Posted on 10/08/2010 8:30:16 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat
Should we show respect when our older brother is in the wrong? You’re family and I’ll still defend you, but you’re not going to get a free pass just because you’re my “older brother.”
You can use the URL at the top of this thread to post to your Facebook ... thanks for the suggestion; I’ve just done so myself ...
I understand, but part of the hostility you feel from Jews is a result of continuous attempts to convert us to your religion.
We each have our path to follow, it is not necessary for you to try to bring me over to your path.
Should we show respect when our older brother is in the wrong? You’re family and I’ll still defend you, but you’re not going to get a free pass just because you’re my “older brother.”
You should probably go ahead and line up with the Muslims then, because they think we are “wrong” too.
Consider it done.
Also posted here...
http://www.examiner.com/jewish-community-in-los-angeles/rosh-ha-shana-message-from-rabbi-schlomo-lewis-atlanta-1
The money shot (imo) ...
Ping! Very interesting read
Ping for later.
Well, yes, eventually. And, eventually, there was similar moral clarity on Imperial Japan and Mussolini.
There was never the same moral clarity on Stalin, who posed at least as great a danger as Hitler.
And, of course, there was Mao -- moral clarity where he was concerned was easy and relatively cheap, as he had less import to the world during his time.
The point being, it's easy to look back now, after we fought WWII, and after we won the Cold War, and point to a sense of "moral clarity" that animated the actual war.
It was not so at the time -- for every Roosevelt and Churchill who "had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake," there was a Neville Chamberlain or a Charles Lindbergh or an Alger Hiss and all of the people who followed their leads, and who opposed early intervention on a variety of grounds.
It took the actual outbreak of war to crystallize that moral clarity -- war on ground chosen by the other side, at that. "The prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully."
The implications of a fight against something like Nazism, Communism, or radical Islam are highly unpleasant. Moral clarity leads to timely intervention; lack of it, leads to a horrific battle. We see what happened in the past; and at least we're not quite in the same boat today.
The over-riding accomplishment of George W. Bush was to step into the fight against radical Islam while it was "still 1935," so to speak. This is a blessing and a curse, of course.
By attacking when he did, Bush went after radical Islam while it was still relatively weak -- a good thing. But because it's still relatively weak, it's easy for many to take the easy way out, where moral clarity is concerned.
And lack of moral clarity goes both ways.
There are those who, seeing a lot of "good Muslims," refuse to acknowledge the danger posed by the bad ones, and thus refuse to oppose the latter. This is made worse by an overweening sense that the worst thing in the world is to "be mean," and that any aggressive action, no matter how justified, is "mean" if you're the stronger party.
And there are those who, seeing that there are a lot of unquestionably "bad Muslims," conclude that all Muslims are bad, and that all should be eradicated. This view, common on FR, is monumentally stupid if only because it creates a billion extra enemies for no practical gain.
The problem with both views is that they deal with emotionally-charged strawmen, and the stridency of the opposing sides precludes any kind of rational discussion on the actual problem -- radical Islam -- and thus there's no means to create a rational strategy to deal with it.
The Rabbi is correct about the need for moral clarity on radical Islam. But the real question remains: what does he propose we should do about it?
Overall, a pretty good warning of the Islamic danger. I only question how good those “good” moslems are.
Now, if the rabbi would open his other eye, he would see Socialism as the twin existential threat to all of us. He is still an ACLU member and a Democrat, and couldn’t resist a backhanded slap at President Bush even while praising his clear stand against terror. Some liberals have inherited a very myopic view of conservatives, and we are weary of it.
Just to be clear: as a matter of personal observation that statement probably only goes back to your grandparents, and you don't really know about them. Anti-semitism used to be pretty widespread throughout the U.S. It would be surprising indeed if at least some of your ancestors had not uttered an anti-Semitic thought.
Yet at the same time I am fully aware that Jewish organizations have been instrumental over the years as painting entire generations of my family as ignorant racist hicks. I was born under that sign myself. I had that accusation hung over my head the moment I was born a white male Christian in Mississippi. It came from somewhere! It didn’t just come out of thin air!
No, it didn't just come out of thin air. You had the misfortune of being born into Jim Crow central, didn't you? You're tarred by association with an entire region whose actual laws and policies were encapsulated so neatly by Gov. Wallace: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!"
To a Jew in particular (with their long history of being persecuted), there is something quite troubling about the sort of segregation that defined the South until the 60s. Whether that unease is still justified is open to question -- it may have changed over the past few decades (though my several years living in Texas reminded me that there are still some pretty "interesting" tensions that need to be worked out).
By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.
I think most people are afraid of being banned or even disappearing, but I think the message is very clear ... kill 'em.
The real, REAL question is ... when?
Do we wait for another 9/11? .. a Bali? ..
Do we target that nice old guy down the street that owns the gas station?
We read essays like this and pictures of commandos appear in our imaginations, but ... there are no commandos in flyover USA ...
just
me
and
you.
Kill who?
muslims
You want to kill all of them? All billion or so of them?
I wish it were read and included in the Congressional Record
But fear the congress persons who haven’t the time ,nor the inclination to read bills before they vote on them would neither hear nor understand what the wise rabbi has declared.
I answered I thought his message was clear .. to not allow them to exist ... which means kill 'em.
He cited many WW2 German parallels and challenged his readers with "To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.
He would rather the 'peaceful muslims' would come forward and stage some rally's and so forth, but because nothing has yet to happen, it must be obvious they agree with the takeover of America.
Wolverines !
That's a yes or no question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.