Monday, August 01, 2005

More on certain churches and Israel

Via Bookworm, this article from the American Thinker seems to be agreeing with me about the basically leftist, as opposed to the basically anti-Semitic, orientation of some anti-Israel pro-Palestinian Christian ministers (boy, that's a mouthful!).

Author James Lewis writes:

The day before yesterday, we are told, the Church of the Disciples of Christ demanded that Israel tear down its security fence, which has saved countless of Jewish women and children from being blown to smithereens. Twisting the words of Ronald Reagan, Minister William McDermet III of Panama, N.Y., shouted into the microphone to the assembled delegates,

"Say to Ariel Sharon, 'Tear down this wall!'"

Well, the Rev. McDermet is either a fool or a demagogue, but I suspect the latter, since even a fool can distinguish between a defensive wall and a prison wall.

I just want to say that I see nothing wrong with the notion that Rev. McDermet is both a fool and a demagogue. Who ever said the two were mutually exclusive?


At 10:48 AM, August 01, 2005, Blogger The Casual Observer said...

Interesting, and a link is posted at my blog.

At 10:57 AM, August 01, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

What frothing at the mouth, what hysteria.... next they will offer up proof that Jews cause earthquakes.

At 11:09 AM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous m.g. said...

The associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center finds the demand of the Disciples of Christ that Israel remove the security barrier to be “functionally antisemitic.” Some of his points:

“The resolution is an abomination. . . . It demands that Israel take action that would put millions of its citizens in immediate harm’s way in the never-ending campaign of Palestinian suicide terror.”

“No other nation would ever be asked to do the same and as a result, this politically-driven resolution is functionally antisemitic.”

“It is especially outrageous that Disciple President Hobgood has seen to it that a young survivor of a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, Tzippi Cohen, was barred from speaking to all of the delegates at the General Assembly prior to vote. I have no doubt that had the delegates seen the human face of the victims of Palestinian terrorism, the outcome could have been much different.”

Functionally antisemitic. If it smells like a rat, walks like a rat . . .

At 11:35 AM, August 01, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

I have read that there are but 23 million Jews on the planet. I have read that in comparing land mass, Israel is like a playing card on a football field, the football field being muslim land mass. I have read there are 1.3 billion muslims on the planet, some references say 1.6 billion. Juden raus, that is essentially what these racists are saying. They would turn a complete blind eye to the destruction of Israel and not so much as lift a finger of aid. I have no dout at all that the arab neighbors of Israel would enact another genocide if they but had the capability.

At 12:44 PM, August 01, 2005, Blogger knoxgirl said...

"...basically leftist, as opposed to the basically anti-Semitic..."

Unfortunately, leftist and anti-Semitic are not mutually exclusive either. Increasingly, they seem to go hand-in-hand.

At 2:17 PM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous Jeff Z said...

I don't see what the big surprise is here. Historically, large established churches of the kind that no longer make Christianity their reason for existence, but instead place a higher premium on political and economic matters have always been among the most ferocious persecutors of the Jews (and Christians too! but I digress).

The DoC policy here is not the outrage, it is rather a consequence of the DoC's obvious belief that Jews are subhuman. It's three simple syllogisms:

Syllogism 1: 1) The DoC placest the highest value on human rights above all other things, so: 2) Denying human rights is a crime, so: 3) The Israeli security wall is hindering the Palestinians' economy and family access is a violation of their human rights. Israel is committing a crime.

Syllogism 2: 1)The DoC values human rights above all other things, so: 2) The Israelis should remove their security wall, because they are harming the Palestininan's economic and family access rights, even though this will result in the murder of innocent Jews, so: 3) Murdering Jews is not as great a violation of human rights as is the violaton Palestininan's economic and family access rights.

Syllogism 3) 1) Either a) murder is not as great a human rights violation as that of harming economic and family access rights, or b) Murdering innocent Jews is not a human rights violation, so: 2) It is necessary to learn the DoC's position on this matter, and some quick research shows that the DoC believes that the murder of innocent people a greater human rights violation that of harming economic and family access rights, so: 3a) Jews do not have human rights, so: 3b) Jews are not human.

I use the word Jews advisedly; the Palestinians are not out to murder innocent Arab Muslims (and they don't consider Arab Muslims who disagree with them as innocent).

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” -- George Orwell.

At 4:17 PM, August 01, 2005, Blogger David said...

"Progressives," especially liberal churchmen, have been very exerised about Israel's use of bulldozers (to build the security wall and to tear down buildings which have been used for terrorism)

Well, bulldozers are also being used in Zimbabwe, on a very large scale, to destroy the dwellings of totally innocent people. I have heard no complaints about *these* bulldozers from the humanitarians of the left.

At 2:13 AM, August 02, 2005, Blogger neuroconservative said...


Please see my reply here, which turned out to be a little too long to post as a comment.

At 2:18 AM, August 02, 2005, Blogger neuroconservative said...


The number (of Jews) is actually a little more than half of your guess. To complete your metaphor:

Imagine that the Muslim world is a football field. Israel is a deck of cards sitting on the edge of the field near the 30-yard line. Why should we accept that this deck of cards is an affront to the field, but that taking out (or giving back) all of the spades will make everything alright?

At 7:58 AM, August 02, 2005, Anonymous Jeff Z said...

Here is an interesting entry in how this is being played out in the UK:

At 2:40 PM, August 02, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, if it is anti-semitic or anti-Israel to ask Israel to get rid of the fence/wall, what does that make the millions of Israelis who want the same?

At 10:17 PM, August 02, 2005, Blogger neuroconservative said...

Brilliant allies of their own gravediggers.

At 10:55 PM, August 03, 2005, Blogger Bookworm said...

I only realized today that you'd linked to my post. As if often the case, you've added something to the already interesting American Thinker article I had noted.

At 5:01 PM, March 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, I was out blogging and found your site. It certainly got my atention and interest. I was looking for Cards information and even though this isn't a perfect match I enjoyed your site. Thanks for the read!


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger