« Let's Get Metaphysical | Main | Redbook Badbook »
August 09, 2007
God's Warriors Three
I see from an ad that Christiane Amanpour will be covering "God's Warriors" on CNN--a 3-night event starting Tuesday, August 21.
Three nights, three groups of warriors:
Aug. 21: God's Jewish Warriors: A settlers movement that battles to control the Holy Land.
Aug. 22: God's Muslim Warriors: Fighting to make Islamic law the law of the land--with an extreme fringe that uses terror as a weapon.
Aug. 23: God's Christian Warriors: They say their battle is for the social, political and religious future of the U.S.A.
Amanpour's next show, by the way will be, perhaps, in September, covering child abuse:
Part 1: Bullying
Part 2: Beating and killing
Part 3: Religious indoctrination.
No parallel between the two 3-part lists is implied.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 09:23 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/20706130
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference God's Warriors Three:
Comments
I'm also interested in how the "extreme fringe" of the Sharia boosters uses terror - making those who want to impose Sharia, but balk at terror as a tactic, less-than-extreme. By that calculus, the KKK doubtless has more mainstream sorts than extremists, since most sheet-wearers would not endorse violence.
Note also that only the Christians are qualified with "they say..." The Jewish settlers "battle" for something, the Moslems are "fighting" for something else; only the Christians have purported motives instead of actual goals.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 9, 2007 11:08:05 AM
"No parallel between the two 3-part lists is implied."
Your pinocchio nose is getting longer Mr. Kushiner.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 9, 2007 2:19:19 PM
What's apparent to me in this series is that there's an obvious intersection between religion and politics. Between morality, whether private or public, and social/political policy-making.
The theology of the relationship between church and state is critical. And all the different Christian groups in the United States have differing theologies on the proper relationship between church and state.
I, myself, staunchly oppose the liberal interpretation of the slogan "Separation of church and state" is mandated by the Constitution.
I think that's utterly ridiculous. And I sincerely wish that all Christian politicians who personally oppose abortion would cast their votes to oppose abortion in their public servant role as well.
No-brainer thesis: Christians will continue to be marginalized, mocked, hissed, and dismissed from the Public Square.
Eg. 1: Calls by Rosie O'Donnell that there were too many Catholics on the bench of the Supreme Court.
Eg. 2: Calls to remove the candidate for Surgeon General, a conservative methodist, because he wrote about the health risks of the GLBT lifestyle.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 9, 2007 2:28:07 PM
Thanks for the reminder about this upcoming series; the promo looked promising.
Posted by: Juli | Aug 9, 2007 2:38:47 PM
I'm sure it will deliver precisely what it promises to.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 9, 2007 3:05:04 PM
Teaching college textbooks tell of the goal of taking the children of religionists who's beliefs are too far away from the 'mainstream' for the children's (and society's) own good.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 9, 2007 11:53:42 PM
>>>Teaching college textbooks tell of the goal of taking the children of religionists who's beliefs are too far away from the 'mainstream' for the children's (and society's) own good.<<<
So, liberals would essentially agree that the Catholic Church was right to take some Jewish kids away from their parents and raise them as Catholics? That's interesting.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 10, 2007 5:52:16 AM
So, liberals would essentially agree that the Catholic Church was right to take some Jewish kids away from their parents and raise them as Catholics?
In liberal taxonomy, Judaism is a culture, spirituality, ethnicity or "civilization" -- that is to say, a good thing. It also happens to represent the glories of diversity.
Catholicism is a religion, a church, or a dogma -- a bad thing. It also happens to be authoritarian, exclusivist, and patriarchal. Most CNN employees probably also suspect that all Christians, even the putative moderates, secretly harbor these wickedly Catholic vices.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 10, 2007 6:09:02 AM
>>>In liberal taxonomy, Judaism is a culture, spirituality, ethnicity or "civilization" -- that is to say, a good thing. It also happens to represent the glories of diversity.<<<
In liberal taxonomy, Judaism is fast becoming a bad thing. Beginning with demonizing Israel, the left is fast learning all the old tropes to demonize Jews. Recently I was at a music camp where a class gave a performance satirizing modern types. One presented a French artiste, one an environmental activist. The one that struck me was the song satirizing a greedy capitalist, delivered in a New York Jewish accent. No one among this group of good-hearted liberal musicians remarked on this, though ten or twenty years ago people would have understood that this stereotype is an old anti-Semitic trope.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 10, 2007 7:38:33 AM
>>>The one that struck me was the song satirizing a greedy capitalist, delivered in a New York Jewish accent. No one among this group of good-hearted liberal musicians remarked on this, though ten or twenty years ago people would have understood that this stereotype is an old anti-Semitic trope.<<<
Time to head for the hills, Judy. People have finally figured out that we really do control the banks, the oil companies, the media AND the Catholic Church (I'm surprised we pulled off that last one as long as we did). We came so close to success through our brilliant plan to install the mindless dupe George W. Bush in the White House, where he would do our will under the influence of our orbital mind control lasers.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 10, 2007 8:53:43 AM
Not only George W. Bush; we also control Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice (well, she's slipped from our control a bit). And the hedge funds, of course. And next month it will be discovered by the Daily Kos that we control General Petraeus.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 10, 2007 9:46:27 AM
>>>And next month it will be discovered by the Daily Kos that we control General Petraeus.<<<
Funny. He doesn't LOOK Jewish!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 10, 2007 12:43:12 PM
Actually I was recently informed (by an ever-so-serious gentlemen with a well-developed bibliogrpahy of sources) that Ulster Scots-Irish (and thus a huge chunk of Southern white folk) are a lost tribe of Israel...can we be in the conspiracy too, please? We control the whiskey and barbecue industries, the United States Marine Corps, and (hopefully) the Republican presidential primaries - those ought to count for something.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 11, 2007 9:58:18 AM
Everybody thinks it's funny, and to normal (older) eyes it is. But the Power that coordinates such things is working from an old playbook, and he's had too many successes over the centuries to discount their effectiveness this time as well. Now we are targets of invidious comparisons. The comparisons can escalate to equally suppressive treatment soon enough. The whole idea behind the grouping listed first in this example (the real one, not the phony one) is to say, "We jail violent Jewish extremists and Muslim extremists -- why are we letting these fundamentalists who want to ban rights as central to our lifestyle as gay marriage and abortion walk around like they had their own rights or something?" We may not live to see it (though some of us will) but our kids -- the faithful ones, anyway -- certainly will, unless something changes. And no, it's not a human conspiracy. It's the Fall working itself out once again, like calling to like. Christians are blasphemers, you know. We assault all that's holy in modern (or post-modern) life, and we are going to be treated like blasphemers always are. First, scorn; second, attempts to silence us; third, punishment.
For those Americans who think this is overly pessimistic, ask the Canadians who post here what's been going on there. The priests of our Canadian churches have been telling me, and it's not pretty.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Aug 12, 2007 7:17:06 AM
Of course it's not funny, Dcn. Harmon. Stuart and I joke about anti-Semitism because we're part Jewish; it's a bitter joking, believe me, because we know what these things portend. That awareness has made me sensitive to the anti-Christianity in the air. It works in a different way from anti-Semitism; it has to, because it's harder to demonize a majority, which Christians still are in this country, at least nominally. So far, for the elites, Christians have been divided into "good" Christians and "bad" Christians. The "good" ones are the liberal, tolerant ones who have lost most of what made them Christian. They have been recruited to the side of those who want to get rid of the "bad" Christians, or have even led the way. This is one of the main goals of hate crime laws, I think: to further this division and further demonize the "bad" Christians.
That this is aimed at Christianity itself and not merely at Christians' stands on social issues can be seen by the same people's approval of Islam's inroads: of setting aside Muslim prayer rooms in public places, allowing a madrassa to be built with public funds in New York, of reacting to honor killings and polygamy with less outrage than one would expect from feminist-minded people. Muslims are quaint and ethnic, whereas Christians are an imminent threat.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 12, 2007 7:44:56 AM
Judy,
Thinking in black and white, them or us is usually not a good thing. People tend to overlook the many gradations between the two extremes.
In many cases people also tend to confuse anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. These are two different things.
Posted by: Zamir | Aug 12, 2007 7:57:47 AM
>>>In many cases people also tend to confuse anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. These are two different things. <<<
They're not that different in the real world.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 12, 2007 9:04:19 AM
>>>They're not that different in the real world.<<<
in fact, there is a near 100% correlation, particularly in Europe, where "anti-Zionism" provides a respectable cover for the ancient race hatred.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 12, 2007 1:55:53 PM
Judy: Thanks for the comment. I concur with your response, and also yours and Stuart's views of "anti-Semitism" vs. "anti-Zionism." While there remains a difference philosophically between disagreeing with the policies of Israel and desiring its destruction, the former has become in many quarters (including a big building on the East River) the handmaiden of the latter. Walker Percy said that the practice of killing unborn babies would end up leading to the killing of Jews, and I believe he was right. The process of dehumanization has its own logic, and it is inexorable.
BTW, Zamir, while it may be an eschatological concern, the Bible says that someday we will all be divided into two (and only two) categories, baa-ers and bleaters. Sometimes only seeing shades of gray can be a result of having an unfocused vision.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Aug 13, 2007 12:26:54 PM
There is more than black and white to a Christian? Really? While I fully maintain that we may not be able to understand what a given "Good" is (I will maintain that rock is ok :)) all things are either good or bad. Are inability to differentiate in all cases doesn't change this.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 13, 2007 12:46:41 PM
While thinking in "black and white" can be a bad thing, in my experience deliberately obscuring black and white is far worse, and more common.
We have Christ's own example (in the statements "They that are not against us are for us", AND its converse) that "black and white" divisions are indeed of great use in understanding the world. And (no offense intended) whenever I read a warning against "black and white thinking", I expect from experience for it to be followed by deliberate obfustication. Of course "black and white" thinking CAN be carried to absurdity, but "grey" thinking too often actually STARTS there.
On the differences in the "antis": anti-Semitism is reflexive bigotry, perhaps acquired almost subconsciously, while anti-Zionism is a deliberate premeditated charade - personally I'd generally prefer an honest bigot.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 14, 2007 3:41:16 PM
Kurt,
After we talked this morning I found this site on the web. Is this the program we should watch?
Paul
Posted by: Kurt Snyder | Aug 21, 2007 9:32:30 AM
hmmm...there we go again - painting all with the same brush. to denigrate the difference between those who oppose the great injustice of our time (palestine) with anti-semitism of another time (holocaust) is frighteningly dangerous. once the distinction is removed by the accuser, then the distinction is lost on the accused.
Posted by: el rey | Aug 22, 2007 10:42:07 AM
I'm not deeply concerned with past anti-Semitism. Current anti-Semitism is more relevant; and if I have trouble distinguishing between those who oppose Israel and those who hate Jews, it's because they seem to blur the distinction themselves (read MEMRI).
And as "great injustices" go, our time offers many considerably more clear-cut than Palestine. (Sudan leaps to mind.)
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 22, 2007 11:05:32 AM
I hate to disagree with Joe, with whom I almost always agree, but on this issue, I think that *some* of those (like me) who question *some* of the policies of Israel do so out of purer motives than antisemitism. My primary concern about Israel's policy is it treatment of Palestinian Christians. A healthy community of Palestinian Christians has been decimated by the nearly 60 year feud between Israel and Palestinian Muslims. I am far less concerned about Israel's policy regarding Palestinian Muslims who have had several opportunities to reach a compromise related to their legitimate complaints but have decided to pursue a policy obviously aimed at terminating the state of Israel instead. Frankly, I believe Christians who support Israel sin against their brothers in Christ who are Palestinian when they don't insist that Israel do all it can to address their legitimate concerns and to keep them out of the crossfire between Israel and the Palestinian Muslims.
Posted by: GL | Aug 22, 2007 11:18:58 AM
GL, I don't think legitimate criticism like your is a mask for anti-Semitism; indeed I don't think you'd use "anti-Zionism" to characterize your position, would you? By definition, an anti-Zionist would seem to be against the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. I mean, hey, I disagree with a United States policy or two (dozen) without being an anti-American -
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 22, 2007 11:40:42 AM
Joe,
Glad to hear that we don't disagree. I have a real problem with Christians (mostly premillennial dispensationist evangelicals) who believe Israel can do no wrong and who blindly support it even when its policies harm fellow Christians living in Israel. I fully support Israel's right to exist and believe that a greater share of the blame for the problems in Palestine rest on the backs of the Muslims, but that does not mean that Israel does not wrong.
Posted by: GL | Aug 22, 2007 1:01:57 PM
GL,
I certainly don't equate your criticism with anti-Semitism, but I note that in 1985 I visited Bethlehem. The Israeli government controlled the area and it was a Christian town. In 1992 we visited Israel and we were not allowed to go to Bethlehem because under Palestinian control it had become too dangerous. Almost all of the Christians had left after the Palestinians gained control. Remember when they took over the Church of the Nativity and defecated in it?
My husband took a ride through Bethlehem with an armed rabbi, but he didn't want me and my daughter to go.
This is not to say that the Israeli government hasn't done some things that harm Christians, only to introduce a sense of proportion.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 22, 2007 1:37:07 PM
I liked the show and didn't find it anti-semitic. We in Europe don't hate Jews, but neither do we think Israel is above criticism. We weren't all involved in the Holocaust and my country certainly wasn't (Ireland). Here, the settlements are seen as akin to the Ulster Plantations in the 1600's when Catholics were thrown off the land to make way for British Protestants, leading to the partition of Ireland and sectarian conflict. Many feel Israel is creating a new Ulster. I think the benefit of history gives us a right to give Israel advice on this matter. Call it "tough love".
Posted by: Brian Boru | Aug 23, 2007 5:00:16 AM
We in Europe don't hate Jews, but neither do we think Israel is above criticism.
(1) over-generalization + (1) straw man = ?
We weren't all involved in the Holocaust and my country certainly wasn't (Ireland).
With the Holocaust, even indirect involvement is something to consider more seriously than you have done in this trite exculpation.
Here, the settlements are seen as akin to the Ulster Plantations in the 1600's when Catholics were thrown off the land to make way for British Protestants, leading to the partition of Ireland and sectarian conflict.
This begs the question. From the settler's point of view, the closer analogy is to a kind of re-Catholicization of Northern Ireland, replanting a loyal population among the heirs of oppressors.
Many feel Israel is creating a new Ulster. I think the benefit of history gives us a right to give Israel advice on this matter. Call it "tough love".
I call it a rationalization for self-righteousness.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 23, 2007 6:29:15 AM
>Many feel Israel is creating a new Ulster.
Do you always hand out compliments like candy?
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 23, 2007 7:36:05 AM
>>Many feel Israel is creating a new Ulster. I think the benefit of history gives us a right to give Israel advice on this matter.<<
And what advice would that be, pray tell? A power-sharing agreement?
I think I would agree that there are certain strategic parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian situation and Northern Ireland, at least when it comes to the use of terrorism against civilian populations by the weaker side and the interconnection between militancy and organized crime. But it's hard to see that any of the solutions that have begun to work in Ireland are available in Palestine, particularly because the mindsets of the two sides are vastly different from their Irish analogues.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 23, 2007 9:19:27 AM
What about "God's Atheist Warriors"? They could do a section on NK, and then also look at the Dawkins crowd...
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Aug 23, 2007 10:00:47 AM
>What about "God's Atheist Warriors"? They could do a section on NK, and then also look at the Dawkins crowd...
Plus Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 23, 2007 10:49:53 AM
I don't know Ulster as well as I should, with my own roots in that conflict (albeit centuries back). However, David has a point: it does seem to me that if an Ulster were created in the Middle East, it might indeed be a shining beacon of progress relative to its neighbors. (That's the idea in Iraq, I believe, though more sanguine folks seem to think we can create a Nebraska instead.)
Nor is factional violence in the Middle East "new" or attributable to an alien element; it does seem rather obvious to me that Shiites, Sunnis and the rest of them would be merrily murdering one another without Jews to focus on. Indeed, during intermissions between killing Israelis, they DO still find time for enthusiastic fratricide.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 23, 2007 11:59:12 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004