At Harvard Law School, an event in the Program on Negotiation, sponsored by the Jewish Law Students Association and Harvard Hillel and titled “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict & the U.S” consisted of an exchange of ideas between former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and American diplomat Dennis Ross.
Husam El-Qoulaq, a law student in the audience asked this:
My question for Tzipi Livni is, how is it that you are so smelly? It’s regarding your odor — about the odor of Tzipi Livni, very smelly.
How professional, civil, respectful and representative of the image that the nation’s most prestigious law school wishes to present to the world!
Harvard Law’s Jewish community reacted with indignation at this brazen display of anti-Semitism, while Harvard’s Law School Dean Martha Minow issued an official statement that the incident…
“…was offensive and it violated the trust and respect we expect in our community. Many perceive it as anti-Semitic, and no one would see it as appropriate. It was an embarrassment to this institution and an assault upon the values we seek to uphold. The fact that speech is and should be free does not mean that hateful remarks should go unacknowledged or unanswered in a community dedicated to thoughtful discussion of complex issues and questions.”
Husam El-Qoulaq then posted this astounding “apology”:
“To be very clear, as there seems to be some confusion, I would never, ever, ever call anyone, under any circumstances, a “smelly Jew”. Such a comment is utterly repugnant, and I am absolutely horrified that some readers have been led to believe that I would ever say such a thing. With regards to what I actually did say, I can see now, after speaking with the authors of this article and many other members of the Jewish community at HLS, how my words could have been interpreted as a reference to an anti-Semitic stereotype, one that I was entirely unaware of prior to the publication of this article. I want to be very clear that it was never my intention to invoke a hateful stereotype, but I recognize now that, regardless of my intention, words have power, and it troubles me deeply to know that I have caused some members of the Jewish community such pain with my words.”
Is this the most cynical and insulting non-apology apology ever? The Ethics Alarms Apology Scale doesn’t include an equivalent; the nearest would be #9, a deceitful apology, but even that doesn’t capture the true awfulness of what El-Qoulaq wrote. It is closer to “The Pazuzu Excuse,” a favorite among celebrities caught on tape uttering unequivocally racist, bigoted, misogynist or otherwise repugnant sentiments, when someone swears that what they said doesn’t in any way represent what they believe, they just happened to say it for no discernible reason. This one is special, though. “I would never call someone a smelly Jew, I would just call an Israeli guest smelly in public.” This guy wants to be a lawyer with a defense like that? Now he owes everyone who read his apology another apology for insulting their intelligence.
For its part, Harvard Law School seems intent on demonstrating how seriously dysfunctional the higher reaches of our education system have become. It released a video of the public event with the student’s outrageous question edited out. This cowardly, dishonest, Soviet-style act of air-brushing away inconvenient history was justified by the school as an effort to protect the student. What? Why does El-Qoulaq warrant protection? He engaged in the offensive conduct in a public forum. Moreover, Harvard is professionally obligated to made sure it does not inflict unfit lawyers on society. A bar association may reasonably feel that this incident calls into question Husam El-Qoulaq’s character. I assume the student is being disciplined exactly as a white student would be who hurled a racist slur at Valerie Jarrett.
(Maybe I shouldn’t assume that.)
El-Qoulaq’sdisingenuous apology alone raises questions whether El-Coolaq is fit to practice. I wonder why Harvard Law thinks he is fit to be a Harvard Law student?
__________________
Sources: Powerline 1, 2; Ace of Spades
Ethics Alarms 
His defense is I’m not an anti-semite I’m just a jackass who wasted the chance to ask a question about policy in favor of behaving like a six year old who was raised by wolves since even half-way competent parents would have taught me not to blurt out crap like that when adults are speaking and even if they didn’t then my kindergarten teacher would have?
*headdesk*
Good admit by Harvard. What they will do for diversity…
Maybe it’s time for a new category of apology: “The Brazen Lie.”
Frankly, I’m surprised HLS didn’t defend this jerk along the lines of recognizing his pain and the suffering of his people and the supreme value of diversity and respecting other people’s cultures, blah, blah, blah.
Maybe this guy is in one of Alan Dershowitz’s classes this semester. Do people ever flunk out of HLS? I doubt it. They’re all the best and the brightest.
Does anyone know which state he plans to practice law? If so, I highly recommend you report him to the state bar. Such blatant discriminatory conduct is a violation of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (lawyer ethics rules) and grounds for denying him admission to the bar. In fact, law graduates have been denied from state bars for far less reprehensible conduct than the conduct this man displayed. If HLS is working so hard to conceal his identity and erase the video footage from the event, then we can work just as hard in preventing a dishonest, unethical, bigoted human like him from practicing law. He’s probably going to take the bar exam this July, so we have to work fast.
Actually, the anti-discrimation provision of Rule 8.4 is still a proposal only, and a rather controversial one at that. Most of the others in various jurisdictions specify discrimination in the practice of law, or in employment, neither of which apply.
But a bar can use anything to prove bad character, and this does it. I’m serious when I say that the “apology” is as damning as the verbal attack.
His name and his rude and unethical actions should be sent to the board of bar examiners in every state beginning with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers.
Good idea, but probably pointless. I suspect he intends to practice in Tehran. Though why he would, therefore, be studying American law escapes me.
“The fact that speech is and should be free does not mean that hateful remarks should go unacknowledged or unanswered in a community dedicated to thoughtful discussion of complex issues and questions.”
Yes. Don’t silence, answer.
If they’re silenced, or edited out, how will we know them? We might mistake them for decent human beings.
Agreed, if he has effectively doubled down on such stupidity with his ‘apology,’ it should have been left available. They could add a disclaimer banner that he in no way represents Harvard.
This will of course reveal that Harvard is a “SAFE” place for anti-semitic students and similar benefactors to throw their money at. It also shows that the fool didn’t learn anything about discretion and reading the crowd which should be in a lawyer’s toolbox, right? He plainly hasn’t learned that smelly comments are childish, unprofessional, and demeans his presence in an adult forum.
Harvard was trying to softpedal that his expensive education didn’t make someone they can be proud of/ I don’t think there is a good or fair way to stop that, maybe the best way is a disclaimer and a forum/seminar.about manners and making relevant even if challenging statements. Attack his smell is weak, weak, weak..
Even Harvard’s not sure what to do with this one, which is probably why they just edited it out. If they back the Israeli minister, they lose their multicultural bona fides. If they back the student, Jewish alumni start yanking their contributions and sending qualified kids to Yale instead. So they just pretend it didn’t happen, shush anyone who mentions it, and hope it blows over. Institutional cowards.
But they don’t lose anything by backing a distinguished guest and punishing a student who mistreats him. It doesn’t matter who the guest is at all. It’s a guest. At a public forum.
In the best of all possible worlds, yes. Being objective, yes. It shouldn’t matter who the guest is, he was invited and he is entitled as such to a certain level of respect. However, as we are all aware, higher education has a certain bent, and the students tend to be a certain bent, and the optics of a situation vary depending on the messenger, the message, and the listener.
Like it or not, Israel has become, unfairly, tarred with the brush of the oppressor, the killer of children, and so on, and, to those who subscribe to that view, it and its officials are worthy of nothing but hatred and contempt, and someone like Livni, considered by some to be the successor to the powerful Golda Meir, is lucky to just be called a smelly Jew rather than assaulted or targeted for an assassin’s bullet.
Like it or not, law enforcement has become tarred with the brush of racist, bully, and killer of people of color, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a Ray Kelly or a Rudy Giuliani or someone else big in law enforcement, is fortunate to just be shouted down or shut down, rather than dragged from the podium and given a beating like the one visited on people of color by folks like him.
Like it or not, the military and the intelligence community have been unfairly tarred with the brush of baby-killers, murderers, users of horrible weapons on civilians, and so on, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a General Tommy Franks or John Negroponte is damn lucky just to be screamed at and disrupted, rather than clapped in chains and hung for crimes against humanity.
In the meantime, those who do the disrupting cast themselves as the voice of the oppressed, the voice of the powerless, and the voice of peace, and it’s not easy to argue with that. If speakers have to be flanked by cops and bodyguards to get their message out, and if protestors with slogans that say “peace and love” are getting dragged away in handcuffs to be thrown out of school, the viewers’ sympathies are naturally going to gravitate to the person who’s getting stepped on, not the powerful public official.
It didn’t come to that in this case, it just came to an Arabic student hurling an insult at an Israeli minister, who, I’m sure, in the student’s opinion has done a lot worse. So Harvard does a bit of pearl-clutching, a public mea culpa and a bit of tut-tutting about this isn’t who we are, nobody should say that, maybe a few folks make a few phone calls to the big Jewish donors to grovel and say they hope they can still count on their support, and then they move on. Had the Jewish issue not been involved, potentially endangering donations, it wouldn’t have even been that much.
I wonder if they edited it out because the reaction in the room may have been as embarrassing as the comment itself. What if others laughed? It would be interesting to see.
I’m sure they’re cowards in any setting.
This is a very bold discussion.
See if this makes it better.
Never mind, I tried a closing HTML tag and it didn’t work.
Good thing it doesn’t have any underlining meaning.
(Groan) Good one.
Actually Tex it is a rather lame discussion. But it requires disentangling and clarification.
First, it is likely (though it must be inferred, and he spoke as a true lawyer by making no direct statement) that he has anti-Jewish sentiments and ideas, but more properly they are anti-Israeli. While he did – in his ‘clarification’ – perform a dance and a game to then be able to say ‘Smelly Jew’ (‘sale Juif, etc. etc.), his comment was intended to be directed to an Israeli official and might be only blind anger. Similar to yelling something stupid and emotional at Obama, or George Bush: it happens all the time. Outrageous insults that don’t mean much more than that. It is true that ‘Sale Juif’ and this class description often express a deeper and more nuanced antisemitism, but one has to infer it by his cultural affiliation (an Arab hater of Israel).
Anti-Semitism, in my experience on these Fora (this blog and many other fora and sites, more especially in the US), is actually never discussed. A very light form of contempt for Jews which at times rises to be ‘Judenhass’ is sometimes articulated. But weakly and mildly. This non-philo-Judaism, or this anti-Jewishness, is not really antisemitism. It is most often a vaguely defined sort of resentment of Jews, either for their influence or for their economic position.
I sincerely doubt if there is anyone on this blog who has a studied sense – by study of the actual antisemitic literature – of what is the doctrine of antisemitism. So, there is confusion about some anti-Israeli sentiment (that is, the State of Israel) and silly name calling with bona fide antisemitism.
To that, the clearest expositor of bona fide antisemitism is Houston Chamberlain in ‘Foundations of the Nineteenth Century’ (1900 more or less). Two volumes of historical (and ideological) discourse which, even for those who despise the historian (that is, Chamberlain) cannot but describe it as an astounding historical and ideological vision of Europe.
To understand Jews and Jewishness is a very very complex study. Fact is, this cannot even be talked about, here or anywhere. To define ‘Jew’ is so hot, so contested, that for any of you (if you are Gentile) to even talk a little bit about this, to probe these issues, to ask any level of interrogating question, and (God Forbid) to have any oppositional attitude or opinion on the topic, is FORBIDDEN to you.
Steve has done nothing but give a yea-sayer’s defense of ‘strict power principles’ and he reveals (in essence) ideological subservience. As here:
Steve wrote: “Like it or not, Israel has become, unfairly, tarred with the brush of the oppressor, the killer of children, and so on, and, to those who subscribe to that view, it and its officials are worthy of nothing but hatred and contempt, and someone like Livni, considered by some to be the successor to the powerful Golda Meir, is lucky to just be called a smelly Jew rather than assaulted or targeted for an assassin’s bullet.
“Like it or not, law enforcement has become tarred with the brush of racist, bully, and killer of people of color, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a Ray Kelly or a Rudy Giuliani or someone else big in law enforcement, is fortunate to just be shouted down or shut down, rather than dragged from the podium and given a beating like the one visited on people of color by folks like him.
“Like it or not, the military and the intelligence community have been unfairly tarred with the brush of baby-killers, murderers, users of horrible weapons on civilians, and so on, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a General Tommy Franks or John Negroponte is damn lucky just to be screamed at and disrupted, rather than clapped in chains and hung for crimes against humanity.”
This is a form of subservient view because, in essence, it demands that you kneel before it, accept it, and ask no further questions. It really is a form of acute ideological position, but it cannot see itself as such.
That in my view is what American Conservatism has become (the AltRight calls it ‘Cuckservatism’ and with good reason belittles it), then it is simply powerless to help anyone define ethics and morality at any level. It has been vacated of integrity. Ethics and morality then have a subservient platform, not an intellectual one.
I know that 95% of what I write here will be misinterpreted, but there you have it.
Could you boil down the foregoing for me, Alizia? A few sentences?
Get that on your Twitter. Ideas require articulation. If spoonfuls of pablum are your desire, don’t read my posts. Important themes require work and strength, not reduction.
Roger. I usually skip them. I made an exception. My mistake.
Yes, I am generally convinced that I am not a good fit on this Blog. It seems only a matter of time before I make my exit.
Alizia Tyler said, “Ideas require articulation.”
Alizia, there is a HUGE difference between intelligent articulation and fence post sitting randomness.
Monday Morning Pop Quiz – Pass or Fail
No fence post sitting; from your point of view, answer the following two multiple choice questions. Yes those are your only two choices.
1. Was Husam El-Qoulaq’s original question to former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appropriate?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Was Husam El-Qoulaq’s apology ethical?
a. Yes
b. No
The only way you can fail this quiz is to either not answer either or both questions at all or to answer either or both questions with ANYTHING other than the provided answers.
Here is your chance to start anew, climb off your fence, and make a choice; today is the first day of the rest of your life. Choose.
1) Inappropriate. 2) It was not an apology.
Those answers were not your choices, you could have answered a or b or yes or no. Even though you can’t follow simple instructions, I’ll accept your answer for 1 but your answer for b did not answer the question that was asked. Comprehension problem?
You FAILED this morning’s pop quiz.
No, Zoltar, you failed comprehension. It was literally not an apology. He used that opportunity to use the term ‘Smelly Jew’. It was not an apology, it was a statement, an articulation.
Alizia Tyler said, “It was literally not an apology.”
That Ms. Tyler is a matter of opinion and NOT the question I asked.
Sorry Alizia, you failed again – miserably!
Big, Big, BIG surprise.
A matter of opinion? Hmmm. I’d rather say it is the essence of what happened. Perhaps it is then a question of interpretation.
Alicia’s right, Zoltar. It was literally not an apology. It was a defiant parody of an apology.
Jack,
There are people that will say that what Husam El-Qoulaq said, “I want to be very clear that it was never my intention to invoke…” was an apology, people use this kind of crap filled unethical apology all the time to try and white-wash their actions and claim they have apologized and everyone should just drop the subject and move on; the list of poeople and politicians that have used that nonsense and will likely use that nonsense in the future is endless.
We are talking about the ethics of what he said right; so whether you, Joe-Blow, Alizia, or I choose to label it as an apology is not the relevant point the relevant point is that it WILL be called an apology by some and it IS unethical. I think you know this to be true.
Lastly; does your opinion, Alizia’s opinion, or my opinion about whether the “apology” should be considered an actual apology render the multiple choice question I asked irrelevant? I believe the ethical answer is, no.
The “apology” or whatever anyone chooses to call it was unethical. The label “apology” is secondary deflection to the ethical problems.
That’s my opinion.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/04/22/antisemitic-tzipi-livno-former-israeli-foreign-minister-was-asked-why-is-she-smelly-at-harvard-event-n2152512
This has what I think is the full(er) text of his apology. It is possible that he translated some other word – ‘unsavory’ or something? – from his language into English.
Reading it, I now have the sense that if he actually really meant ‘smelly’ and meant it as a typical slur, that his apology is more ‘Someone helped me to write this to save my a** from getting tossed out and losing everything I’ve been working for’.
Sometimes, in our Twitter environment, things DO get blown out of proportion. It will be interesting to follow this and see what happens.
Being generous, it seems to me that he COULD have misspoke. Who knows what he was trying to say?
If indeed it WAS a parody of an apology, his geese is more cooked.
I tend to see things – or I believe that I see things – in macro terms, and so I speak to larger surrounding issues. My apologies to anyone for obsessively writing on this theme today.
Alizia said, “It was literally not an apology.” , “This has what I think is the full(er) text of his apology.”
Please get off the fence and make up your mind, either it was or wasn’t an apology.
Today is the second day of the rest of my life. I’m an old-timer of sorts.
Alizia Tyler SAID, “I’m ahold timer of sorts.”
What?
An old-timer…
No. It’s a bold discussion.
Now it is.
1. First, it is likely (though it must be inferred, and he spoke as a true lawyer by making no direct statement)
It is clear that you haven’t the foggiest idea what “talking like a true lawyer” means. That kind of speech will get you thrown into jail in any court in the nation.
2.”…that he has anti-Jewish sentiments and ideas, but more properly they are anti-Israeli.”
There is no “smelly Israeli” tradition. This is just counter factual spin.
3. While he did – in his ‘clarification’ – perform a dance and a game to then be able to say ‘Smelly Jew’ (‘sale Juif, etc. etc.), his comment was intended to be directed to an Israeli official and might be only blind anger.
What kind of a justification is THAT?
4.Similar to yelling something stupid and emotional at Obama, or George Bush: it happens all the time.
Huh? Tell me a sngle time either Bush or Obama had a student stand up and call them “smelly.” That is a base personal insult that goes far beyond “Bush lied”…
5.Outrageous insults that don’t mean much more than that.
They mean a lot more than that under the auspices of a distinguished university when a student of the university delivers the insult.
6. “Steve wrote: “Like it or not, Israel has become, unfairly, tarred with the brush of the oppressor, the killer of children, and so on, and, to those who subscribe to that view, it and its officials are worthy of nothing but hatred and contempt, and someone like Livni, considered by some to be the successor to the powerful Golda Meir, is lucky to just be called a smelly Jew rather than assaulted or targeted for an assassin’s bullet.
“Like it or not, law enforcement has become tarred with the brush of racist, bully, and killer of people of color, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a Ray Kelly or a Rudy Giuliani or someone else big in law enforcement, is fortunate to just be shouted down or shut down, rather than dragged from the podium and given a beating like the one visited on people of color by folks like him.
“Like it or not, the military and the intelligence community have been unfairly tarred with the brush of baby-killers, murderers, users of horrible weapons on civilians, and so on, and to those who subscribe to that view, someone like a General Tommy Franks or John Negroponte is damn lucky just to be screamed at and disrupted, rather than clapped in chains and hung for crimes against humanity.”
This is a form of subservient view because, in essence, it demands that you kneel before it, accept it, and ask no further questions. It really is a form of acute ideological position, but it cannot see itself as such.
A. A subservient view that demands that others be subservient to it = Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
B. I have no idea what point you are making by substituting unrelated entities for Israel. As a rhetorical device, that’s inappropriate, misleading and useless.
7.That in my view is what American Conservatism has become (the AltRight calls it ‘Cuckservatism’ and with good reason belittles it), then it is simply powerless to help anyone define ethics and morality at any level. It has been vacated of integrity. Ethics and morality then have a subservient platform, not an intellectual one.
Again, gibberish. This has no apparent meaning. What the hell is a “subservient platform”?
8. I know that 95% of what I write here will be misinterpreted, but there you have it.
Helpful tip: When you know that 95% of what you write will be misinterpreted, then you should try again. Who do you think you are writing to?
Thanks Jack.
Unlike mine, your patience has no bounds.
I’m afraid Alizia is saying the kid gets a pass because he’s Palestinian.
I said nothing of the sort.
Since it is unclear in the fog, I have no idea what you mean.
I’m just content that Alizia completely missed the point of my comment but still it launched her into a diatribe.
What is the point of your comment? For simple minds?
The type-face being displayed in the comments section has been bolded, for all comments. Simple enough?
I sincerely doubt if there is anyone on this blog who has a studied sense-of typography-to grasp the depth of the argument you’re making.
You may be right, since I am making no argument at all, merely answering a query posed by Ms. Tyler.
Now it seems pretty funny. I am on a laptop today and I thought it was my screen.
Why, I have no clue.
I believe you are missing a /strong after your list of sources.
Well, you fixed it, though you didn’t solve the mystery. I don’t use codes, I just highlight and hit the BOLD icon on my post page and the coding is automatic. Why this time it worked eccentrically is unknown. After your comment, I just unbolded, then bolded again, and it was fixed.
Computers.
Nor have I. Sure made everything easy to read, though.
Huh? The point I was trying to make, that Alizia grabbed onto, is that certain “sides” in a debate have been unfairly labeled to the point that the other side sees them as evil and won’t listen to them, and I gave some examples. It’s not a “subservient view,” it’s a closed-minded view. By nature it’s unethical to be so closed-minded that you not only won’t listen to but actively attack the other side in a discussion.
I can’t tell who you are “Huh?”-ing. I was pointing out that bluntly Alicia’s comparing criticism of Israel with criticism law enforcement or the military just leads to tangents. One is a country, one is a system, and one is an institution, and criticism of each requires different standards. .
Gotcha. I was “huh”-ing her. I wasn’t looking to start a tangent, just illustrate how certain folks get zero respect because they are presumed to be on the wrong side.
My read of Steve’s comments was that ‘power’ in each instance has been maligned by (what I’d imagine he describes as) the Left: the shrill vocal protester-class. My read was that he sees articulated opposition as falsely-based. Thus I said that his view 1) seemed ‘subservient’ and 2) biased both for a given power-structure (state or enforcement or military) and an ethical culture of opposition.
…against an ethical culture of opposition.
If you mean do I always side with the power against someone who cries oppressor, no, I don’t. World history is full of legitimate protests and even revolts. However, I do dislike the shrill vocal protestor class, which is often the ego of a few charismatic whackos (Ira Einhorn, Charles Manson, Philip Berrigan, et al) with funding.
World history is not the immediate present. Could you articulate a position against the Iraq war? The invasion of Panama? The funding of counter-revolution in Central America? Vietnam?
Could you articulate a position against the State of Israel?
Einhorn, Manson and BERRIGAN in the same class? ‘Et al?’ That is a statement in itself!
I’m sure I could if I wanted to, of course hindsight is 20/20. I do not believe there is a legitimate position against the existence of the State of Israel, although some of that nation’s policies may be up for discussion.
Yes, in the same class. All three were charismatic sociopaths who believed that rules and laws did not apply to them. Einhorn preached peace and love while battering his lovers and ultimately killing one, then fleeing to escape the consequences. Manson preached transcendence while targeting celebrities for death. Berrigan preached peace and God’s love while committing vandalism and other low-level crime and disruption, all targeted at his own side in the Cold War. The fact that one hid behind hippie-ish New Age stuff, another behind cosmic idealism, and the third behind the Bible doesn’t change anything.
I’m open to reassessment, and I am often surprised by counter-opinions here, but as of right now, today, I cannot see Berrigan and Manson in the same category. Give me time, perhaps?
“I’m sure I could if I wanted to, of course hindsight is 20/20. I do not believe there is a legitimate position against the existence of the State of Israel, although some of that nation’s policies may be up for discussion.”
I am a supported of Israel (FIDF: Friends of the IDF and a certain amount is taken out of my meagre account every month).
But in order to ‘support Israel’ I do away with all the need – all the BS – for justification. All the tortured reasoning, and the manipulation of facts. Reduce it to ‘straight power principles’ and – voila – the issue is resolved into both truth and reality. The Jews returned to Israel after catastrophic European experiences and they pushed the people living there off their desolate and sparsely-populated land. They TOOK the land, or you could say they TOOK IT BACK, and there is no land and no nation-name more associatable with a place than Israel: people and nation, one.
But we came back and fought for that land, we claimed it, we dominated it, and we destroyed what stood in our way, and we will continue to do that until – as in physics – another and superior force moves us out. Truth? Lies? Bah! This is a perfect example of ‘how power functions’.
It makes its choice, takes its course, and then writes or rewrites the narrative that supports it ex post facto.
Please help me to correct my ‘mistaken’ view of reality if you can. This is exactly how I see things. Telling the truth about things – and ourselves – begins here.
Berrigan
“It makes its choice, takes its course, and then writes or rewrites the narrative that supports it ex post facto.”
It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
“Similar to yelling something stupid and emotional at Obama, or George Bush: it happens all the time.”
Citation please? The closest I can think of would be Joe Wilson’s “You Lie” moment to Obama, and that was so unusual it was newsworthy. I think Jack picked it up and carried it on here.
“This non-philo-Judaism, or this anti-Jewishness, is not really antisemitism.”
I would bet good money that the people using “Smelly Jew” derogatorily don’t often make the distinction you are here. In fact, I’d bet money, that they, like myself, don’t know what the “non-philo” distinction even is. I’m not googling it. (And thank you squiggly red line).
“To understand Jews and Jewishness is a very very complex study. Fact is, this cannot even be talked about, here or anywhere. To define ‘Jew’ is so hot, so contested, that for any of you (if you are Gentile) to even talk a little bit about this, to probe these issues, to ask any level of interrogating question, and (God Forbid) to have any oppositional attitude or opinion on the topic, is FORBIDDEN to you.”
I prefer Goyim. And I don’t care what is forbidden, and I doubt many on here do.
“That in my view is what American Conservatism has become (the AltRight calls it ‘Cuckservatism’ and with good reason belittles it)”
Do you understand the etymology of the term?
I think so: cuckold + conservative. I always took it as that, and looked it up to be sure.
I have a very different opinion than you, and I start from the position of a Jew. Gentiles are not allowed to define a non-philo-semitic position. You can’t not like Jews. And you cannot explain why you don’t like Jews. You cannot define the reasons why you might not like the structure of Jewish religion, or the ‘Jewish Project’ as it is understood generally (and I mean this by Jews in classical studies of Jewish history).
If you think in these terms, and if you express any of these ideas, and should you have a social position, be a teacher, a businessman, or a political figure, you will be immediately classed as an antisemite and harm will be done to you.
For this reason – as I said in plain English – this topic is not discussed, ever. It is an issue that is pushed to the fringe, driven underground.
And I contend that there are a number of issues like this one which cannot and are not discussed. They simply cannot be.
Now, that for you may be a desirable state of affairs (that such topics are marginalized). I might agree with you. But the way my mind works I prefer to see all things put on the table.
“cuckold + conservative” Exactly, a portmanteau for conservative people cheated on by their representatives. I know that cuckold has some negative connotations, but I always put the emphasis on idea that they’re representatives are whores.
“Gentiles are not allowed to define a non-philo-semitic position.”
Goyim, please, let’s not hold punches. And try telling me one more time what I’m not allowed to talk about. Please.
“You can’t not like Jews. And you cannot explain why you don’t like Jews.”
There’s one or two I don’t care for. But as a group, it’s some kind of bigotry, depending on whether you’re applying “Jewish” to be racial, religious, or national.
“You cannot define the reasons why you might not like the structure of Jewish religion”
THAT though, you can do. I don’t mind the Jewish religion, generally, it’s a perseverance cult as opposed to a death cult. But certain doctrines hit me as racist per se. I’m using the word that you refuse to, that perhaps you shouldn’t, but know someoen who does. I know what it means; Goyim. I wear similarly to a black person using “Nigger.”
“For this reason – as I said in plain English – this topic is not discussed, ever. It is an issue that is pushed to the fringe, driven underground.”
Interesting. By whom, do you think? But the best way to dal with that, if you see that as a problem: Talk about it.
“Now, that for you may be a desirable state of affairs (that such topics are marginalized). I might agree with you.”
This hits me as you projecting. If I ever said anything that led you to believe that I think that way… Citation please.
“Goyim”
Although… that isn’t a really good comparison, when you think about it. Not many people outside the tribe know the word, or the derogatory meaning behind it. It’s much more likely that a Jewish parent would tell a daughter not to marry a filthy goy than it is to be called a filthy goy on the street. And goy is a negative descriptor, it’s everyone who ISN’T Jewish (Or human, depending on how literally you read the books) as opposed to someone who is in a group. But very few languages even have a word for “that unclean, subhuman thing that isn’t like me.”
Barbarian is the closest – it comes from the Greeks calling everyone who was not a Hellene by that term, basically people who went “baa baa” like sheep instead of speaking Greek.
I thought “savage” might have been close too, but neither really encompass the universal contempt for everyone outside a very narrowly defined group.
“There’s one or two I don’t care for. But as a group, it’s some kind of bigotry, depending on whether you’re applying “Jewish” to be racial, religious, or national.”
Then I will suggest that you don’t really understand articulated antisemitism. Antisemitism defines a Jewish historical project and is related to the specific and underpinning religiosity of Jews. It identifies and takes issue with ‘Jewish will’ and a particular and defined form of materialism. The tenets of religious belief, the notion of Jews as chosen, how Jews see themselves vis-a-vis others, and the relationship of these chosen to their Gentile hosts.
The ‘you’ I referred to was a general you, not you specifically.
I give up. What’s your point?
Alizia doesn’t do points, HT. Just thought clouds.
“I will have such revenges on you both
That all the world shall—I will do such things—
What they are yet I know not, but they shall be
The terrors of the earth. You think I’ll weep?
No, I’ll not weep.”
There may actually be places when using particular King Lear quotes are inappropriate in the context of a discussion.
Both of you are, in my view, somewhat ‘out of integrity’, and so I choose to be a little clever and have a little fun. Just like Lear: Mine is an impotent threat. There is nothing in fact I can do when faced with such adversaries. If I have not made my points clear, it is not because of lack of effort. It may be for lack of ‘shared vision of the world’, a different understanding of things perhaps.
“Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
Alizia said, “Both of you are, in my view, somewhat ‘out of integrity’ “
I wasn’t part of this little conversation until I replied to your King Lear quote; so just who the hell is this “both of you” you’re talking to? It appears your King Lear “threat” was directed at Other Bill and Humble Talent. Maybe you should pay better attention to what conversation your in, the context of that conversation, and who you’re replying to before you reply.
P.S. Maybe you should consider that you shouldn’t be commenting on the integrity of other people.
I don’t talk about it much because in my more rural area there just aren’t that many jews I interact with. (In college, yes) Actually there aren’t that many people I see regularly who want to talk about anything that isn’t part of immediate business or common hobby. I don’t interrupt my RL chatting about groceries, editing my fics, or killing digital orcs to talk about some idiot student. This student didn’t stay on topic, tolerable to a point, which he exceeded. His apology just plainly shows he doesn’t get why his previous words required an apology. Brief and concise is also for apologies not just for Hemingway’s prose.
1) I meant it in the popular sense: what many people take to be the rhetorical trickiness of lawyer.
2) The base of this man’s anger is likely in anti-Israeli sentiment, and the Palestinian issue. He may or may not have a more developed ‘anti-Zionist’ position.
3) I did not ‘justify’ it or anything, I explained its context.
4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsb9M1QbPjU
5) No argument there.
6) “A subservient view that demands that others be subservient to it”. Not ‘frontier gibberish’, it is a position – a view – that I can articulate. And I have. And I will get better and better at it. And no one will stop me. 🙂
7) I will articulate it here, in email, or anywhere else: I CAN articulate it. It IS NOT meaningless.
8) It was a rhetorical exaggeration, a confession of a sort. But I may assume, reasonably, that my views will be misinterpreted, and especially on the theme of antisemitism, Israel, Jewish identity, and other things. I have noticed it. I can explain why that is. The benefit, to me, in being misunderstood is the advantage of learning to better clarify.
Though I will or may be misunderstood (I present this as a strong possibility), I desire to clarify, explain, and in that process 1) get corrected or 2) fortify my grasp of things.
2) He’s a college student. The odds of him having a developed view of anything is exceedingly small.
3) Anti-Semitic views, even in their proper context, remain anti-Semitic.
4) Using an idiot to explain or excuse another idiot is not the most persuasive of arguments.
Here’s another concept that you should endlessly contemplate while trying to balance yourself on that fence…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
>The Ethics Alarms Apology Scale doesn’t include an equivalent
Perhaps ethics alarms should take a page from the spinal tap playbook and make a scale that goes to 11?
There exists a depth of hatred some (I say some because I know only a few Palestinians and I will ASSUME – and hope – that their level of antisemitism is not universal) Palestinians hold for Jews/Israel that transcends reason, consequence, justification, ethics, morality and polite society. There is a demonization that is frankly incomprehensible to me. I have seen hate, and hate-filled people, but this is a step above it. It is an all-consuming hatred. I know two other Palestinian men – men who are otherwise intelligent, polite, even kind and loving, but mention Jews, even American Jews who have lived here for generations, who are non-practicing – and suddenly a side of them appears that would scare the bravest of souls. People who would not harm the least of animals, much less another person, who would rejoice at the death of a Jew. It is deeply frightening, as I cannot comprehend where that level of hate comes from. It is far deeper than the race hate, homosexual hate, religious intolerance, misogyny or all other forms of hate and prejudice I have previously known.
It leaves a cold, deep fear in my stomach as I realize this burning hatred cannot be reasoned or legislated away. I am not even sure time will quench it’s fire. I don’t even understand how it is so effectively and efficiently being passed to successive generations. I see people so twisted by hate in this particular regard that I highly doubt they see any answer short of genocide as acceptable or fair.
I am a believer in empathy and that if you can truly understand where someone is coming from, you can begin a path to resolution – but in this case I think there is no empathy that can touch it. I can understand the historical and current issues that have contributed to the situation, just as I can understand how the injustice and cruelty of slavery have contributed to race problems today, but this burning, single-minded, hatred which goes far beyond reason and justification…is terrifyingly incomprehensible to me.
In order to be accepted to Harvard SoL, this man had to have great intelligence, education, his parents likely invested heavily, financially and emotionally, in helping attain that goal, it is demonstrative of the defiance of reason or consequence that this man would gladly throw all of that away (twice) for the chance to call an Israeli minister a “smelly Jew”. For the chance to drive that tiny, but hot blade of hate into the Jewish community. It is beyond comprehension and if it is beyond comprehension, how can it be stopped? Not just silenced, but stopped?
