PCUSA not only ignorant, but mercifully out of step with the American mainstream *UPDATED*

Brutally Honest brought to my attention the fact that the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUSA) has released a statement denouncing Israel in terms that a Hamas member or Ahmadinejad could easily love:

The Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUSA) is about to release a report which denounces Israel as a “racist” nation which has absolutely no historical, covenantal, or theological right to the Holy Land. The report calls for the United States to withhold financial and military aid to Israel and for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. That’s not all. The report also endorses a Palestinian “right of return” and “apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist.” According to the press release, it also states that Israel’s history begins only with the Holocaust and that Israel is “a nation mistakenly created by Western powers at the expense of the Palestinian people to solve the ‘Jewish problem’.”

You can read more of PCUSA’s gibbering nonsense, along with Rick’s appropriate outrage, here.

I don’t have to inform you, my dear readers, of the many things wrong with PCUSA’s viewpoint, whether “historical,” “covenantal,” or “theological,” but I find the timing of the statement almost amusing.  You see, with exquisite ignorance and the timing that only a fool could achieve, PCUSA released that statement two days after archeologists made a major find, tying the archeological record in Israel ever closer to the Old Testament.  That would be the same Old Testament that describes a thousand years of Jewish life in Israel.  This OT record, of course, precedes a New Testament, a Roman record, a medieval European record, an Ottoman record, a British record, a League of Nations Record, a UN record, and a State of Israel record, all tying Jews to that same spot of land for another 2,500 years or so.

So about that most recent archeological find:

The greatest threat to the hopes of those who think parts of Jerusalem should be off-limits to Jews comes not when Jewish-owned buildings go up in the city, but rather when Jews start digging into the ground of East Jerusalem. Because the more the history of the city is uncovered, the less credible becomes the charge that Jews are alien colonists in what the media sometimes wrongly refer to as “traditionally Palestinian” or “Arab” Jerusalem.

That’s the upshot from the release of an amazing archeological dig conducted just outside Jerusalem’s Old City. The excavations conducted by archeologist Eilat Mazar in the Ophel area revealed a section of an ancient city wall of Jerusalem. According to the press release from the Hebrew University, under whose auspices the project was carried out, the dig uncovered the wall as well as an inner gatehouse for entry into the royal quarter of the ancient city and an additional royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse as well as a corner tower. While ancient buildings are not uncommon in the city, the significance of this discovery is the fact that these edifices can be dated to the 10th century before the Common Era — the time of King Solomon, credited by the Bible for the construction of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. Pottery found at the lowest levels of the dig is dated to this era.

Even more telling is the fact that bullae — seal impressions — with Hebrew names were found, as well as seal impressions on jar handles inscribed with the words “to the king,” which means they were employed by the Israelite state in that time. Inscriptions on the jars, which Mazar says are the largest ever found in Jerusalem, showed them to be the property of a royal official.

Read more about this wondrous peek through time into ancient history here.

Fortunately, PCUSA’s poison, though virulent, doesn’t seem to be spreading too far or too fast when it comes to ordinary Americans and their respect for the only truly free democracy in the Middle East — and one that, like America, finds herself in the crosshairs of radical Islam.  Thus, even as the Left, including the Left appearing in the guise of faith, becomes more deeply enmeshed with purveyors of antisemitism, misogyny, anti-Christianity, and anti-Americanism, ordinary Americans are increasingly more supportive of Israel.  Indeed, according to Gallup, your neighbors and mine have reached almost new heights in their respect for this beleaguered bastion of freedom:

For the first time since 1991, more than 6 in 10 Americans — 63% — say their sympathies in the Middle East situation lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Fifteen percent side more with the Palestinians, down slightly from recent years, while a combined 23% favor both sides, favor neither side, or have no opinion.

You can see more data here.

Public opinion is fickle, but I think Americans’ basic goodness remains true.  Despite pressure from the media and from our American educational systems to view the Palestinians as the underdog, I think Americans are slowly beginning to see that the group that glories in washing its hands in Israeli blood, that gleefully treats its children as cannon fodder, and that stridently rejects every peace-making offer on the table, even as it loudly repeats its genocidal desires regarding its neighbors, might not be deserving of sympathy or support.

UPDATEHere’s the invaluable Phyllis Chesler on the subject.

UPDATE IIRusty’s unimpressed too, and that despite considering himself a less than rigorous Christian.  I have to agree, speaking from the Jewish perspective, I have no words for how bad PCUSA is, and what a disgrace I believe it to be to American Christianity.  It no longer represents religion; it represents Leftism and antisemitism draped in a vaguely religious mantel.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    No surprise here, Book. I’ve been watching mainstream Protestantism train-wreck itself since the 1970s. Once you start down the road of Liberation Theology, lesbian feminism and open sodomy, “social justice” and situational ethics, you inevitably arrive at Jew hatred.

    After all, what is there left after you’ve liberated your envy, genitals and digestive system from all that repressive Christian wickedness? Well, you take the final step and liberate yourself from your conscience and reluctance to kill by going after Christianity’s progenitor, Judaism, which is conveniently smaller and less powerful than the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” would have it.

    Thank God Israel has the bomb.

     

  2. Zhombre says

    Idiots all.  I despise mainline liberal protestant churches.  Turning the Blood of Christ into Milk of Magnesia in order to keep their hands and consciences clean while they embrace these repulsive murderers of Palestine.  A contemporary Dante would need to add circles to Hell.

  3. Gringo says

    There were some Presbyters in my family tree. Can’t say I regret the decision of  my ancestors to leave the church, if that is what how the church  turned out.
     
    I recently read an article about the  tendency of the mainline churches to get themselves involved in politics. One point was that the congregation didn’t care what the hierarchy said on it. Another point was that the duty of the church was not to engage in good politics, but to provide spiritual support to congregation members who would them make good decisions in politics.

  4. says

    Nothing new for the PCUSA….they’ve been anti-semitic for some time now.  It may be the worst of their sins, but it’s certainly not the only one.  They were (and may still be) a big supporter of Mugabe when he was subverting the only chance that Zimbabwe had for a democratic government – they even provided financial support for his murderous “insurgency”.
     
    There’s a wonderful dissident group within the PCUSA fighting a rear-guard action and hoping to take back their church – check out their website:
    http://presbyterianlayman.org/Home.aspx
     

  5. Marguerite says

    The PCUSA is pretty much a leftist political action committee.  We wish the Layman the best in their nobel efforts, but we were outa’ there years ago.  Every vile thing is sanctioned by the PCUSA, from racist bilge about Israel that BW writes about here, to enthusiastic pro-abort legislation, to reinterpreting and in some cases rewriting scripture.  The final straw was one Sunday when, at the same time that the pastor was saying – following corporate confession of sin – “In Jesus Christ, you are forgiven”  there was an adult class upstairs where the Jesus Seminar presenter was holding forth that Jesus never claimed to be diety.  Now, which is it?  

  6. Mike Devx says

    I heard when Obama left his meeting with the PCUSA Board of Directors he turned to Rahm Emmanuel and said, “I never thought I’d say this, Rahm, but… those guys are kind of RADICAL, aren’t they?  They’re WAY out there.”
     
    Just kidding.  But it does appear, according to the history, that a few years back there was a political coup in the Church, and the most incredibly outrageous group of far-left activists moved in and simply took over the Board of Directors.  The sole non-member of that cadre on the Board resigned soon afterwards in disgust, leaving them in complete and total control.
     
    Goodbye Church.
     

  7. MacG says

    Speaking of liberal churches I’ve been privy to a church’s plans in SF that during it’s remodel is building a Mosque into it’s lower floor complete with showers.  Not sure what to make of it but the biblical verse about not being unequally yoked comes to mind…Hey, here’s an idea: Since the Jesus Seminar has about one verse  left to in the bible eviscerate howzabout they start on the Koran ? :)

  8. Mike Devx says

    I ran across a comment on brutallyhonest.org (a bookworm friend, I believe) that indicates there’s plenty of ferment in various Presbyterian circles.  The PCUSA is not the only organization over there.
     
    The comment:
    Yet another reason I’m PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) rather than PCUSA. It’s quite possible that when you include the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, etc. there are more Presbyterians *not* in the PCUSA then there are in the PCUSA. So here’s hoping The Simon Wiesenthal Center realizes that “Presbyterian” no more menas “PCUSA” than “Jew” means “Hasidic.”

  9. dreamweaver84 says

    http://www.pcusa.org/oga/newsstories/response-to-wiesenthal.htm

    http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2010/10221.htm

    These links above are direct links to the purported press release that is mentioned in this blog.  Unfortunately for the internet community of bloggers there are not standards of honesty or accuracy and because of the constitution they have freedom to spout lies and misinformation.  The only defense against such deceit and out right lies if not misguided fact interpretation is to do the research and read information for yourselves.  At no time in the last 60 years has any statement by the PC(USA) ever claimed Israel was an illegitimate nation.  We have always supported the U.N. resolution that recognized Isreal as a nation.  If there is any condemnation of Isreal it is a result of occupation of Palestinian seetlements and the acts of violence and cruelty resulting from that occupation.  There is a call for boycotts of certain manufacturers such as Catepillar bulldozers to not sell there products to Isreal because they are being used to illegally invade and demolish Palestinian settlement to make way for Isreali expansion.  The condemnation is directed towards the continued provcation of violence.  The PC(USA) is against violence of any kind whether from Ireal or Palestine.  The church is not a political governmental body with resonsibility for negotiating an end to violence or to a solution for peace.  We will continue to act as the Body of Christ to try and convince all involved that violence is never the answer.

    As for reports of  Isreal being a “racist” nation the accusation is totally false and an outright lie.  Anyone who believes this lie is a fool or has a grudge against the PC(USA) for their own personal reasons.  Again there is no law against free speech for blogger to say these things, but it is a shame for ignorant and iliterate people to believe everything they hear.  I did the reseach and read the truth before making this reply.  I challenge anyone to do the same.

  10. Charles Martel says

    dreamweaver, I’ll take a stab at answering so many here look at the PCUSA’s earnest assertions of loving neutrality as so much claptrap. I’ll base my response on the summary of the PCUSA’s position that you linked to. (PCUSA’s comments in black boldface.)

    “We also call upon the various Palestinian political factions to negotiate a unified government prepared to recognize Israel’s existence.”

    The disingenuity of the PCUSA position is breathtaking. There simply is no way that rival factions of militant Islamists are going to unite in recognizing Israel’s existence. It would be as if the SS and SA had sat down in 1933 to see if they might temper their Jew hatred so that Hitler could have an easier rise to power. That impossibility leaves PCUSA free to fret and tsk tsk over Israeli violence knowing full well that the Palestinian politicians are incapable of surrendering their desire for Israel’s complete destruction.

    “We proclaim our alarm and dismay—both over the increasingly rapid exodus of Christians from Israel/Palestine caused by anti-Palestinian discrimination and oppression, the growth of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism, and the occupation-related absence of economic opportunity; and also over the exodus of Christians from other parts of the region caused by various military, economic, religious, and cultural factors.”

    What a non-sequitur. It most assuredly is not Israeli “anti-Palestinian discrimination” that is causing the exodus of Christians from Israel and the non-existent entity called “Palestine.” Rather it is the implacable, centuries-long hostility of Islam toward Christianity, especially in places where militant Islam has retaken hold.

    Both Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism go undefined, which leaves me to believe that PCUSA is using the word as a bogeyman. What the hell is Islamic fundamentalism? There is no such thing as “moderate” or “liberal” Islam, so why would the religion take that modifier? Also, I wasn’t aware that the majority of Israeli citizens or politicans are Jewish fundamentalists. 

    “And we oppose the government of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of international guerilla warfare, and the threat these pose both to Israel and to Arab states.”

    More handwringing from a denomination that will one day say, if an Iran-inspired nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East, “Why, we asserted our opposition to Iran’s nuclear program in a strongly worded, boldly stated statement!”
     
