Home » Well, at least Helen Thomas…

Comments

Well, at least Helen Thomas… — 115 Comments

  1. I think her words are perfectly clear. She regrets the damage her words have done to her career and reputation. That’s good enough for her audience and employer, so why say more when she doesn’t mean it?

  2. Whatever has happened to words, and our understanding of what they mean?

    Been talking about dual meaning and word games for a long long time (though few who don’t read a big enough swath of their stuff, doesn’t usually get. however its a way to easily tell true believers and so forth). also about how they say different things in front of different people with a morality that is situational because they are pragmatic.

  3. Official leftists will discount her comments as unique to this one (possibly somewhat unhinged) individual…but the truth is, of course, there are quite a few on the left who think this way, and I think we’ll see more and more masks coming off in the near future.

  4. I see on Commentary’s Contentions blog that Lanny Davis has come out in favor of her firing, and also that her agent has resigned.
    More! Faster!

  5. The answer at base is theological and philosophical, which are of far more importance than most suppose.

    Lewis Carroll in his 1865 novel, Alice in Wonderland recognized the issue and implications;
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all…”

    Once Western civilization’s intellectual left adopted the earliest forms of post-modernism, Nietzsche’s insights into the consequential problem started to emerge; “Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which ‘the death of God’ represents for existing moral considerations, because “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”

    This is why in “The Madman”, (1882) a work which primarily addresses atheists, the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

    Dostoevsky (1880) recognized this conundrum,

    “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

    Which inexorably leads to; if everything is permitted, then there can be no objective right or wrong. (Because we are reduced to mere opinion and whether opinion be individual or the consensus of the majority, it remains mere opinion)

    And, if there is no right or wrong,

    then all that is left is the law of the jungle…

    The implications of which, are profound;

    Civilizations don’t do well in jungles. Bad things roam the streets and visit in the night.

  6. Don’t fire her, whatever you do.

    We need Helen right where she is as the picture perfect poster for the Left and all that it represents.

  7. …and I thought the old witch died when the house fell on her. Who keeps propping her up when she falls over?

  8. Those on the left never apologize, they merely ‘regret’.
    Regret having been caught showing their true face. But then Helen isn’t saying anything that the left and so called intelligentsia of this country haven’t been saying in private for a long time.

    Then again, her comments are reflective of what is happening on the larger stage. So why not take the gloves off and say things as you really mean them? Turkey is, so is Iran. We are reaping the fruits of ‘smart diplomacy’ abroad and so why not see more of the true face of the left at home? Especially in the in the face of such fecklessness as this president and administration are showing.

  9. “I take full responsibility.” that’s also supposed to excuse everything.

    I’m with you. I am dismayed.

    We are the edge of very difficult times, we are walking a tightrope, and to tip one way is to dip into very difficult times, let’s hope we don’t do it.

  10. I skimmed the comments about this on HuffPo, looking for the sort of defense or justification the leftoids might make.

    They ignored the substance of her comments and framed it as though Thomas was merely exercising her speech rights. Anyone who decried her statements was seen as wanting to stifle free speech.

    But I saw nobody attacking her right to say hateful things. Nobody demanded she shut up. The attacks were upon her character and her place as a reporter, given this revealed bias.

    It revealed a subtle bias in the lefty view–they assume the preferred response toward vile speech is to silence the speaker. Their first impulse is to control the debate, not to counter the offensive ideas.

  11. Pingback:Ed Driscoll » Helen Thomas Dropped By Her Agent; Former Clinton Aide Calls For Her Dismissal

  12. Of course it’s not a free speech issue.

    Here’s the quick, rough-and-ready way to tell if something is an issue of freedom of speech: If there are speech rights involved, then *any* opinion, no matter how heinous, should be protected. That is what free speech means.

    Now: Who among those talking about Thomas’s speech rights would say the same thing if she’d said that blacks should go back to Africa, where they came from? If you can’t say do that, then you can’t claim to be defending her freedom of speech.

    Example: I support Helen Thomas’s right to make vile, antisemitic comments without being punished by law, as a matter of freedom of speech.

    And yes, I’d say the same thing about her if she made vile, neo-Nazi comments. She has the right to do so, under the First Amendment, without legal punishment.

    This handy-dandy test distinguishes between genuine defenders of freedom of speech and people who using the notion ignorantly or disingenuously. (Yes: it’s too simple to handle certain cases, where opinion shades into conspiracy or incitement, etc.; that’s why I called it rough-and-ready. But no: this isn’t one of those cases.)

  13. Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » HELEN THOMAS UPDATE: Lanny Davis says Helen Thomas must go. Plus, Helen Thomas Dropped By Spea…

  14. There’s no doubt that her original statement represented her genuine, heartfelt views, or that her “apology” is a farce. EVERYONE knows both of those things. Roughly half of us, though, will PRETEND VERY HARD that there’s nothing wrong with what she said, and anyway — hey, look over there, it’s an evil Republican patronizing a prostitute!

  15. The question is: Why are so many liberals like Thomas so hostile to Israel?

    I examine a few reasons (generic liberal anti-Americanism, etc.), but feel a good part of it is Benjamin Kerstein’s theory is that Zionism is a competing ideologogy to liberalism, and that liberalism’s failure to prevent the Holocaust is a demonstration of it’s inadequacy both in general, and specifically in comparison to Zionism.

  16. I’ve looked a couple times and I can not find that Dostoevsky quote in one of his works (or papers). Just a heads up; he might be the person who said it. Great spot on meme though.

  17. Who among those talking about Thomas’s speech rights would say the same thing if she’d said that blacks should go back to Africa, where they came from? Who among those talking about Thomas’s speech rights would say the same thing if she’d said that blacks should go back to Africa, where they came from?

    Blacks have an absolute excuse — they were kidnapped and brought here against their will.

    That’s not true for Muslims, however. If Thomas were to say all Muslims should leave America and go back to whatever crappy (by definition) country they came from, that would be another matter entirely.

    Incidentally, on the long list of things that leftoids don’t understand and that are pet peeves of mine (a lot of overlap between those lists) is bleating about “free speech” whenever some leftoid’s remarks are criticized. The First Amendment only says you can’t be prosecuted for your speech; it doesn’t say that there cannot be any other ramifications, such as criticism from others or dismissal by your employer.

  18. Lawrence Person Says:

    “Benjamin Kerstein’s theory is that Zionism is a competing ideologogy to liberalism, and that liberalism’s failure to prevent the Holocaust is a demonstration of it’s inadequacy both in general, and specifically in comparison to Zionism.”

    To expand on that; I think the claims of morality and being part of the elect rub on them too (especially some of the Euros like the Germans). And/or the same westerners who hate Israel also hate the US… for similar reasons. One is God’s chosen people and the other the shinning city on the hill (i.e., American Exceptionalism; God blessed the US and gave it many advantages for it to succeed).

    The left’s war is on having moral standards as much as anything else. Whether humans are malleable or not is simply one question. Whether it is right or moral to try to remake man must first be addressed (or the question eliminated all together by doing away with God and questions about morality).

  19. The defining characteristic of the modern day left is that they are incapable of feeling shame.

  20. Thomass, if you read in Russian, this might be helpful.

    To summarize: the quote is usually attributed to Brothers Karamazov , but in the book there is no direct, word-per-word, phrasing. In 4th chapter there a conversation btwn Mitya and Rakitin, where a thought similar to the quote is voiced:
    -“Then could a man be, I ask you, after that? Without a God and without a future life? Then it would mean that everything is permitted, everything could be
    done?”
    Which is not the same, although a close periphrasis.

    [this is to give you a technical answer to the question. It doesn’t mean I find the thought appealing, or insightful, or even logical. As a matter of fact, I don’;t find Dostoevsky’s writings neither of these things.]

  21. I seem to recall Obama wanting Fox News reporters out of the press pool. Surely we will see him wanting this reporter out. Not!

    Obama keeps walkin like a duck and talking like a duck, but 46% of Americans apparently don’t know how to spot a duck.

  22. Tatyana Says:

    “this is to give you a technical answer to the question. It doesn’t mean I find the thought appealing, or insightful, or even logical.”

    Got it. Thanks.

  23. Some rhetorical questions: Has she ever forgiven anyone? Has she ever plainly asked for forgiveness and received it? Has she know the freedom and joy that comes from being forgiven? We can point out how mealy-mouthed her statement is, but also need to realize that she probably does not have a clue what a real apology is and what freedom forgiveness brings.

  24. @Occam: Huh?

    While what you say about my example is true, it’s irrelevant to my point (with which you seem to agree). The only purpose of the example was as a reprehensible opinion. Yes, the example was also obviously stupid, for the reason you point out — whereas your example is perhaps merely reprehensible. I suppose.

    But so what? Why are you quibbling with me? We agree that this isn’t a free speech issue, and for the same reasons.

  25. Geoffrey Britain – that was a very astute analysis. Thank You. As you say, “Civilizations don’t do well in jungles. Bad things roam the streets and visit in the night”, a point Isreal knows only too well. If they are the first to fall they certainly won’t be the last.

  26. There is another aspect of this that bothers me as well. Thomas and her ilk send a message that Americans are stupid and fall for the most obvious propaganda. She is an enabler of the liars. Our position should be that using Mickey-Mouse-like characters to teach children hate is child abuse, that we know photoshopped pictures when we see them, that we know the kind of lies they tell in their movies, that Palestinians have been victimized more by their Muslim brothers than by any Westerners, that we aren’t going to buy their crap anymore so they may as well start dealing with their real problems, that people who need scapegoats are weak and should be ashamed. Thomas tells them that just one more sob story or one more rocket attack will turn the tide in their favor when we need to tell them it won’t.

  27. This woman is what is commonly known as a ‘Wordsmith’. As such she writes with deliberation. The dissection of her statement is right on. The English language is a palette of many colors and her choice of these words were purposely selected. The left, the Educated Elite, have been coloring the picture of our world for too long. Reality is about to strike and we will all be worse off for believing in their ideas. Payback will be a bitch.

  28. Tatyana,

    You are quite correct. Since Dostoevsky is commonly thought to have said it and, since it is a useful synopsis of what he did say, it seemed acceptable to use it as such.

    I do wish to inquire as to exactly what you mean when you said, “It doesn’t mean I find the thought appealing, or insightful, or even logical. As a matter of fact, I don’t” do I understand you correctly?

    Are you saying that, if God doesn’t exist, some things are objectively not permitted?

    That, in the absence of the existence of a transcendent, objectively real divinity, that there is a basis other than mere opinion for moral definitions of right and wrong?

    As I can’t think of any not based upon opinion, I wonder if there’s something I’ve overlooked, so please share your rationale.

  29. DJ, I wasn’t quibbling with you at all. I was quibbling with leftoids who brandish “free speech” as an excuse to espouse whatever they want without suffering any repercussions.

    Frankly, I don’t think my example is at all reprehensible. With each passing day there’s a stronger and stronger argument for resisting Muslim immigration. It’s a stupid, evil, backward death cult that should be discouraged from further infecting this country, and whose adherents already in this country should be deported forthwith.

    For the record: I deeply regret that anyone should misinterpret my remarks as anything less than a ringing endorsement of Islam, or its schizophrenic pedophile founder, or its numerous psychotic sheep-shagging adherents. My remarks do not reflect my heartfelt belief that this country will be better off when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect, tolerance, and several thousand miles distance (not necessarily in order of importance) between Muslims and sane people. May that day come soon.

  30. The question is: Why are so many liberals like Thomas so hostile to Israel?

    Actually, the question I wonder about the most is why the great majority of American Jews remain in the liberal camp, despite leftist hostility to Israel. Yes, I understand ancestral attachment to the Dems; my (Catholic) grandparents got off the boat at Ellis Island too. But times have changed and American Jews don’t seem to be able to process the fact that, while anti-Semitism is still alive, the enemies list has changed. Palin had an Israeli flag in her office; Bush was a far better friend to Israel than Obama is; the Christian Right are one of the few allies the Israelis have on this planet. Yet to hear secular, liberal Jews talk, it’s like they’re stuck in a time wrap where it’s eternally 1904 and Christians are the ones to really fear because they’ll burn down the village after Good Friday Mass, or else it’s 1962 and the KKK is going after the Jewish civil rights workers in Mississippi.

    Voting Dem certainly isn’t economically advantageous for Jews either, unless they’re trial lawyers. So what gives? Their sentimental attachment to Bubbe’s old party is so strong it is worth swallowing all sorts of insults (remember “Hymietown”?) from their fellow Dems?

  31. In support of GB:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=UW85yfLxH2sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Capitalism+and+Socialism&source=bl&ots=RnK3l_VY_2&sig=vPsIeIgvEthRzW04-dCecvZHfME&hl=en&ei=gJoJTJ7GNYayNoO89bUE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

    pg 21 of essay by Irving Kristol, “The Disaffection from Capitalism.”

