Carrying old grudges

“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”  — Deuteronomy, 24:16.

One of the things that always struck me as bizarre about old-fashioned Christian antisemitism was how anachronistic it was.  Present day Christians persecuted present day Jews because of events that happened hundreds of years before either those Christians or Jews were, as my father used to say, “even a twinkle in their daddy’s eye.”   Despite Deuteronomy’s strictures, Jews were persecuted as if they had personally laid their hands on Jesus.  Fortunately, Christianity has, for the most part, abandoned that bizarre little foible.

Sadly, though, it lives on in Islam.  Fifteen hundred years ago, Mohamed had a tiff with the local Jewish community, which not only led him to massacre them, but led him to command his followers to massacre all Jews into perpetuity — in its convoluted, archaic way, when it comes to Jews, the Koran basically boils down to “Fathers shall . . . be put to death because of their children [and] children be put to death because of their fathers.”

This approach to a racial group (because Mohamed’s hostility had nothing to do with specific religious practices, which he actually admired), is both logically and morally bankrupt.  It’s one thing to say that, to the extent Group A routinely does X, as long as they do X, they’re our enemy.  It is another thing entirely to say that, because Group B is descended from some people we hated fifteen hundred years ago, let’s exterminate them.

All of which leads me to Barry Rubin’s astute (as always) commentary about Obama’s misuse of the Passover story to support uprisings in the Middle East that have, as one of their stated aims, the extermination of the Jews:

I think the greater problem here is the endless universalizing of specifically Jewish experiences that are never seen as sufficient in their own right, as well as the basic opportunism of making Passover into an event backing Obama Administration policy.

Race-hating should not be the type universal experience derived from Holy Books, an “experience” that the books’ followers then use to justify their turning to ancient feuds and behaviors into current genocides.

I freely admit that Rubin’s excellent post, which is the actual useful lessons that one should draw from the Passover story, is not quite on point with what I’m discussing here.  However, to the extent it touches upon the universality of Holy Books, I really like the way he reminds us that, while the morals of the Good Book’s stories are universal, one should be very careful when dealing with ancient specifics.

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land,
available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon or Smashwords.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • BrianE

    The common fallacies, as they are commonly misunderstood:

    Ad Hominem – Someone stupidly disagrees with me.

    Argumentum ad populum – A lot of people stupidly disagree with me, even though they are right.

    Straw man – You’ve created an accurate model or example that supports your argument, and I don’t feel like deconstructing it.

    Argumentum ex silentio – I’m ignorant about that subject, so as long as I don’t admit that fact, no one can possibly know if it is true.

    Circular reasoning – I’m right because I am, so you can’t possibly be right, too, you stupidhead.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc – I said something stupid earlier and can’t possibly back down now.

    From a poster named Daniel on VoxDay blog.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Z, the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” comes from the Nicene Creed – it refers to “catholic” (small “c”) in the ecumenical sense.

    Various Christian sects and denominations claim to have more accurate interpretations of Christianity, but that is why they are different: Christian fundamentalists believe in literal interpretation; Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians believe in the apostolic succession, Presbyterian Calvinists believe in men wearing skirts in cold weather, Lutherans believe in being painfully boring, etc. However, there is nothing in the Bible that says that there is only one interpretation of the faith and that anyone who deviates is to be put to the sword. 

    The prayer in the Nicene Creed is that all these divisions one day be united. That’s all.

  • BrianE


    BrianE:
    So give me the best five two verses that make Luther’s case.

    Zachriel: We’re not going to argue Biblical interpretation. It’s enough to note that there are many such interpretations, some of which inspire violence.

    I promise I won’t argue interpretation with you. Just give me two verses that make Luther’s case for killing Jews.
    But we can’t not interpret until we have the verses to base our not interpreting on.

    Or you can just stipulate there are no such verses and that Luther took his theological arguments against Judaism and applied a cultural proscription to deal with the ‘problem’. Luther was merely justifiying his prejudice with a covering of scripture along with other contemporary non-biblical works.