    “We recognize how great a burden past misguided actions by our government have placed on Christians throughout the Muslim world. We recognize that massive amounts of U.S tax money are feeding the various conflicts in the Middle East—including two current wars of arguable necessity and Jewish settlements in Palestine.”

    It took awhile to reach the real pith of PCUSA’s stand, but there it is. The U.S. is the culprit for Christians’ miseries in the Middle East! It doesn’t matter that Muslims have been slaughtering and oppressing Christians for centuries before the United States emerged as a world power. It’s those damned Yankees that drove peace-loving Muslims to persecute! I notice that PCUSA does not deign to argue why the “two current wars of arguable necessity” are arguable. (But then I remember that ALL violence is bad, including violence that liberates people from tyranny.)
    “Let us be clear: We do affirm the legitimacy of Israel as a state, but consider the continuing occupation of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) to be illegitimate, illegal under international law, and an enduring threat to peace in the region. Furthermore, we recognize that any support for that occupation weakens the moral standing of our nation internationally and our security.”

    I wasn’t aware that Israeli troops are present in Gaza and the West Bank. Is the PCUSA, in addition to its amendments to the Gospels, now amending the definition of “occupation?” Also, I believe East Jerusalem was a prize of war from the 1967 conflict. And what is the source and seat of this “international law” that PCUSA refers to? Who conferred power upon that source and by what means does it enforce its various harrumphs, dictates and proclamations?

    Finally, I heartily doubt that Israel’s continue patience living next door to a thug society that has warred with its neighbors and itself for 60 years, making no attempt despite generous offers of aid from Israel and dozens of other countries to behave in a civilized, productive manner, is a threat to my security. And I could not care less what the French, Germans, Chinese or Russians think about U.S. moral standing. Countries that have inflicted dozens of times more misery on the world than the United States ever will are not our moral betters. Why does the PCUSA think so?

  11. BrianE says

    The PCUSA endorsed the Amman Call, issued by the World Council of Churches in 2007. Among it’s points include:
    5. The premises of this action are the following:
    5.1. That UN resolutions are the basis for peace and the Geneva conventions are applicable to the rights and responsibilities of the affected people.
    5.2. That Palestinians have the right of self-determination and the right of return.
    5.3. That a two-state solution must be viable politically, geographically, economically and socially.
    5.4 That Jerusalem must be an open, accessible, inclusive and shared city for the two peoples and three religions.
    5.5 That both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs.  
    5.6. That the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal, and constitute an obstacle to peace.
    5.7. That the “Separation Barrier” constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories is a grave breach of international law and must be removed from the occupied territory.
     
    This is a recipe for the destruction of Israel.

  12. says

    So, Dreamweaver….post us the links to
    a. PCUSA condemnation of suicide bombers murdering innocent civilians in Israel
    b. PCUSA condemnation of Fatah and Hamas planting bombs on retarded folks
    c. PCUSA condemnation of Fatah planting bombs in ambulances and other normally neutral vehicles
    d. PCUSA condemnation of murderous attacks of Fatah on Hamas and vice versa
    e. PCUSA condemnation of well-documented corruption and theft of aid to Fatah by their leaders
    f. Etc., Etc., Et (freaking) cetera
     
    Until this is done, and the condemnations are shown to be AT LEAST equal in number and specificity as those against Israel, kindly spare us your defense of the execrably anti-Semitic  PCUSA leadership.

  13. dreamweaver84 says

    The vitriol is thick and potent, but not as you claim from the PC(USA).  Perhaps the statement is a bit shortsighted and naive to try and think that the violoence could ever end.  Even tonight on Geraldo at large it was brought up that there could or would never be any land concessions by Isreal to the Palestinians to create a two state solution.  So shame on the Presbyterians for wanting or hoping to an end to the violence.  Even more shame upon us for even thinking that Isreal should be open to such concessions simply for the sake of peace.  After all Ireals historic claim to the land should take supreme precedence over the saving of human life.  Again even more shame upon the church for suggesting that a two state solution be our foucus for the future.  Better to fight and uphold the rights of Isreal to bulldoze any home they wish to build more housing for themselves regardless of the people already living there.

    Even more shame upon the PC(USA) for not wanting people of any nation, creed, color, political affliation to be bullied out of there homes.  These people are the enemy of the US and Isreal and should be treated as the muslim dogs they are.  Their terrorism must be reacted to with violence despite the call of Jesus Christ and all political ties must take precedence over God.

    If God is opposed to war and violence and the PC(USA) has decided to back that stance despite US politcal or even patriotic ties then bravo.  If God opposes violence commited in His name by muslims, christians or jews and the PC(USA) states their opposition to that voilence and its inherent contributors whether US arrogance in political manipulation, muslim jihad, or Isreali expansion the I say Amen.  If this stance against the violence even if not directly stated or listed in condemnation of every known act thereof makes all of you here pissed off then I say way to go PC(USA) because you did what was right in the sight of God and have the stones to say it despite any and all politcal fallout or critisism.  Still the fact remains guys that no where does the press realeas argued above

    ‘The Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUSA) is about to release a report which denounces Israel as a “racist” nation which has absolutely no historical, covenantal, or theological right to the Holy Land. The report calls for the United States to withhold financial and military aid to Israel and for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. That’s not all. The report also endorses a Palestinian “right of return” and “apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist.” According to the press release, it also states that Israel’s history begins only with the Holocaust and that Israel is “a nation mistakenly created by Western powers at the expense of the Palestinian people to solve the ‘Jewish problem’.” ‘ use the words “RACIST” or “apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist”

    You can spit vitriol all you like at PC(USA) but misquotes are libelist and just plain rude.  Even the excerts from Charles Martel’s reply contradict these vile and hateful lies.  So rant and rave all you like guys.  Spit and snarl to your hearts content.  The only thing you accomplish is being  just as hateful, discriminatory, ignorant, and out of step as you claim the church to be.  Talk to the hand.

  14. Charles Martel says

    dreamweaver:

    God knows I try not to introduce quibbles about grammar and coherence when remarking on comments made here. We all are guilty of typing too quickly and emotionally at times, and not taking a calm, good look at the nicities of writing. Even when I do my best to edit and refine, I often go back and see where I could have done it better.

    But sometimes I just have to gasp at the crudity of some of our accusers. Geeze, dreamweaver, you have that low a regard for us that you can rail against “Isreal” for 33 lines of anguish and not even be bothered to SPELL THE FRICKIN’ JEW COUNTRY’S NAME RIGHT?

    You can’t be bothered to capitalize Muslim, Jew or Christian?

    You can’t be bothered to use apostrophes, or spell words like “excerpts,” “focus,” “release” or “violence” correctly? You can’t be bothered to live at some level other than  semi-hysteria so you might take the time to see how illiterate and breathless you come off sounding? It’s hard to take you seriously when you come on a board like this writing like a 13-year-old girl who’s ingested too much “One Tree Hill.”

    Do this: Go to PCUSA and ask them to send us somebody who can actually carry their water.

  15. Mike Devx says

    dreamweaver said:
    > Even tonight on Geraldo at large it was brought up that there could or would never be any land concessions by Isreal to the Palestinians to create a two state solution.  So shame on the Presbyterians for wanting or hoping to an end to the violence.  Even more shame upon us for even thinking that Isreal should be open to such concessions simply for the sake of peace.  After all Ireals historic claim to the land should take supreme precedence over the saving of human life.

    1. Israel has tried concessions as a first step, at least twice.  Both times the Palestinians took the offered concession and then reneged.  For the Gaza Strip, they promptly completely trashed what had been left, then proceeded merely to move their rockets in closer and fire in on schoolgrounds, playgrounds, and city community centers.  Or tried to.
    2. “wanting or hoping an end to the violence”.  Of course, everyone wants that.  But some are realistic.  You are not.  Constantly submitting to the villians, murderers and predators does not, in any way, lead to peace.  Never.
    3. “Even more shame upon us for even thinking that Isreal should be open to such concessions simply for the sake of peace.”
    Who is this “us” you’ve constructed?  Speak for yourself.  Ah heck, be a default group spokesman if it makes you feel better.  I’d say, yes, “shame on you”, but everyone does in fact want peace.  Many such as me are absolutely certain that your solution is no solution at all, and merely worsens the situation.   And, yes, the Israelis *would* trade concessions for peace if there were any chance for peace.  But when your opponents remain determined to engulf you in a wave of slaughter, sending all your people fleeing to the edges of the Meditteranean Sea where they can then be butchered along the surf itself – a goal that Hamas has described in nearly those exact words – well, what good are concessions?
    4. After all Ireals historic claim to the land should take supreme precedence over the saving of human life.
    The saving of human life?  Sheesh.  In what way does any of this save human life?  The goal is the extermination of all Israeli human LIVES.  Read that, Dreamweaver.  LIVES.   Individual, worthy human lives.  Not some amorphous concept of “human life”, but LIVES.  The Israelis do not murder human LIVES indiscriminately.  Your beloved, innocent Palestinian victims do.  Yeah, catch the snark.   It’s on purpose.  And it’s not about claims to the land, it’s about freedom, dignity, the worth of lives themselves, and the right themselves to live in peace with their neighbors – something the chilling, murderous, monstrous neighbors cannot abide.

  16. dreamweaver84 says

    Apologies for being so childish in my misspellings to Charles.  Had I known about his OCD and how irritating Iwas being by my errors I would have certainly done more of them.  In the furure I shall be more aware of the spell checker button…whoops there isn’t one.  The fact still remains that no one here can refute the lies spouted in the original blog or does that not really matter?   I am certainly not any form of official spokesperson for the PC(USA) other than being a life long non racist, non-violent member of the church in question.  As I have said before that it is naive to believe the statement made by the church will have any real effect on the conditions or travesties perpetrated in the Middle East.   That is in no way the point or purpose of the statement.  It is an attempt to make our postion as a church body known to its own members and the world around us.  At no time does this position pretend to be leading any effort for peace or negotiation for such.  I am aware of the rockets fired at Israel as well as the bulldozers.  I know about the unfairness of Palestentians refusals to be honest in their dealings with Israel.  Perhaps it is in part to the fact that there is no centralized or civilized government that speaks or acts as a unified body for Palestine.  Perhaps the violence will go on and on in ad finitum.  PC(USA) will doubtfully be any effect on the the outcome either way.  So why is there so much hated over this statement?  Is it frustration over the ineffectiveness of the church to be a part of the solution?  Is it personal experiences with church leaders that have estranged these bloggers into spouting off  lies and hate?  Perhaps none or all of the above.   Make no mistake that to claim Israel is as innocent as a child in these affairs is to be as out of touch as congress.  When rock throwing children are met with rifle toting troops who is the bully?  Both sides can point to the other with stories of atrocities.  That will get the process nowhere by blaming the other as more guilty than the first.  So let us just give up hope for peace and just kill them all?  No.  We naivly trudge forward with what we feel, blindly as it may be,  is the best hope for any peace at all.  No one here can sit on our couches and know the real truth of guilt of innocence on either side.  We all think we know the truth, but we are naive as well.  So spouting negative speech at others for their ignorance is truly the pot calling the kettle black.  I have no corner market on the truth any more than anyone else posting or blogging here.  The real question that lies beneath the facts and statistics and even below the misspellings and grammer errors is what is really the motivation behind the words.  Hate begets hate and lies beget lies, but what is even worse is the lies we tell ourselves.  A lie we thought was the truth is still a lie and the worst lie of all to ourselves.  So before we lie to ourselves and the world I double dog dare each person here to examine his own life and motivations with the same microscope he uses on anyone else before he types another word.

  17. BrianE says

    “Make no mistake that to claim Israel is as innocent as a child in these affairs is to be as out of touch as congress.  When rock throwing children are met with rifle toting troops who is the bully?  Both sides can point to the other with stories of atrocities.  That will get the process nowhere by blaming the other as more guilty than the first.  So let us just give up hope for peace and just kill them all?  No.  We naivly trudge forward with what we feel, blindly as it may be,  is the best hope for any peace at all.” – Dreamweaver
     
    Dreamweaver, you need to take a deep breath, and let it out slowly.
     