    “Religion gives answers to unaswerable questions, such as: Why should I be honest? Rationalism cannot answer that question. . . “

  32. Pingback:GayPatriot » Time for Helen Thomas to Go

  33. The jews supporting democrats makes me wonder how complicit the jews may have been in their own fate with the nazis.

  34. Geoffrey, I said many times in the threads on this blog and @my own that morality has nothing to do with religion: it’s subject to evolution as much as every other aspect of human development.
    You and many here might not like it, or object to it – it doesn’t change the fact. I have no inclination for argument, so please make no attempts.

  35. My mother is 87. She was getting to be like Helen Thomas. We took her to a psychiatrist who prescribed medicine for her. One MG of Risperidone daily is al it took. She is much less confrontational now. I hope Helen has a family that will do the same thing for her.

  36. SteveH,

    A very great number of Jews were in deep denial about the Nazi’s real, actual intentions. In 1939, even my Father, 17 years old at the time, knew that war was coming with Hitler.

    In fact, he gained reluctant permission from my grandfather to enlist upon his 18th birthday, by advancing the argument that a years training would go far in enduring his survival in a coming war that only the most obtuse refused to recognize. Rather than wait and when war came, get but a few weeks rushed training and then be thrown as cannon fodder into the breach…that’s not what happened to our GI’s but it is what happened in WWI and that’s what my grandfather remembered.

    Many liberal Jews simply are liberals first and Jewish second and because that is true of them, they assume it to be the perception of others as well.

    They shall be quite shocked when they discover the obverse to be true.

  37. SteveH: one thing you can be sure of—the Jews did not vote for the Nazis in Germany. The anti-Semitic agenda of the Nazis was very overt from the start (although the genocidal aspects were not clear).

    With the left in this country, it’s different because their anti-Semitism is cloaked as anti-Zionism.

  38. Baklava: “I regret”, not “I apologize”.

    Remember – never get to say “I’m sorry”!

    Oh, and Geoffrey: “objectively real divinity” is a contradiction in terms.

  39. Tatyana,

    As you wish. I wasn’t looking for an argument and was unaware of your prior comments and position. Just for clarity’s sake, I wasn’t referring to the intersection between religion and morality but the necessity that morality be posited upon the existence of an objective reality that transcends human opinion.

  40. Tatyana, I usually love your comments, but I can’t support that last one. If you don’t want to argue, then don’t post one side of an argument. It invites the other side.

    And here’s a bit of the other side. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding deriving from your phrasing, but are you really saying that morality is all evolution and has nothing to do with religion? The milder comment, that morality is not necessarily dependent on religion, is more common. That can be argued against as well, though I can support your unwillingness to have that discussion in this context. But your comment as it stands seems impossible to justify.

  41. Tatyana.

    You said you didn’t want to discuss it…

    “Oh, and Geoffrey: “objectively real divinity” is a contradiction in terms.

    Obviously you refer to the linkage between ‘objectively real’ and ‘divinity’.

    Thus, either you are denying that a Divine Providence, God, the Creator, call it what you wish, can be objectively real? Or that if there is an objective reality, it’s underlying structure and creator can’t be divine?

    Whether either actually exists is irrelevant to this issue, if either do exist, why are they mutually exclusive?

    Again I’m not looking for an argument but you just made an assertion and requesting an explanation of your reasoning in that assertion, seems fair.

  42. AVI: the other side of the argument posted before me, and in a form of axiom; I simply stated that it is not so. Geoffrey invited “my” comment, not I – his.

    I am saying that morality, as religion, is a product of human evolution. And that to be moral one doe not need to believe in divine presence or derive his ethics from commandments. Those commandments evolved with society, out of interaction between people. Laws, legal codes, moral systems- are all product and reflection of state and condition of society at a given moment in time and space.
    You don’t need to justify my comment, AVI. That’s something so obvious, so fundamental that it doesn’t need to be justified or defended or even debated. Like the change of seasons, or ever-present Jew-hatred – it’s a universal truth.

  43. The problem is a much larger and deeper one.
    She knows that she is in tune with this anti-Semitic
    administration.

  44. Geoffrey:
    you said “…existence of a transcendent, objectively real divinity…”. I simply repeated your construction and evaluated it.

    There is no divine presence. God does not exist. It’s a fantasy, an ethemeral construct. A fantasy can not be “objective reality” in a same sense as a mirage in the desert is not an “objective reality”.

    I hope I was sufficiently clear this time.

  45. Steve H (and others, too):

    “The jews supporting democrats makes me wonder how complicit the jews may have been in their own fate with the nazis.”

    There were some who were so complicit. Many found their way onto Judenrat councils. You should read The Wall by John Hersey. The irony, of course, was that their complicity gained them, finally, exactly nothing. Some realized their mistake–some sooner, some later. But some–never.

    In those days, it was often a short time until “never.”

  46. “”God does not exist. It’s a fantasy””
    Tatyana

    Just not as big as the fantasy of finding yourself existing on a planet whirling without end around the fireball of a star and noting the lack of impossible incredibleness of it all 🙂

  47. Tatyana,

    Really? God does not exist? You will, of course, upon making such a statement, be prepared to rule His existence out on the basis of evidence. Is this not so?

    Tatyana has her opinion, but it’s important to realize that it’s nothing but an opinion. It cannot be tested in anything like a scientific fashion.

    Science cannot tell us anything about God. It is for this reason that Scripture makes faith such an essential. If we could prove it, there would of course be no need for faith.

  48. Comments like hers are an indulgence of the elderly, not of professional journalists. If she wants to throw self-restraint and good judgment out the window, she’s free to do so — on her own time.

  49. This just in from AP Wire Reports: “Helen Thomas once got a job poisoning Snow White’s apples.”

    (Later, she told the Prince she was very sorry for the misunderstanding.)

  50. betsybounds: I believe that the situation faced by members (or potential members) of the Judenrat was about as difficult and morally complex as practically any on earth. By no means were most members willing collaborators or Nazi sympathizers. Our hindsight is 20/20; they did not have this luxury.

    Here’s an article (not very well-written, unfortunately; I doubt the author’s first language was English) attempting to explain some of what the Judenrat faced, and some of the good they managed to do regarding expedition of emigration for a certain number of Jews.

    There is much more here. Please read it. I have no easy answers for what these people should have done. They were placed in a position no one should ever have to face.

  51. To clarify: no, it’s you who think that god exist, should provide evidence. Not me.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing that you could supply as objective, hard fact to make “pro” case. End of story.

  52. I’m open to the fact that jews are for some reason a gifted people. But i also understand that gifts in life often come in the form of trade offs. Like the gifted mathematician is statistically more likely to suffer with social ills sort of thing. Could there be a tradeoff we’re missing that jews have been dealt that keeps bringing them back to this same scenario? I’m just sayin….

  53. Thank you for the clarification tatyana, I’m much clearer on your reasoning now.

    Might I respond to your comment “to be moral one does not need to believe in divine presence or derive his ethics from commandments.” without any expectation of a reply?

    As your making that statement, indicates to me that I have been insufficiently clear.

    I quite agree that one can be highly moral in the absence of religion. Religion is not a prerequisite for a personal morality.

    I even agree that many of our moral customs are the result of evolved individual’s insights and the consequent societal adoption of their articulated moral precepts, resulting in societal evolution.

    My point is that because that is a personal morality, based upon personal opinion, it lacks the requisite ‘gravitas’ or weight for lasting social cohesion. Which is my primary concern.

    Someone else’s personal morality is bound to be different from another’s and their’s from anothers.

    Because the opinions upon which premise is founded differ, no basis exists for proving one set of personal morals or opinion, superior to another.

    Thus, a society’s moral precepts become reduced to the current consensus of the majority and, what one generation defines as moral another may and will supersede, in which case your rights are not inviolate but dependent upon the current whim of the mob.

    If this is so, then the only basis upon which unalienable rights can be posited is upon the basis of their being granted by an agency above and beyond the will of any human consensus, for no matter how rational the consensus because rationality rests upon premise and premise is opinion.

    I hope that makes my position equally clear but if not, the fault lies entirely in my lack of sufficient clarity.

  54. “Jews bring ourselves to the same scenario? So it’s our fault the world persecute us?”

    No it’s not the Jews fault and I personally didn’t interpret Steve’s comment to imply that either.

    That said, are you saying that the entire world is out to get the Jews? I know it can sem that way and despite the evidence, which we talk about frequently, that such is the case, when put that way, it sounds awfully like a persecution complex, wouldn’t you have to agree?

    Despite my step-mother being Jewish, I haven’t known many Israeli’s but my sister has, she likes them a lot, but unequivocally states that they can be a bit arrogant and brusque. She thinks it may be a national characteristic.

    Is it reasonable for a culture to believe for millennia, it to be God’s chosen one’s and not take a bit of pride in that distinction? Pride that might be interpreted by others as arrogance?

    Consider the terms gentile and goyim.

    I’ve heard both used and the dictionary defines them as;
    Gentile: A Jewish term for someone who is not Jewish
    Goyim: Non-Jews, in Hebrew and Yiddish. Literally, the “peoples.” Sometimes used pejoratively.

    Two words for other people’s, interesting. Perhaps one reserved for gentile’s we don’t like? But it can be used as a racial and/or ethnic slur.

    Consider what 2,000+ years of persecution does to a people. It wouldn’t be human not to be guarded, to see others as not to be trusted until proven otherwise, strictly as a defensive reaction.

    Which might create an equal and opposite reaction of offense. Becoming a vicious cycle of who did what first.

    No, the Jews aren’t at fault tatanya but that doesn’t mean they’re not involved and in ways which they’re unaware of that contribute to the situation.

  55. Geoffrey,
    thank you; you expressed it much better then I ever could:
    “one can be highly moral in the absence of religion. Religion is not a prerequisite for a personal morality.

    [I even agree that] many of our moral customs are the result of evolved individual’s insights and the consequent societal adoption of their articulated moral precepts, resulting in societal evolution. ”

    From that point, however, we part.

    There need not to be a basis for proving superiority of individual opinion. Morals evolve like free market. Or Brown’s movement. It is a collection of factors that influence each other in ever-sophisticated ways; it is not a simple sum of all parts.

    Thus, a society’s moral precepts become reduced to the current consensus of the majority and, what one generation defines as moral another may and will supersede, in which case your rights are not inviolate but dependent upon the current whim of the mob.

    But that exactly what happens, with or without a common reference to a holy book or divine revelation: interpretation of that same book and those same revelations has been transformed in centuries and adapted to society’s (“mob’s”, if you will) of the moment. Morals of Renaissance’ Italy are not the same as morals of contemporary Italians…or even Italian-Americans (I’ve friends on Staten Island, you know…) – despite the same source of reference, more or less.
    And that’s taking relatively isolated and consistent example of Roman Catholicism – what if we compared Amish and Greek Orthodox? Or “old believers” of Russian Orthodox and Unitarians? [the latter example provides especially striking contrast: my best friend in 1st college grew in a family of Old Believers – and I lived for 7.5 years across the magnificent cathedral on the picture at 2nd link. I am familiar with both ethic/moral system imposed by either religion close and personal)

    And all of them claim to derive their tenets directly from the same Christian texts. All claim to represent an agency “above and beyond the will of any human consensus” – do I have to bring other major religions, who claim the same thing, too?

    About the word “inalienable”: I always find the logic that lies behind wording of Constitution a bit…illogical. Of course we have inalienable rights – but the statement that it is so because the god gave them to us can not be accepted as a serious argument, not in any meaningful sense. It is such a childish statement (cute, I admit, and sweet in it’s absolute self-assurance).
    Because let’s say – here’s a King listening to this announcement, and he counters it with: “No way, Jose; God gave ME an inalienable right, first and foremost! And it have been like this for thousand years – and many generations of Popes and bishops and scholars in monasteries confirmed it and divined it from holy texts! Y’all are heretics and must be burned at stake!” (and he proceeds to do just that…)

    And now we hear a chorus -no, it’s mine! no, mine! mine, too! i’m the god’s chosen! no, it’s me, stupid!

    Oy, gevalt.

    You want to know my take? we have inalienable rights because we just have. We have a right to freedom just like we have a right to air. We live, therefore we have a right to breath, to support our bodies with food and defend them with shelter – and to a freedom of speech, and thought, and ideas, and love, and friendship…

  56. I’m with Steve. The more I look at the views of liberal Jews, the more I see a mental denseness–maybe even a certain craziness. There seems to be a constant confusion between the “ideal” and the “reality.”

    Sure, many Jews can be amazingly talented, but some of those very same people simply cannot question their liberal beliefs, even when offered contrary ideas. Instead, they get angry, use the tu quoque arguments, or end the conversation on an angry note.

    So who’s crazy here?

    BTW, when I was a child my mother told me that Jews are not often drunks but they are often mental cases. In my own family, I know that there are at least 5 mentally ill people. That seems like a high number for one extended family.

    Sorry to raise provocative points so late at night, but I really would like to discuss this issue some time. The behavior of liberal American Jews is simply NOT rational. I say that as a former liberal myself. However, I’m able to discuss issues rationally, even if they make me uncomfortable. That makes me almost an outcast in my social circle.

  57. Promethea: why do you single out Jews among other liberals? Could it be that all those qualities you list are characteristics not of ethnic background but of common ideology?

    Let’s return to the topic of this post:
    Helen Thomas is not a Jew (thank you, oh merciful non-existent God!). She is a Lebanese-American of Greek Orthodox denomination. And she posses all of the faults you accuse liberal Jews of having. As millions of other lefties. So where is this desire to blame everything oyu think unpleasant on the Jews comes from?

  58. Geoffrey:
    before coming to America I never heard the word “gentile”. Goyim is an Yiddish word. It’s possible that thre are two words meaning the same thing simply because they are words from two different languages. Nothing sinister, no dark conspiracy behind it.

    I would very much appreciate if you spell my name thusly: T A T Y A N A. Not tatanya, not titalia, not kechana (my personal favorite from a vast colelction of misspellings of my name).

    And it’s not 2000 years. We are much older than you.

  59. A very important question of compatibility of liberalism and objective, provable foundation of moral was raised. I can only give here my opinion: no, such foundation can not be found in humanism only, without invoking some transcentental, trans-humanistic perspective. The best attempt in this direction was that of Immanuil Kant, but it also was flawed: while his logic was perfect, its axiomatic basis was weak. Kant simply accepted it as self-evident; but it became looking self-evident only after centuries of Christian culture, and for those who lack this cultural conditioning or rejected it, just the opposite position can be taken. Which was prooved by Nazi.

  60. Helen Thomas has hated Jews ever since King Solomon made her give up that baby.

    I depply, deeply regret that Helen Thomas is a vicious, senile, contemptible ambulatory turd.

  61. Tatyana believes in argument by fiat… She says God does not exist, therefore he doesn’t. Of course, one needs to be omniscient to know that…

    Either that or she has stronger faith than most self-professed Christians…

  62. Easy there, Tatyana. It seems this thread has struck two nerves as far as you are concerned. Everyone has opinions. No one owns the truth; the best we can do is to share it.

  63. Easy there
    Oblio, you confuse me with your dog.
    I don’t follow commands.

    setnaffa: believers say god exist, so apparently he(?) does. So who’s operating by fiat?

    Listen, you have oyur convictions, I have mine. Just don’t profess as if you’re the one with truest truth there is – because you aren’t. And if mine is only an opinion – so is yours.

  64. Helen Thomas, a woman whose inner beauty is rivaled only by her physical beauty.

  65. TATYANA,

    Sorry about the misspelling, it was late at night and merely a misplacement of the letter y.

    I’ve heard both words used here in America both verbally and in print. I wasn’t implying a dark conspiracy, not even by ‘the elders of zion’! I pointed to those words as further evidence of tribalism and the counter-reaction of the Jewish community”s ghettoization.

    I’m well aware of the age of the Jewish culture being far longer than merely since Christ. I purposely used that figure as prior to Christianity, Judaism wasn’t singled out for religious persecution, which was the context and point of my using the 2000+ years figure.

    Before Christ, Israel faced tribal and national opposition and while bondage in Egypt was ‘persecution’ of a weaker tribe (quite common) it was not religious in nature.

    As for your other response, apparently I failed to adequately explain it, evidenced by your statements, “we have inalienable rights because we just have”. (btw, its “un”alienable, common mistake)

    And by your assertion that basing unalienable rights upon the existence of a ‘God’ is a childish notion and one not to be taken seriously.

    It’s perfectly fine for “because we just have” to be an adequate basis for you personally. It utterly fails however as a rational basis for predicating the assertion that we have unalienable rights.

    ‘Unalienable’ rights means they cannot be taken away, certainly not by a distant king and not even by ‘evolving’ social standards of what is agreed upon by a future majority.

    When considering the basis and justification for unalienable rights, it isn’t important nor the issue whether there actually is a God or ‘higher power’. What is important is that there be societal consensus that our rights transcend human opinion.

    For if they are based upon opinion, however high the consensus, they remain opinion and cannot be characterized as unalienable.

    In a purely secular society of atheists, ‘rights’ would be so based, upon a consensus of the majority. It would be impossible for such a society to state that their rights were unalienable, as they would be based upon consensus opinion. Which means their rights could be taken away because all that would be necessary is for consensus opinion to change, which means the ‘whim of the mob’ is all that stands between slavery and persecution of any minority.

    If, by now you don’t see the inexorable logic of this tatyana, I suspect your atheism won’t allow it.

  66. Tatyana, did it ever occur to you that there is a g-d but that he is hopelessly incompetent?

  67. Tatyana, is is you who are giving orders, as if to a dog. You state opinions and declare that not only are there no refutations, there are no possible refutations. You state that things are quite obviously so, you don’t wish to discuss them, and then discuss them more.

    I will leave off commenting on whether your statements about God’s existence or lack of existence are true. I am referring only to your application of the rules of logical discussion here. I’m not talking God here, I’m talking about reasoning itself. You are making categorical statements – always logically suspect – and declaring there is no possibility you are even 1% wrong on this.

    Whether there is some solid emotional and psychological reason for taking this attitude I don’t know. Perhaps your experiences could lead you to no other conclusion. But it is not reason that brings you to these particular statements, however much reason may have brought you to you philosophical beliefs. There is some self-knowledge you are avoiding. That’s the only path that leads to where you stand.

  68. Bob:
    that’s an anthropomorphism ..oh what’s the proper Latin construction for transferring human traits to a deity?

    On the other hand – that’s exactly what various religious believers have been doing for thousands of years. A range of transfer, actually, from virtues to failings.

  69. Geoffrey,

    And what would you call the destruction of a first temple by Babylonians? Why would they destroy Jewish religious symbol, if the beef was simply tribal?
    See, it is a futile business, trying to separate Jewish religion from Jewish identity going deep into antiquity: it has been inseparable for 5.500 yrs. The main difference, so intolerable to various tribes that Jews possessed was their Monotheism. You have been inconsistent: if you say the wars with ancient Jews were tribal and had nothing to do with religion, then you should be able to observe that contemporary Arab states, surrounding Israel (and consisting not only of Muslims, but other confessions – and they all equally united in their hatred of Jews) do the same; religion then only a smokescreen. If however you’re not inclined to discount role of religious hatred in current events, then you should be able to see the religious element present in ancient times, too.

    “Ghettoization” is an interesting choice of words to use when talking to a Jew. Maybe you should look into the original meaning of it, not the way it is currently misused in relation to city projects occupied by welfare-dependent urban population.
    Ghettos were set for Jews in Europe starting in Middle Ages – everywhere, from Islamic and then Catholic Spain to Italian cities-states to German lands to Poland and finally to Russia’s Pale. It might be news to you, but we didn’t lock ourselves there out of our own volition – and we couldn’t exit out of our own volition. In fact, generations of Jews fought for the legal right not to be locked in ghettos.

    You should make up your mind, Geoffrey, what is it you’re accusing us of: first you ask me, incredulous, “are you saying that the entire world is out to get the Jews?” and talk about persecution complex, then you say “after 2000 years of persecution”…so do we or don’t we have a reason for being convinced the world is against us?
    You don’t like the tint of pejorative in the word goyim? Well, sorry, but the peoples around us did everything in their power to persuade us of our strangeness and eternal foreignness…no matter how well we adapted their language, laws and customs. Small wonder, don’t you think, that we believed it ourselves?

    As to your other question: no, I don’t see anything new or “inexorable” in your line of arguing. Only sophistry, polished by centuries of scholastic exercise. I regret my effort of last night’ typing; it seems to be totally in vain.

    Sorry for the misspelling of “unalienable” and thank you for correcting me.

  70. Nuts, quakky ole Helen just quit/was fired. She was sooo perfect as the spokeswoman for the Anti-Semitic Left. Who can we kick around now?

  71. AVI: sorry you get so upset.
    I make categorical statements because some truths are “self-evident” and are not subject for discussion, at least for me. If I was not sure in my principles I might engaged in debate club.

  72. Tatyana, you are a great foil. Without you, it would be much harder to state the fundamental planks of neoconservativism and the suppositions on which our great American Constitution and Declaration of Independence exist.

    Isn’t it instructive that the progressive intellectuals of today, like Helen Thomas, rely less on reasoned inquiry and open investigation and more on emotion and group-think. People find frustrating the current academic and intellectual temper and its reliance on authority and lack of tolerance for other opinions.

    The world has seen the soviet dream of athiesm. It has caused a greater and longer harm than even the German brand of fascism. You might (this is not a command) ponder on whether there is any contradiction in your enjoying freedom in a land that calls the Soviet Union “evil,” which is the land of athiesm. It hasn’t been athiesm which made America the land of freedom and life for the world.

  73. It takes as much faith to believe there is no god as it does to believe that god exists. The fact that one may be sufficiently intelligent to understand phenomena that lesser minds attribute to the workings of a diety does not eliminate the possibility that a diety causes those things one does not understand.

  74. Curtis: and it hasn’t been atheism that made Soviet regime repulsive.

    I have no idea what you mean under “foil” (and have no desire to find out). I, too, have developed a certain solid opinion about you.
    And about conservatives in general.

    Glad I’m not one.

  75. Thank you, Tatyana. I love being called a conservative. And I rather like you if you don’t mind, if that’s okay with you.

    A foil is a person that contrasts with another character (usually the protagonist) in order to highlight various features of the main character’s personality: to throw the character of the protagonist into sharper relief. …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(literature)

  76. Pingback:The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  77. See, Curtis, you’re a good example of unattractive traits in religious conservatives : I say i DON’T want to know what the word means, and you immediately fetch a wiki definition for me.
    I say I DON”T want to engage in theological debate – and I get poked and provoked and then people get upset that I’m so categorical and don’t want to “examine” my convictions.

    Why don’t you trust what i say? I’m on the surface, what you see is what you get. No ulterior motives, honest.

  78. What is wrong with what she said? Israel has been slowly taking over land that is not theirs and killing Palestinains for decades. I am happy that someone had the guts to speak her mind and I support her.

    Israel has more lobbyist in this country than any other country or corporation. Look it up; it’s a fact. Americans will never know just how evil the Israel Empire really is as long as our government is in bed with them.

    My quote to Israel is “go home and leave the Palestine alone”.

  79. What made Soviet regime repulsive was its extreme arrogance in transgression of all sacred norms of civilized behavior. And what made it so arrogant? Atheism, of course. In every culture there are some unalienable rights, and they are sacred (like taboo). Remove this notion of sacrality, and there will be no limit to savagery and mayham.

  80. Robert K
    What is wrong with what she said? Israel has been slowly taking over land that is not theirs and killing Palestinains for decades.

    If you bothered to examine the historical record, you would find out that Palestinians and their fellow Arabs do a better job of killing Palestinians than do the Israelis. Two words for you: “Black September.”

    But you have no complaint about that. How come?

  81. “I am happy that someone had the guts to speak her mind and I support her.”

    Robert K,

    If you like Helen Thomas so much, why don’t you go straight to Hell with her, you anti-Jewish brute? I’m sure you’d make great gutter music together!

  82. Robert: Just like Tatyana, you don’t want to examine your convictions, a/k/a your beliefs. I guess that’s kind of like the “witnessing” that religious zealots engage in, when they assert that something is true because their god told them so. Such arrogance has little utility in a reasoned discussion of difficult problems.

  83. RobertK,

    Israeli’s are home.

    As for the evil Israeli ’empire’, it is within Islam’s power to stop the violence at any time. It merely has to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and lay down it’s arms.

    Muslim’s are attacking Israel, not Israeli’s attacking Islam.

    Justifications aside, that IS what is happening and nothing you can say can change the reality of the situation. You ask us to believe you, rather than our ‘lying eyes’.

  84. Tatyana,

    I’ll respond in a bit to your last comment to me, as it’s time for lunch.

    To anyone else on the thread, I’ve purposely refrained from engaging tatyana about the existence of God per se, out of respect for her not wanting to discuss it and because it’s irrelevant to my position.

  85. I have to agree with Robert a bit, not with the prescription but with a detail, it is wrong that Israeli settlers are allowed to steal Palestinian land, and let’s not be naive we know what the warrant is for doing so, “God gave us this land”. Well which God says this? The Palestinians say their God gave it to them. Religion make the Israel/Palestinian question impossible to resolve. Still, I would never be so stupid as to say, “Israelis go home” The children that were born there that is most definitely their home. Are the parents supposed to leave without their children? Reactionary Leftism has no sense of ethics, just what can we do to take a jab at the Right today? And no matter the cost, no matter how wicked our allies need be. Robert is less than a walking turd.

  86. Donna V:

    Unfortunately, the price we pay for being good at science, medicine, music, art, literature, etc., is that we suck at politics. All the way back to the Judges, the fall of the Davidic Kingdom, the Hasmonaens, etc., etc., etc. And we probably always will.

    betsybounds and neo:

    Colaboration and the moral dilemmas it prodiuces are nothing new. I understand that in the New Testament, the High Priest says to Jesus’s followers, “Look, if we don’t give the Romans this man, they’ll kill a lot more of us, and they’ll put somebody worse in. What would you have us do?” or words to that effect. Exactly the same things that the Judenrat members said.

  87. nyomythus:
    I have to agree with Robert a bit, not with the prescription but with a detail, it is wrong that Israeli settlers are allowed to steal Palestinian land

    Regarding the Arabs who left in ’48, most of whom did so at the behest of their leaders, who had anticipated driving Jews into the sea, I consider their loss of property a wash, as their loss is comparable to what Jewish inhabitants of Arab lands lost when they immigrated to Israel. While the Arabs who left in 1948 should be compensated for their loss of property, an issue which the Israelis by and large agree with, I see no movement on the part of the Arabs for similar compensation for Jews from Arab lands who went to Israel.

    [I imagine that in 1948 the Arabs had planned no corresponding compensation for property left behind by Jews whom the Arabs wanted to drive into the sea. Moreover, all land which was Jewish-owned before 1948 had been fairly purchased.]

    From what I have read, post-1967 transfers of property in the West Bank and the Gaza between Arabs and Jewish Israelis were purchases and sales, not confiscations. Correct me if I am wrong. Is it verboten for an Arab to sell property to a Jew?

    So much for stealing, nyomythus.

  88. Tatyana,

    “And what would you call the destruction of a first temple by Babylonians? Why would they destroy Jewish religious symbol, if the beef was simply tribal?

    Destroying the Temple, the central focus of the Israelite’s makes perfect tactical sense if your objective is to destroy a religiously centered society’s will to resist or regroup. It does not however equate to persecution.

    ”See, it is a futile business, trying to separate Jewish religion from Jewish identity going deep into antiquity: it has been inseparable for 5.500 yrs.”

    I never suggested or attempted to rhetorically separate “Jewish religion from Jewish identity”, perhaps you have me confused with another commenter? Or am I missing an unintended implication I may have made?

    ”The main difference, so intolerable to various tribes that Jews possessed was their Monotheism.”

    On a historical basis, I can’t agree with that assertion. Prior to Christianity, conflicts with Israel appear to have been land-based territorial conflicts.

    ”You have been inconsistent: if you say the wars with ancient Jews were tribal and had nothing to do with religion, then you should be able to observe that contemporary Arab states, surrounding Israel (and consisting not only of Muslims, but other confessions – and they all equally united in their hatred of Jews) do the same; religion then only a smokescreen. If however you’re not inclined to discount role of religious hatred in current events, then you should be able to see the religious element present in ancient times, too.”

    I’m afraid that it is you who are being less than consistent in your logic. Israel’s conflicts being tribal and territorial prior to the advent of both Christianity and Islam and, conflicts being assessed as primarily religious afterward is entirely consistent with each religion claiming new ownership of the title “people of the book”.

    Currently, and for reasons previously discussed, the Left has decided that it advances their agenda to pursue aggression against Israel.

    ”“Ghettoization” is an interesting choice of words to use when talking to a Jew. Maybe you should look into the original meaning of it, not the way it is currently misused in relation to city projects occupied by welfare-dependent urban population.”

    I apologize if my use of that word created personal discomfort. It was not my intention to offend, it merely was used as a descriptive word to encapsulate the situation the Jews endured. And I’m well aware that it was not voluntary, as I imagine any reasonably well educated person knows.

    “You should make up your mind, Geoffrey, what is it you’re accusing us of: first you ask me, incredulous, “are you saying that the entire world is out to get the Jews?” and talk about persecution complex, then you say “after 2000 years of persecution”…so do we or don’t we have a reason for being convinced the world is against us?”

    I’m not accusing Jews of anything, merely reporting impressions that other people have and suggesting that where there’s smoke, there may be a bit of fire involved.

    If you carefully reread what I said, perhaps you’ll notice the care I used in choosing my words. As I understood that criticism, no matter how constructive in intent is a delicate matter, on so sensitive a subject. I tried to convey that any paranoia and defensiveness was quite understandable, given 2000+ yrs of persecution and tatyana, the entire world is not against you. Jews and Israel have many staunch friends and the world has not run out of righteous gentiles.

    ”You don’t like the tint of pejorative in the word goyim? Well, sorry, but the peoples around us did everything in their power to persuade us of our strangeness and eternal foreignness…no matter how well we adapted their language, laws and customs. Small wonder, don’t you think, that we believed it ourselves?”

    I’m not so thin skinned that I take offense at a blanket assertion about gentiles, nor am I so naive as to think that all Jews are persecuted saints. And yes, they did “everything in their power to persuade us of our strangeness and eternal foreignness”..I don’t dispute that and even indicated my agreement.

    The Jews are simply human beings who’ve been blessed/cursed with the charge of conveying to the world, God’s message of salvation, which in my view, includes both the Old and New testaments. As Jesus was a Jewish carpenter and never renounced his Jewish identity.

    ”As to your other question: no, I don’t see anything new or “inexorable” in your line of arguing. Only sophistry, polished by centuries of scholastic exercise.”

    ‘Centuries of scholastic enterprise”? I’m not THAT old! 😉
    Nor am I engaged in sophistry, I merely follow the logic that extends from the premise, which leads to the conclusion. Ancient Greeks gift to us, shared long ago and, rigorous logic does not yield to written manipulation and is quite inexorable,which is its primary value.

    It can be depended upon to expose fallacies and truths without bias or favor, when honestly engaged in, which I have done despite your obvious discomfort with my assertions.

    Perhaps one of these days you’ll be able to see past your atheism, to see the inherent logic of my assertion by realizing I’m not making a case for God per se but for the need for unalienable rights to be posited upon a basis that transcends mere opinion, by an individual or a majority consensus.

    I’m simply saying that even a majority’s consensus of opinion is inadequate to the requirements of positing the existence of unalienable rights. And that ‘rights’, which aren’t unalienable, aren’t rights at all.

    ”I regret my effort of last night’ typing; it seems to be totally in vain.”

    Your efforts haven’t been in vain tatyana, they simply haven’t yielded the results you hoped for, but they have got us closer to the heart of the matter and that result is never in vain.

