"We Are All Jews Now!"

The famous painting by Otto Dix 'The Skat Players' 1920, Gallerie der Stadt Stuttgart, Germany

URGENT MESSAGE: Due to the large number of comments on this post (almost 400 at present), and 550 on the previous one, in order to circumvent the new Typepad system which allows only 50 per page, I have changed the display to show newest comments first. You can then click on 'next' to read the previous ones 50 at a time.

Thank you for the hundreds of e-mails of support, begging me not to stop blogging, even if it means a post a week, an image, anything. The jury is still out...

I have been temporarily torpedoed out of my Sabbatical cocoon by this e-mail, in response to my original post called The Myth of Palestine Part II, which happens to be my favorite of all time on ATB (Part I is here). The e-mail sent my heart rate pumping, and reaching for my pills. Perhaps having stayed away from blogging had weakened my stomach for these 'anonymous cowards' who frequently pollute my Inbox. Like this one, more often than not they are in response to my Myth of Palestine posts linked to above:

I disagree. They do exists and have every right to. Racist Israelis such as yourself are one of the problem in the Middle East. If anything, the UN and the US made a mistake by creating a Jewish state. You guys were wiped off by the Romans. I wondered why? Now, with the help the American tax money, you guys are wiping the Palestinians off the map.

While Americans pay attention to China's treatment of Tibet, the world is watching Israel and their annihilation of the Palestinians.

Keep hiding under your yamacas [sic], because Karma is a bitch.

For the umpteenth time....[yawn]: I am not Israeli, nor am I Jewish. I don't wear a yarmulke, I wear Prada. If that makes me 'The Devil', so be it. Just so that we all understand each other, I am a devout Christian, and I am vehemently against the tyranny of Islamofascism. Calling me a racist simply because I am pro-Jewish, is simply ignorant.

Unlike you dear Anonymous, I don't hide under a rock, you can find out who I am simply by clicking 'ABOUT' in the top right hand corner of my Blog.

I have written enough about Israel, the so called 'Palestine', and the whole mess in the Middle East, for everyone to know that I am fiercely pro-Israel. Realizing that the Arabs in Saudi are finally reaching an understanding of the realities facing the conflict in the Middle East, it is uncanny to think that, sanity is prevailing, and the region is accepting that siding with extremists is going to get them killed at best, and let them be seen to be 'sleeping with the enemy' and then get killed anyway, at worst.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: after nearly 40 years of pin-point targeted response to Arab rabid hostilities leading to this perverse situation where the West pays the Palestinian officials, synonymous with terrorism, billions of Dollars so that they can keep spitting into Israel's face, we have come a full circle.

Nothing changes. Let's just sit tight whilst Iran builds its nuclear bomb, so that we can all cry about it afterwards, like we did when we calmly watched Hitler slaughter the Jews.

One of my favorite quotes from Charles Moore @ The Telegraph published a while back, to be never more relevant as it is today:

All I want to ask my fellow Europeans [and Americans] is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

I believe we suffer from acute self-aggrandizement and individualistic hyperbole, which in the final analysis is nothing but ignorant arrogance as it is both hollow and superficial in all its aspects.

In many ways, the term 'Clash of Civilizations' contains the seeds of a most comprehensive truth. I am afraid though that we will have to come to terms with the fact, that the lines will prove to be much more blurred and drawn criss-cross throughout our society. Just when we reluctantly acknowledge the reality of a long-drawn-out conflict centering around religious beliefs; just when we thought that the factions could be limited to those of Judea-Christian beliefs versus Islamic ones, must we realize, that the scope is far wider: Faith versus Skepticism with all its variations such as cynicism, pessimism, disbelief, agnosticism, atheism, and anti-Semitism. In short, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless, otherwise called Nihilism.

The lines in the sand have been drawn...as I have said before: "We Are All Jews Now"!

As Sir Winston Churchill wisely said, and my father bravely lived: "You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life."

Indeed.

Comments

[Ken Pierce]

Ali,

One thing Alexandra does NOT object to, is long comments. And I would imagine that your English is quite a bit better than either my or Alexandra's Farsi.

If it helps, I've known Alexandra for a long time, and she doesn't have any problems with non-jihadist Muslims such as my Kazakh Muslim friends. The issue is entirely with people who think that they have some sort of moral obligation to inflict violence upon people who disagree with their religion. Christians by and large got that out of their system a few centuries ago, but lots of the Muslim world is still into it.

Unfortunately, government is intrinsically violent, and therefore to say, "The state ought to be Muslim," is to say, "We Muslims ought to be able to beat the shit out of people who disagree with our religious opinions, but not vice versa." I doubt that's what you see yourself as saying, but it is what you're saying -- exactly the way the typical American leftist runs around saying, "It would be wrong, wrong! to stop a woman from killing her unborn child, but we are absolutely allowed to beat the shit out of anybody who dares to smoke a cigarette in public -- or, at least, to arrest them and fine them and put them in jail and then if they try to resist arrest, then we beat the shit out of them." But the fact is, the typical non-smoking American leftist is happy to go a-clobberin' the unenlightened smokers in his society -- because that's what he's saying when he says, "There oughta be a law against smoking."

And when you say that the state of Iran should be a Muslim state, you're saying that the government of Iran should be prepared to go beating up persons who disagree with whichever part of your religion you want the government to enforce. Good luck keeping yourself from getting beaten up in your turn when your opponents, from a different school of Islam, manage to get power and inform you that you are Not A True Muslim (by their standards) and therefore deserve to get the shit beaten out of YOU by the True Muslims -- that is to say, them.