    I don’t remember anyone claiming Israel is as innocent as a child. But the standard that we hold individuals (or countries) to in a time of war is different than the one we expect in peace.
     
    We do know that Hamas and Hezbollah use children as shields and offer them up as cannon fodder for world opinion. Shouldn’t that enter into your equation? I certainly would have trouble supporting any ideology that encouraged such a tactic.
     
    You describe yourself as naive, and I think that’s the operative word for many liberals. Wishing for Islamist extremists to change their spots and at the same time forcing Israel to act as if the spots aren’t there doesn’t move any peace process forward.
     
    If you’re serious about peace, get the duly elected governments of Gaza and the West Bank to recognize Israel and begin negotiations that don’t end with Jews being driven into the sea.
     
    As a PS, I’m attending a PCUSA church and have been for about three years. It’s a very sound evangelical church and we have had discussions about leaving PCUSA for some of its liberal views.
     
    We all wish for peace Dreamweaver, but if you’re serious, you need to put pressure on the extremist government the people of Gaza and West Bank elected.
     
    The right of return is a deal killer. Would you accept a peace proposal without it?
     
    I’ve mentioned this before, but I worked with an Arab who identifies as a Palestinian, though his family lives in Jordan. He’s always been staunchly “anti-Zionist”, but a few months ago he surprised me by saying he wished Israel controlled all the Middle East. He’s so sick of the Arab governments willingness to leave it’s citizens in poverty. When you compare the GDP’s of the countries around Israel it is an indictment of their system.

  18. Charles Martel says

    “I am aware of the rockets fired at Israel as well as the bulldozers.”

    The Palestinians are now lobbing heavy construction equipment at Israel? Yikes!

    “I have no corner market on the truth any more than anyone else posting or blogging here” segues into “lies beget lies, but what is even worse is the lies we tell ourselves.” From a humble “who can say what is truth?” to a magisterial “I can!”

    Regarding my OCD: I noticed you cleaned up your act. I appreciate the sensitivity to my condition. 

    A final note: You have not answered any of our arguments, only engaged in a tedious rant about our hatred, lies, and your need to “double-dog dare” us to prove that we are as moral and thoughtful as you. Again, could you get PCUSA to send us somebody else? Thanks!

  19. says

    Dreamweaver said:
    “…no one here can refute the lies spouted in the original blog….”
    Well, *you* certainly haven’t done so….pick ONE, my friend, and let’s hear your (specific and referenced) refutation.  The rest of us AGREE with what Bookworm wrote, and are well aware of the impossibility of refuting anything substantive in her post.  That’s why you are so amusing to your audience here — unlike so many that you talk to, we’re informed on the subject.
     
    But, please keep on writing, Dreamweaver…..it’s hard to get people I talk to about this to believe what I tell them about the PCUSA and the stark and outrageous contrast in its stance toward Israel vs. how it treats Hamas and Fatah.  From now on, I can refer them to your rants on the subject….well done.
     
     

  20. BrianE says

    As a PS, I’m attending a PCUSA church and have been for about three years. It’s a very sound evangelical church and we have had discussions about leaving PCUSA for some of its liberal views. - Me
    As to not be misunderstood, by liberal I mean non-biblical.
    Presbyterian as well as most mainline churches have to be judged on the individual congregations and pastors. Some are quite biblical, some use the bible as a pretext for a social (political) agenda.

  21. Charles Martel says

    Brian, I understood what you meant. Mostly because I have Episcopalian friends who have looked on with increasing horror as their church has been hijacked by the same sort of noble minds that are now hijacking the PCUSA. The PCUSA isn’t as far down that sorry road, but when a church’s top leadership begins moving toward a pro-sodomy/anti-Jew stance, cloaking it in Wimpy Jaysuzz, it doesn’t take long for that church to start hemhorraging communicants.

  22. says

    “So shame on the Presbyterians for wanting or hoping to an end to the violence.”
     
    Stop being a dupe. You should well know by now that the true business is prolonging conflict, infiltrating status quo agencies, and overthrowing de-legitimatized organizations with corruptible UN bureaucracies and bought and paid for corporate support.
     
    This is the 21st century. Socialism has long ago gotten out of the cradle.

  23. says

    “Talk to the hand.”
     
    Like dear helen, what happens when blacks finally realize that they have exchanged plantation slavery for ideological slavery under the Left. Will things settle down and compromises be made, or will the new slaves object to their now recognized servitude under your regime.
     
     

  24. says

    “PC(USA) will doubtfully be any effect on the the outcome either way.”

    “Both sides can point to the other with stories of atrocities. ”
     
     
    Well, one difference PCUSA makes is to reward and support Palestinian atrocities… on their own people. Purely as a way to buy support from organizations like PCUSA. The writ of pardon and of moral support such organizations give, is worth the few Palestinians the Palestinians plan the organized murder of.
     
    I wouldn’t call that a “doubtful effect” on the conflict’s outcome.
     
    The Catholic Church used to let rich people buy off their sins with money. Under your way of thinking, it was doubtful this had any affect on the Protestant Reformation. Does this then mean the PCUSA have no obligations to the Palestinians to tell them that divine support cannot be legitimatized with money and murders. What do you actually call killing in order to obtain heavenly salvation anyways: jihad or crusade.

  25. dreamweaver84 says

    I am flattered at the attention from everyone.  I still have yet to hear anyone refute the fact that the original posting is full of lies.  Not only lies, but copied lies no less.  I challenge anyone to produce the matching quotes used in the post.  Until then you can all critisize to your hearts content.  I have heard them all before and claims of this an claims of this about the church are never accompanied by the requisite facts.  Start your own church if you don’t like it.  Preach your own bible versions, too.  Keep your lies to yourself, because no one but yourself wants to hear it.

  26. Charles Martel says

    Let’s see:

    Respond to a tendentious, know-it-all brick wall.

    Walk Lily.

    Respond to a man who lacks the seriousness or mettle to address the specific criticisms of the press releases he linked to.

    Walk Lily.

    Hmmmmmm.

    (Jingles leash. Lily comes running.)

  27. says

    “I am flattered at the attention from everyone.”
     
     
    The Obama nation was always about self-important, aggrandizing narcissists out to conquer the world stage and blowing it up if they fail.
     
    In reality, you’re less important than you realize.
     
    “I still have yet to hear anyone refute the fact that the original posting is full of lies. ”
     
    I have yet to hear you refute the fact that you work for the criminal destabilization of human rights and the rule of law. Since you’re the guest here, you must go first.

  28. says

    “Start your own church if you don’t like it.”
     
     
    That would involve genocide. Isn’t that what you were taught the Puritans and other Europeans did, when they wanted to ‘start their own church’ by coming to America.
     
    You know, don’t you, that you were taught about genocide in order to help facilitate your actions towards that goal. It wasn’t intended to get you to stop it. That wasn’t the purpose of your education; it was on an entirely different level. By blaming things on exterior agents, like the US or Israel, it gives you leave to ignore your own conscience, assuming you have one. Isn’t that right. You can’t refute it. To do so is to deny your very own existence. All that you have lived, all that you have wrought, all that you have lead to destruction and devastation.
     
    All that suffering and social injustice had to be for something. If the world can’t benefit from it, at least you can, right.
     

  29. says

    “You can’t be bothered to use apostrophes, or spell words like “excerpts,” “focus,” “release” or “violence” correctly?
     
    Couldn’t be bothered with telling the truth either, so why anything else. An Obamacan is at their core, an automaton. They do what they are told. They have no personal will of their own.
     
    You couldn’t name one time when they told the truth, knowing that it would result in punishment rather than reward.

  30. says

    Both Heaven and Hell are absolute dictatorships; the only difference is the being in charge. A similar rule applies to human government. A democratic government over a society composed of decent, law abiding, civic-minded and civically virtuous people can bring prosperity, security, all the good things in life. Conversely, a democratic government in a society gone rotten, or one where only family and blood count, or where it is every man for himself, can create a Hell on Earth. A monarchy may be decent and stable, as Anglia’s was for many centuries, or it can be the nightmare of work-to-death camps in Volga under the Red Tsars. Indeed, people may be freest of all under a monarchy like Anglia’s or they may be utter slaves to the whims of Volga’s autocrats. An aristocracy may rule well, and provide great benefit to everyone, aristocrat and common, alike. Equally, it may be a corrupt oligarchy that loots the society for its own benefit. The questions then, always, and for every possible form of government, are: “What is the quality of those in charge and how can we select them for virtue and maintain them in virtue?”
     
    Obama virtuous? Get out of here.

  31. says

    It’s also conceited, Suek. What kind of hypocritical self-aggrandizing human goes somewhere strange, starts up a crazy argument, and then tries to puff up his ego by saying he has people’s attention.
     
    In decadent Hollywood elite circles and socialite spheres, that may be the favorite method for building character, but in the real world it is rather dysfunctional. Not to mention dangerous if you try this in the wrong places.
     
     

  32. Mike Devx says

    Charles Martel #29:
    > Let’s see. Respond to a tendentious, know-it-all brick wall.  [... or ] Walk Lily.
    (Charles chooses to walk Lily)

    Yeah, perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered to respond.  But Dreamweaver then posted:
    > I am flattered at the attention from everyone.  I still have yet to hear anyone refute the fact that the original posting is full of lies.  [...]  Keep your lies to yourself, because no one but yourself wants to hear it.

    Now it’s interesting to me that Dreamweaver went off in the earlier post with a wide set of his own opinions, which some of us responded to.  And now he posts that – and is silent as to the worth of all of those opinions of his, and states that our opinions, especially concerning the PCUSA statement, are “lies”.  Somehow I doubt that he is sincerely “flattered at the attention from everyone”.   If you’re going to post a very long comment filled with your own opinions about the nature of the entire 60-year conflict, I think you would expect attention!  And then to accuse us of basically taking our eye off the ball, as if he just hadn’t done exactly the same thing, is, well, interesting. I’ll leave it at that.

  33. says

    People that want to take the property of others ultimately are self-serving wannabe robber barons. They need to bulk up their bank account by burglarizing others. Criminals such as that inevitably go after those they perceive as vulnerable.
     
    It’s nothing much to be proud of. It’s not something that gets props, respect, or recognition.
     

  34. dreamweaver84 says

    Wonderful stuff guys.  You are really taking me apart.  Still waiting for someone to defend the lies in the original blog.  I concede that any of my own OPINIONS offered have been thoroughly bashed with endless facts and truth and are totally undefendable.  Still wainting for anyone to show how the original quotes offered in the original post are true.  Do that and I will bow to superior blogger.  Any blogger or even supporter of such blog that uses lies, and misquotes to serve his or her own slanderous and libelist opinions should be flogged not blogged.  If I did that everyone of you would have eaten me alive with viscious replies.  You arguments lose water fast when you use and defend lies just to support your opinion.  You are undercutting your own worthy cause of  justice for Israel.  Everyone here has a valid point in there somehwere, but it falls flat when supported by weak, factless, lie based, angry, name calling, emotional junk.  Interesting how attcking me became the basis for so many replies rather than defending the original blog.  The whole point of the post was bashing the PC(USA)’s supposed ignorance and out of step position on the Middle East.  My response is to the lies in the original posting which claims to quote a press release by the PC(USA) with false words and statements.  Defend Israel all you want, because I actually believe in Israel and support it regardless of any statement of my church.  My opinion is off issue and it was not me who changed the subject to me or my opinion.  The point is the original posting and how the quotes are lies.  PC(USA) may actually be wrong about their statement and deserves to be outed for it, but do it without lies and false quotes and you just might come across as respectable informed people rather than hate mongers that care about nothing but thier own opinons.  So until someone or anyone can show where those liablist false quotes are actually true, as a guest I will leave you to play with yourselves.

