The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day “Galileos”

Let me begin by reproducing a short-but-powerful article:

University of Vermont President Engages in Double-Speak and Double-Standards When It Comes to Disavowing Pro-Intelligent Design Commencement Speaker Ben Stein

“In today’s academic double-speak, invitations to far-left revolutionaries and race-baiting Congressmen are apparently ‘inclusive,’ while inviting a speaker who favors free speech on the issue of evolution is beyond the pale,” says Discovery Institute’s John West. today’s academic double-speak, invitations to far-left revolutionaries and race-baiting Congressmen are apparently ‘inclusive,’ while inviting a speaker who favors free speech on the issue of evolution is beyond the pale,” says Discovery Institute’s John West.

Apologizing for inviting gifted actor and writer Ben Stein to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont, University President Daniel Fogel has highlighted what he called Stein’s “highly controversial views” about “evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and the role of science in the Holocaust.” Fogel went on to express penance for inviting Stein by claiming that “Commencement should be a time when our community gathers inclusively, not divisively.”

I guess inclusivity is why in 2007 Fogel chose as commencement speaker Democratic congressman John Lewis, who in 1995 compared Republicans to Nazis (last year Lewis compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to segregationist George Wallace and racist church bombers). Or perhaps President Fogel’s concern for inclusivity is better demonstrated by his 2006 commencement speaker, Gustavo Esteva, a far-left activist and advisor to the radical Zapatista National Liberation Army in Mexico.

Of course, it’s being reported that Stein withdrew as the university’s commencement speaker “voluntarily.” Voluntarily, that is, after he received a phone call from Dr. Fogel likely making clear he was no longer welcome. Given Fogel’s subsequent disavowal of inviting Stein in the first place, it’s pretty obvious that his phone call was designed to elicit Stein’s withdrawal. Fogel’s spinelessness in the face of the Darwinist thought-police is equaled only by his tone-deafness to his own rhetoric. After disowning Stein, Fogel has continued to insist: “I am firm in my belief—profoundly held—that, as a university, UVM is and must remain a marketplace of ideas.” Fogel’s ideal marketplace must have a lot of empty shelves.

Simply follow the links to see just how blatantly intellectually hypocritical “academia” has become.

It is perfectly okay to feature a bigot like John Lewis, who has repeatedly used racist inflammatory propaganda against Republicans to bring down his opponents with rhetoric over reason.

It’s okay to feature the spokesman of a violent terrorist organization which is responsible for countless murders and terrorist kidnappings.

It’s okay for a prestigious university such as Columbia to feature holocaust-denying totalitarian Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who calls Jews a “cancer” and who has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel.

All in the name of “diversity” and “freedom of expression.”

But someone like Ben Stein, who came out with a documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, can literally BE expelled (thus validating the whole point of the movie) by the very same self-righteous hypocrites who invite speakers who openly espouse bigotry and even the most unimaginable violence.

And what is the thoughtcrime that Ben Stein is guilty of? He presented and defended in his movie the views and situations of scientists who have been relentlessly persecuted by university administrators for having anything whatsoever to do with the Intelligent Design movement (which presents the possibility that a higher intelligence is necessary to explain the complexity of the universe).

Which, by the way, people overwhelmingly believe. Fully 85% believe that an Intelligent Designer – specifically God – was directly involved in the process of creating human beings.

As a child, I read, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” a tale about believing foolishness just because the privileged and powerful were gullible enough to believe foolishness. A mischievous pair of weavers convince the emperor and the ruling elite that they have thread so magnificent that it has the power of being visible only to those who are wise enough to see it. No one sees the alleged garments, of course, but everyone is afraid to admit that they aren’t “wise” enough to see.

Finally, in the dramatic conclusion, the emperor parades his new clothes for all his subjects to see. Everyone marvels at the spectacular design – until a child points and laughs at the sight of the emperor parading around in his underwear.

In the story, the people begin to murmur to one another, “He really isn’t wearing any clothes!” And the whole farce immediately begins to unravel.

But in the modern version, the child is immediately silenced and thrown into a hole somewhere, and the parade continues on and on and on. And anyone in the future who speaks out gets to join that kid.

This isn’t a matter of whether intelligent design (which Americans overwhelmingly believe in, by the way) is “true” or not. If that is the standard by which Ben Stein is being “expelled,” then we must conclude that American academia must therefore embrace as “true” the views of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (you know, denying the Holocaust, favoring a religious-fascist totalitarian state, working toward the extermination of Israel, and so on). This is a matter of freedom of expression, of allowing and tolerating ideas in the name of diversity, of freedom of thought, of engaging in open and honest debate, and of basic intellectual honesty.

Are universities so terrified by Intelligent Design that they must single out and persecute every academic who has any connection to the position? Or even more terrifying, have our universities – once celebrated for their diversity of thought – themselves become fascist organizations devoted to ideological propaganda and groupthink?

106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. It was these colleges that shaped the minds of our founding fathers, who in turn produced the foundational principles and values that enabled this country to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. And in a similar but even earlier vein, the first universities in Western Europe were founded under the aegis of the Church, and emerged from the monasteries. The scientific method itself emerged from the mind of a publicly-confessed Christian: Roger Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1247, and argued that a more accurate experimental knowledge of nature would be of great value in confirming the Christian faith. Sir Isaac Newton – almost universally regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived – actually wrote more on Christian theology than he did on science. And the founders of every single major branch of science were confessing Christians.

The fact is that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the essential worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who made the universe and the earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

And yet today, amazingly, against all history and against all truth, we are assured that science must be officially and completely atheist in order to have any legitimacy, and that God – or even the possibility of God (or even a far more intellectually neutral “Intelligent Designer” – must be purged from every element and aspect of “science.”

Tragically, genuine science has been perverted and undermined by ideologues who are attempting to impose their atheistic worldviews upon society and remake the scientific enterprise in their own image. And in their efforts, they are using the very worst and most oppressive of tactics to destroy, intimidate, and silence their opposition. Such academics cite Galileo (another confessing Christian, by the way) and the largely propagandized tale of his persecution by the Church as an example of religion being hostile to science. But how is their own behavior any different from the worst intellectual intolerance exhibited by the Church? In their overarching zeal to persecute and expunge any meaningful sign of God from the ranks of academia, they have themselves become even worse than their caricature of religion which they so despise.

Update April 20, 2009: a new example of liberal pseudo-intellectual tyranny:

Expulsion threatened over prayer for sick teacher
Students’ lawsuit against California college moves forward

April 09, 2009

Attorneys representing two students who have been threatened with expulsion by a California college because of a prayer for a sick professor say a federal judge has refused the school’s efforts to have the case dismissed.

“It’s outrageous,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case brought by students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga of the College of Alameda in Alameda, near Oakland.

“Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well – with her consent – earn a suspension? This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court,” he said.

The public-interest legal group said the decision by a San Francisco federal judge means the lawsuit will move forward.

The case was prompted by an incident just before Christmas in 2007 in which the students went to deliver a Christmas gift to a professor.

“Kandy found the instructor alone in her shared office,” according to Pacific Justice. “When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kandy offered to pray for her. The instructor bowed her head, and Kandy began to pray – until she was interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who walked in and said, ‘You can’t be doing that in here!’ Kandy quickly left and rejoined her friend and fellow student, Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kandy outside and repeated his rebuke.”

While the students reported they were surprised by the teacher’s aggressive behavior, they were stunned when, days later, they both got letters notifying them of the college’s retroactive “intent to suspend” plan.

The letters, however, provided no facts on which to make such a threat, listing only vague references to “disruptive or insulting behavior” and “willful disobedience.”

School officials informed them during administrative hearings that Kyriacou was being disciplined for praying for the sick teacher. Omaga was not part of the prayer, and her offense apparently was that she was with Kyriacou a short time later.

The lawsuit was filed when the college refused to rescind the letters, leaving the students in peril of suspension or expulsion for any other offense, such as praying on campus. The decision from U.S. District Judge Susan Illston turned back college attempts to deny the students a hearing on their complaint.

“To this day, the College of Alameda has never provided a real explanation for its threats to expel these students,” said Steven N.H. Wood of the Walnut Creek firm of Bergquist, Wood and Anderson, which is working with Pacific Justice on the case.

“But it has disciplined them for non-disruptive, private prayer between consenting adults. We will not stand by and let a college trample these fundamental rights,” he said.

Said Dacus, “It is alarming that a publicly-funded college would seek to suspend and expel students for praying on campus, then dig in its heels to defend an untenable, unconstitutional position. We are encouraged that the federal court has given us the green light to pursue this case.”

Let’s just realize one thing: liberal intellectuals are all in favor of discriminating against any speech with which they do not agree.  They are every bit as intolerant as the straw men they routinely create to demonize people of faith.

Advertisements

34 Responses to “The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day “Galileos””

  1. hl Says:

    “They became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. professing to be wise they became fools.” Romans 1:21-22

    They are at war with God, His truth and His Church. Another superb example of liberals perfecting hypocrisy. They are very hard to abide due to their condescending arrogance. I’ts palpable.

    Great article, there seems to be quite a few emperors parading around naked these days!

    God Bless Ben Stein.

  2. E. M. Sternberg Says:

    As has been pointed out many times before: it is not enough just to be persecuted, as Galileo was. You must also be right, as Galileo was.

    There is not a single scientific breakthrough in biology easing the suffering of a single human life in which the researchers began with the necessary premise that the biology being investigated was deliberately designed, with innovative leaps that could not be derived by the purely naturalistic and observed phenomenon of descent with modification and natural selection. Unless and until there is one, Ben Stein’s movement remains an inefficient drag on the scientific process, in the same category as phlositgon chemisty and Lamarkian biology.

    It never ceases to amaze me that folks committed to the notion that “The Market” in economics can emerge as the non-deliberative outcome of billions of individual agents acting independently are somehow opposed to the idea of the very same mechanism operating successfully in the realm of biology.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    The following statement:
    “There is not a single scientific breakthrough in biology easing the suffering of a single human life in which the researchers began with the necessary premise that the biology being investigated was deliberately designed”

    is utterly asinine, as it is nothing more than a subjective opinion. Perhaps, Mr. Sternberg, you have the power to travel forward in time and visit alternate realities, and thus come to such sweeping conclusions. The rest of us, and in particular those grounded in legitimate science, cannot say anything of the sort.

    In fact, your statement is an example of the very kind of thing this article warns about: the deification of atheist opinion qua atheism – as “science.”

    Let me further explore your “logic” – if we atheists determine that someone is wrong, then we are perfectly entitled to attack them, suppress them, and destroy them by any means necessary. Academic freedom – in your own warped view – only should apply to atheists representing a trivial minority of public opinion. Stalin himself would offer you some kind of genuflection for your profound intolerance and hostility to freedom, I have no doubt.

    You say, “You must also be right, as Galileo was.” You clearly missed it, but I pointed out that to attack Ben Stein because HE isn’t “right” but to THEN ALLOW Iranian dictators who want to murder Jews is a tacit admission on your part that you endorse and support the Holocaust denial project and advocate the destruction of the state of Israel. Along with, of course, bigoted racism and terrorism, since bigots and terrorist apologists have also frequently been allowed to appear on campuses that ban speakers such as Ben Stein.

    Unbelievable.

    In any event, thank you for voicing your support of the view that academic freedom should be limited solely to people who think exactly like you. Thank you for validating the message of this article and showing others that intolerant atheist fundamentalists such as yourself are no mere straw men. You are all too real.

    We, the 85% who think differently from your elitist view, bow down in abject homage of your exalted ontological status, Mr. Sternberg. You must be truly great indeed to be so incredibly arrogant.

  4. E. M. Sternberg Says:

    My statement about biology is not “opinion.” It’s a statement about reality; it can be researched. You can go to PubMed, Science, and Nature and examine their databases and there is not a single research effort that has come to light thus far that shows that Intelligent Design is a useful paradigm for conducting research. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has been a useful paradigm in fields as diverse as pharmacology, agriculture, and even geosciences.

