text:
Behold! Christians Don't Hate Jews!–UPDATEDFriday, January 9th, 2009
Newsflash, people, Jesus was a Jew, The Guardian's Howard Jacobson informs us. His real message seems to explain why Jews still fear Christians (and I might add, ignore all the evidence to the contrary and vote for people who actually aren't pro-Israel and pro-Jew). He says:
It is a question of the deepest interest, how Christians have been able to maintain two parallel but entirely contradictory attitudes to Jews. The one, as described above, the effect of which has been to remove Jews from the sphere of the human altogether. The other, full of piety and respect, expressed in reverence for the Jewish Bible, in tender pilgrimages to the Jewish places of Jesus's birth and upbringing, and even, in some quarters, in the fond adoption of Old Testament names for their offspring. The mind is a wonderful thing, capable (when it chooses) of entertaining apparently irreconcilable emotions. In this case, it is as though Christians simultaneously know and don't know that Jesus was Jewish, but in order for the not knowing to win supremacy over the knowing they have had to do mental violence to themselves, of which the collateral victims have been the Jews. [Emphasis added.]
How else does one account for a calumny as grotesque and misapplied as the blood libel – a belief common throughout England and Europe in the Middle Ages and not entirely expunged in some parts of the world today, that Jews kill gentile children for their blood, which they drink or cook with in the course of whatever diabolic things Jews do when worshipping their God. If that is not an unconscious parody of the eucharist, a transference of shame felt towards something cannibalistic at the heart of Christian ritual, blame for which is then laid at the door of the older, crueller, fathering religion, I don't know what it is.
Explain it how you will, Judaism is Christianity's guilty secret, and God help whoever happens to be the occasion of a people's guilt. "When will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust?" asks that dark philosopher John Gray. There is a prior question. When will Jews ever be forgiven giving Christianity its religion?
There is so much wrong with Jacobson's take, but at essence, he writes like a European Jew stuck in history and explaining why Jews are right to be wary of Christians. Or rather, excusing Jewish bias towards Christians.
There is no question that historical Christian leaders had deep antipathy for their Jewish brethren. One could argue that changing the Sabbath to Sunday was a very real attempt, by Christians, to differentiate from Jews because back in the day, they were persecuted together because they were mostly Jews by birth who became Christ followers. The Gentiles came in later.
Mr. Jacobson clearly, though, does not understand or in some cases, distorts Christian dogma. And even that is difficult because everything from the nature of God to Armageddon is debated by Christian theologians. In essence, he's debating a caricature of Christianity.
But this is all a diversion. Mr. Jacobson seems to be straining to find a reason why Christians can't be trusted. It's their own mental gymnastics that make them Christians to begin with–to believe that Jesus is God's son. And it's their own twisted morality that would have blamed Jews for Christ's death. Therefore, Christians who do support Israel and Jews generally, are just delusional.
And that's the real issue. In order to justify voting Democrat in the United States, and whomever the secular humanist, politically correct moral equivalence candidate is over in the UK, a Jew has to make Christians into conflicted, unpredictable, Illogical, immoral cartoons. Jews have to make Christians scary in order to turn a blind eye to the true threat before them: leaders who see no good and evil. Well, there's an evil and the evil is the minority scape goat who makes life difficult because the more violent majority hates them.
I wouldn't want to be a Jew in the UK or Europe today. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be a Jew in Paris or Denmark right now. But the threat isn't coming from the Christians. The threat is coming from the P.C. crowd who won't condemn violent followers of an unreformed religion: Islam. Please read that sentence again. The threat isn't even the violent Muslims. Not yet. They still need more numbers. And, as Mark Steyn says, time is on the Muslim's side. The threat to Jews are those Machiavellian secularists who refuse to name evil when they see it.
The threat is the papers who sanitize phrases and refuse to note that the "youths" are Arab or Muslim. The threat is the schools who refuse to stand up to violent children and parents and protect Jewish children. The threat is the different newspapers too afraid to offend Muslims that they won't put cartoons in the paper. The threat is the corrupt leaders appeasing terrorists and condemning Israel.
The threat to Jews has not been Christians, certainly not American Christians, for a very long time. And while I think it's imperative for Christians to know about the Jewishness of Christ, I believe Mr. Jacobson's angst is misplaced. Right now, the Jews staunchest allies and friends are Christians. It is difficult for some Jews to understand, but it's actually quite simple. Christians acknowledge that the Jews were God's people and still are. God loves them and blesses those who bless them and curses those who curse them. Christians who love God, will love the Jews.
Mr. Jacobson operates from an old reality. His suspicion is self-destructive. Many Jews seem to have a certain mind-blindness to the true existential threats before them. It's time to see the world as it really is. Christians, Mr. Jacobson, are your best friends. It's time you let go of your prejudice.
H/T Hotair
I would recommend reading two books that relate to this issue:
David Brog explains why many Christians ardently support Israel and Jews specifically.
Mark Steyn illuminates the actual existential threat. Hint: It ain't Christians.
Also read Jonah Goldberg's recent Op-Ed Who Are the Real Nazis? Here's a snippet:
Perhaps one reason Israel fails at genocide is that it isn't interested in genocide? That would explain why Israel warned thousands of Gazans by cell phone to leave homes near Hamas rocket stockpiles. It would clarify why, even amid all-out war, it offers aid to enemy civilians.
Meanwhile, calls for the complete extermination of Israel are routine. The Hamas charter, invoking the fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as justification, demands the destruction of Israel. Hamas exists solely because it is dedicated to the complete obliteration of the "Zionist entity." Remove that "principle" and Hamas is meaningless.
A sick mixture of Holocaust envy and Holocaust denial is the defining spirit of Hamas. Indeed, Holocaust denial passes for a scholarly pursuit not just in Gaza but throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.
Why the obsession with casting the Israelis as the new Hitlerites? One answer is surely that critics know such charges are painful to a country largely born of the Holocaust and marked by its scars. It also grabs attention, galvanizes radicals, vents legitimate frustrations and anger, and helps demonize the enemy and, hence, justify the murder of "Zionists everywhere," as Hamas often declares in its communiques.
But I think the desire to cast the Israelis as Nazis is fueled, deep down, by the haters' need to see their own hatreds and ambitions mirrored in their enemy's actions. Hamas has an avowedly Hitlerite agenda. The only way to make such an agenda defensible is to convince yourself and others that the Israelis deserve it. Hence, Hamas and its allies insist that when they aim rockets at grade schools and playgrounds, they are resisting the "new Nazis."
Also, for the genesis of liberal thought, read Jonah's book. It should be required reading:
See also: Infidels Are Cool–great blog detailing the threat. He's up for a BlogAward!
Newsweek's Religion Writer Needs An EducationWednesday, December 10th, 2008
Newsweek's Religion Writer Needs An Education
Forgot to post this. Interesting.
God Is The New GayFriday, November 7th, 2008
You know what I've noticed? I've noticed that if you want to even be remotely taken seriously in public discourse, don't say you believe in God. God is the new gay. In hushed tones, Aunt Petunia whispers conspiratorially in Nephew Regiinald's ear, "That's Melissa. I hear she believes in God." Gasp!
I might have a more quiet, inward faith but there are other people in this country who evangelize more directly, who believe passionately and that belief motivates them to ministry (service). They may be expressive or reserved about it, but it's their business and their right as Americans.
It is fashionable these days to bash Christian evangelicals, but I'd like to remind the Leftists that it's the evangelicals who are spearheading the efforts to deal with AIDs in Africa, who helped put New Orleans back together again, who push the administration about Sudan. The evangelicals also are motivated to protect the environment, believe in non-violence, minister in prisons, help fund and staff drug and alcohol addiction recovery programs, and who care for pregnant, single women and help them either parent or find someone to parent their child. Their belief animates their action.
Part of the frustration with the DC elite is a blinding secularism that despises any form of God-talk. Their ignorance of the Bible makes them ignorant of Western Civilization and rather than be ashamed of their ignorance they wear it as a badge and bludgeon anyone who thinks differently as a small-minded rube. The secularists run the classrooms and newsrooms and broadcasts and think tanks and round-tables and when a run-of-the-mill Alaskan Governor who happens to be an unashamed Christian comes along, she is savaged.
Underneath the contempt, there is a contempt for anyone who believes in God. How can a rational, reasonable, thinking person believe? Well, faith transcends the mind and operates on the spirit level. So, it is impossible to rationalize, but anyone who knows God, feels His presence and it's as real as the computer you're staring in–that is to say, I can see it, but the inner workings and the connection is a mystery.
It disappoints or angers people who believe in abortion or gay marriage that the God of the Bible doesn't like these activities. So the answer is to deny God. God doesn't do what I want, I will reject God. That is certainly every American's right. He or she can believe or not. He or she can worship or not. He or she can worship God or not. There is freedom for all.
For. All.
That includes people who passionately, literally interpret the Bible. They are free to believe, too. And they are free to have a voice in American politics. And there may even be politicians who strongly and unashamedly believe in God: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and now George W. Bush. And don't forget, Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson are preachers, too. Their faith animated their love for civil rights.
The founders made their trek to America to worship Him freely. And in having freedom of religion, procured other freedoms. Freedom and Christian faith are inexorably linked. Too often these days, it's not the Christian who is bigoted, but the secularist. America needs to have room for all.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
Sarah Palin's Daughter "Punished With A Baby"–UPDATED, And Punished With Hot Future HusbandMonday, September 1st, 2008
It turns out the Palins like punishment. That was already established. Who in their right mind goes into politics these days when one is assured of being attacked non-stop?
It also turns out that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant:
"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.
The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.
"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.
Punishment. If only Bristol's last name were Obama, she wouldn't have to be punished:
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
It turns out that the Palins made the wrong decision twice. First, Sarah, pregnant with a Down's Syndrome baby didn't abort. Second, their daughter got pregnant while unmarried and didn't abort. Oh, and there's a third mistake, but it has yet to happen: Teen daughter will get married to the baby's father.
As a sensible person, teen pregnancy is obviously, not a good thing. It happens, though. Even Christian kids have sex, sometimes without birth control or even with it, and get pregnant. It will make Bristol's life harder, to be sure, but she won't be alone. She'll have love and support. She'll have to grow up sooner. And she won't be the first person this has happened to.
Update: And no, this news will not hurt her with evangelicals.
And yes, Jeff Goldstein is exactly right, again when he writes in Breeders Breeding Breeders:
The left, as it has now been shown in one of the ugliest incidences of McCarthyite bullying I can remember, has no core belief in privacy, or even an investment in actual "choice" for women — unless the woman in question falls in line with their particular orthodoxies, that is. Anyone else is an "anti-woman" woman, and as such is subject to public exposure and ridicule.
The ironic thing is, Bristol Palin's political beliefs aren't even known, beyond (I assume) her support for her mother. But hey: all is fair in love and war, and suddenly, the progressive left seems quite unconcerned with "collateral damage" and "the children!™
Hopefully, any real feminist — not the kinds of second wave "establishment feminists" who have eschewed the end game of equality for the politically charged power politics of identity group activism and grievance pimping — will be so appalled by what has transpired over the last several days that they will run screaming from the "enlightened" base of the Democratic party: totalitarian "progressives" who have devoured Alinsky like he was a particularly plump and inviting veggie burger.
They are what they pretend to despise. And in the quiet moments between attacks, I suspect many of them recognize this, and secretly curse what it is they've become.
There's more at the link. Go read the whole thing.
Updated again:
Michelle Malkin says, "Bristol Palin Chooses Life, Now Leave Her Alone." Can we get an amen?
Oh, and Todd Palin had a DUI 22 years ago. Not relevant, but then, this news isn't about relevance.
Updated again:
As one who would have a woody if I possessed wood, I resemble Rachel Lucas' assessment. In addition, her assessment of the left is also accurate:
And who can doubt that the announcement that 17-year-old Palin daughter Bristol is preggers will drive certain leftists completely off the deep end in an orgy of impotent joy that now they can drag a minor into the election combat zone? This is the best news they've heard in weeks so you can't blame them for their ecstasy. The only thing that might make them happier is if she had an abortion.
Hope! Change!
Rachel is also receiving leftist lovenotes. Mine die in moderation–well, most do. Some I let through for your entertainment. Rachel posted her favorites. She's in love. Rupert's a goner.
Updated again:
Ann Althouse on the sexism, again. Good grief, you could swaddle the left in their hypocrisy and spank their bottoms and they wouldn't get it (this is a very long quote, my apologies to Ann, but it is so good. Also, go over to her site because the comments really capture the essence of this mess):
MadisonMan said:
I think the way to support a child through a pregnancy is to be there for them, not to embark on a national campaign — sure, it's "only" 2 months — that will shine the spotlight on the child. Anyway, that would be my reaction as a parent.
Oh, that looks like a meme. Sarah Palin must stay home with her special needs baby. Sarah Palin must stay home with her about-to-be-married, pregnant daughter. Ladies: Put your career on hold until everything in you're family stops happening. I know, MM is a man and he's saying he'd stay home too, but would he? Would a man forgo his career to be there for a family member who is experiencing an important life transition?
Remember when John Edwards decided to go on with his campaign after his wife got a diagnosis of inoperable cancer? Now, I think Elizabeth Edwards was probably excited about the campaign and wanted to go on with it. In that light, why are you assuming that Bristol Palin isn't excited about her mother's campaign? Unlike Elizabeth Edwards, Bristol is not facing her last days. She's just starting out — all caught up in life. Presumably, she's intense and positive about her pro-life beliefs, her love for the baby's father, her impending wedding, and the new baby on the way.
I imagine her eager to run around with the campaign, spreading the pro-life message to young people. Why should you think she would prefer to mope around the house, feeling ashamed, absorbing maternal comforting? On the campaign trail, she will be a loved and praised pro-life heroine, and she — and her mother — are likely to convert others to the pro-life side, with their glamorous and very positive image. Pro-choicers beware.
ADDED: In the comments Randy quotes my "Would a man forgo his career to be there for a family member who is experiencing an important life transition?" and says:
Ann, Joe Biden talks about facing that question when his wife and daughter were killed, and his sons injured, in that car accident. I can't recall anyone ever criticizing him for making the decision to remain in the US Senate and commute from Delaware to DC.
Again, these criticisms would simply never be lobbed at a man. Have you even heard once, even one time, how hard on Obama's girls it must be to have their father gallivanting around the country during their formative years? I challenge you to find it.
Updated again:
Patterico is actually communicating with Andrew Sullivan. And Andrew Sullivan still cannot believe the baby is Sarah's. He's a fact-checker, that one.
Here's Bristol's fiancé. When you read the article, note how sensible the people there seem to be.
Updated again:
Ed Morrissey over at Hotair, like many parents, faced this situation. His story is touching and not unique in America:
Our son and daughter-in-law had just started their senior year in high school when they became pregnant, and I use that pronoun deliberately. The two of them formed their own unit and held each other up during a terribly stressful year. Meanwhile, we parents had to support them as best we could, and make sure they knew we loved and supported them through it all. In return, we discovered two wonderful adults who had just been children shortly before, and when the Little Admiral came, two wonderful parents as well.
None of this was easy, and we certainly all had our moments during this stressful time. However, we took each day as it came, and we discovered that it really didn't bring the world to an end or stop the two of them from pursuing their dreams Like Bristol, our son and daughter-in-law got engaged shortly afterwards, and this month celebrated six years of marriage. Both of them graduated from college this year, and my son will start graduate school this week. It took them a little longer, but they achieved their goals.
Bristol Palin will be okay. She will face challenges, but who doesn't?
Good grief, I'm excited about getting linked by the New York Times for the first time and then I read the comments about Bristol Palin's pregnancy and my heart sinks. Ostensibly, Times readers are sophisticated and worldly and not the same kinds of people who would frequent a Kos forum, but it looks like I might be too optimistic. I won't high-light them here, but you can go read them for a taste of hate.
Still waiting on "liberal bloggers" takes on John Edward's confirmed affair and weird-ass cover-up of his alleged love-child. He was a candidate. Bristol Palin is the kid of a candidate. Get the difference?
And another thing, my mom was married a month and 19 when she got pregnant with me. Young parenting is only abnormal now because it's customary to delay parenthood and adulthood these days, but women have been having babies at young ages for a long time and survived. Good grief. This is not a tragedy. It's a poorly timed pregnancy.
A picture is worth more than 1,000 words.


text:
Check your inbox for an E-mail that contains an activation link. To activate your profile, click on this link.If you do not receive this E-mail, check your spam folder or send an email to email@example.com. We will then resend you the activation link.
We can help you reset your password using your email address linked to your account.

subset: commoncrawl