  35. BrianE says

    Dreamweaver,
    This is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center had to say about the then unreleased Report of the Middle East Study Committee:
    “Here’s what we know about their report from a press release leaked by the committee last month:

    •the report calls for the US to withhold financial and military aid to Israel •it apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist •it declares that Israel, if defined as a Jewish State, must be inherently racist •it embraces the Kairos Palestine Document, produced by Palestinian Christians, calling for boycott and sanctions against Israel and endorses full Palestinian ‘right of return‘ to Israel which would lead to the demise of the Jewish democratic state •it denies any connection between biblical covenants and the Jewish people. Israel’s history, it claims, begins only with the Holocaust, a nation mistakenly created by Western powers at the expense of the Palestinian people to solve the ‘Jewish problem’

    Adoption of this poisonous document by the Presbyterian Church will be nothing short of a declaration of war on Israel and her supporters.”
    http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=8021695
     
    The point is that it is unreleased, though indications are it will contain a new level of rhetoric seeking to undermine Israel’s historic position in the Middle East.
    Are you saying the entire report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center is made out of whole cloth, that they have made up the entire release?
    I went to the two links you provided. One begins:
    “A human rights organization within the Jewish community has issued a statement about the report to the 219th General Assembly (2010) from the General Assembly committee to prepare a comprehensive study focused on Israel/Palestine. The statement says, “…we are deeply troubled that current moves underway in the Church radically depart from its 2008 commitment that its review of Middle East policies would be balanced and fair.””
     
    If you read the letter, it never refutes the claims of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. It does say in part:
    “In 2006: We call upon the church…”To work through peaceful means with American and Israeli Jewish, American and Palestinian Muslim, and Palestinian Christian communities and their affiliated organizations towards the creation of a socially, economically, geographically, and politically viable and secure Palestinian state, alongside an equally viable and secure Israeli state, both of which have a right to exist.” GA Minutes, 2006, p. 945″
     
    The second link is to the full report, which is 172 pages. I’ll read it and get back to you on it, since the seems to be the crux of your anger– that the report doesn’t say what the SWC says it says.
    I do have a question for you though. Please explain how the right of return and a secure Israel would work? Wouldn’t the returning refugees (and all of the offspring during the 60 years of Israel’s existence) overwhelm the Israel population?
     
    What would prevent the Muslims from simply voting Israel a Muslim state and institute Sharia law?
     
    One of the things we’re finding out in this country is that something is only illegal if there is an enforcement mechanism to force compliance. Think back to the Clinton-Gore campaign contributions from the Buddhist temple and the famous “no controlling authority” statement.
     
    You could say we wouldn’t allow something like that to occur, but practically how would that be prevented? Because the Arabs promise not to? I know this is simplistic scenario, but please humor me and explain how this could never happen.
     

  36. dreamweaver84 says

    Finally a clear headed reasonable and intelligent response.  I applaud you BrianE.  I would like to respectfully disagree that the response linked does in fact refute the claims of  Wiesenthal.  There is no apology to Palestine for ever recognizing Israel when saying, “We want to be sure to say to you in no uncertain terms: We support the existence of Israel as a sovereign nation within secure and recognized borders.” Nowhere in the statement published is there a declaration of Israel being racist simply by being a jewish state.  And I submit that Wiesenthal does not adequately reveal the source of this claim nor do they idependantly confirm the leaked information as required by responsible journalisim, before spouting it’s claims. The Church does accept the Amman Call of 2007 which does affirm a right of return for Palestenian refugees.  It recognises this right as a premise for a call to action by the churches to no longer remain silent against the violence and that violence is not the answer whether by Palestenians or Israel.  PCUSA will continue to denounce violence in all it’s forms and uses and will continue to speak out against Israel’s actions that provoke violence and denounce Palestine for it’s violence for any reason.  Wiesenthal has it’s opinion about PCUSA and is as radical and inflammatory as anything it accuses the PCUSA of being.  Israel wants everyone to simply allow them with no reprisals for any and all of its decisions despite the costs and suffering they may cause to innocent palestenian lives.  I don;t care who you are of how much right you have to be there if you continue to simply bully people with violence then you are going to recieve violence.  Only when the violence stops can negotiations of any sustantial progress take pplace.  Until then you reap what you sew and there will be no end to the dangers or risks of violence in Israel.

  37. Charles Martel says

    “The Church does accept the Amman Call of 2007 which does affirm a right of return for Palestenian refugees.  It recognises this right as a premise for a call to action by the churches to no longer remain silent against the violence and that violence is not the answer whether by Palestenians or Israel.”

    Although the second sentence is offered as a justification for the first, it doesn’t make any sense. Why does PCUSA need to affirm the right of return before it has a premise for denouncing violence? Why won’t you answer clearly BrianE’s simple question: Do you understand why Israelis see the right of return as a recipe for genocide?

    As long as PCUSA is affirming said right, can it suggest procedures and guarantees that would work to make the Israelis think otherwise?

  38. says

    “I don;t care who you are of how much right you have to be there if you continue to simply bully people with violence then you are going to recieve violence.”
     
    That’s not what Gates said. Obama didn’t let off the verbal violence either. The same goes for all the revolutionary and eugenic movements of human perfectionists, transnational progressives, and corrupt robber barons.
     
    Holding your own people accountable for such things is a better first step then reaching out for some distraction.
     
    You can’t be held accountable for your support of mass slaughter or misery in the Middle East. Thus it becomes an entertainment and political game to watch from ashore the struggles of another.
     
    “Israel wants everyone to simply allow them with no reprisals for any and all of its decisions despite the costs and suffering they may cause to innocent palestenian lives. ”
     
    In case you hadn’t noticed, Israel is a foreign country. It also has elections and not a permanent oligarchy like your side has.
    Repeat after me. Obama thinks like Bush and Bush thinks like Obama. You no more know what Israel wants than you know what is real.

  39. says

    Along with all the other illusions and frauds of human existence, there have been and are the millennial philosophies, those reform movements who promise us a paradise in this life, if only we would X or Y or Z. There are at least three common problems with these philosophies. One is the Year Zero problem. Another is the assumption of a closed system problem. The third, related to the second, is the illusion, perhaps better said, delusion, of the possibility of permanence.