    And I wouldn’t be so quick to compare Ben Stein favorably to a Holocaust denialist like Achmedinijad. Ben Stein trotted out the Holocaust himself, saying that “Science leads you to killing people. The last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.” Apparently, Stein has managed to make it his current age without the benefits of science.

    In any event, your hysteria is entertaining. This isn’t about “academic freedom.” Ben Stein has a column in the New York Times and is free to say what he wants, whenever he wants, so long as he has an invitation. You seem to be trying to use shame and public approbation to draw attention to his apparent plight. The tool used to change UofV’s president was, in fact, shame and public approbation. He decided that Stein’s invitation was a bad idea.

    That’s not arrogance; that’s merely public policy.

    The Intelligent Design movement has its own research program. When it produces a meaningful result that is robust and reliable, that produces a meaningful explanation for biological phenomena that cannot be explained by any more parsimonious result, then and only then will there be no shame of being associated with a project that, so far, is to biology what socialism is to economics.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Let me get this straight: it is actually your contention that scientists have been employing the Intelligent Design hypothesis – and spending massive funding on the premise that life had a creator and pursued the ramifications of that hypothesis – and you have the results of their years of study. Bull poop. Rather, what we have is the mindset of a priori presuppositionalism that obtains the assured result of its ideology. And it is frankly amazing that you don’t see that in such a clear cut case in point.

    If a multi-billionaire were to leave his entire fortune to a massive endowment to fund Young Earth Creationism, established chairs and institutes, etc., and began funding scientists and projects which pursued Young Earth Creation science, we would suddenly begin to find massive “evidence” for young earth creationism – even if young earth creationism weren’t actually true. It is simply a fact that research has a profound tendency to follow the money. And it is frankly laughably stupid that you are actually claiming that you know what WOULD have happened if Intelligent Design had been given a genuine chance, supported by significant funding, when that has very clearly not happened in at least a generation.

    And I ridicule you for that total determination to be an ideologue while all the while denying your ideology. It’s not “hysteria” or whatever word you used. It’s sarcasm and contempt.

    For someone who is clearly so smarmily certain of his own genius, you are striking me as awfully dense indeed. I have twice now explained that being “right” is clearly not the criterion being employed against Ben Stein, or else universities – which feature speakers such as Ahmadinejab and other vermin – must likewise be deemed to be “right” by the university. That is clearly NOT the criterion, or our universities have become genuinely evil. Rather, the criterion is intellectual diversity and academic freedom. And YOU are urging that we dispense with these. And that is very Stalinist of you.

    When are you going to realize that there is something shameful about a university “tolerating” Mahmoud Ahmadinejab in the name of diversity or freedom but refusing to “tolerate” Ben Stein? What is wrong with you that you do not apprehend the fundamental hypocrisy?

    And we get back to that point that at least 85% of Americans believe that God had a profound role in human development. And you are so damn arrogant that you are sitting here saying that a massive majority of the population is stupid, or even dangerous. It must be truly wonderful indeed to be you, and be so incredibly superior to the huddling masses all around you. When you walk down the street, are they all aware of your greatness? Do you float above them, having learned to defy the gravity that holds back lesser mortals?

    You are also quite wrong about how Stein discusses “science” in relation to the Holocaust.

    This copied from one of my earlier articles:
    “Nazi Doctors began presenting their views – based on Darwinism and the best “science” – of the superiority of the Aryan race and the corresponding need – in the name of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” – to eliminate inferior people in order to forge the master race. Other doctors – affirming the aforementioned theories – delved into eugenics and other measures to create and shape that master race. And all the while philosophers and other German intellectuals were developing the concept of Lebensunwertes Leben (”life unworthy to be lived”).

    Adolf Hitler – who was shaped and influenced by these intellectuals’ ideas – was merely one of the architects who put them all together. The view that the Jews were a subhuman race whose very existence posed a threat to the German people, and to the German Weltanschauung (for a more in depth understanding, click here).

    Nazi Germany was the most educated, the most scientifically advanced, and the most intellectual nation on the face of the earth. Do not think that “idea men” who have never actually had real blood on their hands cannot be incredibly evil human beings. Most of the monsters who orchestrated the Holocaust and the death camps never actually killed anyone.

    So Stein is VERY CORRECT ABOUT “SCIENTISTS” and their role in the gas chambers. Because the Nazis’ ideology very clearly derived from Darwinism and the social implications of Darwinism.

    And your last paragraph is ridiculous, indeed. The very point of Ben Stein being “expelled” from the university demonstrates that. Intelligent Design scientists are not even ALLOWED on the university. They are being barred from having any participation. They therefore cannot even begin to take part the way you are describing. What part of this do you not understand?

    Finally, the issue that Intelligent Design somehow hasn’t produced X has a flipside to it: what has random chance evolution produced in terms of meaningful scientific breakthrough that could not have been produced by the intelligent design hypothesis?

  6. E. M. Sternberg Says:

    Let’s be very clear about this:

    1. The UofV is not The State. It does not have the power to suppress Ben Stein’s free speech or his freedom to move about the country. Comparisons to the Church of Galileo’s time, which did have those powers, is hysteria. Ben Stein is free to speak his mind, to move about the country. He has his constitutional rights.

    2. The UofV is an institution that has every right to pick and choose those with whom they associate. Freedom of association is part and parcel of our body of rights within the United States. Surely you don’t disagree with that.

    3. The Intelligent Design movement is allowed on campus; the problem is that it hasn’t produced any science worthy of the name. As a paradigm, it doesn’t produce results; in fact, it cuts them off. The idea that universities are the only place that does “science” is ridiculous on its face.

    4. Ben Stein has engaged in blood libel when he accuses “all scientists” of being part and parcel of the Nazi horrors.

    5. I understand what you’re trying to do. I appreciate that you haven’t killed my comments as my effort is mostly to deflate the power of your argument, and nothing more. So far, you’ve maligned the UofV for exercising its constitutional rights and you’ve joined Ben Stein in his blood libel.

    That doesn’t look good for you.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I only kill comments that I deem hateful. Otherwise – unlike the UofV – I am willing to entertain all comers and duke it out.

    No one is arguing that the UofV is “The State.” And I am fine with your wrapping the UofV in the mantle of exercising it’s “constitutional rights” by banning Ben Stein. As long as YOU don’t then proceed to claim that it is a university that operates under the guise of “intellectual” and “academic” freedom, we’re fine. Kind of like me. Do I have the right to block your comment on my blog? Sure I do. And I also “have the right to choose which comments with which I associate.” But would I be embracing diversity of thought and free expression if I did so? Absolutely not. And I think it’s important. So I allow you to have a voice, even though I think you are completely wrong. Even though I have to wrestle with your views.

    I am more intellectually honest, more diverse, and allow more intellectual freedom, than your university. And that’s a shame.

    The simple fact of the matter is this: if an institution wants to wear the label of “university” and claim to be tolerant of intellectual diversity, the VERY LEAST it can do is tolerate the scientific expression of a historically profound and influential viewpoint that is embraced by 85% of the country.

    Your point 3) is quite an assertion. What precisely does it “cut off”? What genuinely significant results are you claiming it cannot produce? Be specific. Or let us both agree that you are making a purely speculative assertion based on your own bias. Given the fact that every major branch of science was founded by a Christian, and based upon the fact that the scientific method owes its very foundations to the presuppositions of Christian theology, I am inclined to think that you don’t have the evidence you think you have. Take also, for just one example, Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins. Somehow, in what you seem to believe is an impossibility, this man not only function but thrives as a Christian and deeply religious man at the very highest level of science.

    Your point 4) comes from out of the blue as far as I’m concerned. I have never heard him say that “all scientists” are responsible for Nazi horrors, and challenge you to provide me with evidence that he did so. If you can’t, whose the one using “libel”?

    I don’t get the sense that you’ve seen Ben Stein’s film Expelled (the source of the controversy) and seen the documented evidence of professors who were literally fired or destroyed because they had even minute association with ID. One was terminated merely for having authored an ID-friendly paper. The Ben Stein ban is merely one example among a great many. Another specific case in point: Guillermo Gonzalez, as assistant professor at Iowa State, was denied tenure and fired for having written articles arguing that a purposive cause is the best explanation for certain features of our cosmic habitat. David Eaton said, “As alumni at ISU, we are appalled that the current Iowa State administration would stoop to expelling a brilliant young scientist and gifted instructor from the classroom, not for teaching about intelligent design or even mentioning it in his classroom, but for simply committing the thought crime of advocating it [in a research paper] as science.” Your point 3 is simply patently false.

    And I can go outside the limit of “Intelligent Design” to prove my point of academic fascism: Lawrence Summers was essentially fired from his position as president of Harvard University for merely raising the possibility that many factors apart from discrimination or bias could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. Speakers like former leftist David Horowitz, and California University regent Ward Connerly, and conservative organizer Daniel Flynn, and former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanhayu are shouted down or threatened violence. There is a profound intolerance in academia today – which you are defending – that cannot do anything other than harm academia.

    And that doesn’t look good for you.

    Finally, this is not about some vendetta against any one university. This is a widespread problem. You’ve got liberal/secular humanist faculty like Ward Churchill who is an academic disgrace on every level imaginable being kept until there is beyond-overwhelming evidence that he is an incompetent fraud as well as a terrible thinker. And the university held on to in the NAME of academic diversity. And then you’ve got men like Ben Stein, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Lawrence Summers who are summarily dismissed just because they AREN’T whackjob liberals. There is a CLEAR bias for liberal faculty and against conservative faculty. On the issue of Stein banned as speaker, this is ALSO a typical phenomenon in today’s intolerant university environement. And you seem to think there’s nothing wrong with this.

    That doesn’t look good for you, either.

  8. E. M. Sternberg Says:

    Actually, I have seen Expelled. I wasn’t impressed. The entire point of the film, from start to finished, was an unvarnished attempt at the blood libel: evolutionary biology leads to Naziism. I was unimpressed with it, as I am with all polemical writing. Trying to tie it together with this discussion does you little good. Stein’s quote was “Science leads to killing people.” There was no conditional there, no modification. It’s as baldface as saying “Christianity leads to cannibalism,” and as erroneous. It’s blood libel.

    Francis Collins is not a believer in Intelligent Design. He is as committed to evolutionary biology as PZ Myers. He believes in God, but he does not believe in the tinkerer, error-making god of Intelligent Design. He believes in the God that does a wholesale business with the universe, not a retail business. His work would be utterly meaningless if it were assumed that gradual descent was a process that had been interrupted at any time in our history.

    As for Gonzalez, I have no doubt that his tenure was rejected because, in part, of his association with the Privileged Planet story. Tenure is a lot like marriage; your peers have to decide if they’re willing to spend the rest of their lives listening to you. Gonzalez had shown some promise in his initial research, but when he started publishing his ID work, his actual astronomy research suffered a great deal. Nick Matze did a good job of showing how productive research dived in the years immediately proceeding the Iowa State kerfluffle. The expectation, when you tenure someone, is that they’re already productive enough to be interesting. He wasn’t, which is why every review of Iowa State’s decision has gone their way and not his.

    My point three simply isn’t “false”; you just don’t like the outcome. People who challenge evolutionary biology are deep and thick within the evolutionary establishment. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic, or EO Wilson. These are people who built up a huge body of evidence to support their contentions, and then argued them successfully, and overturned significant aspects of evolutionary biology before them. Evolutionary biology’s rigor as a discipline of populations rather than individuals; runaway reproductive selection resulting in non-viable traits; the persistence of tragic genetic faults– the study of all of these have resulted in the overturning of existing academic biases.

    But the Discovery Institute isn’t going that route. They want to get into schools now and be taught as part of the curriculum before they’ve established that they’re a viable research program. They haven’t established that.

    And seriously, how do you expect them to? The end result of ID research is “I can’t figure this out. It must have been designed that way. Let’s go have a beer.” Hardier and braver souls will keep banging on the problem until it bleeds a solution. Intelligent design is a cop-out.

