And sure wasted a lot of time because its knee-jerk responses of standard cut & paste arguments completely fail to address the points I was making and continue to deliberately misframe the issues.
I'll get into details below, but broadly speaking, some of the typical errors Anonymous makes (which may serve as an object lesson to others) are:
1. A failure to appreciate there are worse things than hypocrisy
2. Contentment with marveling at its own ability to recognize "shades of grey" (congratulations!), but not being able or willing to distinguish between them and take practical action
3. An unwillingness to admit what the logical real-world consequences would be if its anti-Zionist program and its palestinian heroes succeed in their stated aims -- (hint, it would be indistinguishable from the fondest fantasies of the anti-Semites; who's the real Nazi?)
4. A total strawman-conception (out of ignorance or malice?) of the structure and purpose of the Bible
5. A stubborn refusal to see the difference between religious/philosophical doctrines as concepts, versus the actions of organizations of (universally fallible) people; I'll make it easy:
Evil doctrine = higher probability of evil outcome.
Good doctrine = lower probability of evil outcome.
Simple enough for you yet?
6. An inability to distinguish the important differences between the past (where events and people's motives can't harm us anymore), and the present or future (where they can)
7. A stunning blindness to its own anti-religion bigotry and thralldom to leftist religion, complete with its own set of values and virtues (i.e. appeasement, globalism, pacifism, and supporting claims of the weak over the strong regardless of merit), and as a corollary, silence over the blood on the hands of atheist left-wing utopians
These are the marks of the adolescent philosopher who has attempted to obtain a mantle of pseudointellectualism by adopting a ready-made framework of talking points but, alas, without applying critical thought. Thus, it can't respond coherently when its apparently clever (but subtly misframed) arguments are challenged from an unsuspected direction. Anonymous becomes, as its masters desired, one of their Useful Idiots.
But I will pray for your enlightenment, because Jesus loves you.
So, on to a few specifics. You can read the whole tedious screed in its comment here, I'll just refer to representative bits because it's a mountain of garbage in, garbage out.
I'll actually begin with the end, because it's the best part:
You’re a disgusting and ignorant human being and it’s a shame you’ll never realize truly how evil and dangerous people like you are to the survival of this world and the different people in it. And with that, I will never visit your racist and offensive blog again. Cheers.Oh, that we should be so lucky! And then what, you'll stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue? Stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la?
But actually, despite making that pledge, Anonymous, aka Mr. IP-address 66.11.209.xxx, with service provider in NY, has been checking back on this blog for any reply all afternoon! After spending an hour leaving this comment, it was back at 11:04, 3:17, 4:10, 5:04...you get the picture. Must have a masochistic urge to be taken to the woodshed.
Even spent another whole hour poking around the archives for material to criticize!
Do feel free to come back, old chap -- if you have anything new to say.
While I will certainly not even address your disgusting, Custer-esque contempt of American Indians and other City-On-A-Hill superiority complexes present in your response (and perhaps just refer you to Charles C. Mann's book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus),Because it's a can or worms you'd rather not look too closely at? Watch too many 1970s revisionist made-for-tv movies? I am pleased I succeeded in disgusting and shocking you, for that was the intent of my rhetorical device to demonstrate I am not a slave to PC-taboos. Break those shackles. Reality is not pretty.
I do think there are a great number of issues you raise that warrant a response…even though I know full well that you won’t be moved to consider new ideas or transform into a forward-thinking humanist and will surely continue spouting hatred and bigotry until you die, alone with your god and your anger.Ah, the highly-evolved lifeform, the forward-thinking humanist! And already fantasizing about my death. Who's the angry one again?
My comment regarding not being a Muslim and therefore not wishing to have a religious discussion was not stated out of any sort of ignorance on the subject. I do feel that any discourse on the contrasting merits of different religions is a dubious enterprise...we might as well discuss which is a better book, The Great Gatsby or The Sun Also Rises. Better yet, let's tussle over the merits of the original Star Wars Trilogy (if I think The Empire Strikes Back is the best one, does that make Jesus love me? Uh oh!).What a stupid argument! Dolt, can't you see that what people believe about a book like The Sun Also Rises or a movie like Star Wars isn't really going to impact your life? But that what people believe about religion can have a huge effect on your freedoms and whether you live or die?
Your fallback argument is that all religions are equally a threat to you, so you don't care which one might be better or not.
As a survival strategy, that's pretty dumb!
Honestly now, ar eyou saying you can't distinguish between the effect of religion on you if you lived in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Bangladesh etc. versus a non-islamic country? Try criticizing religion or being a non-believer over there and report back to me, ok?
The dangers might seem on balance about the same, but only if you bizarrely conflate the past with the present.
Either way, regardless of whether this is stupid argument (which it is), you seem to want to debate Christianity and Islam and try to prove some bogus theory that Jesus-fanatics are better than Mohammed-fanatics. I find it sad and pathetic to try and justify your (or anyone's) way of thinking by citing scripture written thousands of years ago by humans, by the leaders of a cult that holds as much rational credibility as the belief in Zeus, Gilgamesh, Zoroaster, Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nana Buluku, or Krypton's Almighty Zod.You forgot the Tooth Fairy!
Again you refuse to see the obvious. Those things you mentioned? Except for Zoroaster, they aren't real and don't exist. Duh!
But Jesus and mohammed existed -- or certainly might as well have, because we have, for a fact, a body of work directly attributed as their words and examples of living.
And this matters, whether or not you accept Divine inspiration for either of them, because lots and lots of people, today, who affect you, act and behave under the influence of those moral principles.
Somehow you think you live in a bubble outside the real world, and your skepticism will protect you from the beliefs (irrational or not) of others.
Guess again.
That you discard it all as equal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster betrays an incredible lack of maturity and depth of thinking.
The claim that certain religions or belief-systems are more violent than others or that promote violence over peace and understanding is absurd, as most religious doctrine present a hypocritical view of the world, one that serves the interest of the writers of the doctrine while condemning those who may not follow orders or have divergent viewpoints. Even to snicker at a pagan moon-idol while exulting almighty Yahweh is, at best, the stupidest thing you could attempt to do.No, the stupidest thing is to think they are all equal in their effect and impact on you.
And, for those who claim that religions can not be condemned for the actions of people who 'act in the name of god', how else should a man-made belief system be judged if not by its followers? But I suppose that argument only works when it adheres to pro-American, pro-Christian thinking, so as to condemn obvious targets such as Bin Laden while avoiding having to mention Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh, or David Koresh.Strawman! I made clear I'm aware of every belief system, somewhere, sometime, being used for ill ends.
Who cares? It's human nature to be rotten and manipulate. You fail to give credit for the influence of good that beliefs have on their followers. You search for any transgression to seize upon and declare your "aha!" of superiority. Your "humanism" isn't guilt-free either, my boy!
Don't you think it odd to assert that all belief systems are exactly, precisely, the same in their outcomes?
I mean come on, the essence of Christianity is The Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And it's to be applied according to universal brotherhood to all mankind. If people fail to heed that, is it Jesus' fault?
The essence of islam however is to be good to muslims, and treat the infidel harshly. It's inherently bigoted. Somehow you can't see that.
But, no matter...onto the annoying crux of your argument (and without your obnoxious bold text for righteous emphasis!!)…Why would I be offended? You miss the whole point of the Bible as the story of the difficult and evolving relationship of mutual understanding between man and God. I am only saddened at your low-level and sophomoric understanding of these texts. You can't distinguish pure history in these texts from their moral imperative teachings!
To know both the Bible and the Qur’an is to know that both are equally intent on bloodlust as they are on tolerance under the omniscient, benevolent, and omnipresent essence of one true god (wrathful, vengeful, and insecure are traits I can readily identify, but this may offend your pure sensibilities).
And guess what, history is bloody -- is studying history therefore dangerous? Can then not history be a tool for misleading people? Since that's an absurd argument, so too is it absurd to think the bloody Biblical Jewish history of the Bronze Age has, or should have, any particular influence on Christian behavior today!
You'd have to think every Christian were a knuckle-dragging retard to worry about that! I suppose you do think that, but it's a sign of your inherent bigotry.
So 4,000 years ago God said to slay the Canaanites or whatnot. So what?
Does God say anything like that today? (Again with your misunderstanding of past versus present!) Are there any logical conclusions I should draw from such a fact? Are there any Canaanites today I might be tempted to attack?
No, no, and no!
And maybe the Canaanites had it coming.
On the other hand, when a text says the sure way to heaven was, is, and always will be, dying as a shahid while killing enemies of the faith during jihad, well that's something entirely different, isn't it? We've still got infidels and Jews around as targets today, don't we?
The old the "Bible is violent!" argument is so inept, it amazes me anyone falls for it.
Both texts are full contradictions, issues that can easily be exploited by those wishing to promote certain beliefs. As David Rodier of American University in Washington, D.C., an expert on the world's religions, states, "If people are intent on using religion to motivate terror or violence, they'll find an excuse there no matter what the actual text says."But it won't always logically follow or be generally accepted except by a fringe of the mentally ill if the intent of the text isn't really to motivate violence.
But if the intent IS to motivate violence, you'll get followers much more easily!
Quantity seems to not matter to you. A single example of religious justification for violence, whether reasonably warranted or not, is enough to condemn the whole program for you.
You totally neglect the massive works of good that religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religion, has historically inspired.
How convenient.
The Qur’an actually states time and again how tolerant Islam is of other religions and how religion itself is a very personal thing, and that the choice of belief is of one's own concern, not that of anyone else. It stresses its viewpoint that belief is to one's own benefit and that non-belief is a detriment; however, it distances Islam from the notion of religious compulsion.A LONG section follows detailing the wonderful scriptures in the koran.
Ha! You seem to not really have studied islam at all!
You apparently don't understand that islam is a system of progressive revelation, in which later verses, when they contradict older ones, over-rule them entirely. It's called abrogation.
Those peaceful verses? Abrogated.
Null and void.
Or, understood to not be universally applicable to all mankind.
Oh, the friendly local imams don't tell you that, do they?
Furthermore the koran is not in temporal order, so you wouldn't easily know which came during mohammed's early "peaceful" period when he was weak and gathering followers, and which came later when he went on conquest.
And you only have to look at the common practice throughout officially islamic countries today, where there is indeed compulsion in religion. Not from a few nutcases, but whole countries full of people where the penalty for leaving islam is death. Try bringing a crucifix into Saudi Arabia. Try travelling to Mecca as a non-muslim and see how far you get. And we're talking about today, not the past. It's mainstream, not fringe or abberation. See the difference?
And now, the ridiculous old standby, as we get to what Anonymous thinks is the coup de grace, quoting from the Old Testament!
but what of the Judeo-Christian idea of allowing others to believe in religions different from their own? Let’s take a gander at some of your greatest hits:Yes, more quotes of nastiness from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus...
For example, your precious Bible states, “One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16) and it doesn’t stop there…
My God you're dense!
You don't know the difference between the Old and New Testaments?
I mean, Bronze Age Jewish laws are historically interesting, but what do they have to do with being a Christian? I must have been absent when my Catholic church told me to follow ancient Jewish laws! Such a silly attack!
Exodus is poetic history. So what?
Same with the rest. Jesus didn't write those chapters. God's relationship with man evolved.
But, what else can one expect from a religion full of ridiculous contradictions? (Quick question: God said “Let there be light” on Day One, but waited until Day Four to create the Sun? Smart.)And the Big Bang preceded star formation, so yeah, that's pretty smart, moron.
I mean, look at what your lord and savior, Jesus Christ has to say about things:Stupid attempt at rhetorical games. One statement is a greeting, the other a metaphor.
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.” (John 14:27)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)
But then again, the Bible seems not to be clear where it stands on the issue of deeds and faith. James 2:14-1 claims, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?...Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead,” while Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith…not by works.” Maybe your god should get on his own same page.You're so blinded by your hate that you can't think straight. Any idiot knows the Bible is a collection of separate works by different authors over time. Jesus is not James, and Jesus is not Ephesians. Go get a good Protestant Bible where the actual words attributed to Jesus are printed in Red if you want to know what Christianity is about. All those other chapters are secondary supporting history and poetry.
You'd prefer to mock and jeer to feel better about yourself than to look at it honestly.
Sad.
Then Anonymous gets into statement of the Founding Fathers, because I mentioned John Quincy Adams.
Again Anonymous makes a stupid mistake! Its reading comprehension is nonexistant!
For example:
But it doesn’t stop with doubting Thomas, unfortunately for patriots like you. Check out what James Madison had to say about your lovely belief system: “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”So he's criticizing the legal establishment, he's criticizing the church as it had been instituted by fallible men. So do I!
I don't see criticism of the essential doctrines Christianity, only of attempts to live up to it.
Adams as I quoted was specifically discussing the doctrine of Jesus versus the doctrine of mohammed.
Why you think that doesn't matter is beyond me. I guess it would upset your carefully constructed worldview.
To repeat:
Evil doctrine = higher probability of evil outcome.
Good doctrine = lower probability of evil outcome.
Duh.
But now we get to the heart of the matter:
I think belief in Jehovah, Mohammed, a divine Buddha, Vishnu, and Quetzalcoatl are all equally absurd, which is why it’s frustrating that you saw fit to divert the genesis of this discussion towards that of weighing the merits of two of the world’s major religions rather than actually addressing your misunderstanding of Zionism and its disastrous policies and effects. It’s a pity you have no knowledge or understanding of history and are aware of only the disturbing and perverted propaganda of power-hungry racists. Maybe if you knew about the atrocities of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and the subsequent systematic genocide, starvation, and other war-crime fundamentals of the BenGurion/Golda Meir/Ehud Barak/Ariel Sharon school of apartheid.Ooo, a war had atrocities! I'm so shocked!
Look, when the colonial powers withdrew from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire, all sorts of new countries had to be formed. Your precious UN even blessed this partition plan. Borders were being moved all over Europe too after the war, with millions of displaced European people who had to get up and leave forever to face the new realities. And also new countries were carved out of the Middle East. That's hardly surprising.
What is surprising is that anyone thought the arabs on the Gaza strip were somehow different enough from the arabs next door in Egypt, or that the arabs on the West Bank of the Jordan were different enough from the arabs in Jordan, that they should have their own special country. Sure arabs were in the area for 1300 years. And there had been Jews there for a lot longer. You're right I don't really care that the Jewish side isn't pure enough for you.
The palestinian side has been even worse and there's no excuse for their behavior. Sneaking into houses to shoot infants in their cribs? Shooting rockets at schools?
I ask you, who "occupied" their territory from 1948 to 1967? Hmmm? Nasty Jews?
No, Egypt and Jordan.
Why didn't they get on with the business of setting up a real country like everyone else in the aftermath of world-changing WW2? They tried -- and failed -- to snuff out Israel in 1948, and should have gotten on with things.
So today, if your palestinian heroes succeed in "anti-Zionism", tell me how that will be, in reality, when really carried out, different from an extermination of the Jews and destruction of Israel as a Jewish state?
But that's what you want, isn't it, my dear Nazi?
I’d happily provide you with news articles, books, and other matter from which to learn the truth about the Palestinian situation if I actually thought you cared at all. But, anyone who equates resistance against the overwhelming military might of a foreign occupation with extremist terrorism based on blanket racism is surely deceiving themselves, or at least allowing themselves to be deceived.Ah, the venom starts to flow! I'll be happy to provide some of my own resources.
Such lovely people, they sure love their children!
Resistance to governmentally-sanctioned talking points is certainly not a neoconservative strength and I can only assume that fascists like yourself would probably have attacked Munich’s White Rose Society in the early 1940’s for not falling line with the Third Reich at the time.A truly odd statement to make.
That is the start of an attempt to make "references", you see, to other things I've blogged about. Like I said, Anonymous sure spent a lot of time reading my blog!
But hey, who’s to care about conditions and realities in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, that are far worse than South Africa’s nightmarish Bantustans, when gay people might be getting married somewhere this very minute?! What a travesty! Let’s focus on what’s really important here…which, if I’m to believe your hero Daniel Pipes, is clearly to make sure that no god-fearing, patriotic American has to be burdened with the uncomfortable sight of Arabic writing on a t-shirt, let alone, having Arabic language and culture being taught in a Brooklyn public school. It’s true, there’s really no point in confusing good ol’ Western values and words with those crazy Arab ones, I mean, we’ll just rid ourselves of dangerousness terrorist codes such as “alcohol,” “algebra,” “giraffe,” “magazine,” “admiral,” “mattress,” “sugar”, “lilac,” and let’s be sure to forget the entire concept of zero that’s been secretly infiltrating our defenseless children’s math textbooks for generations now.The pre-islamic Indian zero, by the way, came to us through the Persians, as the last gasp of a once-great civilization stagnating under its islamic rulers.
I have little else to write to you and your non-existent legion of blog readers.Well, almost 70,000 hits so far according to the counter, which amounts to about 14 full Roman legions.
To wrap up,
People like you don’t read books, news articles, or see films that are shunned by the likes of such notorious bigots (oh sorry, in your world, you might know them as ‘luminaries’ and ‘soothsayers’) Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, or Ann Coulter. And when you decide that books you disagree with are not worth reading, you might as well save yourself the trouble of rallying against them and just burn them instead.Again I ask, who's the one filled with hate?
You’re a disgusting and ignorant human being and it’s a shame you’ll never realize truly how evil and dangerous people like you are to the survival of this world and the different people in it. And with that, I will never visit your racist and offensive blog again. Cheers.And when you do come back, and you will, I'll know, and I'll be laughing at you for your childish ranting!
And in the meantime, I'll be asking Jesus to save your poor bitter black little soul.
Sunt Mala Quae Libas; Ipse Venena Bibas!