    It is the last, the delusion of permanence, that allows the millennialist to avoid the need to realistically define and measure good and evil not merely by their intensity and scope, but also by their practical duration. Assuming permanence, an infinity of good results, allows the millennialist to accept, even to advocate, any and every practical amount of evil because, measured on the scale of a presumed infinity, any good, however trivial, must outweigh any evil, however vile, done to achieve it. Kill twenty million. Nay, kill two hundred million. Even these levels of atrocity cannot compete with even a tiny permanent improvement in the lot of mankind. That this is intellectually sloppy bothers the millennialist not at all.

    Of course, nothing is permanent without being in a closed system. Millennialist philosophies are illegitimate for that reason alone.

    The Year Zero problem, the problem that society and custom are as they are and will carry their effects over into the future, can, of course, be overcome . . . provided one is able to identify and willing to kill everyone whose values are conditioned by having, unfortunately, been born prior to the millennialist turning back of the clock to some presumed, and mythical, Golden Age. Unfortunately, even were it possible, this leaves alive only people with no values whatsoever.-Kratman
     
    Peace or the cessation of violence in the Middle East is not worth the right of return for Palestinian war criminals and sociopaths. It’s easy to justify a foreign based solution from afar, but that’s what the totalitarian Left specializes in. The results of their wrecks, however, only rarely affect them. Too often it affects those they have power over and conveniently they cannot be held accountable for that power by anyone in the US or Israel.
     
     

  40. BrianE says

    Dreamweaver,

    As a former journalist, I am well aware of the “headline” effect.  More times than I can count, the editor would pull a tidbit from a story, create a provocative headline and completely alter the tone and substance of the story.

    Having served time as a headline writer I can at least appreciate why it occurs. You are given 5-9 words to create something pithy, provocative and pertinent that will lead the reader to the story.

    Is that the case in BW’s blog post? Was the SWC letter and Jerusalem Post article that seems to be the core of her blog overstated? Possibly, but with the track record of the WCC I suppose it’s understandable that Jews would be skeptical that any report by organizations like yours would be balanced.

    I read the relevant parts of the “Breaking Down the Wall”, and skimmed the rest, and I certainly didn’t see a sea change of position by PC USA. What is disturbing about this report and others like it is it ignores the death-match that is the Middle East. I find it odd that PC USA supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state when that’s the core conflict.  At every opportunity, Arabs have refused to accept any compromise, the latest being the Oslo Accord. One of the reports indicates that rocket attacks dwindled for a few months, but increased because Israel violated the terms or was it because the terrorists had time to resupply?

    On one hand PC USA and other liberal organizations mouth the words that they support Israel’s right to exist and then want to force Israel to accommodate thugs and follow a roadmap that will do little to advance peace but much to subvert Israel’s security.

    I didn’t see anything in the report that directly accuses Israel of being “racist”, if you mean by that definition a belief that one ethnic group is superior to another.

    You can draw the inference that Israel is “racist” by the tone set in describing the “apartheid” conditions of non-Jews living in Israel (about 1.5 million people).

    Anyway, the best interpretation I can give to the report is it is misguided- or as you called yourself, naive. Have innocent Palestinians suffered because of the extremists controlling the Muslim agenda? Sure.

    Do I wish there would be peace in the Middle East? Of course. But Israel left the Gaza strip and how has that worked out? You can blame Israel all you want, but the border between Gaza and Egypt is also sealed and I think the Egyptians care for Gazans less than the Israelis. Why not blame the Egyptians for the lack of progress in Gaza. Here is a recent event as evidence:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/80780307.html

    Why in a report that was issued in March 2010 is there absolutely no credit for Israel military withdrawing from Gaza and dismantling all Jewish settlements? I don’t understand since the report still includes Gaza in the list of illegal occupied territories.

    Do I think that the “Right of Return” should be part of the solution, or could be? No. Should the original Palestinians be allowed to make claims for the loss of property during the 1947 Israel independence? That certainly should be part of the negotiations. Should those that abandoned their property at the behest of the ruling Mullah be compensated? I lean against that.

    But you have declined to answer my question. How would the Right of Return of 4.7 million Arabs into a country with a population of 7.7 million (of which about 6.2 million are Jews) work. Why should I believe that majority vote by Muslims wouldn’t contribute to a Sharia state and the subsequent civil war that would ensue. Why should I believe that would be any better, or less deadly, than the current situation?

    West Bank settlements that the report is quick to condemn has produced a Jewish population of about 250,000 among a total population of 2.2 million in the West Bank. If Israel can accommodate 20% non-Jewish population within its borders, doesn’t it make sense to see the number of Jewish residents of the West Bank continue to increase to a similar ratio– say half a million? Wouldn’t that lead to a greater understanding of the two cultures, by mingling and not by exclusion?

    You claim that Israel has a right to defensible borders. Do any of the settlements increase the border security of Israel proper? And if so, shouldn’t that be taken into account as part of the negotiations? The Arabs had an opportunity years ago to a two-state solution which included nearly all the disputed lands, but Arafat couldn’t transition to a peacemaker, only a warmaker. Why should Israel assume that anything has changed?

    The document does condemn Palestinian terrorism. But all the anecdotal documentation casts the Israelis as the villains. It would be consistent with the objectives of peace to have produced a more evenhanded document.

    Should the PC USA be considered anything more than the silly wishful thinking liberal? To the extent that the PC USA aligns itself with the WCC positions, yes I see the PC USA position as deadly to the Jews in the Middle East.

    The Palestinian Arabs are pawns in a greater struggle. They are reviled by Arabs in other countries (there is where some real racism exits by the way) and are cannon fodder for a religious and political agenda by Hamas and Fatah. The Palestinian Arabs are suffering, but not because of Israel oppression as much as the systematic brainwashing by militant Muslim fanatics of their own population and a level of corruption typical of sub-third world regimes.

    I think most thinking people reject the obviously biased reports from PC USA and the WCC and others. It does little to advance peace in the region as much as provides a western prop to keep the vile Hamas and Fatah in power.

    Only when the Arabs cast off this oppressive radical Muslim yoke can they find a better life for themselves and their children. A good place to start would be stopping the hate-filled propaganda demonizing Jews that Arab children endure on a daily basis beginning from birth.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply