tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post5316088044885225005..comments2024-03-28T08:33:10.542-04:00Comments on Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org : Friday Afternoon Roundup - I Am Not a DictatorDaniel Greenfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-40866846676828741242013-03-05T01:54:19.896-05:002013-03-05T01:54:19.896-05:00Very interesting comments. Perhaps the author of t...Very interesting comments. Perhaps the author of the article should have just state that the mayor can be dictatorial in some of his policies and left it at that. <br /><br />KeliataAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-57813126178222051832013-03-04T00:51:56.561-05:002013-03-04T00:51:56.561-05:00Discussing or debating religious differences is fi...Discussing or debating religious differences is fine for those who care to do that sort of thing. In a free country, everyone is also free to insult the religions of others. And that insult will naturally lead to responses. <br /><br />The least of such responses is to point out that a piece is needlessly insulting and to express disappointment in an outlet for running it.<br /><br />Using Judaism as a metaphor for the left's obesity program is needlessly insulting and creates a fight on a topic that there should be agreement on.<br /><br />Christians have the right and are offended by mockery of their religious beliefs. I recall a good deal of anger over the recent SNL skit, Djesus. <br /><br />I don't question their right to be offended or describe it as political correctness.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-5821167117440402862013-03-04T00:10:07.315-05:002013-03-04T00:10:07.315-05:00(continued)
Catholics will proudly proclaim that ...(continued)<br /><br />Catholics will proudly proclaim that they are the authentic Mother Church, and I'll happily tell them why that isn't so. :) Since you can't say anything without potentially offending SOMEONE's religious beliefs, you'd logically be excluded from saying anything, if you took the reasoning far enough. You can't avoid it. You yourself inevitably say things that will strike a theologically astute Christian as incorrect (a recent thing I remember is an article where you said that people are basically good -- I think you meant it in a political sense, that people are more responsible individually, but on a spiritual level, people are basically bad because of sin, and so a culture will only be good if the people are good (saved) -- a technicality, but I won't cry persecution over you expressing the logical conclusion of your beliefs. No, I think it's very important for everyone to be able to "talk it out" and not be hyper-sensitive to perceived slights. Otherwise we risk becoming far too much like touchy PC liberals or the ever-offended muslims who cry "blasphemy" because you dare to believe differently. Again, far from accusing you of doing so, I'm just appealing to the slippery slope to justify why I'd much rather have us occasionally offend one another than to walk on eggshells to the point where it's taboo to point out obvious differences. <br /><br />To your final statement, I think it's a very different thing to be respectful or disrespectful of a person versus their religion. Religions are ultimately ideologies. They are beliefs that have truth value. They can be analyzed apart from a person having faith in them. They are not passed down genetically and they are not physical, or in any way indelible characteristics. They are ultimately choices, and not something we're born with. That includes atheism, despite that those guys are fond of not including themselves in such criticisms. You can criticize a belief without criticizing a person. <br /><br />I might as well approach this from a Christian perspective, since my cards are already on the table, after all. Since we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1 and 2), every human being has value and dignity, and is worthy of respect. Beliefs are abstract concepts and are not accorded the same value. If I criticize a belief because it is false (or at least, because I believe it to be), then even if it offends the person I'm speaking to, because the idea that they were wrong is insulting, it is not truly an insult because telling someone the truth is an eminently respectful thing to do. Withholding truth, on the other hand, is disrespectful, and frankly spiteful, if you believe someone will be hurt for not knowing it. Clearly this does not consider whether people actually speak the truth but only whether they speak what they believe is true. They take the risk of offending someone in order to respect them by being straightforward with their beliefs.<br /><br />In conclusion, then, to offend someone is not necessarily to be disrespectful. So when you say that we should be respectful of one another, I heartily agree, but I do not agree, if it was your meaning, that this means that we should avoid offending one another.<br /><br />This was a very long post, but I think I finally expressed the point I was trying to make. Hopefully I've been able to communicate my ideas in a way that makes me understood, rather than confusing the reader. :)<br />EriKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149923261251332685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-5125873007727877032013-03-04T00:09:39.864-05:002013-03-04T00:09:39.864-05:00I wrote too long of a post. *I feel sheepish*
I&#...I wrote too long of a post. *I feel sheepish*<br /><br />I'll try to cut it in half and hope the software doesn't stop me from double-posting.<br /><br />Ah, that would be the connection I was missing. I did not actually consider that the Orthodox Judaism of today is essentially (or at least connected to) the Pharisees of Biblical times. The personal offense makes much more sense in light of that. <br /><br />Note: Another American Thinker author has 'reported' on your criticism, and I think the criticism/defense you're receiving in the article and comments is fairly balanced. You might already be aware of it.<br /><br />As far as the validity of using Kosher as an analogy, I think the author of that article does a good job of defending its reasonableness and so I'll defer to it. Again, it's not an attack on the concept of Kosher food. Colossians 2 and Romans 14 are two chapters in the New Testament that give Christians leeway to decide whether to adopt certain dietary practices for the purpose of worshiping God -- it becomes a matter of conscience and preference, for us. I don't think Christians can have anything against Kosher food, although there is a verse that says "do not eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols," which would certainly exclude halal meat, if the consumer happens to be aware (ignorance is excusable). Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, so I'll move on.<br /><br />I want to underscore that I -highly- doubt Voshell was attacking Bloomberg for being Jewish. I certainly didn't know he was Jewish, and I wonder if it isn't the case that that was unknown to the author as well. Anyway, from the context, it's abundantly clear that he's being attacked for his "Pharisaical" -- synonymous with "legalistic" -- governing practices, i.e. his leftism, and not for any personal connection to Judaism. Respectfully, I think you're reaching on that point, quite a bit. I can understand the concern, though--but it's an easy matter to ask the author whether they were comparing Bloomberg to Pharisees because he's Jewish. That would clear that up.<br /><br />I agree that we should focus fire on secularists, especially radical leftist ones, and avoid 'friendly fire.' I don't think this means we are forbidden from criticizing each other, however, despite that the article in question isn't actually a criticism of Judaism -- or should I say, intentionally written as one (if the author is likewise unaware, as I was, that Orthodox Jews associate themselves with the ancient Pharisees). While I am no fan of ignorant or vulgar mockery directed toward my faith, my experience teaches me that allowing a totally-free exchange of ideas is essential to both the freedom of a society but also the moral development of its individuals. I acknowledge that my perspective may be different than yours, here, as Christianity is a 'missionary religion,' that spreads through persuasion rather than coercion (Islam) or, as in Judaism, being largely hereditary. If we start to say that some things should never be said, then we open the door for what eventually becomes the real-world version of Orwell's "crime-think." It's a gradual process but it's inexorable. You've written many times about this sort of thing, so I think you understand. In summary, I respectfully disagree with the idea that we should tiptoe around each other's beliefs -- not to say that we should be rude or unnecessarily antagonistic, either. <br /><br />I therefore don't agree that using religious analogies that cast a different denomination/religion/cult in a bad light for the sake of making an illustration is something that should be avoided. <br />EriKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149923261251332685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-78235038099946258762013-03-03T19:23:38.171-05:002013-03-03T19:23:38.171-05:00@ Erik:
SCREW The gospels Erik.
Orthodox Jews of...@ Erik:<br /><br />SCREW The gospels Erik. <br />Orthodox Jews of today are in the tradition of the Perushim or as the english crap calls them Pharisees.<br />God was willing to destroy Israel because in the entire tanakh 1 person transgressed the sabbath. ONE PERSON IN 40 years!! I think that makes enforcing the law imperative actually.Rachelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-73644901781442726462013-03-03T16:51:31.381-05:002013-03-03T16:51:31.381-05:00Since Orthodox Jews are "Pharisees", it ...Since Orthodox Jews are "Pharisees", it shouldn't be that hard to see why they might be offended.<br /><br />Christians have their own understanding of that period, however the article applies that understanding to modern times by using Kosher and other Jewish practices as a metaphor for the left.<br /><br />The connection is drawn using a secular Jewish mayor, who is it implied is imposing some version of Jewish practice on the people as a whole.<br /><br />I don't expect Christians to accept Judaism. No more than Jews are going to become Christians. <br /><br />However in our common struggles for traditional values in a secular society, it might be a good idea to focus our fire against secularists, rather than each other.<br /><br />I am not going to get into the anti-semitism debate as I don't claim to know what is in another person's heart, but an article that uses religious doctrine as a metaphor for the left is a needless insult. <br /><br />That applies to a Protestant author using transubstantiation or prayers to saints as a metaphor for liberalism.<br /><br />Or anything of the sort.<br /><br />We're members of different religions so obviously we're not going to agree on theology, but we can agree to be respectful of one another.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-46118422156422389092013-03-03T16:36:17.416-05:002013-03-03T16:36:17.416-05:00I think the main point of the American Thinker art...I think the main point of the American Thinker article is summed by this quote:<br /><br />"In the end, Bloomberg is the modern day version of the Pharisees, who like him, believed laws regulating every aspect of human life were the way to achieve righteousness and purity."<br /><br />Given the historical understanding of who the Pharisees were, I don't see how anyone would be offended by the analogy unless they personally identify with Bloomberg, on the one hand, or the Pharisees, on the other.<br /><br />I haven't considered the possibility. The Gospels clearly portray the Pharisees as the biggest enemies to true religion, for being too caught up in extrapolating rules from the Mosaic Law and neglecting the purpose for why they were given. <br /><br />As examples:<br />1. Jesus told them that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"<br />2. Jesus criticized their attention to detail because they "neglected the weightier matters of the law" such as justice, goodness, etc. in favor of keeping up appearances by tithing out of their spice-rack--literally.<br />3. They were, in general, hypocrites.<br /><br />I'm not sure how familiar you are with the New Testament, Daniel, but I've done my best to give a condensed background, here, to explain why the Pharisees are generally conceived as bad guys.<br /><br />If I may ask, did you register offense because modern Orthodox Judaism closely mirrors the religion the Pharisees practiced, or is derived from it? I don't know enough about Judaism post-100 AD to know for sure, so your answer would be enlightening and informative.<br /><br />After reading the whole article, I assure you there's nothing anti-Semitic in it. You can argue that it's anti-the_religion_of_Judaism, but that should come as no surprise as you surely understand that Christians--those who read their Bible--love Jews and stand for their religious freedoms, but can't accept religious Judaism because frankly, Christianity -- like Judaism -- is exclusive. If you don't believe it, you're wrong. In a saved-by-grace Christian, this never translates into an expressed hatred of Jews. <br /><br />The article is simply criticizing Bloomberg for committing the same error that, in Christian tradition, the Pharisees were guilty of -- a competitive self-righteousness that manifests itself in man-made religiosity and micromanaging rules that diverge from the original purpose of the law and become a burden on their constituents, rather than something that frees them, as was originally intended.<br /><br />I hope this has been helpful. I assure you there is no Jew-hatred from me, and I strongly suspect there's none from Voshell, either. But just to be clear, there are stark theological differences between Christianity and Judaism, despite the common heritage, and it would be irresponsible for any Christian to gloss over those differences. At the end of the day, we want all Jews to be saved, and -- much as we like you guys -- this requires the abandonment of what is, in reality, a false religious system that leads its adherents to hell. Seeing as if I truly believe this, I would be terribly cold-hearted to ignore these differences and never bother to broach the issue with my Jewish friends. <br /><br />I really hope you won't see that as condescending. I've done my best to shed some light on this issue. Take what's helpful to you, and leave the rest. <br /><br />Thanks for reading.EriKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149923261251332685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-18854477668148643652013-03-03T07:09:18.873-05:002013-03-03T07:09:18.873-05:00American Thinker seems about as clear as mud. I...<i><br />American Thinker seems about as clear as mud. I've never read it and I don't think I want to. <br /></i><br /><br />American Thinker happens to be full of excellent, well-written material as well as the occasional off-the-wall piece, like this one seems to be (I haven't read it.)<br /><br />As an Orthodox Jew living in the much-vaunted "Jewish State" (no, not New York), I have never expected goyim to love us for being Jews. Let's just try to give Ms. Voshell the facts and move on.fsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-23768405359574135972013-03-03T03:00:09.143-05:002013-03-03T03:00:09.143-05:00"
American Thinker ran an article by Fay Vosh..."<br />American Thinker ran an article by Fay Voshell accusing Mayor Bloomberg of turning New York "into the progressive version of a gigantic kosher kitchen" and "seeks to apply his politically-correct orthodoxy to the entire city, forcing his transmogrified politico/religious sensibilities on the masses."<br /><br />Fay Voshell goes on to write, "Such is his fevered zealousness that he has banned charitable organizations devoted to feeding the hungry homeless from distributing loaves and fishes" and "In the end, Bloomberg is the modern day version of the Pharisees." <br /><br />This quickly turns into a general attack on traditional Judaism and wraps up with, "The average New Yorker might want to take a look at the Pharisees presently ruling the city and ask if he or she wants to continue to have someone else's religion forced down his/her throat."<br /><br /><br />I've read that several times and it still makes no sense at all to me. Is this magazine saying that your mayor is Orthodox and Progressive at the same time and wants everyone in NYC or perhaps the rest of NYS to eat kosher?? <br /><br />American Thinker seems about as clear as mud. I've never read it and I don't think I want to.<br /><br /><br />Keliata<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-45622761227862978572013-03-02T23:16:09.969-05:002013-03-02T23:16:09.969-05:00"Recommendation to all Jews who still haven&#..."Recommendation to all Jews who still haven't seen the handwriting on the wall: Run For Your lives"<br />To where? To What?<br /> Jews need to stand their ground, not run like rabbits.<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-20931242401350918952013-03-02T19:53:32.830-05:002013-03-02T19:53:32.830-05:00"Cuomo is not a Pope and Bloomberg is not a R..."Cuomo is not a Pope and Bloomberg is not a Rabbi. They're both liberals following leftist ideologies. And using Judaism as a metaphor for the left is the sort of thing that I would expect from TakiMag or Vdare, not from American Thinker."<br />This wasn't surprising to me.<br /><br />I stopped reading AT years ago when they ran a particularly vile piece that celebrated some leftist cretin of a Jewess who "saw the light" and found Jesus (and republicanism)<br /><br />Recommendation to all Jews who still haven't seen the handwriting on the wall: <br /><br />RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05349024830056532674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-35072780105959193052013-03-02T13:44:20.873-05:002013-03-02T13:44:20.873-05:00Great Roundup. Love your site.Great Roundup. Love your site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-10195473398045624892013-03-02T07:38:30.351-05:002013-03-02T07:38:30.351-05:00Daniel: Love the cartoon. But how many people reme...Daniel: Love the cartoon. But how many people remember the video of the Jersey school kids chanting the same thing? MMM, MMM, MMM. Barack...Hussein....Obama and etc. Perfect dig at the MSM over Woodward, one of their own. Are Americans' memories so short? You should've included a brief reminder, or perhaps a link to the video. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-64718780429153343472013-03-02T02:15:19.933-05:002013-03-02T02:15:19.933-05:00Daniel, where in the world do you find some of thi...Daniel, where in the world do you find some of this stuff? It is too much for words. Regarding Louis F and the revival of the old Elijah M black separatist state, I am sure that Mr. F will be more than happy to "safeguard" the money raised for the project, just like her highness the president for life of Mexico's teachers union. As for the unlimited supply of terrorists, as a famous physicist once said, e=mc2. PS. You may want to dump the posts that are including links to other sites, I suspect they are not legit.Common 'taternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-36658575606551468932013-03-01T22:00:24.405-05:002013-03-01T22:00:24.405-05:00Sorry. Had trouble with my computer.
My post shou...Sorry. Had trouble with my computer.<br /><br />My post should have said: Did any of you know the National Park Service keeps track of one's race? They must somehow otherwise how would they know blacks don't visit them? And how do they know blacks don't visit them because of past slavery?<br /><br />Elaine<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-34476157755181837232013-03-01T21:57:58.095-05:002013-03-01T21:57:58.095-05:00Did any of you ?so must know somehow that blacks a...Did any of you ?so must know somehow that blacks aren't visiting them because of past slavery. How? Is there a survey they sent to all blacks? To me, this is very disturbing. I don't recall ever being asked my race when visiting a national park so they must have a cladenstine way of finding it out.<br /><br />ElaineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com