  • Charles Martel

    Whoa, as I predicted, the kids have been scrambling all over the Internet looking for a crash course in Islam. But, since they lack the knowledge base with which to process the information they’ve hurriedly dug up, they commit such howlers as:

    “Never heard of the one true Catholic Church?”

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. Are the kids analogizing the RC Church to something in Islam? What would it be? Islam has no apostolic succession, nor magisterium, nor Vatican. Yet, despite the religion’s remarkable number of self-appointed, fatwa-spewing clerics, most Muslims view the Qu’ran the same way: It is the unchangeable word of God. As a result, there is a remarkable uniformity of opinion across Islam: Jews are to be murdered, women are unclean, Christians must submit to dhimmitude, all the world must become dar al-Islam. (As noted ad nauseum, the kids have not been able to produce a single New Testment admonition to kill Jews.)

    “Or that some people believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God?”

    More new information! Of course left out is what everybody else here already knows: Almost all Muslims believe the Qu’ran is the eternal, uncreated word of God. Most Christians believe the Bible is God-inspired, but not God-written. Mohammed (peace be upon his little girl-loving soul) recited God’s words (Qu’ran = “act of reciting”), he did not sit down and record events or ponder upon them as biblical writers did.

    “Or that there are such a thing as Sunni and Shia Muslims?”

    This smacks of the Hive learning for the first time about Islam’s great divide. Of course the essential difference between the two is the question of proper succession after the death of the Chief Pedophile (pbuh). And there are messianic and devotional elements in Shi’ism that are off-putting to Sunnis, but the Hive should have known that Islam has elements of Christianity in it that Muslims don’t like to admit.

    “Or Sufi or Ahmaddiya?”

    The Hive dug deep! Too bad that most mainstream Muslims hold both these groups to be peripheral, even bordering on heresy (especially the Sufis), because of their misconception of Allah. Notice, too, that the kids link to an Ahmaddiya newspaper article and assume that we’ll believe such nonsense as “Wasim Malik, Vice President of AMC-USA said that reverence for life is a part of Islam,” and that the Ahmaddiya community has “membership exceeding tens of millions across the six continents.” Our vaunted contrarian couldn’t even bother to be skeptical about such bilge?

    Now that is hand waving!

  • Charles Martel

    “Presbyterian Calvinists believe in men wearing skirts in cold weather, Lutherans believe in being painfully boring, etc.”

    LOL! Classic Danny! 

  • Danny Lemieux

    Charles M, and just where do you think that famous Scots expression “Shrivel me timber, Lad!” came from?

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, LOL.

    Or as Leontyne Price once said when she caught a chill, “Shiver, me timbre.”

  • MacG

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-priority:99;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:””;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Zachriel: So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question”

    In reality my original question was rhetorical. I answered it. But to humor you yes for about two thousand years there has been antisemities in the Church at sometimes blatant and horrific even with express language forbiding it and no language commanding it. With the authority of the Koran it will never stop.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I’m still trying to understand Z’s value system as it pertains to religion. From what I can discern thus far, 

    1. There was antisemitism in the Christian community hundreds of years ago and the head anti-semite was one Martin Luther. Although there is nothing in Christian texts that Z can point to that justifies these positions, those passages in scripture must be there because Christians did bad things.

    2. Muslims can kill, stone, mutiliate, rape, burn and otherwise abuse people of different faiths (Hindi, Buddhist, Christian) because their scriptures tell them to do it, but that’s OK, because there was antisemitism in the Christian Church hundreds of years ago.

    3. We should not take Muslim scriptures seriously because they don’t really mean it, despite the fact that… (see 2 “above”). I guess they just can’t help themselves.

    4. The problem is not that Muslims are doing bad things to other people, it is that we Christians (and Israeli Jews, presumably) just aren’t very tolerant about all these things Muslims are doing in the name of their religion. We should be more understanding.

    5. Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity when it comes to doing bad things. Therefore, if only we stay tolerant and wait about 500 years, all will be fine. 