    Even uglier is the intellectual dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement. Once they’ve claimed to have established that something is intelligently designed, they move the goalposts of inquiry and illicitly claim that we still can’t say anything meaningful about the designer. Unlike every other designed thing, like a book, a car, a building, where the materials used and the care shown tell us something about the designer, the philosophical underpinnings of ID at this time forbid making that inquiry.

    Heck, if Intelligent Design were true, we’d have no reason to assume that the whole “interconnectedness of life” that biology depends upon every day was valid. It’s a coincidence. It works because the designer wants it to work that way. It could change at any second. Reality itself becomes unreliable if we start to assume invisible and ineffable processes that cannot themselves be investigated and described.

    You could throw William Dembski into the mix of men deprived of tenure, but as others have pointed out he, like Gonzalez, hasn’t really produced much in the way of theoretical mathematics worth publishing and commenting. His most significant book has been criticized by his fellow mathematicians as shoddy and ill-thought, and the man on whose work he based much of his has said that Dembski understood neither the original algorithm or population genetics, and his mash-up is simply completely wrong.

    The intellectual dishonesty and moral degeneracy of the Intelligent Design movement is simply breathtaking. It is, at its heart, a movement to co-opt the language of the “winning tribe,” biology, to attempt to comfort those uncomfortable with the simple reality that our bodies are the result not of some miraculous creation but of ordinary, base matter iterating chemical processes fueled by the enormous anti-entropic property of being bathed in sunlight for millions of years. It was founded to be such. It has spent ten years trying to find a wedge, and thus far not succeeded.

    This is just my opinion: In the past fifty years the sciences have provided us with more food, more energy, and more knowledge than the previous five millenia combined. Evolutionary biology is as critical an underpinning of all the biosciences (like medicine and agriculture) as the theory of Relativity is to the physical sciences (like computer engineering and power production). Evolutionary biology is the theoretical framework that provides meaningful research avenues; The Discovery Institute cannot point to a single research program that has used Intelligent Design as its theoretical framework.

    Thanks to the past eight years of xenophobia, our current paranoia about security, and the world-wide accessibility of the Internet, the United States has suspended its previously very successful tradition of inviting the best and brightest minds around the world to come here, work here, publish their findings here, and create their inventions here. The world-wide scientific establishments, none of which have adopted Intelligent Design– a mostly American phenomenon anyway– have adapted, and it’s unlikely we’ll be able to resume that tradition. There’s nothing wrong with the minds of people in China, Korea, Scotland, India, or France.

    In the next 50 years, we will need even more researchers in pharmacology, neurobiology, agricultural biology, and petrobiology. Every church and every classroom that discourages and dissuades the next generation from joining in the quest for better plants, better medicines, better treatments, and better energy sources is actively trying– hopefully without meaning– to destroy the country I love. Ben Stein in a cynical, paid shill of people who know their cause is hopeless.

    I sincerely hope that 50 years from now the wealthiest Americans aren’t going to China and spending their hard-earned money there to receive treatments that reverse neurodegenerative diseases we here won’t have the technologies to cure. I sincerely hope that we won’t be stuck in the 20th century, aging, decrepit, diseased– while the rest of the world starts reaching 100, 120, 150 years of age with vibrant minds and bodies– all because we chose, as a nation, to put ideology before evidence.

    Michael, if you want academic diversity in universities, go ahead and rail for it all you want. But don’t do it with Ben Stein’s plight. Ben Stein is a fraud. The UofV pulled its invitation before he could be any more embarrassing.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Every time I allow a post from you, you are implicitly acknowledging that I am willing to grant the diversity of thought and intellectual freedom which you yourself oppose. I allow you to speak while you would cheer my being banned and even fired for my views. Let’s understand that. If I had banned you, I would only be doing what you have repeatedly advocated be done to people who think like me. And PhD scientists and researchers at that.

    The word “university” means “community.” But you despise university, and demand groupthink. And I’m sorry: just like the Soviets.

    Every time I allow one of your posts, you acknowledge your own intolerance to diversity and my own willingness to embrace it.

    I’m sorry, but I read Collins’ book. He believes in theistic evolution, and much of the rest is simple semantics, and probably politics. Pope John Paul himself argued for theistic evolution. Hardly a view that rules God out of creation. In fact, theistic evolution merely means that God guided the process of evolution to produce a desired result.

    Stein’s point was most certainly NOT that every evolutionist is a Nazi. Rather, he argues that evolutionary biology already HAS led to Nazism. It is a simple fact of history. And may very well do so again, given that it is both logically and scientifically impossible to disconnect Darwinism from social Darwinism. Both the Nazis and the Soviets were BIG proponents of Darwinian thought. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. And the Nazis, I hate to tell you, were the most scientifically advanced nation in the world of their day. We spent the entire war failing to catch up to their technology, and even in the last days discovered they had a jet aircraft.

    You are coming unglued over Stein his statement. He said, “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads to a very glorious place; science leads to killing people.” And he firmly qualified that as his opinion. Now I would argue that he most likely meant, “Science stripped of the love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to killing people.” And I would argue also that he probably would say it differently if given the chance. And I would further argue that it is simply a brute fact of history that science HAS quite often led to killing people. In any event, fine. But let’s looks at your, “It’s just like THIS” statements. Let’s see if you are intellectually honest. Were you appalled over Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” or or Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith”? saying,

    Were you outraged when Steven Weinberg wrote that “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization”?

    How about when Christopher Hitchens wrote that “All religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place”?

    How about Richard Dawkins. Were you frothing with outrage when he wrote, “The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism”?

    Scott Atran said, “Religious belief requires taking what is materially false to be true and what is materially true to be false” in a warped commitment to “factually impossible worlds.”

    And my personal favorite from Richard Dawkins: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

    Are these statements not every bit as extreme and provocative? More so, because there is no context by which they might be “balanced” the way I did with Stein. And they were written and therefore carefully considered, not spoken ad hoc in an interview. And yet not a peep out of you, because you are only capable of selective ideological outrage. And by your own repeated statements, you are perfectly comfortable with persecuting some scientists because their views aren’t the same as yours. Just don’t gore one of YOUR sacred cows, or else you’ll be outraged. How hypocritical of you!

    I notice in your paragraph 4) that you don’t have a single specific significant scientific discovery that intelligent design could not account for. I asked for it, but you really don’t have anything, do you? A few atheist ideologues claim that they’ve decided that Intelligent Design isn’t really all that good. Surprise, surprise. But, of course, if I said, “Hey, these ID scientists say the same thing about Darwinism,” you’d just dismiss them out of hand, like you’ve already demonstrated. And two can play at that game.

    You continue to act as though “science” and “God as Creator” are somehow mutually exclusive. Even though science uniquely emerged FROM Christianity and depends on the presuppositions of Christian theism to have even gotten off the ground. And even though a whopping load of scientists are religious people who somehow manage to do science every single day without having to abandon their faith. Science emerged from Christianity; it most certainly did NOT emerge from atheism. And now I find you citing “science’ in the last 50 years as though it somehow proves ID can’t be true.

    Your last paragraph is actually rather disgraceful. You tacitly approve of Mahmoud Ahmadinejab, who IS allowed to speak, and who seeks another Holocaust of Jews, but cheer the denial of Ben Stein. And I named several others. It’s okay to throw them out, too. I can’t imagine such selective intolerance and outrage as what you are advocating.

  10. Doug1943 Says:

    Whoa! Game, point and match to Sternberg, in my opinion. Not even a fair fight. But … I question some of his assertions about how our “paranoia” and “xenophobia” have blocked quality researchers from coming to the US since 2001. Really? There are a lot of people I would like to block from coming to the US, but which promising scientists have not come because they are “blocked”?

    And, how come people like Angela Davis get invited to give commencement addresses at universities, but not Ben Stein? Presumably the inviters are showing how daring they’re being by inviting a controversial figure … so why not invite a controversial figure from the flat-earth Right?

    Another point: although it is true that there are many religious people who also claim to believe in evolution, this is surely a living contradiction in their views. Either God exists in some meaningful sense, which includes the ability to intervene in the world and make one species evolve into another, turn water into wine, make horses fly, impregnate virgins, raise the dead, etc. …. or else “God” is just a word for a warm fuzzy feeling these people get when they look at the sky at night. If human life and human consciousness is just the blind product of natural laws operating on dead matter, then God does not exist. Evolution implies atheism, and we ought to admit it.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Doug,
    Wow, I’m really surprised an atheist would decide that Sternberg won the argument. That is really a shocker. I’m glad I was sitting down when I saw that one!

    I say the same thing to you: the very fact that I allow your comment, allow you to present ideas – even though I disagree with them – PROVES that I am superior to you and everyone who thinks like you in every way. YOU want the freedom to have your ideas heard, and yet you are such a blatant hypocrite that you fundamentally deny that right to others. Free speech and diversity are dead in the university because of narrow-minded totalitarian ideologues just like you. University means “community”; but you exclude community and chase away and silence every neighbor who doesn’t look, think, and act exactly like you. In point of fact, you exclude the people who CREATED universities in the first place. It was Christians who believed in a Creator God who did that, Doug.

    And as for your remark about “paranoia,” LISTEN TO YOURSELF. What do you do, you paranoid delusional hypocrite? You compare people like Ben Stein – who are only saying that the case should be allowed to be made that there is SOME SORT of Intelligent Designer behind the universe – to “flat earthers!” What a colossal straw man!!! It’s a damn good thing you don’t have a shred of intellectual honesty, or you’d really be ashamed of yourself. And then to even further show what a leftist totalitarian ideologue you really are, you get to the heart of the political divide and show that you want them to be silenced because they are from the “Right.” Stamp on freedom just like the little brownshirt you are.

    People like you are intellectual fascists, plain and simple. You allow Holocaust deniers who believe Israel should be wiped off the map because THAT is the sort of thing that fascists don’t mind. And then you stand behind the blatant persecution of people just because they believe in God because THAT’S the sort of thing that fascists HATE. And don’t think for a nanosecond that you not only share the same worldview as the fascists (hatred of the God of the Bible, a religious belief in Darwinism), but you are cheering the same sort of totalitarian oppressive tactics.

    And again, the fact that I gave you and your fellow true believer Sternberg a forum to present your views – as stupid and warped as it is – PROVES that people like me are more tolerant, more respectful of other ideas, more willing to fight over ideas and allow truth to be heard and have a chance to prevail, and just flat out better people – than you or your fascist ilk will ever be.

  12. Revelations Says:

    “You allow Holocaust deniers who believe Israel should be wiped off the map”

    –maybe you should get your facts straight too

    for a more scientific analysis of the ‘holocaust’ particularly the apparent ‘gas chambers’ see: http://www.germarrudolf.com/index.php

    and for another utter Zionist lie, that the man said ‘wiped off the map’ here: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5866

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    I have no idea what crack pipe you are smoking from. Iranian President Ahmadinejab has used the expression, and most of the world’s press has reported it.

    And Muslims have been using so many different phrases to say, “Murder all the Jews” that it is simply unreal. Here’s another version of “wiped off the map”:
    The extermination of Jews is Allah’s will and is for the benefit of all humanity, according to an article in the Hamas paper, Al-Risalah. The author of the article, Kan’an Ubayd, explains that the suicide operations carried out by Hamas are being committed solely to fulfill Allah’s wishes. Furthermore, Allah demanded this action, because “the extermination of the Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds.”

    And there’s the Ayatollah calling Jews a “cancerous tumor.” So the stuff I’m accurately describing is all over the place, and the only person between the two of us who needs to get his facts straight is you.

    I went to your “Holocaust analysis” site, expecting some lunatic to have some article, and it wasn’t even THAT little. What a pathetic joke that site is. It describes your source as a pariah because of the lies he tries to peddle, and then doesn’t even bother to offer any “evidence.”

    I didn’t bother to visit your own site, because you are clearly nothing but a “seeker of lies” rather than any “truth seeker.” The Holocaust stands as a brute fact of history, and you are an ugly and twisted human being for denying it.

  14. Revelations Says:

    oh my god… Well OBVIOUSLY the rest of the press will report it like how the OTHER press reported it, they do that all the time without checking the facts first. It’s obvious as HELL that you DIDN’T EVEN READ THE ARTICLE I GAVE YOU

    [So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

    “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

    That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

    So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.]

    LOL! YOU think Jews and Rabbis and Zionists haven’t said similar things as Hamas? Orthodox Talmudic Judaism is FILLED with racist goy-hatred that advocates genocide of goys. Here’s just a “few”:

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/2104_2104.html
    [In an important new book, Jewish Fundamentalism In Israel (Pluto Press), Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsy provide a thorough assessment of this phenomenon. Israel Shahak, an Israeli and Holocaust survivor, is a retired professor at the Hebrew University and a leading human rights activist. Norton Mezvinsky is Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University and has written and lectured extensively on the Middle East.

    Jewish Fundamentalism

    The authors point out that, “…the adherents of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel oppose equality for all citizens, especially non-Jews.” The respected Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, citing evidence from a study conducted by other scholars, declared: “The values of the (Jewish) religion, at least in its Orthodox and nationalistic form that prevails in Israel, cannot be squared with democratic values. No other variable—neither nationality, nor attitudes about security, nor social or economic values,nor ethnic descent and education—so influences the attitudes of (Israeli) Jews against democratic values as does religiosity.”

    What particularly concerns the authors is the total contempt which Jewish fundamentalists show toward non-Jews, and the religious sources they cite in promoting such ideas. Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency in Jewish fundamentalism, said, “The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

    Rabbi Kook’s entire teaching, which is followed devoutly by, among others, those who have led the settler movement in the occupied West Bank, is based upon the Lurianic Cabbala, the school of Jewish mysticism that dominated Judaism from the late 16th to the early 19th century. “One of the basic tenets of the Lurianic Cabbala, the authors write, “is the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. According to the Lurianic Cabbala, the world was created solely for the sake of Jews: the existence of non-Jews was subsidiary. If an influential Christian bishop or Islamic scholar argued that the difference between the superior souls of non-Jews and the inferior souls of Jews was greater than the difference between the human soul and the souls of cattle, he would incur the wrath of all and be viewed as an anti-Semite by most Jewish scholars regardless of whatever less meaningful, positive statements he included.”]

    As if the Ayatollah saying that somehow makes all this any better? (from the same website):

    [According to the ideologies which underlie Gush Emunum, the militant West Bank settlers group, and Hasidism, non-Jews have “satanic souls.” “The role of Satan,” the authors note, “whose earthly embodiment according to the Cabbala is every non-Jew, has been minimized or not mentioned by authors who have not written about the Cabbala in Hebrew. Such authors, therefore, have not conveyed to readers accurate accounts of general NRP (National Religious Party) or its hard-core Gush Emunum politics.”

    Common to both the Talmud and the Halacha, Orthodox religious law, is a differentiation between Jews and non-Jews. The highly revered Rabbi Menachem Mandel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the U.S., explained that, “The difference between a Jewish and a non- Jewish person stems from the common expression: `Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of `let us differentiate” between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world…A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, `And the strangers shall guard and feed your flocks’ (Isaiah 61:5). The entire creation (of a non-Jew) exists only for the sake of the Jews…”]

    “I went to your “Holocaust analysis” site, expecting some lunatic to have some article, and it wasn’t even THAT little. What a pathetic joke that site is. It describes your source as a pariah because of the lies he tries to peddle, and then doesn’t even bother to offer any “evidence.””

    –lol, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS, that you DIDN’T READ ANYTHING ON THAT WEBSITE.

    http://www.germarrudolf.com/work/trr/9.html

    [Even according to the statements of pharmacist J.-C. Pressac, who, in the late 80s and early 90s, was promoted as the technical Holocaust expert, eyewitness testimonies relating to the engineering of the installations and their capacity are, almost without exception, untenable. But even the corrections to the testimonies considered by Pressac to be necessary do not go far enough to make them credible. In particular, the testimonies relating to the duration of executions in the ‘gas chambers’ (morgue 1) of crematoria II and III, as well as the ventilation times after the executions go completely awry. This is because of the over-estimation of the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the carrier of Zyklon B, as well as the incorrect concept of the effectiveness of the ventilation of the rooms. ***If the eyewitness testimonies relating to the quantities of Zyklon B used, and at least approximately relating to the rapidity of the execution procedure are to be accepted, then they are incompatible with testimonies, sometimes of the same witnesses, that the victims’ corpses were removed from the ‘gas chambers’ immediately after the executions and without gas masks and protective garments. This is particularly true for those alleged ‘gas chambers’ without ventilation installations (crematoria IV and V and farmhouses I and II), since working in poorly ventilated ‘gas chambers’ with high concentrations of poison gas is impossible without gas masks. The extreme danger to the sweating workers of the Sonderkommando, who are supposed to have worked without protective garments, makes the witnesses untrustworthy. The eyewitness accounts are therefore completely contradictory, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore incredible. The witnesses engage in particular contortions when it comes to the cremations (amount and kind of fuel used, speed of cremation, development of flames and smoke), which furthermore fail to accord with the analyses of aerial photography.***]

    “I didn’t bother to visit your own site, because you are clearly nothing but a “seeker of lies” rather than any “truth seeker.””

    —LOL! What an incredible display of scholarship! You didn’t BOTHER TO VISIT IT, and this is justified, why? Because I’m a seeker of lies….GOOD LOGIC ABILITY THERE DUDE

    “The Holocaust stands as a brute fact of history, and you are an ugly and twisted human being for denying it.”

    —yes, REPEAT something enough and it will become truth. Just repeat it over and over again and everyone will eventually believe it, forget about having to prove it. Contrary evidence? persecute, jail, silence, punish, harass, censor, lie, lie, lie…

    it’s a brute fact of history, because you said so! And forget about denying the Judaic Bolshevik holocaust on Christian Russia, with over 50 million killed in total, who cares about that, we can deny it all we want, because it was non-Jews who were the victims, and Jews who were the perpetrators. It’s fine to deny that, or any other holocaust in history, just not this one, because Jews are special people.

    here’s more holocaust ‘evidence’ because it was such a ‘brute fact of history’:

    http://www.germarrudolf.com/work/trr/9.html

    [B: On building technology

    The investigation of the events of alleged mass gassings in the indicated rooms claimed by witnesses, from a technical and practical standpoint, including physical-chemical analysis, showed:

    1. The extensive documentation on the Auschwitz camp does not contain a single reference to execution ‘gas chambers’; rather it refutes such suspicions.
    2. The supposed main gas chambers of Auschwitz, the morgue hall of the crematorium in the main camp and the morgue cellars I (‘gas chambers’) of crematories II and III, did not have any means for the introduction of poison gas mixtures. Holes in the roofs visible today were made after the war, and all other cracks are the result of the building’s destruction at the end of the war.
    3. The release of lethal quantities of hydrogen cyanide from the Zyklon B carrier requires many multiples of the time asserted; the actual duration runs to several hours.
    4. To provide the necessary ventilation for the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of crematories II and III would have taken many hours, contrary to all witness testimony.
    5. It would have been impossible to provide an effective ventilation of the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of crematories IV or V or of farmhouses I and II. The corpses could not have been removed from the rooms and carried away by the Sonderkommando without protective garments and the use of gas masks with special filters.]

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    Talk about blah, blah, blah. Way to take up a lot of space saying nothing.

    Btw, I didn’t go to your second link because your first link was such a total waste of time. Scholars wouldn’t be much in the way of scholars if they had to endlessly/exhaustively interact with the views of the truly ignorant. I went to your first link, and when it was utterly ridiculous, I chose not to waste any more of my time.

    Did some translator somewhere say Ahmadinejab didn’t say, “Wipe of the map,” but rather, “Erase from the pages of history”? Yeah. Does “wipe off the map” mean anything different from “erase from the pages of history”? No. That’s why most media published “wipe off the map” and never felt any reason to issue any corrections: none were needed. In the SAME speech, Ahmadinejab said, “”Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated.” So only an abject fool is going to quibble over the meaning of “wipe off the map.” And you are proving yourself to be an abject fool.

    The PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah ALL have and continue to have a vow to destroy Israel as central parts of their platforms.

    I notice that you manage to ignore the other statements of prominent Muslim leaders, such as the Ayatolloh (who has FAR more clout than Ahmadinejab anyway). You might also check out Islamic children’s television and see how they brainwash their kids to hate Jews, versus Israeli TV that does no such thing.

    Muslims have launched THREE wars of extermination against a society which they surround on three sides, with population ratios over Israel of 150-1. And countries like Iran have repeatedly threatened FURTHER wars of extermination upon Israel. Israel occupies less than 1% of the land in the Middle East. In the 1948 war, the Arabs were offered their own state in Palestine, but renowned it in favor of exterminating Jews and driving them into the Sea. Israel’s survival was a miracle.

    Israel is a democracy surrounded by terrorist organizations who have come to lead their nations (Palestinian Authority, Lebanon) as well as hostile regimes who would destroy them the nanosecond they thought they could (Syria, Iran). Israel has been the unrelenting victim of terrorist attacks and wars of aggression.

    Frontpage Mag pointed out on October 8, 2007 that “some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.” And ask yourself: what percentage of Jewish deaths can be attributed to Islam, by war and by terror? And there have been tens of thousands of Islamic terror attacks versus how many Jewish terror attacks?

    The Associated Press revealed that there had been 3,000 explosive rocket terrorist attacks preceding Israel’s recent military action against Hamas.

    And your making Israel the bad guy?

  16. Revelations Says:

    [ Did some translator somewhere say Ahmadinejab didn’t say, “Wipe of the map,” but rather, “Erase from the pages of history”? Yeah.]

    umm, those are Ahmadinejad’s actual words.

    [Does “wipe off the map” mean anything different from “erase from the pages of history”? No. That’s why most media published “wipe off the map” and never felt any reason to issue any corrections: none were needed. In the SAME speech, Ahmadinejab said, “”Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated.” So only an abject fool is going to quibble over the meaning of “wipe off the map.” And you are proving yourself to be an abject fool.]

    AHAH! Holy crap talk about objectivity. First you ADMIT that the way media published it was totally not what he said, and then you make some nonsense rationalization for it.

    Ahmadinejad didn’t even say ‘Isarel!’ And that’s exactly how the Media said it, “wipe Israel off the map”

    which is totally different to what he actually said, “remove the Zionist REGIME from the pages of time”

    “wiping Israel off the map” is saying annihiliating the people. “Removing the Zionist Regime from the pages of time”, is removing the REGIME, not the people or the country!

    “That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).”

    —-the two phrases clearly have different meanings and your zealous lies is so obviously a pathetic slander

  17. Revelations Says:

    [The PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah ALL have and continue to have a vow to destroy Israel as central parts of their platforms.]

    next time do your research instead of willfully spreading lies:

    1. PLO accepts Israel’s right to exist, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israel-PLO+Recognition+-+Exchange+of+Letters+betwe.htm

    2. Israel HELPED START Hamas in order to make it go against the secular PLO http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

    “Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Islamist movement in Palestine, returning from Cairo in the seventies, established an Islamic charity association. Prime Minister Golda Meir, saw this as a an opportunity to counterbalance the rise of Arafat’s Fatah movement. .According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), “The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority” in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. “They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad.”

    The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an “Islamic University” in Gaza. “The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza.” At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression.

    In 1984, Ahmed Yassin was arrested and condemned to twelve years in prison, after the discovery of a hidden arms cache. But one year later, he was set free and resumed his activities. And when the Intifada (‘uprising’) began, in October 1987, which took the Islamists by surprise, Sheik Yassin responded by creating the Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement): “God is our beginning, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution”, proclaims article 7 of the charter of the organization.

    Ahmed Yassin was in prison when, the Oslo accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government) were signed in September 1993. The Hamas had rejected Oslo outright. But at that time, 70% of Palestinians had condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians. Yassin did everything in his power to undermine the Oslo accords. Even prior to Prime Minister Rabin’s death, he had the support of the Israeli government. The latter was very reluctant to implement the peace agreement.

    The Hamas then launched a carefully timed campaign of attacks against civilians, one day before the meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, regarding the formal recognition of Israel by the National Palestinian Council. These events were largely instrumental in the formation of a Right wing Israeli government following the May 1996 elections.

    Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison (“on humanitarian grounds”) where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997….”

    3. The Orthodox Talmudic enclave in Israel, which are formidable and politically powerful, consider the Goys to be spiritual and racial inferiors, as guided by their Talmudic Orthodox masters such as Maimonides, Shneerson, Ginsbergh, Kahane, Goldstein. This group does not at all support a Palestinian state and allows and promotes the murder of innocent Palestinians

  18. Revelations Says:

    [I notice that you manage to ignore the other statements of prominent Muslim leaders, such as the Ayatolloh (who has FAR more clout than Ahmadinejab anyway). You might also check out Islamic children’s television and see how they brainwash their kids to hate Jews, versus Israeli TV that does no such thing.]

    —WTF???

    I DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE by showing the CORPUS amounts of Rabbinic literature that posits as one of its central tenets, the spiritual and racial inferiority of non-Jews. This YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED

    Rabbinic literature and Orthodox Rabbis regularly teach their kids in synagogues not to trust Goys and consider them to be animals and non-human

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/2104_2104.html
    “Superiority of Jews

    Among the religious settlers in the Occupied Territories, the Chabad Hassids constitute one of the most extreme groups. Baruch Goldstein, the mass murderer of Palestinians, was one of them. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who wrote a chapter of a book in praise of Goldstein and what he did, is another member of this group. An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Rabbi Ginsburgh speaks freely of Jews’ genetic-based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews. “If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first,” Ginsburgh states. “If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that, Jewish life has an infinite value.”

    Shahak and Mezvinsky point out that, “Changing the words `Jewish’ to `German’ or `Aryan’ and `non-Jewish’ to `Jewish’ turns the Ginsburgh position into the doctrine that made Auschwitz possible in the past. To a considerable extent the German Nazi success depended upon that ideology and upon its implications of being widely known early. Disregarding even on a limited scale the potential effects of messianic, Lubavitch and other ideologies could prove to be calamitous…The similarities between the Jewish political messianic trend and German Nazism are glaring. The Gentiles are for the messianists what the Jews were for the Nazis. The hatred of Western culture with its rational and democratic elements is common to both movements…The ideology…is both eschatological and messianic. It resembles in this respect prior Jewish religious doctrines as well as similar trends in Christianity and Islam. This ideology assumes the imminent coming of the Messiah and asserts that the Jews, aided by God, will thereafter triumph over the non-Jews and rule over them forever.”

    Not Stealing But Sanctification

    Members of Gush Emunum argue that “what appears to be confiscation of Arab-owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an act of stealing but one of sanctification. >From their perspective the land is redeemed by being transferred from the satanic to the divine sphere…the Gush Emunum rabbis assert that this one messianic sect has to handle and lead the ass-like Jews, who have been corrupted by satanic Western culture, with its rationality and democracy and who refuse to renounce their beastly habits and embrace the true faith. To further the process, the use of force is permitted wherever necessary.”

    The fundamentalists believe that God gave all of the Land of Israel (including present Lebanon and other areas) to the Jews and that Arabs living in Israel are viewed as thieves. Rabbi Israel Ariel, a fundamentalist leader, published an atlas that designated all lands that were Jewish and needed to be liberated. This included all areas west and south of the Euphrates River extending through present-day Kuwait. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, another spokesman, said, “We must live in this land even at the price of war. Moreover, even if there is no peace, we must instigate wars of liberation in order to conquer it (the land).”

    Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer at the Hebrew University, expressed this view in an official publication of the World Zionist Organization. Relying upon Maimonides, he said that a non-Jew permitted to reside in the land of Israel “must accept paying a tax and suffering the humiliation of servitude.” He said that non-Jews must not be appointed to any office or position of power over Jews.

    View of the Non-Jews

    When it comes to Maimonides, his view of non-Jews is less than positive, and his view of some racial and ethnic groups is clearly hostile. His Guide To The Perplexed (Book III, Chapter 51) discusses how various sections of humanity can attain the supreme religious value, the true worship of God. Among those who are incapable of even approaching this are: “Some of the Turks (i. e., the Mongol race) and the nomads of the North and the Blacks and nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion, they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than the monkey does.”

    In an earlier book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Professor Shahak asked, “Now, what does one do with such a passage in a most important and necessary work of Judaism? Face the truth and its consequences? God forbid: Admit, as so many Christian scholars, for example, have done in similar circumstances, that a very important Jewish authority also held rabid anti-Black views, and by this admission make an attempt at self-education in real humanity? Perish the thought…A happy `solution’ was found: in the popular American translation of the Guide…first published as far back as 1925 and since reprinted in many editions, including several in paperback, the Hebrew word Kushim, which means Blacks, was simply transliterated and appears as `Kushites,’ a word which means nothing to those who have no knowledge of Hebrew, or to whom an obliging rabbi will not give an oral explanation. During all these years, not a word has been said to point out the original deception or the social facts underlying its continuation—and this throughout the excitement of Martin Luther King’s campaigns, which were supported by so many rabbis, not to mention other Jewish figures, some of whom must have been unaware of the anti-Black racist attitude which forms part of their Jewish heritage.”

    Murder of Palestinians

    When it comes to Goldstein’s murder of 29 Palestinians at prayer, fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that such an act constitutes “murder” because, according to the Halacha, the killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as murder. It may be prohibited for other reasons, especially when it causes danger for Jews. When asked if he was sorry about the murdered Arabs, militant Rabbi Moshe Levenger declared: “I am sorry not only about dead Arabs but about dead flies.”

    For the fundamentalists, Goldstein became a hero. Military guards transported his coffin to Kiryat Arba through Palestinian villages. Rabbi Dov Lior in a eulogy stated that, “Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others.”

    The problem, Shahak and Mezvinsky point out is that, “The terms `human beings’ and `others’ in the Halacha refer solely to Jews.”

    When Orthodox Jews read the Bible, they are reading a very different book with a different meaning from the Bible as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. Halacha, the legal system of classical Judaism, is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. Over time, the complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud were made manageable by successive generations of rabbinical scholars. Some of these have acquired great authority and are in general use.

    Orthodox View

    According to the Orthodox view, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense while the murder of a non-Jew is viewed in different terms. In “Laws on Murders” (Maimonides, Mishnet Tora, 2, 11), a Jew who kills a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against “laws of Heaven,” not punishable by a court. To cause the death of a Gentile indirectly is no sin at all.

    The Book of Education, a popular Orthodox religious manual which is reprinted in many inexpensive editions subsidized by the Israeli government, was written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to Talmudic interpretation. A central aim of this book is to emphasize the “correct” meaning of the Bible with respect to such terms as “fellow,” “friend,” or “man.” Thus #219, devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse “thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself” is entitled, “A religious obligation to love Jews,” and explains: “To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his money as one cares for oneself and one’s money, for it is written, `thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself’…”

    In #322, dealing with the duty to keep a Gentile slave enslaved forever (whereas a Jewish slave must be set free after seven years), the following explanation is given. “And at the root of this religious obligation (is the fact that) the Jewish people are the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him, and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And if they will not have slaves of other peoples, they would have to enslave their brothers, who would thus be unable to serve the Lord, blessed be He. Therefore we are commanded to possess those for our service, after they are prepared for this and after idolatry is removed from their speech, so that there should not be danger in our houses, and this is the intention of the verse `but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour,’ so that you will not have to enslave your brothers, who are ready to worship God.”

    Distinctions

    Similar distinctions are made in numerous other passages. In explaining the ban against delaying a worker`s wage (#238) the author is careful to point out that the sin is less serious if the worker is Gentile. The prohibition against cursing (#239) is entitled “Not to curse any Jew, whether man or woman.” Similarly, the prohibition against giving misleading advice, hating other people, shaming them or taking revenge on them (#244, 245, 246, 247) apply only to fellow Jews.

    Perhaps the most extreme expression of this differentiation between moral obligations to Jews and non-Jews can be found in the section of the Talmud devoted to saving life. The question is posed: What is a pious Jew to do when he sees a human being drowning in the sea or having fallen into a well? The Talmud response, still accepted by the ultra-Orthodox, is that the answer is dependent upon the category to which the human being belongs. If the person is either a non-Jew or a Jew who is a “shepherd of sheep and goats,” a category that lapsed after Talmudic times, he should neither be saved nor pushed into the sea or well. If, however, the person is a Jewish heretic, he should either be pushed down the well or into the sea or, if the person is already in the well or sea, he should not be rescued. This legal stipulation appears in Tractate Avoda Zara (pp. 26a-b).”

  19. Revelations Says:

    oh and here’s a little something for the KIDS too, contrary to your nonsense ramblings about no propaganda to Jewish kids. YEAH SURE THING

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/2104_2104.html

    Arab as Amalek

    In his book Arab and Jew, David K. Shipler, who served as the New York Times correspondent in Israel, writes: “As the 11 and 12-year-old boys in Kiryat Arba explained, they are learning in their yeshivas that the Arab is Amalek, the enemy tribe that God instructed the Jews to fight eternally and destroy: `Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish forever.’ (Numbers 24:20). Hagai Segal, a settler from Ofra, was quoted in the settlers’ paper Nekuda as declaring, `The Torah of Israel has nothing to do with modern humanistic atheism. The Torah yearns for revenge. Such a Torah is not humanistic.’ Expressions of bellicose intolerance are given religious sanction and rationalization, which then filter into some segments of the lay population. Some rabbis, such as Eliezer Waldenberg, winner of the 1976 Israel Prize, declared that Halakha, Jewish law, required a strict separation of Jews from Arabs, preferably an apatheid system,or, better yet, the expulsion of the `goyim,’ all non-Jews, from Jerusalem….Another rabbi writing in the student newspaper at Bar-Ilan University argued that the Torah prescribed genocide against the modern Amalek.”

    Although they constitute a relatively small portion of the Israeli population, the political influence of the messianic fundamentalists has been growing. If they have contempt for non-Jews, their hatred for Jews who oppose their views is even greater. This can be seen in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin.

  20. Revelations Says:

    “Muslims have launched THREE wars of extermination against a society which they surround on three sides, with population ratios over Israel of 150-1.”

    —WHAT??? All the wars except for 1 one of them were started by Israel

    the 1948 was an EXPULSION of the indigenous Palestinian population by the Israeli army, this is totally documented by the Israeli New Historians, and proven by Israeli and Arab army records

    “And countries like Iran have repeatedly threatened FURTHER wars of extermination upon Israel. Israel occupies less than 1% of the land in the Middle East. In the 1948 war, the Arabs were offered their own state in Palestine, but renowned it in favor of exterminating Jews and driving them into the Sea. Israel’s survival was a miracle.”

    —-LOL!!!! AND where’s your evidence for this???? Cause you said so!!

    1948 was the Israeli Expulsion of the Palestinians as documented very reliably by the Israeli New Historians

    and the “driving them into the Sea” is a TOTAL FABRICATION
    http://www.counterpunch.org/martin03112005.html

    “Israel is a democracy”

    —-this is so patently false. Jews and Arabs can’t even marry each other, and neither can non-Jews go live there permanently, it’s mainly for Jews only. Israel is racist apartheid

    Israel also regularly has political prisoners including its nuclear whistleblower, and has been proven to torture its prisoners

    “surrounded by terrorist organizations who have come to lead their nations (Palestinian Authority, Lebanon) as well as hostile regimes who would destroy them the nanosecond they thought they could (Syria, Iran). Israel has been the unrelenting victim of terrorist attacks and wars of aggression.”

    —–oy vey talk about the most paranoid, hysterical, and totally historically inaccurate sweeping generalizations!

    As if Israel has never killed a single Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian, civilian or bombed their hospitals, schools, apartments, ambulances

    or spied on them and perpetrate false-flag terrorist operations against them such as USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair

    [Frontpage Mag pointed out on October 8, 2007 that “some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.” And ask yourself: what percentage of Jewish deaths can be attributed to Islam, by war and by terror? And there have been tens of thousands of Islamic terror attacks versus how many Jewish terror attacks?]

    —-umm, what?? You just admitted that most Muslims are killing Muslims instead of killing Jews. This signifies Muslim aggression against Jews?

    There’s been TONS of Jewish terror attacks, what the hell?

    -1948 expulsion
    -Lavon Affair false flag
    -USS Liberty false-flag
    -killing 5000s Egyptian prisoners of war
    -contemplating nuclear bombs during Meir
    -killing 10, 700 Lebanese civilians
    -killing how many Palestinian civilians? constantly? Including the recent one in Gaza, 13 Israelis killed vs. 1400 Palestinians killed including 400 children

    [The Associated Press revealed that there had been 3,000 explosive rocket terrorist attacks preceding Israel’s recent military action against Hamas.]

    —–SOOO?? And what about the hundreds of plane bombs, tank bombs, phosphorous bombs, on Palestinian civilians?

    let’s see here, 13 Israelis killed by Hamas, vs 1400 Palestinians killed including 400 children

  21. Revelations Says:

    Israel doesn’t even have a LEGITIMATE CLAIM to the land!

    The Edomites and the Khazars were CONVERTS to Judaism, and they have many of the world’s Jews today as their descendants, they’re not the “Israelites” and certainly don’t have a moral legitimate claim to the land!

    besides, the ENTIRE BIBLICAL STORY is A COMPLETE HOAX! What other legitimate claim does Israel have to being a state?

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

    “So anachronistic and inconsistent … are the profuse legends that have gathered round the figures of the patriarchs that it cannot even be stated for certain that they ever existed at all …

    In any case, the existences and traditions of these patriarchs seem to have been originally quite separate from one another and unrelated.”

    – M. Grant, The History of Ancient Israel, p30.

    “As nomads, the migratory pattern of the Hebrews might take them into the Nile Delta. Egyptian forces repeatedly passed through Palestine to fight wars further north. Any culture the Jews did not copy from the Babylonians they took instead from the Egyptians. Tellingly, the huge corpus of Egyptian records contains no reference at all to Israelites, the Oppression, the Exodus or Moses.

    The hapiru were, after all, merely bandits on the Canaanite frontier.”

    ‘Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible …

    Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.’

    – John Romer, Testament, pp57/8.

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/babylon.htm

    “The kingdom of Israel is not mentioned in any contemporary text but only in the Bible.”
    –Karen Armstrong (A History of Jerusalem, p xv)
    “The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever.”

    – Cantor (The Sacred Chain, p 51)

    “Several versions of the Sumerian Flood story have been found over the years, all of them pre-dating the Bible… the flood story in the Bible is obviously a legend, and a borrowed and garbled one at that.”
    Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands-BC, pp21-23)

    “We have not a stone of Solomon’s temple … We have no evidence at all for Solomon and his kingdom.
    We have no contemporary textural sources which mention Solomon, and, as far as I am aware, he is not referred to in any other outside contemporary texts.”
    – Jonathan Tubb (Curator of Syria and Palestine, British Museum)

    “Archaeology has excavated nothing in Jerusalem from the supposed time of Solomon to reveal anything but a relatively low level of culture.
    As for the surrounding empires, if their records are any indication, they do not seem to have even noticed that Jerusalem was there.”
    – Graham Phillips (The Moses Legacy, p5/6)

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Wow. Six comments, back-to-back-to-back on the same article. That has to be some kind of record.

    No way I’m going to be able to respond to that kind of avalanche.

    Israel doesn’t have a legitimate claim to the land? Only if 2,000 years of continuous history doesn’t make any difference. Only if the fact that the Muslims built their “third holiest site” RIGHT ON TOP of the Jewish temple means the Muslims were there first. Your arguments that all of biblical history was somehow fabricated by Jews is just plain nuts. It’s not just Jewish scholars or Bible scholars who realize you’re insane; it’s ROMAN historians as well. It’s damn near EVERYONE who has ever studied history without the most abject ideological hatred of Israel and the Jews, which you very much seem to harbor. If nothing else, there is a giant wall that anyone can go to and slip a piece of paper containing his or her prayer to demonstrate just how abjectly crazy your position is.

    You argue: “—WHAT??? All the wars except for 1 one of them were started by Israel…the 1948 was an EXPULSION of the indigenous Palestinian population by the Israeli army, this is totally documented by the Israeli New Historians, and proven by Israeli and Arab army records.”

    Just bizarre. The 1948 war was the direct result of the Jews ACCEPTING the UN proposal, and the ARABS GOING TO WAR to prevent it. According to the World Encyclopedia, “Armies of several Arab nations then attacked the new state of Israel. The Israelis fought off the attacking forces and in 1949 the United Nations arranged for an armistice – that is, to have the fighting stopped. But no general peace settlement was reached. The Arab countries continue to say that they are at war with Israel; they fire on Israeli ships at sea, and there are frequent “skirmishes” on the borders between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in which soldiers and others die” (page 2848 Illustrated World Encyclopedia, vol 8, 1969).

    The 1956 war was the result of Israel joining with Britain and France to avoid having the Suez Canal nationalized. Egypt started that one.

    The Illustrated World Encyclopedia continues: “In June, 1967, President Nassar of the United Arab Republic decided to send ships to block the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel’s only outlet to the Red Sea [itself a clear act of war]. He also persuaded other Arab nations to send soldiers to surround Israel with tanks, machine guns, and other weapons. The border skirmishes which had been going on for about 10 years suddenly broke into full-scale war. It was one of the shortest and most amazing wars in history. In only six days, Israel, with a population of fewer than 3 million, won a total victory over all the Arab nations having a combined population of 110 million” (pg 2848-2849).

    Your claim that the Arabs were helpless victims to Israeli aggression is both historically and morally insane.

    Who has a claim to the land?

    Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, wrote of his visit to the Holy Land in his book Innocents Abroad. He described the land as desolate and uninhabited. For that matter, one article goes back centuries to show that the land called ‘Palestine’ by the Romans had largely been utterly vacant since the Jews were destroyed by Rome.

    Then we find that the first Jews to seriously settle the land purchased it from the Ottoman Empire. No claim to the land? They had BOUGHT the land from the internationally recognized owners! The Arabs coming into the land were largely hired workers – hired by the Jewish farmers. And then, when the Ottoman Empire chose to side with the Axis in WWI, the land fell to Britain.

    No claim to the land? How about the Balfour Declaration: Lord Arthur James Balfour, the head of Great Britain’s Foreign Office, rec’d approval from the British Cabinent and released the following declaration in favor of a Jewish homeland on November 2, 1917: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    The Balfour Declaration was endorsed on July 24, 1922 by the League of Nations, the United States, and even some Arab states. Under the Balfour Declaration and other treaties after WWI, Arab states – including Transjordan, syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia – received almost 500 times as much land as was granted to the Jewish national homeland. The leader of Saudi Arabia, Emir Faisal, met several times with Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had negotiated the Balfour Declaration. A statement released by Faisal and Weizmann asserted that “the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspiration is through the closest possible collaboration of the development of the Arab state and Palestine (the Jewish Homeland)” (Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, 1984, 421).

    How did the Arabs initially respond?
    As the leading figure among the Arabs, Faisal wrote to another Zionist leader, Felix Frankfurter, in 1919, declaring, “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deeper sympathy on the Zionist movement…. We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home…our two movements complete one another… and there is room in Syria [which at that time included Palestine] for us both…neither can be a real success without the other” (Emir Faisal, “Letter to Felix Frankfurter,” March 3, 1919, http://www.amislam.com/feisal.htm).

    No claim to the land? How about the United Nations resolution in 1948? How about the fact that the same resolution established a Palestinian state, also – but the Arabs decided to repudiate the UN resolution in favor of a war of annihilation? These same Arabs who sided with the Nazis, and who frankly deserved nothing, repudiated what was given to them for what they could seize in war. And when they lost that war – which again THEY wanted and THEY started – they lost their claims.

    Did the Jews drive the Arabs living in the land out during the 1948 war? NO! In fact, they BEGGED them to remain! The Arabs had near total tactical advantage over the Jews. They had the armor (the Arab Legion of Jordan) and they had the overwhelming numbers. It would have been tactically insane for the Jews to drive the Arabs out and leave only themselves for the overwhelmingly superior Arab forces destroy the Jews without fear of collateral damage. The Jews very much wanted the Arabs to stay; it was the Arab command which ordered them to leave in a war of extermination.

    Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . .” Cited by Anderson et al., “The Arab Refugee Problem and How It Can Be Solved,” p. 22; for more regarding Arab responsibility, see Sir Alexander Cadogan, Ambassador of Great Britain to the United Nations, speech to the Security Council, S.C., O.R., 287th meeting, April 23, 1948; also see Harry Stebbens, British Port Officer stationed in Haifa, letter in Evening Standard (London), January 10, 1969.

    Here’s a rather important admission:
    Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics and the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs:

    Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees … while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon … men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes [Source: Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87, cited by Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jewsfrom Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, preliminary edition (Jerusalem: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries [WOJAC], 1975), p. 61].

    Let me ask a crucial question: if the Jews had fled THEIR homes, and then lost the war, would the Arabs have given THEM “the right of return”? You are insane if you answer, “Yes.” So why should the Jews give a right THEY never would have been given? Seriously?

    And fifty years of unrelenting terrorism, such that there have been not thousands but tens of thousands of murderous terrorist attacks upon innocent women and children – the most cowardly of targets – is further proof that the so-called “Palestinians” have no claim to anything but coming divine judgment. Yassar Arafat was a known terrorist; the Hamas government that was ELECTED has been long declared as a terrorist organization by every single Western power on earth.

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    You know, I went to your link, and saw the rambling diatribe from pseudo-intellectuals who claim that somehow the Bible is hateful.

    You seriously think that your stupid link rivals the hundreds of murderous propaganda programs directed at children, such as the Muslim Mickey Mouse who preached hate and was ultimately “murdered by Jews” to instill yet more hate in children?
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=95440DFB-245E-4F73-9319-BC203C64C937

    You seriously think that paper compares to the constant praising and glorification of suicide bombers who murder women and children?
    http://www.pmw.org.il/murder.htm

    Are you so morally insane that you think that your “david duke” article is the equivalent of this? Look through the whole thing; because the ugliness just goes on and one with one horrifying example of hate propaganda after another.
    http://www.pmw.org.il/latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b080206

    One group of people has launched a murderous terrorist campaign of tens of thousands of attacks – and most recently suicide bombings of civilians – against another. And frankly only the worst kind of moral fool is not able to see the difference.

  24. Revelations Says:

    # Michael Eden Says:
    April 12, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    “Israel doesn’t have a legitimate claim to the land? Only if 2,000 years of continuous history doesn’t make any difference.”

    —what CONTINUOUS HISTORY?? You actually believe World Jews constitute 1 homogenous ethnic group???

    1. Khazars and Edomites are not “Israelites”, neither are the tons of other converts that exist

    2. the Biblical story HAS NO HISTORICAL VALIDITY whatsoever! There’s no evidence for any Israelite empire, no Solomon, no David, no Abraham, no Moses… It’s NATIONAL MYTHOLOGY

    “Your arguments that all of biblical history was somehow fabricated by Jews is just plain nuts.”

    —LOL!! PROVE ME WRONG!!!

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

    “It’s not just Jewish scholars or Bible scholars who realize you’re insane; it’s ROMAN historians as well.”

    —LOL! Romans knew about “jews” BUT NOT The Biblical Story!

    “It’s damn near EVERYONE who has ever studied history without the most abject ideological hatred of Israel and the Jews, which you very much seem to harbor. If nothing else, there is a giant wall that anyone can go to and slip a piece of paper containing his or her prayer to demonstrate just how abjectly crazy your position is.”

    —-AND WHO ARE THESE EVERYONE???

    you mean these people?

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

    ‘Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible …

    Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites.’

    – John Romer, Testament, pp57/8.