  89. Gringo:

    Now that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are in power, it is a death penalty offence to sell land in the “Palestinian Territory” to a Jew. So, in Israel, anybody can sell or buy property anywhere to or from whomever he or she wants, but in Palestinian Territory, to sell to a Jew is death. And which is the “apartheid” state?

  90. Oh, thanks Sergey for the supporting view that it was atheism which was responsible for, as you put it, the arrogant. Good choice of words. The man whom God chose to give the law to, Moshe, was called in the Torah, the meekest man on earth.

  91. Geoffrey,
    I haven’t hoped for any results, I was just answering your never-ending inquiries -and made a mistake of being too polite to ignore them.
    I don’t know what were you hoped for, but certainly this conversation did not “got us closer o the heart of the matter”: we are firmly where we started. I am still of the same opinion re: uselessness of religion and its disconnect from origin of morals. You, obviously, haven’t changed your mind about anything either.
    I think you should practice your patronising tone and never-ending stream of the same arguments rehashed and rephrased on somebody else. Or, as you nicely put it, “engage” someone else.

    Or better yet, you, and Oblio, and Curtis, and AVI, and Captain Rusty and few other teamsters – you should all talk amongst yourselves, pat your collective backs, and go practice church soccer or something. I’m well over the age when I’ll entertain some guy online telling me I have to “examine”myself.

  92. Curtis, I think she was referring to my comment. I thought it would rankle.

    Let me put it a different way. You have insulted many. You have made illogical statements. Who has insulted you? Who has approached you illogically?

    What are the obvious conclusions that an observer would draw from that?

    I can entirely understand that you see no reason to believe in God. That may be right or wrong, but it is not illogical. Where it goes wrong is in declaring things you see no reason for to be therefore “self-evident.” That does not follow.

    To return to where the conflict started. You did a nice finding of a literary quote. You commented on the value of the quote. GB asked you to clarify. You wrote the statements “morality has nothing to do with religion:” and “You and many here might not like it, or object to it – it doesn’t change the fact.” Others pursued whether you meant that as written. The use of the word “nothing” in the first statement and “fact” in the second seemed unsupportable. As most people in most times have had a religion, and religions talk about morality, surely a little something might have crept in? We were sure we misunderstood. You could not possibly be making that statement.

    You continued by trying to make a pronouncement, then close the discussion, rather like a fighter who punches someone and then says “but I have no wish to fight. Let’s stop now.” You were challenged on your statements, not your belief, and as far as I can see, politely. You became increasingly insulting.

    When stupid people do this, it could be for many reasons. When intelligent people do it – and I have found you to be intelligent – there is some separate issue preventing reason. I have no idea what that issue is, nor is it any of my business. I simply point out – mostly for the sake of the other discussants, but with hope that it may have value to you, even if it is unpleasant – that something outside the discussion is affecting it.

  93. The Leftist playbook about l’affaire Thomas has been to shout “Pat Buchanan! Pat Buchanan! what about HIM?”

    “Yes, what Helen said is regrettable, unfortunate, blah – blah – blah … Oh, look! A squirrel!”

  94. Inability of atheists to recognize their own zealotry and dogmatism is the most striking feature of their creed. They are probably the most dogmatic and intolerant tribe on the planet – but accuse everybody in dogmatism and intolerance. Projection in full swing.

  95. For my part, I don’t play soccer, and I don’t have a dog. I have a cat, who is handsome, affectionate, and talkative, but he sometimes bites. Mrs. Oblio rescued him–as a 3 year old–from the Humane Society. He had been returned a couple of times, so I think we were his last chance. We’re not sure how he was socialized before he came to live with us. He’s the terror of the local chipmunk and bird populations, and the baby bunnies had best look sharp. All this is upsetting to the little girls who live next door.

  96. “”Inability of atheists to recognize their own zealotry and dogmatism is the most striking feature of their creed””
    Sergey

    That, and the striking reduction of such a wonderful world into a happenstance hell hole that shouldn’t have been. There should be no mystery why atheist centered societies are going nowhere fast.

  97. There is some communists’ quote about how if one takes away the “Nobility” some populace perceives that they have, then they can be conquered more easily. “Nobility” commonly comes from a religion such as christianity which preaches that humans are special and god loves you, Islam as well has this… It seems to me an obvious answer to the question why do naturalism and liberalism go together so well.

  98. # Sergey Says:

    Inability of atheists to recognize their own zealotry and dogmatism is the most striking feature of their creed. They are probably the most dogmatic and intolerant tribe on the planet – but accuse everybody in dogmatism and intolerance. Projection in full swing.

    Full swing, my ding-a-ding. Atheist say we can not know, and do not trust those who say they do know. Do Atheist say the universe was designed with “me” in mind? No, that would be arrogant. It is humble to say, their probably is no personal god, who knows there may be something of a grand creator, but the evidence really points to the contrary, ultimately we can not say for absolute sure either way, and do not trust any one who says they do know, they do so so that they can have power over other by claiming that god speaks to them, and thus have control over other in the one TRUE world that really does exist ……. this one.

  99. America … is a secular republic. The society of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Lincoln, Einstein all of whom were not Christians, they may have been deist, but they wee not theist, they may have mentioned God in this or that, but that doesn’t make a person a sincere Christian does it. You must have ”faith” that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and that he died on the cross to wash away your sins, and that he rose after 3 days and lives everlasting, and is the one you beseech to forgive you of your sins. Those men were not Christians and yet they are some of the key founders, to name a few, of the United States .. if America is declining it is because we have strayed from our secular roots.

    Religion makes solutions IMPOSSIBLE because it decrees to faith and divine revelation instead of reason, ideas, skepticism, the Israeli and Palestine question are glaring examples of this.

    There are Atheist on the Right so get over it.

  100. nyomythus, you confuse atheism and agnosticism. To be agnostic is a stance of humility. Too be an atheist, not so much. Sergey has a point.

    Yet I will welcome atheists, too, if they oppose the Left.

  101. Pingback:BizzyBlog

  102. I truly wanted to type a quick remark to thank you for those lovely advice you are posting at this site. My time-consuming internet lookup has at the end been honored with beneficial facts to exchange with my visitors. I would suppose that many of us site visitors actually are really endowed to be in a fantastic place with many awesome people with insightful techniques. I feel rather fortunate to have discovered your webpages and look forward to some more entertaining minutes reading here. Thanks a lot once more for a lot of things.

  103. Pingback:Helen Thomas Non-Apology Apology for Hateful Anti-Semitic Comments | Apology Index

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>