    Did I miss anything?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Need we point out that Christian nations initiated many wars and purges over ideology and race, and justified slavery, war and oppression on Biblical principles.

    Those who support evil as you do, have no right to judge any of us. Nor do you have the power. So why continue your whining as if it matters to the denizens of the world.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: Z, the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” comes from the Nicene Creed – it refers to “catholic” (small “c”) in the ecumenical sense.

    We’ll try again.
     
    Danny Lemieux
    : No, actually, it this is one of the great divides between Islam on one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other: Islam recognizes zero differences of interpretation of the Koran because, according to Mohammed, it is the directly transcribed word of god. You should learn more about Islam before making such a statement. 

    Many Christians have and do insist there is only one true interpretation, which has led to violent conflict in the past. Many Muslims have and do insist there is only one true interpretation, which has led to violent conflict in the past. The Bible is considered the Word of God by many Christians. The Koran is considered the Word of God by Muslims.
     
    BrianE: But we can’t not interpret until we have the verses to base our not interpreting on.

    Sorry. Thought we had posted the link. Luther made his argument, including numerous Biblical citations, here:
    http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
     
    Danny Lemieux: Did I miss anything?

    Yes. Any connection to what we wrote.
     

  • Charles Martel

    BrianE, just keep in mind that you’re dealing with one of Cinderella’s sisters here. By God, he’s gonna stuff that big foot into that way-too-small shoe no matter how many times you politely point out that it’s not gonna fit.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Good link, Z. You’ve done a good job proving your point: Martin Luther was an anti-semite and he used Jewish and Christian scripture to support his antisemitism. Let’s leave aside the finer points of scripture and their interpretation aside, for now.

    It’s not that we haven’t read all that you have written, it is that some of us are a bit puzzled as to where you are going with your screeds. So, let me ask you all for some constructive advice….

    1. What about here, now, today? How does the Z gang propose to address the question of Muslim-induced violence?

    2. To what do you attribute all the violence taking place in the world of Islam?

    3. Are Muslims behaving the same or differently than other groups in the world today (TODAY, that is…not 500 years ago) and, if so, why?

    4. What should be the response of America and the world to Islam-induced violence. 

    Please…we’re dying to know how you IED and deal with these issues (ha, ha…puns and wordplay intended!).

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, I think part of the violence that’s going on in the Muslim world is women’s insistence on showing their ankles.

    According to Prof. Azziz al Shabazz ibn Aleikum of the University of Upper East Cairo, exposure of the tarsal bones of females has been proven to raise men’s testosterone levels 256 percent, thus creating in them an overhwelming and irresistable urge to rip off women’s burqas, fling the temptresses to the ground, roughly mount them and repeatedly penetrate them until the Jews take away their erections.

  • Charles Martel

    Oh, wait a minute. You meant Muslim-on-Muslim man violence, right?

    Well, according to Dr. Iksander ibn al-Samarrie of the University of Baghdad, Muslim-on-Muslim violence is the result of Jew-created rivalry.

    How it works is that devout Muslims, enraged by the New York Times-reported atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, become so anxious to don explosive belts and hit a Tel Aviv Chuckie Cheese that they begin taking it out on one another. The Jews, by restricting their ability to hop a bus or tram and head over the border for a little “Hey, Allah, where’s my 72 cherries?” force them to channel their righteous energies onto other Muslims, instead of at Jew children where they belong.

  • Charles Martel

    Sheesh, you meant Muslim-on-Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/animist violence, didn’t you? Silly me. Well, the reason is pretty easy to discern: Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, are pretty prickly when you read up on them in the Qu’ran. Allah’s always ranting about dropping unbelievers into rivers of fire, and Mohammed kind of gloats over his willingness to chop off people’s heads and limbs. (Don’t get me wrong, it’s all in a good cause!)

    Well, devout Muslims certainly want to help their Lord Master Supreme Being receive a steady stream of unbelievers he can chuck into Hell, and Muslims are admonished to imitate Mohammed, who is considered the perfect man in Islam. I know that if my perfect man relished beheading unbelievers (and diddling little girls), what the heck, I’d want to, too! 

