether these philosemitic Christian Congressional reps put this on their websites.
    Some of Israel’s strongest backers in Congress downplay their ardent support for Israel, at least when communicating with the general public.

  9. Justice Please
    November 14, 2011, 1:38 pm

    “Christian Zionist solidarity” as in shutting up about the fact that Israel virtually acts as if it owned all of Jerusalem, holy city to three religions. Or the fact that some religious Jews run amok in the city, spitting on Christians.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      November 14, 2011, 4:44 pm

      Israel will do whatever is required to take over the whole, beautiful city of Jerusalem.
      It is one of the TOP points on their “concealed agenda” of bringing, “a piece of Peace”, to the world.

  10. Kathleen
    November 14, 2011, 1:39 pm

    Remember you can protest Aipac right in your own back yard
    Aipac near you
    link to aipac.org

    • Charon
      November 15, 2011, 2:02 am

      Thanks for the link, Kathleen. Didn’t know they were that close to me… very interesting

  11. mudder
    November 14, 2011, 1:48 pm

    Rep. Gohmert makes Gomer Pyle look brilliant. He’s the same guy who denounced, on the House floor, “illegal Palestinian settlements” which were “taking over Israel”.

    But the Christian Zionists don’t represent Christianity. Consider my denomination, Presbyterian Church (USA), which gets slammed this week for supporting Palestinians by the website of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s most-read newspaper: link to ynetnews.com

    • john h
      November 14, 2011, 6:07 pm

      Darn right they don’t, they misrepresent it big time.

  12. Kathleen
    November 14, 2011, 1:50 pm

    Netanyahu “America easy to push around”

    • seafoid
      November 14, 2011, 3:12 pm

      link to youtube.com

      Bibi and the Lubavitcher Rav wonder where Moshiach is.
      I think she is living as a refugee in Gaza.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      November 14, 2011, 3:19 pm

      Unfortunately, it looks like he is right. Totally.
      There was a saying, during the “Soviet Empire” times, that Russia is a Giant on legs made of clay.
      It looks like America is the same kind of “Giant”.

  13. Potsherd2
    November 14, 2011, 1:52 pm

    This is what they do in Congress when they’re not busy making insider stock trades.

  14. dumvitaestspesest
    November 14, 2011, 2:09 pm

    What a pathetic propaganda/brainwashing tour.
    And they dare to mix God in all their shenanigans.

    • seafoid
      November 14, 2011, 3:24 pm

      The Christianity of the Christian Zionists is a long way from Jesus. It’s based on the Book of Revelations and the end days and what is going to happen to the dumb Jews when Jesus come back for the Rapture. And the Zionists use it to bolster their apartheid on the West Bank. Shower of hypocrites.

      The Palestinian Sabeel center is my kind of christianity. Justice and dignity for everyone.

      link to sabeel.org

      • john h
        November 14, 2011, 6:03 pm

        Yes, and yes, and yes, me too.

        MLK would say the same, and act on it.

  15. VR
    November 14, 2011, 3:36 pm

    They should call this the dumb shits tour, or, colonialism for Jesus…

    • Chaos4700
      November 14, 2011, 6:56 pm

      How about “Save the Jews — We Need Them to Die in the Second Coming.”

  16. VR
    November 14, 2011, 4:11 pm

    They should advertise it like this – “Did you miss all of the atrocities of early Manifest Destiny? Now, you too can see the wonders of ethnic cleansing – come with us on night raids on the indigenous, watch us off children at play, and marvel at the bargain basement prices of stolen land. Be amazed at the prison complex we have built for the savages. We are in the process of making the desert bloom. G-d would be proud, see modern prophecies come to life!”

  17. HarryLaw
    November 14, 2011, 4:45 pm

    The question which must be asked about both the settlers and the people who support them is this: Under the Geneva Conventions and the ICC statute, to directly or indirectly transfer part of the occupiers civilian population into occupied territory is a grave war crime, also aiding or abetting or assisting the same is also a crime, presumably by offering all those incentives, subsidised housing, reduced taxes ect, the entire Israeli leadership could be indicted for indirectly breaching these International Laws [and hopefully will be]. What of the Settlers and their supporters, they are by varying degrees aiding and abetting or assisting that very crime contrary to the ICC statute.The intent of the settlers and supporters is important here since “intent” in the normal sence of the word in criminal law has been replaced by some say the slightly harder proof of “for the purpose of” by a committee of the ICC. In this instance the Yesha council and its members have a hugh problem since it is their purpose to colonise occupied Palestinian Territory. The US is Party to the Geneva conventions but not to the ICC.

  18. CloakAndDagger
    November 14, 2011, 5:18 pm

    Unadulterated treason by any other name.

    • Charon
      November 15, 2011, 2:01 am

      CloakAndDagger,

      If only they could be tried for treason…. Someting is not right in our country. Foreign influence even can be seen in domestic policy. Chertoff got off the hook for his cancer airport machines being a client. Not exactly treason but there are other examples involving Mr. ‘of the devil’. Eric Cantor should be tried for treason. I don’t know what he hasn’t. Well I do, Israel controls congress.

      • American
        November 15, 2011, 10:01 am

        “Someting is not right in our country. Foreign influence even can be seen ……”

        What’s not right is the US treason and sedition laws and definitions haven’t been changed or expanded in a 100 years .
        They are too limited and simplex to reflect modern political reality.

        If I could pass two new bills/laws in this country they would be public campaign financing and an updated definition of treason.

        That would cure about 75% of our problems.

  19. dumvitaestspesest
    November 14, 2011, 8:51 pm

    What’s is the point of wearing those BLUE shirts and a light color (off white/beige) pants?? Smerfs time?
    They should just wrap themselves around, with an Israeli flag, during this whole “mini -congressional “trip of loyalty and submission.

  20. RoHa
    November 14, 2011, 9:46 pm

    I’m not quite sure what the story is here. A bunch of US politicians are dumb, ignorant, religious crazies with their noses stuck up Israel’s arse?

    Hardly news.

  21. piotr
    November 15, 2011, 12:49 am

    “What a pathetic propaganda/brainwashing tour.
    And they dare to mix God in all their shenanigans.”

    Someone asked if “Xtians” is a deregatory term. Yes, it is and it is richly deserved. I mean the people for whom 2nd Amendment is the 1st Commandment, think that Earth was created at year 0 of Jewish calendar and “Thou shall not kill” is a joke of a commandment etc. There were no brains that could be washed on that tour, but extremist nut celebrating their momentary unity (both sides have deep disregard for unbelievers).

    Since not all Christians are equally obnoxious, there is a need for a separate term that would be less verbose as Christian right wingers.

    Unfortunately, both hosts and guests have oversized influence in their respective countries. None deserves much respect.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      November 15, 2011, 8:23 am

      I agree that both hosts and some guests, very often, seem to have no idea ,how complex and divided Christainity is.
      They just ,out of sheer ignorance, put all of it into one big ,boogieman bag.
      It is like to say that: ALL Jews support blindly zionism and Israel.
      Ignorance breeds contempt, and contempt breeds hatred.
      I don’t like sterotyping and predjudice, and I’m slightly surprised to find it here. Although , I should not be really surprised ,since it is EVERYWHERE..
      That’s why the world has been such a “lovely and friendly” place.

      • American
        November 15, 2011, 10:09 am

        I haven’t seen any people here do that.
        Seems to me there has been a ton of conversation about the different Jews and sects of Judaism and Christians and different Christian faiths.

        But…I think most people are out of patience with all the religious aspects and mumbo jumbo of religious zealots regarding Israel.

      • john h
        November 15, 2011, 7:09 pm

        “But…I think most people are out of patience with all the religious aspects and mumbo jumbo of religious zealots regarding Israel.”

        Are we ever! And that goes wherever we stand personally on religion. We see how religion is misused, abused, manipulated, and used as an excuse, by all such religious zealots.

        Jesus called them what they are, hypocrites; that is, play-actors on a stage, those who always have an answer they think explains or justifies their contradictory nonsense and suffocating ways.

  22. DICKERSON3870
    November 15, 2011, 2:55 am

    RE: “Five Republican congressmen take Christian Zionist solidarity tour of settlements” ~ Cap’ns Weiss & Horowitz

    SEE: A new Israel in the making ~ By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 11/13/11
    The future is now. The revolution is in progress; just wait for what’s to come.

    (excerpts) One day not long from now we will wake up to a different kind of country…
    …The way of life in the new Israel where we will live and die won’t remind us in the least of the country we’re used to. Even this article won’t be publishable. Only proper opinions will be put into print, the ones approved by the new government-sponsored journalists’ association, whose people will sit in every newsroom so there is no divergence from the accepted chorus of opinion.
    Laws and regulations (clearly they will be passed as “emergency” regulations) will bar publication of anything that could, in the eyes of the authorities, harm the state. A new law will bar defamation of the state, and the newspaper you will hold in your hands will be different. It will only report good news.
    Radio and television broadcasts won’t be what you’re familiar with either. No media outlet will be able to go beyond the bounds of the law due to the draconian penalties for running afoul of them. The word “occupation” will be illegal…
    …In the not too distant future, the urban landscape will look different. What is happening today in Jerusalem will play itself out in the whole country tomorrow, when the likeness of women will be banished from public view. Today Jerusalem, tomorrow the whole country. Separate buses and streets for men and women. Radio and television will only broadcast men singing. At some point, women will be required to cover their heads. Then it will be the men’s turn. They will be barred from appearing clean-shaven or without a head covering. That day is not long in coming…

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to haaretz.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      November 15, 2011, 4:33 am

      P.S. ALSO SEE: With controversial bills, Netanyahu is declaring war on Europe ~ By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, 11/15/11
      Proposed bills to cap foreign government funding to ‘political’ ngo’s, impose 45% tax on donations, will affect organizations monitoring a key article of the 2002 Israel-EU trade pact.

      (excerpts)…And what will the state’s representative reply to the justices’ question about why the law applies only to donations from foreign countries and not from foreign donors? Why is the money of a Christian fundamentalist from the United States more kosher than the money of a Spanish taxpayer? What will the attorney general say about the confession of Samaria regional council spokeswoman Ahuva Shiloh concerning acceptance of donations from evangelicals? “The settlers want to settle the land, in part because of the belief that settling the land will bring the redemption, according to Judaism,” the Hadrei Hadarim website quoted her as saying in January 2005. “The Christians are interested in the Jews settling the land, in order to bring the Christian redemption.”

      Many Christians believe that the redemption will begin only after the Jews either convert to Christianity or are wiped out. But that apparently doesn’t make their donations any less kosher.

      Netanyahu has to hope that Israel’s efforts to keep foreign countries from getting involved in Israeli politics don’t backfire by making those countries realize that Israel is meddling in their business. What will happen if, as a farewell gift on the eve of his defeat in the French presidential elections, Nicolas Sarkozy decides to close the Jewish Agency offices in Paris? He could say that luring French citizens to immigrate to Israel is a crude form of meddling in France’s internal affairs.

      Whenever a claim about foreign meddling comes up, Netanyahu has to hide out in his glass house. There has never been a politician in Israel who has meddled (and is still meddling ) more than him in American politics. True, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC doesn’t take a cent from Israel. But then, it has more than enough money to encourage politicians to say amen to anything that comes out of the Israeli government…

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      November 15, 2011, 5:18 am

      P.P.S. ALSO SEE: Who funds Israel’s right-wing organizations?, By Nir Hasson, Haaretz, 11/15/11

      While new bills aim to cut foreign funding of human rights groups, it seems that right-wing NGOs raise more overseas funds and are less transparent than their dovish counterparts.

      (excerpt)…Though rightist groups don’t receive money from foreign governments, they do benefit from the fact that donations to nonprofits are tax deductible in the United States. In that sense, the U.S. government indirectly supports their activities via the tax break it grants their U.S. donors. Sometimes, in their filings to the U.S. government, these organizations downplay their settlement activity and list their focus as education or immigrant absorption to facilitate receipt of tax-deductible status.
      One factor contributing to right-wing groups’ lack of transparency is that organizations engaged in Jewish settlement all have various subsidiaries and affiliates, often registered in tax shelters such as the Marshall Islands or even Liberia. They say this is necessary to protect the identity of the Palestinians who sell land to them, as the lives of these Palestinians would be in danger if their identities were known. Nevertheless, it makes their financing much harder to monitor.

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

  23. Mooser
    November 15, 2011, 1:01 pm

    Well, it looks like I won’t be commenting for a while, not until I fix my computer. All my settings have been altered, and this website will not appear as it should. I will get a hammer, screwdriver, a pair of Vice-grips, and some electrical tape and start working on the machine’s innards. First I’ll try a couple of good raps on the RAM section. Looks like

    • john h
      November 15, 2011, 2:04 pm

      It might not only be your computer.

      This new Mondo setup seems to have lost the edit button. Help!

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2011, 3:18 pm

        “It might not only be your computer.”

        Now you tell me! Does one use mucilage or super-glue to put computer chips back together?

      • DICKERSON3870
        November 16, 2011, 2:42 pm

        RE: “This new Mondo setup seems to have lost the edit
        button.” ~ john h

        MY REPLY: It’s no longer a button, but there is a small “EDIT” (immediately after the “REPLY”) to the lower right of the comment.

      • john h
        November 16, 2011, 4:56 pm

        Yeah, I soon realised that, it just takes me a time or two to get with something new.

        Thanks anyway. And keep going with what you do here, it’s always good value.

  24. DICKERSON3870
    November 18, 2011, 6:29 pm

    RE: “Five Republican congressmen take Christian Zionist solidarity tour of settlements” ~ Cap’ns Weiss & Horowitz

    ALSO SEE: Gohmert Gives Netanyahu Book From End Times Fanatic ~ by Brian Tashman, Right Wing Watch, 11/18/11

    (excerpts) Family Research Council president Tony Perkins today had Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on his radio show Washington Watch Weekly to discuss their recent trip to Israel with a delegation that also included congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX)…
    …Perkins and Jordan recounted their meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which included Gohmert knocking over Netanyahu’s coffee cup when he “presented the Prime Minister with the latest novel from Joel Rosenberg”.
    Joel Rosenberg is a Christian author who primarily writes about the End Times and frequently shares his thoughts with Glenn Beck. His latest novel describes a future time when Iran has a nuclear weapon and “[m]illions of Muslims around the world are convinced their messiah—known as ‘the Twelfth Imam’—has just arrived on earth.” Christianbook.com says that Rosenberg’s novel “combines the action and exquisite detail of Tom Clancy with the tense religious drama of Left Behind.”
    Gohmert’s choice of Rosenberg’s novel as a gift for the Israeli Prime Minister is odd for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Rosenberg actively works to proselytize to Jews and convert them to Christianity. On his website, the author revels, “Jews are turning to Jesus in record numbers, and they are getting excited about His Second Coming.” Rosenberg has also told Glenn Beck that he believes that we are in the End Times and headed into the Apocalypse as a result of an emerging Islamic caliphate…

    SOURCE – link to rightwingwatch.org

Leave a Reply