>
while jew enemity toward christians is incridibly unblieve able ! while christians believe jews killed jesus ,and jew insult jesus by saying he was son of ...anywasy !
>

Actually, I find very little enmity toward Christians from Jews. I find a great deal of enmity toward Christians from the nuttier brand of Muslim, and the enmity of great big huge mobfuls of Muslims toward Jews is only believable because we've seen Naziism before.

In the meantime, while I as a Christian do believe that some Jews played a big part in the death of Jesus, I have news for you: every last one of the Jews who were involved in killing Jesus, died almost two thousand years ago. Why should I blame a modern Jew for something he didn't do? There's not a Jew alive today who helped kill Jesus. And if they happen to think that Jesus was Mary's illegitimate child...well, I disagree with them, but then they have their opinion and I have mine and if God thinks they need to be punished for it He's perfectly capable of punishing them without my help. But the idea that I should hate a modern Jew for something he had absolutely nothing to do with -- that is, if you'll forgive me, really twisted and sick.

As for your complaints against Western support of dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia in the Middle East -- I couldn't agree more with your disgust for those dictatorships or for Western complicity in those dictatorships' survival. On that point we are in full and emphatic agreement.

But if you think that a "true democracy" is one in which protestors are shot and killed by the government, then you still have rather a lot to learn about democracy.

One last point: if Western democracy falls, it won't be because of its support of Israel. It will be because Western democracy long ago lost its heart and soul, lost that critical element of democracy that says, "The rights of other people are just as important as are my rights, and they are more important than are my personal convenience and my wallet." It will be because Western democracy, in its headlong flight from rationality and personal responsibility, long ago lost the ability to distinguish between the rights of individuals (which really exist) and the chimerical "rights" of "nations" and "peoples" and "races" (which do not really exist except as abstractions). It will be precisely because Western democracy overall has become the kind of failed culture that is NOT willing to stand up in defense of the only country in the entire Middle East that actually troubles to protect the rights of individual Palestinians -- that is, Israel.

Nice to have you in the conversation; feel free to fire back and tell me everything I have wrong.

[Ali rathi]

hi Alexandra
i dont know how u can convince ur self to denay palestinians right just by denaying the palestine name ! well there were ppl who were pagan at romans age some of them became christian later and when muslims conquerd jerusalem their language and religion changed anyways ,there were some arab of jrusalem provice !ottomans fell ,they called their new country as palestine ,does it matter ?
i just believe what u ppl call it clash of civilizations is un-stopable and i strongly believe in this nightmare ,the one who will loose evrything is western civilization
u said its time to be jew ,being pro-israel ,united christianity-judaism against islam ,well its so funny how u can stand by jews while jew enemity toward christians is incridibly unblieve able ! while christians believe jews killed jesus ,and jew insult jesus by saying he was son of ...anywasy !its just politics
well as u know the story of usa and middle east is just and just Oil ,the blood of developed world ,in this middle east which is full of that black sweet blood , there is nations mostly arab ,westerns 60year ago brought some ppl from west to middle east ,gave them weapon and recognized them as a country !!!! they genocided ppl who were there and ... then for 60 year they supported that racist regime and granted them tax of their citizens ,usa established dictator regimes in middle . now we know usa needs middle east ,but mid east nation hating usa and it increasing more and more ,also we know the fact that these west established dictator regimes such as kuwait,saudi,bahrain,egypt..etc r soo unpopular bcoz of following west and being dictatorship ...that makes mid east ready/potential for a destructive explusion
ok i said all of that to say ,west civilization going to destroy for the sake of JEWS ! well i feel good about that !
look at mideast ,where ever is democrasy ,the anti america parties gain power ,and look the only democratic country in region is iran ,all other mid east countries r dictatorship and ally with west ,this is called double standards !
and finally according to logo on ur weblog "support for democrasy in iran " ,,i should say im an iranian living in iran ! and i have to tell u my nation is proud of its theocratic democrasy ,if u want to change a regime go start with ur close friend saudi arabia which women cant even drive !lol ,then u want democrasy for iran which is more democratic than u.s? oh and u should know as millions of iranians i voted for dr ahmadinejad in 2005(both rounds)&2009 elections :)
i guess im first true iranian ,devoute theocrat muslim u meet :)
oh and another thing ,i just visited ur profile ,well it was expected for some one who supports the zionist state to favorite Machiavelli book ,the prince ! but it sounded paradoxical when u called ur self a devoute christian in top of this article and then u favorited davinci code !
oh and sorry for my long cmment and sorry i used simple words coz my language isnt english its Persian
just tell me if u responded to my comment ,i leave u my mail and real name
good luck !

[D2S]

Remember the term Anti-American? Now we only hear Anti-Semitic. WHY? Because American interests are irrelevant in the global marketplace. But Anti-Semitic is very important in global economies.

Goldman Sachs has been running this country for a while now. No one besides Ron Paul wants to bring the Fed out for questioning. We are always told it is too complicated. I feel they would rather talk about aliens that landed before they would ever explain their financial motives.

So does that make me an Anti-Semitic? this term which gets thrown around so casually now; even to someone putting up a Christmas tree in public.

All I am saying is that you have a lot of Jewish people at the top chairs of this financial crisis yet no one is losing their jobs over at the Fed or SEC for any of this. So we must assume they are doing their job well and thus question their motives.

They should stop the smoke and mirrors and put these so-called bank stress tests on public display - but no you can't do that. Why? simple, since the stock market changed from a casino that was regulated to a basement poker game ready to explode in a gunfight. There are too many bets on the table and the money too tangled for this game to have a cash out

There are just so many financial tools now that are pure speculation. Call/Put Options, unregulated CDO/CDS, dark pool algo trading, no uptick rule, naked shorts, loose leverage margin rules, etc

So if the Jews have any dignity they would call for them and their fellow non-Jewish bankers to fess up completely for the good of America. But America is not even on the radar anymore in this global market. America is just an engine that needs to keep turning and any patriotic sensibilities are dismissed.

Who's values are we fighting for?

D2S

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I find myself in agreement with GD on this topic. Who Knew?

But there is a resurgent, genocidal fascism loose on the world again, and its particular ideology, rather than say National Socialism, is instead what we've come to call Islamic Fascism. And like the Fascist movements of the 1930's, has a great many versions, and practises, but ultimately seems today to have its own version of the Anti-Comintern Pact.

I believe that one way to actually win the war against the Islmic Fascist menace is to focus on the Fascism aspect of it, possibly rebranding it as "Sectarian Socialism" perhaps. I prefer "Neo-Islamic Fascism".

[miguel]

I NEED to tell you as loudly as I can that you are WAY TOO SPECIAL to do anything but continue for all of us. I've been in a fury about this election. I need to calm down and read your quality work out there. You have no idea of your fantastic value to civilization! You TRULY have no idea! You are too special for me to even try my own description.

Plainly, we need you. Thank you for your wonderous offerings to the uplifting of human kind.

Thanks Miguel

[mac Brachman]

GD: I'm afraid you're right; let's hope someone can fix it... Shalom, Mac B.

[Ghost Dansing]

Hmmmmm this mechanism does seem to be broken.

[Alexandra]

Sorry all, nothing to do with me.
In a typical self serving fashion, Typepad have decided to change their system and show only 50 comments per page, which makes this thread with 370 odd comments, impossible to manage if oldest comments come first as you have to click on 'next' too many times.
I have therefore for the moment, in order to circumvent the system, changed the display to show newest comments first.

[Ghost Dansing]

So I guess if we really want to post new stuff, we have to kinda post and then bookmark where we were....

[Ghost Dansing]

i was made to live in America!

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh..... hi Mac.... I thought something bad happened to my favorite blog. Glad to see you post. I missed you immensely.

[Ghost Dansing]

Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea.
To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune.
To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad,is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president.

--Boris Johnson, U.K. Telegraph

[mac Brachman]

What happened here? I noticed the reply count went from 366 to 368, meaning someone had posted after a month's time. Then I tried to reach the end and had to click "next" several times. Then at the end I see a post, doubled, by "poetryman" maundering about the alleged "atrocities" of Israel against the poor put-upon Palestinians, a pile of hooey to put it mildly. Somebody bring this blog back to life. Please. Shanah Tovah, 3 weeks late. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[thepoetryman]

"You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life."

America has as many or more enemies than Israel due to, not only her funding of Israel while Israel commits atrocities upon the Palestinian peoples while her people (the Jews) as many have stated only want to live in peace, but also due to her preemptive strike policy as of late and due to her foreign policy since 1952 give or take some years.

I know you say that you have studied and written about the Jewish state for some time and I have no reason to doubt that, but I get the strong sense from your writing(s) that you truly do not understand the truth of the Palestinian peoples.

[Ghost Dansing]

That's why I've always said: Clinton was the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

He governed Center Right, and was a believer in global free market laissez faire...... see NAFTA as well.

He and his administration were wrong, but they married-up with the Republicans and the "Contract on America".

The real question about economics during the Clinton administration is how did he do all that Republican-style stuff, crush the deficit that Bush I left as his legacy from the Reagan-Bush years, and have the Country talking about surpluses in the 2000 election cycle?

The second real question is: Why exactly did the Republicans HATE Clinton so much? He was so much like them in his economic policies?

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years.

The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

Kenneth Guenther, executive vice president of Independent Community Bankers of America, an association of small rural banks which opposed the bill, warned, "This is going to begin a wave of major mergers and acquisitions in the financial-services industry. We're moving to an oligopolistic situation."

Yep, that's from the World Socialist Website. Think about how rightist the current Republican Party must be to consider the Clintons Socialists!

And what a mess that Republican economic ideology has made!

[the12thinfidel]

From the NYT's
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

[Ghost Dansing]

Give it up 12th.... the American People are once again paying the price, literally, for the laissez faire economic philosophy championed by the Republican Party.

The function of government is to regulate on behalf of the American People for the common good.

That is why the Republicans hate government because it interferes with mind-numbing profit at any price....... slash-and-burn economy, ignorance of environmental impact, exploitation of global labor markets...... you know, Republican Economics....... the Rich get Richer and Richer until a population is thoroghly raped, then they move on......

Whatever the events of this week mean, nobody should believe the overblown claims that the market crisis signals the death of "free market" ideology. Free market ideology has always been a servant to the interests of capital, and its presence ebbs and flows depending on its usefulness to those interests.

During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalisation for deep cuts to social programmes, and for a renewed push to privatise what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly.

What we don't know is how the public will respond. Consider that in North America, everybody under the age of 40 grew up being told that the government can't intervene to improve our lives, that government is the problem not the solution, that laissez faire was the only option. Now, we are suddenly seeing an extremely activist, intensely interventionist government, seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to save investors from themselves.

This spectacle necessarily raises the question: if the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can't it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosure? By the same token, if $85bn can be made instantly available to buy the insurance giant AIG, why is single-payer health care - which would protect Americans from the predatory practices of health-care insurance companies - seemingly such an unattainable dream? And if ever more corporations need taxpayer funds to stay afloat, why can't taxpayers make demands in return - like caps on executive pay, and a guarantee against more job losses?

Democrats are Socialists? Balony....... the Republicans have the real Socialist scam going...... Privatize profit but put debt on the Public sector...... talk about creepy.

The Republican Economy

 

 

[the12thinfidel]

Another stupid post by you, gd...looks like the NYT's is still digging to find the last subscriber...or are you the volunteer for that 'honor'?

"The crisis on Wall Street is fundamentally a failure to do the things that temper, detect and punish corruption and greed."

Why would that have prevented Franklin Raines at Freddie Mac from falsifying signatures and books to make $millions in bonus money, paying a $3M fine on a guilty plea and keeping $50M? Why is Raines working for Obama now? Why would FreddieM have been allowed to donate big bucks to Schumer and Obama for their support? What penalty has Jamie Gorelick paid for the $80M she made at Freddie in bogus bonuses? What would that oversite have been allowed to do to stop bad lending due to existing Congressional programs that Required dubious loans to be made to the bad credit borrowers? The anti-redlining programs started by Carter and expanded by Clinton...you know, gd, your 'stituants.

Since this has nothing to do with your rabid off topic lurking on a great site to create your own free message board, comrade dancing, I appologize to all for even posting a response to the liberalprogressivesocialistmarxist troll.

[Ghost Dansing]

You are kidding right?

John McCain spent Monday claiming as he had countless times before — that the economy was fundamentally sound. Had he missed the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the sale of Merrill Lynch, which were announced the day before? Did he not notice the agonies of the American International Group? Was he unaware of the impending layoffs of tens of thousands of Wall Street employees on top of the growing numbers of unemployed workers throughout the United States?.....

As for Wall Street, Mr. McCain blamed the meltdown on “unbridled corruption and greed.” He called for a commission to find out what happened and propose solutions. His diagnosis and his cure are misguided. The crisis on Wall Street is fundamentally a failure to do the things that temper, detect and punish corruption and greed. It was a failure to police the markets, to enforce rules, to heed and sound warnings and expose questionable products and practices.

The regulatory failure is rooted in a markets-are-good-government-is-bad ideology that has been ascendant as long as Mr. McCain has been in Washington and championed by his own party. If Mr. McCain adheres to some other belief system, we would like to hear about it.

Really really great job you've done here Brownie...... err..... Republican Party and its supporters.

Media indeed...... no way you can spin this amount of abject failure

 

[jackie]

No Ghost, Thank you very much RABIDLY LIBERAL MEDIA for betraying a sacred trust and a sacred priviledge, just so that you could advance your cheap political objectives. Certainly the unprincipled radical left ,and their "tools", have have cost us more than anyone can bear to realise ..........but they will

[Ghost Dansing]

yeah.... he and Brownie have done a really great job here.....

It seemed inevitable that bad things would happen when President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate. But it was left to Earl Devaney, the department’s inspector general — and the busiest gumshoe inside the federal bureaucracy — to demonstrate just how bad things could be.

In three extraordinary reports delivered to Congress this week, Mr. Devaney found that officials at the Minerals Management Service — the division responsible for granting offshore oil leases and collecting royalties — accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drugs and sex with oil company employees as part of what he described as a broader “culture of substance abuse and promiscuity.” ......

......The White House can take no comfort at all. The people it brought to Washington to run the department had no interest in policing the oil, mining and agricultural interests they were sworn to regulate and every interest in promoting industry’s (and their own) good fortune. The most notorious of these was J. Steven Griles, a mining industry lobbyist who really ran the agency for four years and who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Thank you ever so much Republicans for trashing America and making us the laughing stock of the world.

You've set America back 100 years, and we can only hope that all Republican politicians will be flushed down the toilet in November.

[jackie]

Make that a rousing , heartfelt PUBLIC thankyou.....

[jackie]

I really stopped by to lament President Bush's leaving office without a rousing, heartfelt thank you from those of us who feel that he deserves it. I have never seen anything like the rabidly liberal propaganda put out by the "free press" in the last 8 years, all designed to defame and diminish that man. I would SO love to send them a clear reminder that we are not all sheep.

[jackie]

The God of the OT made it clear that he sent His chosen people in to rid the land of those who committed abomination , such as sacrificing children in flames. I think He's been love all along.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh..... by the way..... God is still speaking. It is only human arrogance to think He is bounded by a book or religion....

Apache

[Ghost Dansing]

Thanks Ricardo..... I actually believe the concept of secular government follows logically from true Christian thinking..... it is the condition of governance that allows coexistence and mutual respect among those seeking a spiritual relationship with God.

I disagree with you about the Bible though..... I personally like the Catholic Bible with the words of Christ in red...... there really aren't that many of them, and humans spend the majority of their time ignoring that part.

There is quite a bit of nastiness in the Bible though...... especially the Old Testament.

Somebody on these blogs pointed out that ironically the fundamentalist/evangelical/dominionists  (whom I think are heretical) cling mightly to the vengeful God of the Old Testament, and kinda ignore the message of Christ about God in the New Testament.

The Bible, like the Torah are really different types of scriptures than the Koran...... the Koran is more like the Book of Mormon in that it was conceived by a single prophet that had intentions to institute a Religion..... there is much reflection of his very human condition with the spiritual tradition mixed in with the mahem.......

Sometimes I'm not clear that Christ was even trying to establish formal religion in the model of the Pharisees...... yet with modern Evangelical cults, that is kinda what we got...... and sometimes I think the Catholic Church gets too full of itself too......

Islamofascists are just a little too full of themselves as well...... not of God at all.

These various scriptures from all the tradtions are indeed revelations...... however they are not complete revelations of God's nature, but rather revelations about Man's flawed relationship to God...... they are all based in our existential misunderstanding of the God and our deficiencies in the face of His infinite mercy.

God will prevail in His own time and they will fail......

 When dealing with the problem of violence in the OT we tend to follow one of two approaches:

      1)      Concentrate more on the many passages where God is depicted as loving – much of Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Deuteronomy.

        2)      Explain how the idea of God as a violent punishing war monger is all part of the historical and cultural conditioning of the author and that we can ignore it in good faith, especially in the light of the NT.

    Neither of these approaches does justice. There are in the OT roughly three hundred passages which talk of people doing violence to each other, either a report or a threat or a command, or a lament. There are roughly a thousand passages which talk of God’s violence or wrath; either a report of his slaying someone, or his threatening people with violence or descriptions of him as a man of war. To ignore the violence in the OT is like making a study of Churchill and completely ignoring the fact that he was English. Violence is not peripheral to the Bible it is central, in many ways it is the issue, because of course it is the human problem. The central icon of our faith depicts an act of mob violence against an innocent victim. The Bible is in fact the story of the slow, painstaking and sometimes faltering escape from the idea of a God who is violent to a God who is love and has absolutely nothing to do with violence. link

[Ricardo]

re "the humans crafts religion are replete with shortcomings and codes them into the scriptures for posterity...... "
Yes, humans are replete with shortcomings that are coded into the scriptures for posterity. And one ,Islam, codes into the scriptures specific instructions to kill and beat wives. The other one, Christianity, does not. And that fact, my friend, is a fact that makes a difference.
A christian that uses the scripture to kill or gain temporal power is going against or misusing the scripture, whereas a muslim is just following instructions.
BTW, GD, the one brilliant post you have made was a while back when you said western secular governments have internalized the values of christianity (tolerance, love thy neighbor, etc) more fully than when the west was nominally Christian. Great observation, and I really hope it was yours. I fully agree with the statement, but I also think one should never mix statecraft with religion.

[Ghost Dansing]

Actually, I use the term Islamofascist to make the point that Jodi makes, specifically, there is a unique fundamentalist, evangelical, authoritarian approach to religion that finds its manifestation in physical and psychological violence rightly referred to as Islamofascist.

She is correct, there are other religious fascisms, now and in the past. And she is also correct in stating that the religion is not the necessary cause of violent activity. It is involved, it is subverted, it is manipulated for political purpose.....

[the12thinfidel]

I see Ghost Dansing has shifted to Jodi Sol. Either way, shallow and poorly thought out where personal responsibility is someones elses fault, all cultures are equal, and even the druids were pawns of others. :)

[Jody Sol]

Your use of the term "islamofascist" (not a word) reveals your ignorance.

Certainly there are muslims who are fascists (as there are christians who are fascists, and jews who are fascists, and of course atheists who are fascist, and I suppose, at one time, zoroastrians and druids who were fascists. But these fascists were fashioned by a corrupt and exploitative foreign power (The "First World")

We have cynically used the "Third" world to our own ends for decades (and, yes, centuries), and now that they are realizing and rebelling we call THEM fascists. The irony is palpable. We truly are rome.

Wake up.

[Ghost Dansing]

"If you agree with this or not, gd, the fanatics quote the koran as written. Hamas is an example of what that arabic book says they are to do."

Yeah, and the guys before them quoted Marx, and the guys before them quoted Hitler..... of course humans always give themselves an excuse for their evil. Religion and God are favorite scapegoats.

Introduce yourself.....

 

[the12thinfidel]

To quote Dr. Emanual Tanay, a highly respected psychiatrist,
“We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.”

If you agree with this or not, gd, the fanatics quote the koran as written. Hamas is an example of what that arabic book says they are to do.

[Ghost Dansing]

I was arguing against a tacit assumption of linear causality, specifically, that the Koran and Islam cause extremism and terrorism...... not for it, so I don't have to "drop it".

Religion is a changing and malleable thing....... the humans that crafts religion are replete with shortcomings and codes them into the scriptures for posterity......

Religion

[Ricardo]

GD, you should read carefully what you post. As you quote (Qur'an, 2:190-192), the Koran shows mercy, as long as the other party submits. If the other party does not submit, then kill them you must.
As far as historical context, that is fine and dandy for you, but for a muslim, there is no historical context. The word of the Koran is the immutable truth as revealed to Mohamed. The word of the Koran is as applicable now LITERALLY, as it was 1400 years ago.
"He only took up arms when God gave him permission:" Another unintentional knee slapper by GD.
"scriptures of all the religions appear schizophrenic"... Yes, but only one of the Abrahamic, the Koran, specifically instructs to go out and kill apostates, beat wives, etc.
Drop the linear causality argument unless you're willing to say that enforcing government (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc) backed Koranic edicts to kill apostates is an act of linear causality.

[Ghost Dansing]

You obviously don't even know what linear causality is 12th..... yet it is the basis of the assertion that Islam and the Koran cause extremist terrorism.

Mac...... you're just part of the pot calling a kettle black....... all major religions that I know of expanded on the backs of simple territorial aggression. Religion was part of the cultural stew that was exploited for motivation, but their spread was as much parasitical as it was inspirational.

And, as I said, all three of the major religions we've been talking about are Abrahamic monotheisims.

Also, scriptures of all the religions appear schizophrenic, require massive amounts of study for interpretation, and inspire multiple schools of interpretation called denominations, confessions or sects.

There are over 2000 variants of Christianity. How many sects has Judaism inspired? How many in Islam.

That in and of itself is justification for not using a broad stereotypical brush.

Personally, I think only the mystic versions of these religions have any spiritual viability. All else are trappings that reflect the general power and greed (evangelical versions of all) of the human condition.

Religions, in the end, are about God, not necessarily "of God"...... they are necessarily human artifacts and as such have only human utility.

[the12thinfidel]

Taquiya is also an 'interesting find', gd. Certainly you can relate to that one.

[mac Brachman]

"Self-defense"? I guess, depending on how the term is defined. Jean Harris argued that she shot up the diet doctor Dr. Herman Tarnower "in self defense." Or maybe in a suicide attempt, whatever. The Muslims' battles in "self-defense" have to be the most successful and geographically far ranging in recorded human history. Islam had spread from a few isolated communities in the desert of the Arabian peninsula to the western end of North Africa, much of the Mediterranean, and east into central Asia and the South Asian subcontinent, and beyond, into southeast Asia and the Buddhist heartland, within a century of Muhammad's "revelation." Some "self-defense." Of course we're to believe this formidable act of "self-defense" occurred largely without coercion; all those Christians, animists, Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians were just waiting to have the Word brought to them. After all, if Muslims construct something that is largely dependent on slavery, treats non-Muslims as second-class citizens at best, requires the paying of tribute to the central Islamic authority, etc., we dare not call it imperialism. That's what whites, especially Europeans do. Those evil Europeans. The Muslims never engaged in conquest, or imperialism, or exploitation or destruction of indigenous cultures. Just ask our fine tenured profs in the Middle Eastern "Studies" departments in the US and Europe. Only evil Amerikkka and Europe carry out "empires." The poor put-upon Muslims are only acting in "self-defense."

Funny, but I remember Muhammad, the great holy spiritual one, as wielding a sword and committing violence against his "enemies."
funny, but I don't remember the founders of other great religious/spiritual traditions (Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, to name three) doing so. One might even argue that Islam looks, from many non-Muslims' points of view, as a cult of power and political domination with only the thinnest veneer of "spirituality" to it. But that would be politically incorrect, racist, Eurocentric, etc. Plenty of leftist "theorists" and academics have deemed it so. I'm sure the Muslims avoided destroying property, etc. Those millennium-plus year old Buddha statues in Bamiyan, in Afghanistan, just fell down by themselves. Sure, and I can make the ships sail on dry land. Come off it GD. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Ghost Dansing]

 This was an interesting find:

Does the koran teach to kill, tax or convert infidels?

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees.

[the12thinfidel]

" Hirsi Ali is righteous in her observations......some of her conclusions are incorrect. "
"I said her observations were correct but her conclusions were linear and causal."
So A. Conclusions = Incorrect
And B. Conclusions = Linear and causal
And C. Observations = correct and righteous
Then A = B-C in the Ghost relativity universe

Brilliant Watson!

[Ghost Dansing]

People elect not to follow the literal interpretation of scripture all the time.....

[Ricardo]

You see, GD, the problem is that you do not listen to the other person, but to what you think the other person is saying.
Again, Let's go to the text, since the whole discussion has been about what religion says and wether it means anything.
"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him"
That is the scripture, what the text says. Now some pacifist muslim may elect not to follow the scripture, but then again, he is not following the scripture. If a muslim "comes and kills the Jew", he is following the scripture.
There are no comparable passages in the new testament instructing to kill infidels. If a christian, as some have in the past, "comes and kills a jew", or a protestant, he is NOT following the scripture.

Now let's take your statements one by one:
1- "If you're trying to prove that the Koran can be used to incite violence, everybody knows that..... can be empirically verified, really without even reading a single word." No, that is not what I'm saying. I am just restating the fact that The Koran explicitly instructs its adherents to kill Jews and beat their wives. Now, being the product of a somewhat peculiar man, the Koran also says other nice things about Jews and wives, but the passages to kill Jews and beat wives are there.
2-"If you are trying to prove that the Koran necessarily causes extremist violence, the proposition is already disproved, empirically, without reading a single word." I'm not trying to prove that. I am saying that it explicitly incites violent behavior, and that a significantly large number (not necessarily a majority) of its adherents do follow the instructions explicitly laid out in the scripture.
3.- "If you are trying to prove that the Islamic religion causes extremist political violence and bigotry, that proposition is already disproved, without reading a single word." BINGO! That one is right. To assert it is already disproved is to ignore historical fact. Islamism is not only a religion, but a system of government, that is, a set of explicit laws governing civil behavior. Unlike Moses and Christ, Mohamed did get to rule an earthly Kingdom. The early Koran, before Mohamed rose to temporal power, concerns itself more with spiritual issues, but after he rose to power, it concerns itself more with actual laws and codes of conduct, as well as conquest. The history of Islam is that of Islamic political entities "Dar al Islamm" (house of peace) pursuing conquest over the world of infidels "Dar al Harb" (world of war). That conquest has been, from the beginning, through violence whenever gentle persuasion does not do the trick, as the Koran dictates. And yes, there is legislated bigotry as non muslims are not first class citizens in Islamic regimes, are taxed differently, suffer different penalties, etc.
In a properly functioning Islamic state, religious belief and behavior is not a matter of personal belief, but of state sanctioned and enforced law designed to carry out the precepts dictated by the Koran.
What you fail to grasp is that unlike the New Testament, which was never meant to be a system of laws governing earthly behavior, the Koran IS a system of earthly government.
For example, apostaty. Nowhere in the New testament are there instructions to kill somebody who converts to say, paganism. In the Koran, there is such an injunction, punishable by death. In any Islamist state (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc), an islamic subject who converts to paganism or christianity can and will be prosecuted. If found guilty, by law, he must be killed. Wherever Islamic law is established you find legislated political violence and bigotry, not subject to reform, debate, or questioning, because it derives from an authority higher than any man.
So let me give you some postulates:
The Koran has specific instructions to kill apostates and infidels, beat wives, etc.
The Koran is not only a religious spiritual document, it is also a system of earthly laws and penalties concerning human conduct.
In an Islamic government, behavior that we in the west consider to be bigotry, sexism, political violence, etc., is specifically legislated from the Koran and is enforced by the power of the state.

Now you may say, as you have, how about Turkey? Well, it's a secular state. It contradicts the Koran in many ways. There is no such thing as an "Islamic secular" state, because the minute you accept the primacy of the state over the Koran, you are violating the Koran.

BTW, much better line of argument from you. But again, it puzzles me. Is your resistance to read original texts a playful intellectual pose or do you really mean it? If you do mean it, it betrays a certain degree of willful limitation of perspective.

[Ghost Dansing]

Depends what you're trying to prove with the reading of original sources.

If you're trying to prove that the Koran can be used to incite violence, everybody knows that..... can be empirically verified, really without even reading a single word.

If you are trying to prove that the Koran necessarily causes extremist violence, the proposition is already disproved, empirically, without reading a single word.

If you are trying to prove that the Islamic religion causes extremist political violence and bigotry, that proposition is already disproved, without reading a single word.

Because all I have to do to disprove your propostion is find one non-violent Muslim who reads the Koran...... and there are many...... and your propostion is disproved as a necessary cause.

If you admit that the Koran is not a singular, necessary cause, then I have made my case, because that opens the door to myriad other factors, historical and otherwise.

Proposition:

A = All Muslims who read the Koran become violent religious extremists.

Possible Corollary if A is true: There are  0  Muslims  who read the Koran that are not violent religious extremists.

Ghost Dansing knows of one individual who reads the Koran and is not a violent religious extremist.

Therefore: A is False.

The fact that there is violence in the Koran does not make A True or False. Therefore reading the Koran in order to verify the incitation to or characterization of violence is irrelevant to the proof of A.

You are proceeding from a false premise.

God's Will 

 

[Ricardo]

GD: "Reading the Koran proves nothing more than reading the Bible..."

Well, well, well..., so you profess it's not worth to read original sources, because theory x or Y. GD, I hope you realize the reason you are the 336th post on an obscure blog entertaining a lone bored surgeon, rather than other academics, is precisely that you ignore original sources. Thus, to sound like you know what you are talking about you have to quote secondary sources. Not being familiar with primary sources, you have to rely on your uninformed prejudices to help you decide who the best secondary sources are. In case you don't recognize it, you are an intellectual fashion victim of deconstructivism. "No need to read or try to understand what so and so said, because we KNOW where so and so is coming from." Yet unlike a true deconstructivist, who has usually read the text but disrespects it by assuming his/her 20th century "contextual" prejudice is all that is needed to know about the original text, you just talk the talk. Thus when you wear an exotic theory around your head, you don't appear chic and smart, but slightly humorous, and definitely like an intellectual fashion victim. Google Aliza Shvartz and patriarchal heteronormative.

When told your intellectual constructs contradict the facts, you come up with the most hilarious and inappropiate intellectual fashion victim links to completely inane secondary sources, to wit, your BBC muslim talking heads, Chomsky, etc. BTW, Chomsky is respected as a linguist, but outside of his narrow field he is widely derided.

Let me give you an example to compare the second hand, thus second rate education you got, to my daughter's. Yes, I'm being a snob, but sorry, you got cheated out of an education and the sooner you get rid of your slovenly confused intellectual habits, the better off you will be. BTW, the reason I spend time debating you is precisely this: I feel sorry for you because I know that at bottom you are trying to understand the world and make it a better place. Secondly, you are trying very hard to be taken seriously as an intellectual. So here it is; the example, that is.

When my daughter was writing her undergraduate thesis proposal in Classics, she chose to write about a woman Cicero had attacked on one of his famous speeches. She read a lot about the incident, and thought she knew a lot, until the writing started. Relentlessly, mercilessly, her thesis advisor would take every idea to task unless my daughter could back it up from the text itself. Slowly, but surely all her preconceived ideas for the thesis were picked apart until she was left with nothing. You know what her advisor said? "Now you are starting to think". I wish somebody had shown you that kind of tough love.

Her final thesis was truly an original insight, because in the end, it was truly her own hard gained insight on the subject. Anything else would have been a regurgitation of somebody else's thoughts, or her own immature prejudice, which did not stand up to scrutiny. Now she knows the subject, what was been written about it from multiple perspectives. More importantly, she is now very careful about what is opinion, knowledge, her own conjecture, and lack of sufficient data to back up a claim. She is not afraid to say when she doesn't know enough, even though she is probably an authority on the subject.

The difference between you and her is that were we to engage in a debate about Cicero, you would be quoting Chomsky, 20 different Cicero scholars, some BBC special about Cicero, but for sure, you would have only a cursory, if any at all, familiarity with what Cicero actually wrote. You will find plenty of people like me (well, actually 3 or 4) in these forums to waste time with you, but any serious academic will laugh at you behind your back.

[Ghost Dansing]

I said her observations were correct but her conclusions were linear and causal.

The Koran and Islam hasn't caused squat. They are merely a manifestation of a deeper infestation.

Sufism...... Muslim mystics sound just like Christian mystics.......

The Jesus of your spirit is inside you now.
Ask that one for help, but don't ask for body-things...

Don't ask Moses for provisions
that you can get from Pharaoh.

Don't worry so much about livelihood.
Your livelihood will turn out as it should.
Be constantly occupied instead
with listening to God.

        Rumi, Mathnawi II:450-454

7th Wave

[the12thinfidel]

Name one item that Hirsi Ali concludes incorrectly, gd. Just one item that grates against your secular, progressive Rodney King 'let's not be judgemental' mind....
(You realize, of course, that you will become judgemental doing this task, and rationality is not your long suite. Perhaps an entertaining fatwah from some pius imam will suffice your delemma so that you don't have to hurt your head and think?)

[Ghost Dansing]

The Muslim Jesus

[Ghost Dansing]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

She's correct on many things, but she falls into a linear causality when deducing that the Koran and the Islamic religion is the sole culprit in the misogyny she has experienced and sees in the Muslim world.

Reading the Koran proves nothing more than reading the Bible....... the Koran spawned many Islams, the Bible spawned many Christianities.

That is the empirical truth that while both are rooted in violence, and have historically been used to justify violence and civil rights violations on a grand scale, they have also inspired enlightenment and civilization that transcends their literal, historically bounded interpretation.

Turkey, a nation of no small consequence, is an Islamic state that values secularism....... to view every Muslim immigrant that runs a mini-mart as a potential terrorist because he/she was born into the Islamic religion in nothing but bigotry.

The secularization of Turkey started in the society during the last years of Ottoman Empire and it was the most prominent and most controversial feature of Atatürk's reforms. Under his leadership, the caliphate—the supreme politico-religious office of Islam, and symbol of the sultan's claim to world leadership of all Muslims—was abolished. The secular power of the religious authorities and functionaries was reduced and eventually eliminated. The religious foundations were nationalized, and religious education was restricted and for a time prohibited. The influential and popular mystical orders of the dervish brotherhoods (tarika) also were suppressed.

There is no religion that is fit to govern....... the same fate that Islam has experienced in Turkey should befall it throughout the Muslim world...... much the same fate of Christianity throughout the Western world.

Religious extremism is the enemy...... not the Bible, or the Koran or the Torah......

Going back to the "read the Koran" argument simply gets you into theological knife-fights over meanings and interpretations. Fundamentalist/Literalists want literal interpretation and application to modern affairs...... time stands still for them. For those who underwrite the interpretation of scripture as essentially allegory, heavily contextualized by the times and conditions of the people who wrote it, religion never seems to be a problem...... never seems to instill hate or violent political activity.

Even those who believe these scriptures to be the results of divine revelation cannot overcome the problem of Man's imperfection; even the divine revelation must be filtered through the imperfect lense of human existence.

That is why we strayed into the area of SCOTUS philosophies as well. Fundamentalist/Literalist approaches to the Constitution and Law yield the same backward, brain-dead results and Fundamentist/Literalist interpretations of the Bible and Koran.

The absolute constructionists, like Scalia, have the same problem...... their judgements degenerate into conditions that do not allow for change, or progress, or even simple enlightenments such as "slavery or racial segregatin is bad". For them, the fact that slavery is reflected in the Bible, and was addressed as a "property" issue in the Constitution is good enough...... no need to reconsider.

The problem is the type of people we allow to dominate....... we admire those, like modern Republicans, who are seldom in doubt, but frequently wrong and backwards; we say they are strong leaders...... we admire the warlike; competition for the sake of competition and consider compromise weak.

Our religions reflect us; our historical "us", and in the choices we make today, our modern "us".

Hirsi Ali is righteous in her observations...... some of her conclusions are incorrect.

Secularism: The enemy of both fundamentalist Islam and fundmentalist Christianity. Yet it is the only governmental condition in which religious spirituality emanating from multiple religious traditions can coexist.

[Ricardo]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!
Great Post GD! Euro multiculti PC 20th century songstress parading around with belly dancers as rebuttal to a post about reading original 7th century sources!
Well, that was certainly an estrogen saturated rebuttal , and witty too!

I am going to give you a lot of credit here, and assume that Sarah's performance was the product of a titillating read of some Koranic verse. The fecund creative outburst from such a moving experience (Koran meets multi culti PC chick) resulted in this particular moment in showbiz, now immortalized in the ethereal kingdom of YouTube.

Why don't you try reading the Koran? Maybe you'll be inspired to artistic and intellectual heights beyond the lowly muck of the 333rd post of an obscure blog and attract the attention of not just the 12th infidel, nofate, etc., but that of the world's stage itself, as another female reader of the Koran, Hiirsi Ali did. Hiirsi's take on the Koran was slightly different than Sarah's, but then again, she did live in a muslim country.

[Ghost Dansing]

The Koran is just so masculine.......

[Ricardo]

OK GD, "The word "Abrahamic" refers to the ancient prophet Abraham, who is respected in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the first prophet of God. "
WOW! really??!! no kidding!!! Who'da thunk it!!! Thanx for the lesson!

I know you just learned all this religion stuff, and it's really good you're regurgitating it, but you still lack basic understanding of certain... ummm... basic key concepts. Of course all Abrahamic religions believe people should pray to this God often. Good on ya mate for getting this one right.

As for "All sacred texts carry within them the excuse to violence, because of their human imperfection" there again you fall prey to the silly generalizations borne of superficial reading married to grandiose concepts. Whereas some imperfect humans may have found excuses in the New Testament to further their own political ends (as you well point out), the difference is that Islam explicitly prescribes violence and killing in the scripture itself.

As for "Pray to God Ricardo...... he will help you overcome your testosterone saturated desire for violence and dominance.", don't read my posts, they are milquetoast compared to the Koran, where you will find plenty of testosterone saturated desire for violence and violence, including specific instructions on when to beat your wife.

Now am I correct in assuming that a little bit of estrogen saturated hysterical overreaction made you read my intellectual ribbing as desire for violence and dominance? Oh, my GD, you may be obtuse, but certainly not unimaginative. Well, I positively shudder to think of your reactions to an actual reading of the Koran!

In any case Kudos to you for a spirited and humorous response!