  • Danny Lemieux

    Charles M, now that Z have set the table, I am curious to know where they place themselves at the seating. At the head of the table or on the meat plate?

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: You’ve done a good job proving your point: Martin Luther was an anti-semite and he used Jewish and Christian scripture to support his antisemitism.

    Furthermore, that Luther was not an anomaly, but one of a history of theological justifications for anti-Semitism; for instance, the early Church, as shown above, but continuing well into the last century. (Though, it’s worth again pointing out that many Christians stood against this injustice.)
     
    Danny Lemieux: How does the Z gang propose to address the question of Muslim-induced violence? To what do you attribute all the violence taking place in the world of Islam?

    This returns us to our original comment on this thread.
     
    MacG
    : Why have so many Muslims not progressed past this in 1500 years?

    Zachriel
    : How long had Christians been around before they abandoned their antisemitism? 

    BrianE
    : Fairly recently.

    Zachriel: So about 2000 years, then. Of course, the tardiness of the Christians doesn’t excuse antisemitism among Muslims, but MacG might look to history for an answer to his question. 

    It took 2000 years for Christendom to move beyond its anti-Semitic past, but only after being confronted with the fruit of their hatred, the Holocaust. The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism, and conservative forces are resisting this change. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Are Muslims behaving the same or differently than other groups in the world today (TODAY, that is…not 500 years ago) and, if so, why?

    Religious bigotry isn’t confined to the Muslim world, as this thread demonstrates. The difference is that liberal democracies have strong institutions that protect the rights of minorities while providing a forum for peaceful resolution of disputes. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: What should be the response of America and the world to Islam-induced violence. 

    Change has to come largely from within. Muslims need to confront the hatred in their midst. The U.S and its allies need to live up to the ideals they espouse. There has to be a reasonably just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

    Change will come. We can hope it doesn’t take as long as it took the Christian community, or the lesson be so painful. Change is coming now. 
     

  • Danny Lemieux

    Zach says, “It took 2000 years for Christendom to move beyond its anti-Semitic past, but only after being confronted with the fruit of their hatred, the Holocaust. The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism, and conservative forces are resisting this change.”

    There is so much that is offensive and just plain wrong here, I don’t quite know where to begin or whether I can address it all:

    1) “Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”. Christendom includes Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks and many others. Yes, there was bigotry expressed by some Christians toward Jews, for many reasons…not just scriptural. Your own link to Martin Luther referenced the past persecutions of Christians by Jews as one reason that is not scriptural.

    Finally, despite many inducements, you have not been able to provide any quote from Christian scripture that justifies violence against Jews (sorry, Martin Luther was so off-base with his references that they don’t apply …e.g., because Jesus referred to some Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, therefore all Jews were condemned by God. Please! There was never an exhortation to do violence against non-Christians in the Bible…anywhere!).

    You could not find those references, I suspect, because a) it terrifies you to have to actually read Christian scripture to try to understand it and b) you know that such references just aren’t there. Finally, you completely overlook the haven that America provided for Jews, beginning in the 1600s…a country into which Jews were welcomed as any other group and in which Judaism could prosper as it never had been able to prosper since the destruction of the Temple.

    That doesn’t stop you from applying a broad historical condemnation of all of Christianity, though. No…for you, in your pathetic world view, the sins of the fathers are forever to be suffered by their children.

    You, sirs, are bigots! You are no different from those Christians that still blame the Jews for the persecution of Christians in the early days of the Church.

    2) Citing the Holocaust as the fruit of Christianity is so deeply offensive and plain historically wrong that it shows once again your deep, deep loathing for Christians. The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists. Hitler’s rantings made clear that religious issues had nothing to do with their singling out of Jews for destruction. The National Socialists were just as dedicated to the destruction of Christianity as they were to Judaism and sought its replacement with a state-controlled religion centered around the Nordic gods – not for religious reasons, but for ideological reasons. 