    “So anachronistic and inconsistent … are the profuse legends that have gathered round the figures of the patriarchs that it cannot even be stated for certain that they ever existed at all …

    In any case, the existences and traditions of these patriarchs seem to have been originally quite separate from one another and unrelated.”

    – M. Grant, The History of Ancient Israel, p30.

    “As nomads, the migratory pattern of the Hebrews might take them into the Nile Delta. Egyptian forces repeatedly passed through Palestine to fight wars further north. Any culture the Jews did not copy from the Babylonians they took instead from the Egyptians. Tellingly, the huge corpus of Egyptian records contains no reference at all to Israelites, the Oppression, the Exodus or Moses.

    The hapiru were, after all, merely bandits on the Canaanite frontier.”

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/solomon.htm

    The so-called ‘United Monarchy’ is found only in the Bible. The ’empire’ has no monuments, no inscriptions and no artifacts. Neither David nor Solomon is as much as mentioned in the huge corpus of state records of either Egypt or Assyria. Concedes a ‘pro-imperial Israel’ historian:

    “Solomon … in the eyes of Israelite historians, marked the apex of Israelite achievement. Curiously, no reference to him or his father David, or their empire in a non-Israelite source is known … ” – Isserlin (The Israelites, p72)

    Biblical “Proverbs of Solomon”?

    “Every part of the book bears the mark of foreign influences … The close connection between the first part of the Thirty Sayings with Egyptian Wisdom … is only a special instance.”

    J.C. Rylaarsdam (Peake’s Commentary, 444)

    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/babylon.htm

    “The kingdom of Israel is not mentioned in any contemporary text but only in the Bible.”
    –Karen Armstrong (A History of Jerusalem, p xv)
    “The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever.”

    – Cantor (The Sacred Chain, p 51)

    ‘Of particular significance, in view of the subsequent appearance of the book of Genesis, were Babylonian stories of a Great Flood (complete with a hero, an ark and animals); an Assyrian tale of a ‘tower of Babel’; the early life of King Sargon of Sumaria (who as an infant was floated down the Tigris in a reed boat and subsequently brought up by a princess); and a tale of the giving of the law to King Hammurabi of Babylon by the sun god Shamash – 3,654 lines of text inscribed on an eight-foot high block of black diorite.”

    Fictional Temple
    “We have not a stone of Solomon’s temple … We have no evidence at all for Solomon and his kingdom.
    We have no contemporary textural sources which mention Solomon, and, as far as I am aware, he is not referred to in any other outside contemporary texts.”
    – Jonathan Tubb (Curator of Syria and Palestine, British Museum)

    “Archaeology has excavated nothing in Jerusalem from the supposed time of Solomon to reveal anything but a relatively low level of culture.
    As for the surrounding empires, if their records are any indication, they do not seem to have even noticed that Jerusalem was there.”
    – Graham Phillips (The Moses Legacy, p5/6)

    “Though much honoured in legend (and Hollywood) the simple truth is that no evidence has ever been found of David, Solomon or his ‘empire.’ Neither secular history, nor archaeology, provides a shred of confirmation for the highly detailed and colourful biblical stories. Not a single stone or artifact from what was supposedly the world’s most fabulous temple has ever been identified. The extraordinary magnificence of the Jewish Empire is matched only by the total void when we seek confirmation from any other source.

    For example, the Asiatic Greek Herodotus – writing one of the world’s first histories in the 5th century BC – wrote of peoples and places throughout the Persian empire and beyond. Herodotus knew of lake-dwellers in far away Europe and of barbarous tribes along the north African coast. He was familiar with the painted warriors of the Sudan and with the nomads of southern Russia.

    Yet in all his work Herodotus makes no single mention of Jews or Hebrews, Judah or Israel. He speaks of the coastal cities of Sidon and Tyre but never of Jerusalem. He records the great temple of Aphrodite Urania at Ascalon but fails to mention any temple of Solomon.”

    “For Herodotus, this land is the home of ‘Syrians known as Palestinians’. If tribesmen in the interior escaped his attention they assuredly were not the authors of a great empire which supposedly had existed a few hundred years before his own time. More than two thousand years later nothing has emerged to change our understanding:

    “This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.”
    (Ha’aretz Magazine, October 1999)

    All that we do have is some evidence of minor regional war lords or ‘city bosses’ (‘kings’) who, in the centuries before first Assyria, and then Babylon, overran Palestine. Yet more tellingly in the Jewish ‘nationalistic’ saga, we have the rationale for a theocratic state and a religious caste system. The priests are born to rule both because it is Yahweh’s design and because secular kings (even magnificent ones) transgress and run amok.

    Yet kings are not excluded out of hand. The priesthood loathed the diminution of their power and the intrusion of secular laws but were delighted by the enlargement of the territory of the theocratic state, such as might be achieved by a warrior king (and as idealised in the ‘empire’ conjectured for Solomon). The duality of power, the conflict between king and priest, runs as a theme through subsequent Jewish history and was never resolved.”

    “Just bizarre. The 1948 war was the direct result of the Jews ACCEPTING the UN proposal, and the ARABS GOING TO WAR to prevent it. According to the World Encyclopedia, “Armies of several Arab nations then attacked the new state of Israel. The Israelis fought off the attacking forces and in 1949 the United Nations arranged for an armistice – that is, to have the fighting stopped. But no general peace settlement was reached. The Arab countries continue to say that they are at war with Israel; they fire on Israeli ships at sea, and there are frequent “skirmishes” on the borders between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in which soldiers and others die” (page 2848 Illustrated World Encyclopedia, vol 8, 1969).”

    —LOL!!! AHAHA OH MY GOD! THAT’S LIKE READING THE BIBLE ITSELF!

    ACCEPTED THE UN proposal?? You mean like this?

    The UN partition of a Jewish State being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. Within this area it is not possible to reach our historic goal. But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to a greater Zionist implementation. Within the shortest possible time we will consolidate a Jewish force throughout Palestine.” —ben Gurion

    “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Palestine of its Arab population.” —ben Gurion

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    “The 1956 war was the result of Israel joining with Britain and France to avoid having the Suez Canal nationalized. Egypt started that one.”

    —-SO?? WTF? That Canal was IN EGYPT! As if Israel isn’t a bastion of socialist Marxist Kibbutz ideology, which was its essence when it began

  25. Revelations Says:

    “The Illustrated World Encyclopedia continues”

    —LOL! Almost right out of the Bible! “The Israelites smited them the Canaanites because Yahweh said so….”

    besides Israel got military and financial aid way more than the surrounding countries

    and THIS STILL DOESN’T support a legitimate claim of an Israeli State!

    “Your claim that the Arabs were helpless victims to Israeli aggression is both historically and morally insane.”

    —-yes because YOU SAID SO RIGHT??

    “Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, wrote of his visit to the Holy Land in his book Innocents Abroad. He described the land as desolate and uninhabited. For that matter, one article goes back centuries to show that the land called ‘Palestine’ by the Romans had largely been utterly vacant since the Jews were destroyed by Rome.”

    —-WHAT??? This is such utter nonsense… That’s why in 1948, over 800,000 Palestinian refugees were made….EGYPT and Assyria and other nations near there CONQUERED Palestine BECAUSE no “Israelite empire” existed there. It was just little villages and small towns with no culture! That website clearly proves it and you haven’t even mentioned the website

    “Then we find that the first Jews to seriously settle the land purchased it from the Ottoman Empire. No claim to the land? They had BOUGHT the land from the internationally recognized owners! The Arabs coming into the land were largely hired workers – hired by the Jewish farmers. And then, when the Ottoman Empire chose to side with the Axis in WWI, the land fell to Britain.”

    —-1. I don’t have a problem with buying land

    2. there was plenty of Arabs living in Palestine before Jews moved there

    3. The Zionists DID NOT want to just “buy land” they wanted to conquer it because “buying land” did not give them the large area they wanted!

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

    “The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty—-this is national consolidation in a free homeland.” (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

    Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

    “. . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs.” (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

    On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

    “With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.” (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

    And in 1938, he also wrote:

    “With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas …. I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England …. Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. …. But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

    “No claim to the land? How about the Balfour Declaration: Lord Arthur James Balfour, the head of Great Britain’s Foreign Office, rec’d approval from the British Cabinent and released the following declaration in favor of a Jewish homeland on November 2, 1917: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    —-LOL WTF??? SO JUST BECAUSE SOME LORD IN BRITAIN SAYS SO THAT’S A LEGITIMATE ‘CLAIM’????

    HELL WHY NOT GET THE QUEEN TO SIGN SOME PAPER AND GET ANTARCTICA TO BE THE NATIONAL HOMELAND OF PENGUINS!!

    oh yeahhh real “legitimate claim”!!! GET A LORD TO SIGN SOME PAPER!

  26. Revelations Says:

    “Under the Balfour Declaration and other treaties after WWI, Arab states – including Transjordan, syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia – received almost 500 times as much land as was granted to the Jewish national homeland”

    —-that’s because ARABS WERE ALREADY LIVING THERE YOU JACKASS

    “The leader of Saudi Arabia, Emir Faisal, met several times with Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann”

    —-LOL! YOU MEAN THIS CHAIM WEIZMANN?

    “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews” —Weizmann

    “How did the Arabs initially respond?
    As the leading figure among the Arabs, Faisal wrote to another Zionist leader, Felix Frankfurter, in 1919, declaring, “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deeper sympathy on the Zionist movement…. We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home…our two movements complete one another… and there is room in Syria [which at that time included Palestine] for us both…neither can be a real success without the other” (Emir Faisal, “Letter to Felix Frankfurter,” March 3, 1919, http://www.amislam.com/feisal.htm).”

    —-as if Emir is SPEAKING FOR ALL ARABS AND ESPECIALLY THE ONES LIVING IN PALESTINE??? This is NOT a legitimate claim!

    “No claim to the land? How about the United Nations resolution in 1948? How about the fact that the same resolution established a Palestinian state, also – but the Arabs decided to repudiate the UN resolution in favor of a war of annihilation? These same Arabs who sided with the Nazis, and who frankly deserved nothing, repudiated what was given to them for what they could seize in war. And when they lost that war – which again THEY wanted and THEY started – they lost their claims.”

    —-LOL!!! BUT THE HISTORY SHOWS that it was the Zionists who repudiated the UN resolution! Just like how ben Gurion said above!

    And Nazis had the TRANSFER AGREEMENT which HELPED the Zionists!
    http://www.adolfthegreat.com/Trails/TransferAgreement.html

    “Did the Jews drive the Arabs living in the land out during the 1948 war? NO! In fact, they BEGGED them to remain!”

    —WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS??? The Israeli records themselves SHOW that it was a military expulsion

    “The Arabs had near total tactical advantage over the Jews. They had the armor (the Arab Legion of Jordan) and they had the overwhelming numbers. It would have been tactically insane for the Jews to drive the Arabs out and leave only themselves for the overwhelmingly superior Arab forces destroy the Jews without fear of collateral damage. The Jews very much wanted the Arabs to stay; it was the Arab command which ordered them to leave in a war of extermination.”

    —-THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE, YOU HAVE NO official records for this WHATSOEVER

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story562.html

  27. Revelations Says:

    “Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable situation . . .””

    —this is a TOTAL LIE:

    http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story674.html

    “As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.”

    “Here’s a rather important admission:
    Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics and the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs:”

    —but this DOESN’T ABSOLVE OF ZIONIST EXPULSION!

    “Let me ask a crucial question: if the Jews had fled THEIR homes, and then lost the war, would the Arabs have given THEM “the right of return”? You are insane if you answer, “Yes.” So why should the Jews give a right THEY never would have been given? Seriously?”

    —-YEAH BECAUSE AS IF JEWS WEREN’T LIVING THERE ALREADY PEACEFULLY….it wasn’t a “war” you fool! It was military EXPULSION! It’s right there in the records

    “And fifty years of unrelenting terrorism, such that there have been not thousands but tens of thousands of murderous terrorist attacks upon innocent women and children – the most cowardly of targets”

    —-WTF??? as if Israel doesn’t bomb Palestinian children???

    http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/05/iqbal-tamimi-palestinian-women-are-israels-demographic-nightmare/

    let’s not forget Zionists and Jews love’ for “Jewish majority always” http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story701.html

    “is further proof that the so-called “Palestinians” have no claim to anything but coming divine judgment. Yassar Arafat was a known terrorist; the Hamas government that was ELECTED has been long declared as a terrorist organization by every single Western power on earth.”

    —-yes as if Sharon is an angel of God, and Hamas was supported by Israel anyway so they could use it to against the secular PLO!! Lol as if Western powers mean anything when they UNCONDITIONALLY support Israel aka. US?

  28. Revelations Says:

    “You know, I went to your link, and saw the rambling diatribe from pseudo-intellectuals who claim that somehow the Bible is hateful.”

    —-UMM, NICE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE me moron…

    yes it’s “rambling diatribe from pseudo-intellectuals who claim somehow….”

    the Bible being hateful??? NO WAY!!! Say it ain’t so! Jews are God’s holy people who are perfectly always moral and totally honest all the time everywhere!

    “You seriously think that your stupid link rivals the hundreds of murderous propaganda programs directed at children, such as the Muslim Mickey Mouse who preached hate and was ultimately “murdered by Jews” to instill yet more hate in children?
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=95440DFB-245E-4F73-9319-BC203C64C937

    —I’M NOT MUSLIM YOU JACKASS! And THAT’S NOT A REBUTTAL TO THE HATEFUL NATURE OF THE BIBLE!

    “You seriously think that paper compares to the constant praising and glorification of suicide bombers who murder women and children?
    http://www.pmw.org.il/murder.htm

    —I’m not Muslim….2nd, this DOESN’T ABSOLVE OF BIBLE HATRED

    this is classic strawmen, just distract and deflect attention away from the fact that the Bible is hateful and HAS caused suffering

  29. Revelations Says:

    “Are you so morally insane that you think that your “david duke” article is the equivalent of this? Look through the whole thing; because the ugliness just goes on and one with one horrifying example of hate propaganda after another.
    http://www.pmw.org.il/latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b080206

    —LOL!! ONCE AGAIN, I’M NOT MUSLIM IDIOT! YOU CAN’T USE THAT PATHETIC ARGUMENT AGAINST ME

    that David Duke article shows EXACTLY THE HATEFUL NATURE OF JEWS AND TALMUDIC ORTHODOX JUDAISM, and because IT IS PAINFUL TO YOUR EGO, because you ARE A JEW probably, you can’t stand it

    OBEY GOYIM OBEY GOYIM! Is the Jew’s mantra when gentiles find out about your sick and ridiculous Talmudic racist attitude

    http://www.rense.com/general45/master.htm

    “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

  30. Revelations Says:

    Not Stealing But Sanctification

    Members of Gush Emunum argue that “what appears to be confiscation of Arab-owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an act of stealing but one of sanctification. >From their perspective the land is redeemed by being transferred from the satanic to the divine sphere…the Gush Emunum rabbis assert that this one messianic sect has to handle and lead the ass-like Jews, who have been corrupted by satanic Western culture, with its rationality and democracy and who refuse to renounce their beastly habits and embrace the true faith. To further the process, the use of force is permitted wherever necessary.”

    The fundamentalists believe that God gave all of the Land of Israel (including present Lebanon and other areas) to the Jews and that Arabs living in Israel are viewed as thieves. Rabbi Israel Ariel, a fundamentalist leader, published an atlas that designated all lands that were Jewish and needed to be liberated. This included all areas west and south of the Euphrates River extending through present-day Kuwait. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, another spokesman, said, “We must live in this land even at the price of war. Moreover, even if there is no peace, we must instigate wars of liberation in order to conquer it (the land).”

    Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer at the Hebrew University, expressed this view in an official publication of the World Zionist Organization. Relying upon Maimonides, he said that a non-Jew permitted to reside in the land of Israel “must accept paying a tax and suffering the humiliation of servitude.” He said that non-Jews must not be appointed to any office or position of power over Jews.

    View of the Non-Jews

    When it comes to Maimonides, his view of non-Jews is less than positive, and his view of some racial and ethnic groups is clearly hostile. His Guide To The Perplexed (Book III, Chapter 51) discusses how various sections of humanity can attain the supreme religious value, the true worship of God. Among those who are incapable of even approaching this are: “Some of the Turks (i. e., the Mongol race) and the nomads of the North and the Blacks and nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion, they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than the monkey does.”

  31. Revelations Says:

    In an earlier book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Professor Shahak asked, “Now, what does one do with such a passage in a most important and necessary work of Judaism? Face the truth and its consequences? God forbid: Admit, as so many Christian scholars, for example, have done in similar circumstances, that a very important Jewish authority also held rabid anti-Black views, and by this admission make an attempt at self-education in real humanity? Perish the thought…A happy `solution’ was found: in the popular American translation of the Guide…first published as far back as 1925 and since reprinted in many editions, including several in paperback, the Hebrew word Kushim, which means Blacks, was simply transliterated and appears as `Kushites,’ a word which means nothing to those who have no knowledge of Hebrew, or to whom an obliging rabbi will not give an oral explanation. During all these years, not a word has been said to point out the original deception or the social facts underlying its continuation—and this throughout the excitement of Martin Luther King’s campaigns, which were supported by so many rabbis, not to mention other Jewish figures, some of whom must have been unaware of the anti-Black racist attitude which forms part of their Jewish heritage.”

    Murder of Palestinians

    When it comes to Goldstein’s murder of 29 Palestinians at prayer, fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that such an act constitutes “murder” because, according to the Halacha, the killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as murder. It may be prohibited for other reasons, especially when it causes danger for Jews. When asked if he was sorry about the murdered Arabs, militant Rabbi Moshe Levenger declared: “I am sorry not only about dead Arabs but about dead flies.”

    For the fundamentalists, Goldstein became a hero. Military guards transported his coffin to Kiryat Arba through Palestinian villages. Rabbi Dov Lior in a eulogy stated that, “Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others.”

    The problem, Shahak and Mezvinsky point out is that, “The terms `human beings’ and `others’ in the Halacha refer solely to Jews.”

    When Orthodox Jews read the Bible, they are reading a very different book with a different meaning from the Bible as read by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. Halacha, the legal system of classical Judaism, is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. Over time, the complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud were made manageable by successive generations of rabbinical scholars. Some of these have acquired great authority and are in general use.

    Orthodox View

    According to the Orthodox view, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense while the murder of a non-Jew is viewed in different terms. In “Laws on Murders” (Maimonides, Mishnet Tora, 2, 11), a Jew who kills a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against “laws of Heaven,” not punishable by a court. To cause the death of a Gentile indirectly is no sin at all.

    The Book of Education, a popular Orthodox religious manual which is reprinted in many inexpensive editions subsidized by the Israeli government, was written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to Talmudic interpretation. A central aim of this book is to emphasize the “correct” meaning of the Bible with respect to such terms as “fellow,” “friend,” or “man.” Thus #219, devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse “thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself” is entitled, “A religious obligation to love Jews,” and explains: “To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his money as one cares for oneself and one’s money, for it is written, `thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself’…”

    —yeah, funny how you JUST COMPLETELY IGNORE DAVID DUKE’S ARTICLE, just completely DISMISS it when it shows irrefutable proof of virulent Jew racist hatred and murderous bigotry

  32. Revelations Says:

    here’s some “nice” quotes from the “holy” Talmud that Jews believe in and read everyday:

    http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

  33. Michael Eden Says:

    I had to think about how to deal with the nastiness you presented. I am simply not willing to have hateful passages from “sacred texts” on this site. I elected to keep your link to these Talmud passages so people could go if they wanted, and then post a couple of links (and links only) by way of a similar response against Islam.

    Here is a site that seeks to put at least a couple of the Talmud passages into context (and in the first case, shows how you omit key phrases).

    Here is a site that contains hate-inspiring passages directly from the Koran itself, rather than some secondary source such as the Talmud or the Hadith. Another site contains violent/hateful passages in the Koran, and introduces us to the sayings of the Hadith. Another collection of passages in the Hadith shows just how awful women are treated.

    And of course there is rampant hatred in Islamic teachings even throughout the school systems of entire countries like Saudi Arabia.

    I am a Christian. The only source of divine inspiration is the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Your presentation from Talmud passages – accurate or otherwise – clearly doesn’t have anything to do with the article itself, and brings the discussion down to a new level. Let me be clear: I don’t have to defend either the Talmud or the Koran or the Hadith – or ANY book but the Bible – and would argue that neither the Jews nor the Muslims know God. Zechariah 12:10 says of the Jews that one day, “They will look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn as for an only son, and weep bitterly over Him as for a firstborn.” A clear reference to the crucified Messiah Jesus. Revelation 7:1 and following and Revelation 14:1 and following describe that one day God will elect 144,000 Jews from each of the 12 tribes to bring the message of Messiah Jesus to the Jews.

    Jesus is the Christian paradigm. If you want peace, He is the only source for it. That is why every major religion in the world – including Islam – recognizes Jesus as a righteous teacher. This is true of NO OTHER NAME. He is UNIQUE in all the world. And any Christian (and most certainly anyone else) who interprets the Scriptures differently from Jesus is interpreting them wrongly.

    I am also going to block you. I am not calling you a “hater” or anything so crude, but I don’t see how this conversation we are having has any chance of going anywhere but downward. In other words, I am blocking you as much to keep myself from “getting ugly” as you.

    If you are indeed looking for “revelations,” I hope you find the truth.

  34. Michael Eden Says:

    You had your say, Revelations. And your say is done here. You clearly have an awful lot of time on your hands.

    Anyone who wants to think that the Jews – who live on less than 1% of the land – have no claim to it, and should be exterminated as a nation, are going to think what they want, and rationalize themselves to that conclusion.

    Anyone who wants to think that Jews are the real terrorists, and that al-Qaeda and the hundreds of other Islamist groups that have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of bombings and attacks all over the world doesn’t need anything other than hatred for Jews to think what they want.

    Revelations says he isn’t a Muslim, but he sure thinks like one. And he seems to share a special hatred of Jews and of Israel that I have to read Osama bin Laden to duplicate.

    Have the Jews done bad things? Darn right they have. But they have been fighting against a movement that hates them as no people have ever been hated. There comes a point where fighting evil unrelentingly takes its toll. How many of your cities are you willing to have firebombed by the enemy before you start firebombing their cities? Israel has suffered so many thousands of terror attacks on its women and children that it simply defies belief. What would ANY people do, confronted with such an unrelentingly horrible threat to their wives, mothers, and daughters? Would YOU respond from time to time?

    Right now, Hamas is the official government of the Palestinian people. It is a known terrorist entity. And they took over from Yassar Arafat’s PLO – another known terrorist entity. Thus even the “legitimate governments” Israel has to deal with are terrorist states. How in the hell is Israel SUPPOSED to act?

    Much of what has happened is this: the Jews live in Israel, a nation-state. When Israel acts, it is blamed as a state. Muslim terrorists have no state, and so somehow when they commit hundreds of thousands of attacks, it somehow never impugns upon the Islamic countries who harbor and teach them. At some point the intelligent or simply sane have to conclude that there is a massive problem with Islam itself; but the politically correct West cannot bring itself to go there. And so it continues on and on, with no reason for Muslims to face their own evil that has grown like a cancer in their midst.

    Revelations wants to argue that he is an atheist. I presented the fact that official state atheism is responsible for over 150 million murders this century – a number that dwarfs anything that even the most hard-core Islamists (whom Revelations has repeatedly defended) or people of ANY religion have been responsible for. Atheism has a perfect track record: Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in the brutal suppression of the human spirit. Why? Because the foundations necessary for respect of individual human dignity lie in religious presuppositions, and nowhere else. Take those religious presuppositions away, and depravity results every single time.

    I go back to my statement that the paradigm of Christianity is Christ. If you want to find fault with Christianity, find it in the teachings of Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: