Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at the Pope.
Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at (Can you guess who? Drum roll, please. . .) the Pope!…
Article comments
426 - nugget
haha. sorry for the typo, chris
427 - Martin Lav
Vern....people of the church are expected to be above the fray and presumed to be schooled in the goings on in the public eye. I find that the public holding them up to this standard unfairly assumes they know what is correct or appropriate dialog and/or behavior. I believe the Pope was trying to make a point and is not "Karl-Roved" enough to know that his point would be lost upon the masses and fanned by the media. Since according to many, the Jewish controlled media has an perpetual persecution complex (as Ruvy clearly demonstrates) maybe they are trying to use Christians to inflame Muslims in order to get them on their side. So in a way, Ruvy may be right, but he doesn't realize that his own people are controlling that cause and effect.
Mr. Rose,
You absolutely refuse to tame your comments and continue to inflame anyone that believes in God. I think you should request that BC appoint an editor to monitor you and you alone as you continually demonstrate throughout your postings that everyone on the planent except for you, believes in fantasies. I implore you to read your posts objectively and try and deny the outright animosty you have against any religion.
I mean come on dude, what happened did a priest drop you on your head during batism or did a rabbi cut off your weiner during a barmitzvah? Or what......
"Nor do I believe in my own ego"
For you to have so much confidence that billions of people on this planent believe in a God yet YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THERE ISN'T ONE. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT YOUR EGO.
428 - Christopher Rose
Vern, it's been good reasoning with you but let me ask you this:- sure, there's lots we don't know and lots we do. The sum of human knowledge is growing exponentially, with over 95% of everything we know having been developed in the last 100 years. Why is it that you feel the need to chuck all the unknown stuff in a big black bag and say, whoa, this is god's work? I fail to see any reasoning in that at all - but of course faithists don't really have a lot of time for reason do they? ;-)
nugget: As I understand it, assumptions can be tested and so do not actually require faith.
Martin: And just when we were getting on so nicely! Ok, let's see:- it's just as true to say that people who believe in gods inflame people like me - and, in most of Europe at least, the numbers of believers is plummeting so I wouldn't be so cocky about assuming you're in a majority.
I think you could do with a bit of monitoring yourself as you are displaying a rather unpleasant tendency to make stuff up - not an exclusively faithist quality I grant you.
I thought I'd made it quite clear that I don't like religion so all I can say to your observation that I treat it with animosity is -where've you been? I trust in my own assessment of the information before me - as is both completely natural and my right.
The only thing that speaks unwritten volumes here is that you are being extremely intolerant of a fairly well-presented case that trashes one of your own pet belief systems - one you obviously don't have a lot of confidence in going by your somewhat hysterical and not a little aggressive outbursts.
Does this mean you are siding with religious fanatics everywhere who oppose freedom of thought and speech?
429 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Chris: My starting point is that we are alone here and directly responsible for what happens.
PROVE IT.
If you can't prove it, you shouldnt believe it.
And since you insist on coining your own definitions to suit your needs, I think you need to be reminded that the definition of believe is, "To have faith, confidence, or trust."
So if you're believing something with out any evidence, then you must have faith. Quite simple really.
I dont understand where all this animosity is coming from. I, like you, am quite certain that the probability of god's existence is literally infinitely small (because of there is no evidence of the positive), and absolutely not worth believing in. The only distinction I am trying to make is that if you believe there is no god, you are doing so on faith, because you also have no evidence. If you assert there is no god, that becomes the positive and the onus of proof is now on you.
And finally, your disbelief that I have do not have a mac has no basis in reality. You can certainly profess to be a rational skeptic, but as Hume points out, a skeptic can only play at this game so long as he is sitting at his desk. Once he gets up into the real world, he must accept certain things as true, even if he cannot see them. Since you can't very well come to my house, you must accept I do not have a mac.
Furthermore, your professed doctrines of the rational skeptic require you NOT to believe there is no god.
I put forth the assertion "I have a mac"
I then claimed to prove the negative "I do not have a mac because I only have a pc."
You found this proof unsatisfatory. However, because it is the negative, and you claim to believe the negative in absence of proof of the positive, by your reasoning you should have accepted the negative as true. However, by my reasoning, when there is evidence for neither the positive or negative, neither should be believed, and in the case of my computer, that's EXACTLY what you believed.
So while you believe the negative "there is no god" you do not believe the negative "I do not have a mac." They are exactly the same situation from your point of view. There is no evidence of the positive. You profess that the negative is always true when the positive has no proof. And yet you do not believe the negative "I have no mac" even though there is no evidence of positive "I have a mac." Quite the contradiction.
Your inflamatory criticism of me, christopher, is misdirected. I have made, myself, almost every one of the arguments you have made on this post at one time or another. The one and only exception being, your belief there is no god.
430 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
However, when I get up from my desk and theorizing, I must act as if there is no god, because the probability that there is a god is infinitely small.
431 - Martin Lav
No I am simply saying that your tactic of arguing something that can't be proved or disproved only proves that your ego is such that you would endlessly try to prove it.
432 - Christopher Rose
PETI, A simpler definition of believe, the first from Google, is simply "accept as true", so once again, your starting point is flawed. Faith doesn't come into it, no matter how much you might want it to.
It is, of course, theoretically possible that gods exist but there are many things which are theoretically possible which in practice are not. For instance, I love science fiction and one of it's recurring themes is the notion of time travel.
Despite my personal affection for the idea and granted that I have no idea what new technology may be invented in the future, I don't believe it is possible. Why? Because there is no evidence of time travellers having been present anywhere in our past.
Now of course it's possible that these putative visitors from the future are so good at covering their tracks or that some future Time Cops prevent the practice but the balance of probabilities is that it's not possible and that is what I believe. Like any sane person, I would of course update my understanding if new info became available.
Similarly, the lack of any evidence for the presence of a god, unlike say specific characters from our historical religious texts, leads me to believe that these ancient creation myths, used to justify "good" behaviour in the past, have become amplified far beyond their original context and are treated with a high degree of mindless literalism by fundamental Jews, Christians and Muslims. At least they all agree there is only one god, which is one less cause for them to argue about!
My personal view is that the flawed if understandable idea that some fantastic superbeing is responsible for all creation; that heaven and hell really exist; and that we will rejoin our departed loved ones in the future are attractive concepts that offer a lot of comfort and support.
On the other hand, if it's all untrue and mostly results in a lot of horrible social conflict and war whilst simultaneously getting in the way of a more direct and personal relationship with the inter-related nature of all life whilst billions of people are living in misery and squalor and our planetary conditions go to fuck, who needs it?
This debate has gone on far too long, much like the old cliches of "if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it make a sound?" or "Listen to the sound of one hand clapping" (btw, answers "of course" and "silence" respectively in my book) and become repetitive, so I'm going to withdraw until someone makes a new point.
433 - Christopher Rose
Martin: It's people like PETI that want proof, I'm comfortable with my position.
434 - nugget
Chris:
an assumption cannot always be proven. That means, for the time being, you were burdened by Faith. That is why your argument is flawed. You assume many things that cannot be proven.
But I give up. It's clear that you have an irrational aversion to religion (and logic) for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't want to disclose here. I'd suggest keeping those repressed emotions and memories from surfacing in your dialogue, as I'm sure they would necessitate you even less credibility.
435 - nugget
PETI:
kudos on #429! Well said.
You say,
because the probability that there is a god is infinitely small.
the probability of anything that cannot be proven is the same. You should be more concerned, imo, with the relevance and benefits of believing in a deity.
The probability of anything that does not exist to exist is simple. It's 0.
The probability of a giant, breathing pancake existing = 0
The probability of God existing = 0
probability of GBPE = probability of GE
Clearly, believing in a God is not based on existence or the probability of existence.