    Because it fits your Leftwing Temple of Orthodoxy template, you are only too quick to try to lay the Holocaust on Christianity….a blood libel!

    3)  Regarding your comments that “The Muslim world is still emerging into the modern world following a period of colonialism”. Yes….and so what? The Muslim world has been largely colonial since the time of Mohammed (Mamluks, Ottomans). So have Hindus (South Asia), Christians (Africa) and Buddhists (Central and SE Asia). However, we don’t non-Muslim colonials waging the equivalents of Jihad the world over. The least-colonized nation in the Islamic world is Saudi Arabia…a breeding ground for Muslim terrorists.

    4) Re. your comment that Muslim violence somehow has something to do with “There has to be a reasonably just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.” Ludicrous! There is only one “just” solution that Palestinians see to the Israeli question: its complete destruction and the destruction of its people.

    The only thing that this dispute has to do with Islam is that Israelis, a people marked for extinction in the Koran, inhabit land that Muslims believe belongs to Dar es Islam. Far more injustice has been wreaked on the Palestinians by other Muslims and each other than has ever been committed by Israel. In addition, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has nothing, nothing to do with the violence committed by Muslims against Christians (Egypt, Africa, Algeria, Turkey, Europe, United States, Philippines, Indonesia), Hindus (India, Indonesia, Malaysia), Buddhists (Thailand) or each other, for that matter.

  • MacG

    Danny: “There was never an exhortation to do violence against non-Christians in the Bible…anywhere!).”

    I’ll do you one better. When Judas led the Roman/Jewish contingency to arrest Him in the Garden of Gethsemene one of the disciples tried to defend Him and cut off the ear of “the enemy”:
    ” While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him.” Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.
    And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”
    At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. “But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled. ” Matthew 26
    Wait! As side from the command to put away the sword against their enemy there’s more:
    ” While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? “While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.” Luke 22

    Note the value in having more than one account/witness you get the fuller story of how He treated His enemies, what behavior He modeled for His followers and what He commanded them to do with their swords against the Jews and Gentiles.
     


  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Mohammed came after Jesus. While Jesus brought peace to the Middle East, Mohammed led an army, sacked many a city, and destroyed the Library of Alexandria.

    That’s a list of accomplishments even Obama would envy.

  • MacG

    Danny: “2) Citing the Holocaust as the fruit of Christianity is so deeply offensive and plain historically wrong that it shows once again your deep, deep loathing for Christians. The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists”
     
    Obviously he has never read Deitrich Bonhoeffer.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    1) “Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”.

    Danny, Z here didn’t even know that Protestants and Catholics were both Christians. How do you expect him to know the context of Martin Luther’s protests?

    because Jesus referred to some Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, therefore all Jews were condemned by God. Please!

    The Pharisees were enemies of the Jews and Palestinians to boot once the historical transfiguration is applied.  And yea, Jesus would be right to call Arabs or Palestinians a brood of vipers. That is what they were. And still is.

    Finally, you completely overlook the haven that America provided for Jews, beginning in the 1600s…a country into which Jews were welcomed as any other group and in which Judaism could prosper as it never had been able to prosper since the destruction of the Temple.

    This is part of why Z wants to paint America as not being Judeo-Christian in philosophical and ethical influence. He wants to divide people and make them fight, partially for his own amusement. 

    No…for you, in your pathetic world view, the sins of the fathers are forever to be suffered by their children.

    That’s true in Islam, since they don’t recognize Christ as divine, just another prophet that got staked. Thus without Christ dying for Original Sin of Adam and Even, who is left to pay the price Allah demands in the Old Testament? Why… nobody, except suicide bombers in jihad.

    Because it fits your Leftwing Temple of Orthodoxy template, you are only too quick to try to lay the Holocaust on Christianity….a blood libel!

    The Left only minds blood on their hands when they can’t wipe it off on somebody else’s shirt. While that somebody else lays dying. 

    Yes….and so what?

    While Z means British colonialism, he is ignorant or ignoring the colonialism the Mohammedans have done in the world. 

    Z wouldn’t know violence even if the Mohammedans cut off his arms and used it to beat his head in with.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Obviously he has never read Deitrich Bonhoeffer.

    Even if he did, he would simply claim it as false.  Such is the mind of the fanatic and zealot that they cannot accept anything other then their Faith.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Why do you think Z, who whiningly insists on imposing DC solutions to communities hundreds of miles away, now starts talking about Muslim solutions that must come from within?

    Z actually acts like Obama can do whatever he likes in crushing dissent because Americans agreed to abide by the Constitution. Loyalty to the DC. And only loyalty to DC. Whatever you get from DC is a trickle down, unintentional side effect.

    Since the Muslims are fighting and killing us, does that mean they don’t have to cooperate with us or that there’s no authority for external forces to impose a solution on them? So if 25 states in the Union decided it was time to kill Obama and get out of the US Constitution, Z would say that the solution has to come from within those 25 states?

    Regardless of what Z thinks Z believes, none of it works in the real world. All of it is garbage. Un recyclable and biologically toxic garbage at that.

    I’ve often wondered what sociopaths, dictators, and tyrants were thinking when they put so much pressure on people that they erupted in violent rebellion. All I have to do is to look at Z’s meaningless ideological claptrap to get a hint.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny and MacG, bless you both for trying so patiently to reason with somebody who simply will not listen. I think Zach’s problem—and it is a huge one—is his refusal to allow anyone here to frame the argument in any way he does not wish us to, so we watch in fascination as he endlessly creates and destroys his own straw men.

    You can see from the pattern that he has established here that dialogue or the lack of it isn’t the point. I think the boy/man/hive is lonely and simply wants human contact, no matter what the cost. If you look at his websites, you will see that nobody visits them or communicates with him. He doesn’t know how to bring people to himself, so he does the second-best thing and goes to other people—in this case, us. However, there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance at work in him: He looks down on us, thinking he is our intellectual superior. But I believe he also senses, uneasily, that this may be one of the best places on the Internet for him to truly test an intelligence that, so far, has impressed only himself.

    He knows as well as us that his arguments persuade none of the bright people here, but the more urgent thing for him is to be taken as somebody important. There is power in being able to manufacture morte main nonsense and have good minds respond to it seriously. The fact that most here have treated his mental shenanigans with some respect must be like a feast for a very hungry man. Laugh at him, rebut him, show him up all you want, the important thing is that, no matter how shabby, he finally has a place at the table.

  • BrianE

    I, for one, appreciate what Zachriel brings to Bookworm Room. He is to this blog as Michael Kinsley was to Firing Line, a reliable foil.

    “Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate,” William Kristol once said.

    Zachriel is reliably liberal, and I think exposes for all readers who pass through that underneath the veneer of liberalism lies the heart of a statist. 

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieux: Martin Luther” is not “Christendom”. Christendom includes Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks and many others.

    No, Martin Luther is not Christendom, which usually refers to areas of the world where Christianity is prevalent. Anti-Judaism is a common current throughout the history of Christianity. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: sorry, Martin Luther was so off-base with his references that they don’t apply …

    It’s easy to wave your hands, but apparently many Christians, including theologians and religious leaders, found the arguments persuasive for most of history. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: You could not find those references, …

    You were pointed to them. You merely wave them away as if they had no weight in Christian theology or history, but that is simply not the case. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: That doesn’t stop you from applying a broad historical condemnation of all of Christianity, though.

    In fact, we repeatedly stressed that anti-Semitism wasn’t universal among Christians, only that prominent Christian theologians have long justified violence and oppression by reference to the Bible. It’s not a controversial position in historical studies.
     
    Danny Lemieux: The Holocaust was the product of deeply anti-Christian National Socialists.  

    “Early Christian thought held Jews collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. This religious teaching became embedded in both Catholic and Protestant theology during the first millennium, with terrible consequences for Jews.”
    http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/