436 - nugget
I like how Chris has so much *faith* in Google to give him indisputable definitions. You're a walking contradiction.
437 - Vern Halen
"Vern, it's been good reasoning with you but let me ask you this:- sure, there's lots we don't know and lots we do. The sum of human knowledge is growing exponentially, with over 95% of everything we know having been developed in the last 100 years. Why is it that you feel the need to chuck all the unknown stuff in a big black bag and say, whoa, this is god's work? I fail to see any reasoning in that at all - but of course faithists don't really have a lot of time for reason do they? ;-)"
And here you are absolutely right - there is no reasoning in that position. Reasoning can only take me so far - after that, it's something else - and I'm comfortable with that too. As for time for reason - well, there's a time for everything, I figure.
You know, I believe in evolution science & quantum theory & all that. But as you said, when it gets back to the Big Bang, and why it happened, that's a different question altogether. Maybe I've been mistakenly addressing that question in these posts. I just think there's room for mystery that defies the clear cut processes of logic. Occam's Razor is a great thing - except when the simplest answer isn't necessarily the right one - or the only one.
Best wishes to you Mr. Rose, for a fascinating, thought provoking day.
438 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
the probability of anything that cannot be proven is the same. You should be more concerned, imo, with the relevance and benefits of believing in a deity.
I absolutely refuse to believe in anything without evidence just because it feels good.
439 - Clavos
I absolutely refuse to believe in anything without evidence just because it feels good.
Don't ever fall in love,then.
Come to think of it, you probably never will with that attitude.
440 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
that's an imperfect analogy Clavos
love has a physical object of it, and because its definition is that it feels good, feeling good is evidence of it. god has zero evidence.
441 - Clavos
Some things are destroyed when you analyze them, PETI.
There is no physical evidence for love, even if the object of your love is physical.
And I wasn't talking about "god"--that's not worth talking about, pro or con. It's unprovable either way, so a it's waste of time to discuss it.
Which you folks have been doing for three days now, and nobody on either side has empirically proven anything.
QED
442 - STM
STM #403: "I have dressed as a woman once or twice in more glamourous times."
That's also part of the birthright, old boy, isn't it???
Fishnets or stay-ups??
443 - Richard Brodie
Ruvy says: So when the violent holocaust and murder of Moslems in Europe comes - and it surely will, Ratzinger will be leading the cheering section of European politicians saying it's time to clean the filth out."
If the current situation is allowed to continue to get out of hand, to the point where Muslims start becoming significant pluralities and using political power to start legislatively mutilating Constitutions in an effort to transform traditional European democracies into Shariah States, then one of two things will happen:
a) A cowardly and morally emaciated Europe will just sit back spinelessly and allow their countries to be lost, passively accepting the status of Dhimmitude, thereby allowing Islam to concentrate in earnest on pursuing the same end for America.
b) The European populace will rise up and kick out the multiculturalist bureaucratic elites in Brussels, and the holocaust you predict will indeed have to begin.
My money is on the latter.
Of course this would not have to happen if Europeans had an ounce of foresight to see what is surely in store for them if they do not start electing more candidates from new Nationalist parties like the SDP and the BNP. The BNP in particular has put forward a model policy proposal whereby after immediately deporting all dangerous radicals, benignly generous financial repatriation incentives would be offered to immigrants to return to the homelands they came from - along with similar incentives to obtain the cooperation of the governments in those homelands.
My money is NOT on this happening in time. But when the holocaust comes, instead of "gas chambers" this time the invaders will just be rounded up, placed on ships, and lowered in lifeboats off the coasts of their respective homelands, where they will be at the mercy of their kin and fellow religionists to welcome them ashore.
444 - STM
Richard Brodie said: "A cowardly and morally emaciated Europe."
Luckily for all of us, such a thing doesn't exist ... it exists only within organisations like the SDP and the BNP. The last thing Europe needs is another episode of national socialism, or anything equating to it and that includes the so-called "new" nationalism.
In truth, the new nationalist parties are much like the old nationalist parties. They only offer the exact opposite of genuine courage and moral fortitude. In my view, it takes a great deal of both of the above to reject their crude philosophies of hate and anger.
We in the free world collectively managed to crush one nationalist party into dust and rubble 60 years ago, at great human cost ... let's leave the detritus in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
There are other ways of dealing with the current threat, and we seem to be doing quite nicely at the moment, thanks very much.
445 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
I think you missed the point Clavos. We werent arguing about the existence of god for the most part, we were arguing that it is impossible to prove the existence of god. There's a big difference.
446 - Richard Brodie
STM,
Thanks for not addressing a single one of my substantive points, and instead resorting to the usual name-calling diatribe. I didn't expect any better. I certainly hope you're in Europe when the racial hell breaks loose that people like you have invited with your multiculturalism garbage. Someday all your type will get exactly what you deserve.
447 - Clavos
PETI 445:
That may have been what YOU were arguing, but Martin (on one side) and Christopher (on the other) were definitely arguing the existence of "god" (as defined by each). There were others, too, on each side, but I'm not going to go back and re-read the entire thread in order to come up with a scorecard.
I am reminded of the marxist philosophy professor I had in college, who, using the "proofs" for the existence of "god" commonly used by believers, "proved" the existence of a green-and-purple-spotted giraffe in the corner of the classroom. His argument was so convincing, I've prayed to that giraffe all my life.
And this was long before Toys 'R Us and Geoffrey existed.
448 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
You didnt make any points Brodie. You just made hypothesises based on your own personal prejudices.
449 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Im so fed up with all the rascism and bigotry on this site. It's not just commentors like brodie, but there are whole articles that are rascist in concept such as "Calling a Spade a Spade" by Big Dog.
450 - nugget
"There is no physical evidence for love, even if the object of your love is physical."
precisely.
That is why, PETI, that you cannot believe in love, hatred, pride, or any emotions that cannot be proven empirically.
Just because a catscan shows deviations of color in the brain when one is experiencing an emotion doesn't mean we understand the stimuli and formulas involved.
Can we begin to? Perhaps. In our lifetime will we know everything? not probable.
so, PETI, you are forced to accept the absence of proof for "love." It's basically just like monkey sex. Follow that logic, and we run into some serious dilemmas regarding AGE and sexual behavior. If we follow your logic, morality is a ploy or a means of manipulation. After all, laws are what keep government afloat, not morality. Your logic says that man follows inline because jail or death are the ultimate anti-motivators. Your logic says there is no such thing as Ars gratis Ars, etc.
Have it your way, but you must understand the implications of what you're saying.
451 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
because emotions are defined as what you feel, if you feel that way it's more than enough evidence to have that emotion. Likewise, if you actually really felt the existence of god like any other emotion, rationally, god would have to exist. There is plenty of evidence for love, hate, pride etc, but there is none for god.
452 - S.T.M
Richard Brodie said (without even a hint of irony): "Thanks for not addressing a single one of my substantive points."
No problem old boy. Always happy to oblige. Had I been able to find a single substantive point, it's possible I might have been able to address one but there you go ....
All your views are just based on one thing, Richard: racism, which tends to colour them a bit. Tell me how have I resorted to name calling? What, by not liking Nazis? Well, you're right there.
The reason the "new" nationalists continue to get rolled in European elections is because people have long, long memories. I'll include my own family's in that, which has a history of war and persecution both as victims and perpetrators, going back many, many centuries. What about yours (Scottish name, and all)?
Perhaps you might understand that we're all a bit tired of fighting about nonsense. And as "for people like me getting what I deserve", well, I've heard it all before, mate. Sticks and stones, and all that ...
And I don't live in Europe, thank God, although I have. But it IS a wonderful place. Let's hope it remains that way.
453 - nugget
PETI: To an extent, I agree. But now we're talking semantics. I could substitute the word "God" for the word "love" when we're talking about a warm fuzzy feeling. Do you have proof that you're feeling love? Perhaps you're feeling God? what if God was actually love and love was God (by definition)? Even if you think it's silly to change a word's connotation, you can't say that the principle is bunk. "Love" is a lingual representative of something quite indescribable. "God" could mean the same thing. So could "hate." Have you ever caught yourself hating and loving someone? See how difficult it is to separate, distingush, and define these feelings? My point is, the word one uses to describe mysteries is quite subject to anything.
IMO, I think you have an irrational aversion to the word "God" as opposed to "love." To you, "God" represents Judeo-Christianity, megachurches, people that start wars, republicans, etc...
However, the word "love" represents the part of the world you call your own. Fortunately, the deception that blossomed in the late 60s didn't corrupt the term "love." They did, however, hate the idea of 1 God, judge, and moral leader. They associated the word "God" with southern baptists, strict minded Dogma, people telling them drugs were bad, rules based in superficial baseless rhetoric, institutions, and of course "the man."
I'm not labeling you a hippie. I'm only suggesting that the root of your aversion to such a word as "God" stems from this type of philosophy. That is, one is determined not to be stereotyped with the typical stereotyping that comes with the territory of saying "I believe in God." Therefore, one uses less controversial words such as "harmony" and "love." These are abstract ideals that cannot be proven to exist.
454 - nugget
Chris cracks me up.
"My personal view is that the flawed if understandable idea that some fantastic superbeing is responsible for all creation; that heaven and hell really exist; and that we will rejoin our departed loved ones in the future are attractive concepts that offer a lot of comfort and support.
what's wrong with comfort and support?!!! okok I get you. Comfort and support, at the expense of truth and evidence are very wrong, but if they are as they stand with no strings attached, are they not naturally good?
It has always perplexed me when someone says, "oh people are just religious so they can feel comfort in knowing things they don't fuckin' know....so they can feel safe that they're going to heaven! what a bunch of 'tards!"
Firstly, it is natural for a human to want to feel comfortable and safe. Natural. Is it always virtuous? no. If an old lady gets hit by a car outside of your window, but you're too tired, lazy, and hungry to get up and call an ambulance and help her, then you've chosen comfort when it wasn't virtuous.
Chris recognizes that some people who claim a certain Faith are a big problem. What he does not recognize is that Faith, as it stands without physical assertions, is not a problem at all. In fact, it is only a wonderful, integral part of living.
455 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I've been a bit quiet because I've been off the computer because of Rosh HaShana.
I redirect your attention again to what the pope did. In a private audience, he said just the kinds of things that would get a a Moslem audience mad and did it in such a way that he could apologize for thoughts that were not his and get away with it.
I also wish to point out to STM that a violent European reaction in ejecting Moslems from Europe or murdering them, will come from Brussels, with nationalist politicians being drafted into the movement and the pope in the cheering section. That is a development that seems unlikely right now, but I'm confident that it is coming.
The most powerful country in Europe is Germany, and this pope is a Vatican insider, a German with close ties to the Bavarian wing of the Christian Democrats, the Christian Social Party. That is where I keep my attention focused, and why.
Finally, I wish to remind all of you that until he actually became Reichskansler in 1933, Hitler was viewed as a political lightweight who could be easily be maneuvered around and used by the "serious" politicians in Germany. Mussolini was a renegade from the Italian socialist movement who pounded the typewriter from northern Italy and who led a march on Rome by a bunch of war veterans in black shirts. He became premier because the politicians in Rome had no better ideas.
The revolutions come from the most unlikely places...
456 - STM
Ruvy: I think we might be overreacting to all this ... I can't see an organisation like the EU sanctioning wholsesale deportations or violence against muslims simply because they are muslims.
Too many checks and balances are in place today that will prevent - indeed, were designed to prevent - a repeat of 60 years ago.
And I maintain: the main factor here will be the collective long meory of the European people. People like Richard might want to see it happen for their own reasons, but it won't. There were other historical factots that led to the rise of Hitler, not the least of which was the country's treatment by the Allies in the wake of WWI. These factors don't apply today.
The Europeans are in fact a loss less uppity about the influx of muslims to Europe than are Americans. While Germany is certainly the economic powerhouse, it does not equate to it being the most powerful country in Europe, and doesn't wield as much influence as one might think. It tends to be marginalised and sidelined to a certain extent in dealings with the other big two: France and Britain, particularly in relation to the EU's foreign policy. It doesn't wield the big stick.
Britain still wields the most influence worldwide, for obvious reasons, and remains both a voice of reason and the only truly reliable ally of the US in Europe. France still thinks it's important, but the reality is today, it just makes good cars. I think the status quo will be maintained, and the people from whom muslims have the least to fear are the Germans, who still suffer from the most part - as they should - from a collective sense of guilt and shame.
457 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
STM,
Six years ago, I would have agreed with you. I did not view History or events as moving in a dynamic fashion, and with a relatively static view of events, your viewpoint is valid. In fact, six years ago, I would have been unable to believe many of the events I see now...
Reality has forced a change in my perceptions.
I'm researching a number of articles designed to show how events bubbling under the surface reflect this dynamic movement of events in our day.
458 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This is an article from Caroline Glick, sho points out that a man who runs away from himself wins only contempt...
Jewish World Review Sept. 22, 2006 / 29 Elul, 5766
The Pope's message for Jewry
Jewish World Review
By Caroline B. Glick
We ignore it at our own peril
Pope Benedict XVI has become political Islam's newest excuse for rioting. Mobs from Rawalpindi to Ramallah are burning him in effigy. Muslim leaders from Gaza to Indonesia to Qatar, to Turkey to Washington and London are attacking the pope and demanding that he apologize to Islam for what they consider to be a heinous attack against their religion by the leader of the Catholic Church.
To recap what has been exhaustively reported in recent days, the pontiff's "crime" against Islam occurred in the course of a scholarly lecture at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany earlier in the month. Benedict quoted from a dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar of Islam circa 1391 where the emperor criticized harshly the Islamic practice of forcibly converting non-Muslims to Islam.
In the pope's words, the Byzantine emperor, "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of G-d and the nature of the soul. 'G-d,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to G-d's nature.'"
As Benedict explained, the harsh judgment that the Byzantine emperor rendered on Islam stemmed directly from his Christian understanding of G-d as a reasonable deity. That is, according to Benedict, the reason a Christian leader was able to judge Islam, and so conduct a meaningful inter-cultural discussion of the merits of Islam and Christianity, was because he had a clear understanding of how his religion construed the G-d-created world and conceived of man's relationship to G-d.
Expanding on this theme, the pope told his audience that European civilization itself is a fusion of Christian faith and Greek philosophy of reason. Europe's current cultural drift, he argued, stems from the cultural separation, which began with the Reformation and went on through the Enlightenment between faith and reason. By relegating faith to a sub-culture that has no place in discussions of practical human endeavors, he said, Europeans have rendered themselves incapable of understanding who they are and of defending themselves and their values in a manner that the Byzantine emperor, in the pre-scientific era was able to do so stalwartly.
It could be said that the Islamic world's hysterical and violent reaction to Benedict's use of the 600-year-old dialogue only serves to reinforce the Byzantine emperor's impression that Islam does not perceive G-d as being a reasoning deity. But limiting an analysis of Benedict's lecture to the Muslim world's hysterical reaction it would ignore the pope's central point. Benedict's overarching message in that lecture was that to survive, a culture must be willing to embrace its identity, for if it does not, it won't even be capable of understanding why it should survive.
While Benedict's specific message was to his fellow Christians, the Jewish people should take heed of his general message for ourselves. Today, the Jewish people, in Israel and throughout the world find ourselves under attack from all quarters. The rise of anti-Semitism globally, and particularly in the Islamic world, finds us in a period of grave self-doubt. Like the Europeans, our ability to defend ourselves against the swelling ranks of our haters, is dependent our ability as a people and as individual Jews to embrace our identity as Jews.
Commenting on the nature of this surge of Jew hatred, the great (non-Jewish) Canadian pundit, Mark Steyn wrote last month in the National Review, "The oldest hatred didn't get that way without the ability to adapt. Jews are hated for what they are - so, at any moment in history, whatever they are is what they're hated for. For centuries in Europe, they were hated for being rootless-cosmopolitan types. Now there are no rootless European Jews to hate, so they're hated for being an illegitimate Middle Eastern nation-state. If the Zionist Entity were destroyed and the survivors forced to become perpetual cruise-line stewards plying the Caribbean, they'd be hated for that, too."
It is crucial that all of us internalize the message that these lines convey. For in recent years, rather than recognize the prejudice of our detractors, we have devoted ourselves to attempting to understand and so justify the hatred they heap upon us.
We tell ourselves we are hated because we are too strong - or because we are too weak. We are hated because we are too religious - or we are hated because we are not religious enough. We are hated because we insist on defending Israel - or we are hated because we are willing to compromise on Israel.
Yet, as Steyn wisely notes, we are not hated because of what we do, we are hated because we are Jews. In light of this, the best way to defend ourselves, the best way to safeguard our freedom and our heritage is to embrace and celebrate our identity as Jews. As Elie Wiesel once explained to me, the key to defending ourselves is to never allow our haters to tell us who we are. "Hatred only defines only the haters," he said.
And indeed, when we look at the manner in which Jews in Israel and throughout the world are being attacked today, we see that the attacks are based not on Jewish actions but on the fact that we are Jews. So it is that in the midst of yet another wave of violent attacks by Muslims against Jews in Norway last month, Norway's Jewish community warned its members not to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David in public.
So it is that in Hamas's charter, the movement which now controls the Palestinian Authority calls not for compromise with Israel but for all Jews to be expelled from the Land of Israel or forcibly converted to Islam in the course of the global jihad.
So it is that attacks against Jewish supporters of Israel in the West target not the substance of their arguments, but their right as Jews to lobby for Israel in their countries of citizenship.
"We Jews," Wiesel explained, "have always defined ourselves as the Children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob." Indeed, at Mt. Sinai, in our acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish people became the first nation in history to self-consciously define itself. And each subsequent generation of Jews has remade that choice. Jews do not exist, as Jean Paul Sarte ignorantly argued, because anti-Semites exist. The leader of the existentialist movement should have understood; anti-Semites exist because anti-Semites choose to exist.
As Steyn notes, today hatred against Jews is anchored on Israel. Provoked by this new form of Jew hatred, some Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora see Israel as a burden. This is a self-inflicted tragedy. For if we look at Israel, we see that far from being a burden, our Jewish State is one of the most stunning successes of Jewish history.
Today, Israel is the home of the largest Jewish community in the world. More Jews live in Israel today than at any time in our history. And the state in which we live is one of the most vibrant, optimistic, "happening" countries in the world. We have the highest birthrate in the Western world. Rates of entrepreneurship are among the highest in the world.
We are one of the most highly educated societies in the world. Over the past fifteen years, more than a dozen colleges have been established in Israel and last year the government decided to allow two of these colleges to join Israel's nine research universities as full-fledged, independent research universities.
Israelis are among the most patriotic citizens in the world. Our patriotism is expressed in the high level of volunteerism in all age groups. In the recent war, tens of thousands of reservists willingly left their families and jobs to take up arms to defend the country and hundreds of thousands of Israelis volunteered to help our one million brothers and sisters whose homes were targeted by rockets, missiles and mortars.
Jewish life blossoms in Israel as it has nowhere else in our history. The rates of literacy in Jewish learning in Israel are higher than they have ever been anywhere in our history. Israel is the home of some half dozen generations of Jews whose mother tongue is the language of the Bible and the Talmud.
Israel's success stems from its serving as a vehicle that allows us to express our heritage in all facets of society. And our Jewish heritage is one of the most precious heritages known to man.
The Jewish people gave humanity the concepts of G-d, liberty and law. Our understanding of the fallibility of mankind has prevented us from being tempted by false prophets who promise us heaven on Earth, and has allowed us to take practical steps towards improving our lot and our world.
All of the ideals that Israel represents both spiritually and physically have for millennia formed the foundations for human progress and freedom throughout the world. Our willingness to retain our loyalty to our identity and our heritage has been the key to our survival throughout the ages in the face of countless foes who sought to destroy us both spiritually and physically.
Rosh Hashana marks the beginning of the Ten Days of Repentance that precede Yom Kippur. To properly atone for our sins and correct our mistakes, we must understand who we are and what we represent and what we can and should aspire to as Jews. To do this, we must reject the notion that our haters can tell us who we are. To do this we must embrace our Jewish identity and uphold our commitment to our collective destiny.
The fact that hatred of Jews has endured for so long says nothing about the nature of the Jewish people. What does speak volumes about the nature of the Jewish people is that our fortunes throughout the ages have been directly related to our ability to spurn our enemies' distorted portraits of the Jewish people and our willingness to endure and progress as Jews in the midst of that hatred.
Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity, he has a clear basis for judging the goodness or unreasonableness of Muslim values and behavior. Whether we agree with his judgments or not, through his willingness to judge, Benedict capably defends and advances his faith.
When we embrace our moral and intellectual identity as Jews, we are similarly capable of meeting the challenges of our times. It is my prayer that in 5767, the Jewish people will rally around our heritage, history and culture and so pave the way for a secure, peaceful and moral future for our people and our world.
459 - Martin Lav
CLAVOS:
"That may have been what YOU were arguing, but Martin (on one side) and Christopher (on the other) were definitely arguing the existence of "god" (as defined by each)."
I did not argu about the existence of God, more than I argued about the benefits of a belief in the existence of a higher power. Totally different concept in that I don't believe one needs to follow a religion in order to believe in and have faith in a God of their own choosing.
RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM.
460 - Clavos
Martin,
I said:
the existence of "god" (as defined by each).
461 - Martin Lav
Got it, my mistake.
462 - linda zarebski
No religion has more blood on their hands than the Catholic Church. Have we forgotten the collaboration with Nazi Germany? Until religions respect all people everywhere there is no truth in them. The first law is love of your god, your family, your neighbor and your enemy.
463 - rose mary
the pope didnt say anything about the christians killing muslims in afghanistan , iraq, chechnia and everywhere in the world, in world war 1,and 2 , they killed all types of religious people , these crusaders killed their own brothers , how come they say their god doesnt like blood ;;;''when he crusified his own supposed son ha'''ie killed him on the cross, (althu according to us its not true)
464 - rose mary
the pope quoted what he did because he wanted to start this war and mischief , between the christianiti and islam , he is really a rat zinger , mischif monger
465 - CraigT
An adaptation I did of a famous poem about Nazis by Pastor Martin Niem?ller.
Muslim outrage:
At first, the Muslims were outraged by cartoons but I didn't speak up because I wasn't an artist.
And then the Muslims were outraged by history books and news but I didn't speak up because I don't read much.
And then the Muslims were outraged by women who weren't completely veiled but I didn't speak up because I'm not a woman.
And then the Muslims were outraged by the practice of other religions but I didn't speak up because I'm not very religious.
And then the Muslims were outraged by the existence of Infidels so when they came for me … there was no one left to speak up.
The last line is the ultimate goal of Islam the rest are just steps towards that goal.