“I am a believer in empathy and that if you can truly understand where someone is coming from, you can begin a path to resolution – but in this case I think there is no empathy that can touch it.
“It is beyond comprehension and if it is beyond comprehension, how can it be stopped? Not just silenced, but stopped?”
According to your own analysis: sort of like being corralled into a box-canyon, the only way to ‘resolve’ it is to bring such levels of violence against it that, effectively, you perform a Canaan on them: “Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you.”
What you have done is, from another side, articulated a reverse-hate.
There was a time, as a Jew I should say, that I ‘believed’ these things. I believed them because – just as in your case – this was what was presented to me as ‘true’. I guess I got ‘red pilled’ as they say these days: Lies, lies and more lies. Interwoven systems of lies and good luck sorting through it.
Now, to understand so-called Zionism, and the ideology of anti-Zionism, and what is said of the Zionist Project in the postwar era by some philosophers and commenters, you would begin to articulate the same hatred/reverse hatred as you have, here, but in a concerted undermining effort against European civilization. After all – ask Zoltar for his 70s video whose thesis is, at the end of it: “Look at that image of Hitler. THAT’S YOU!’
To understand the currents of opposition that are moving in this world requires being able to actually look at them, understand on what they are constructed. At that point and after doing that work it might be possible to bring forward a successful counter-argument.
I do not say that I have anything figured out, and it is all terribly confusing, but my gut tells me that ‘it is not as it seems’ and is more complex.
It can’t. Hate is a mist that, if allowed to grow unchecked, becomes a black cloud that smothers the ability to reason. I’ve seen a much lighter shadow of it in the Irish and Irish Americans who still hate the English with every fiber of their beings, though the Good Friday Agreement is now almost 2 decades old and most of the Irish Americans have never even set foot in either Ireland or England.
These are the otherwise-intelligent people who are typically law-abiding and even in law enforcement, but who are perfectly OK with murders and bombings to change the status of the last 6 counties that are part of the UK, and say that Lord Mountbatten (who was pro-Irish freedom, btw) brought his own murder on by being a member of the hated House of Windsor. These are the otherwise hardworking bar and pub and gift shop owners who were ok slipping a cut of their profits to the IRA’s bagmen to finance guns and explosives to kill soldiers and police trying to keep order. A few of these were also the lawyers, writers, and so forth who painted the whole cause like it was some kind of holy struggle for stolen sacred land against the “gray strangers” (an early term for the Normans due to their chain armor which few native Irish had), rather than a grubby fight over land and power.
Point out to any of these people the brutal nature of the Anglo-Irish War or the Irish Civil War that followed, or the slimy tactics used on BOTH sides, and I guarantee you you’ll get told to STFU at best, punched out at worst. Mention that Ireland stood off to the side for WW2 and the Cold War, or that the IRA made common cause with the USSR and Middle Eastern terrorists, and expect more of the same. It doesn’t matter. They hate the British that much. Don’t even think of pointing out to the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland proper that both worship the same God and were born in the same land. Each wants the other GONE, not second-class, not defeated, GONE.
Multiply that hate about a hundred times, and you’ll have the hatred the Arabs, especially the Palestinian Arabs (there never was a nation of Palestine) have for the Jews. It has all the same elements as the Irish conflict: land ownership, religious conflict, past grudges by the bucketful. However, neither side in the Emerald Isle conflict believes that the other side is subhuman or guilty of ritual murder and cannibalism, nor that death in a suicide bombing will grant you eternity with 72 virgins. The latter is right there in the Koran (in all fairness the Crusaders believed in automatic sin remission for death on Crusade too, but that ended a long time ago), and it’s documented that the blood libel still shows up in Arab national periodicals. There is no way to reason out of this.
Very nice. It is sad, when you come down to it. The waste of all that energy could improve their lives in a different direction.
Well said, Lisa. Sadly, this is why I often think Israel would be better off just moving out of the neighborhood. As a Jewish guy I worked with was fond of saying, “There is a Promised Land. It’s the United States.” Not to mention another Jewish guy I worked with who was fond of saying, “If we’re the Chosen People, how come there’s no oil in Israel?” I think it would be best for the Israelis to just call the experiment off, buy the Florida panhandle or someplace, build a great place there and let the Palestinians destroy what the Jews have built in “Palestine” to their satisfaction, as they have Gaza. Unfortunate, but I think the problem is otherwise insoluble because of Muslim intractability.
This wasn’t nearly as sincere as the Pazuzu excuse. He is openly mocking his audience, managing to wrap yet another insult within the “apology” (smelly Jew).
Gee, something must have given him the impression that saying this would make him a folk hero in the eyes of an overwhelming majority of his fellow students, and that he’d find at least some degree of sheepish acquiescence from the faculty.
I also wonder if he actually thinks his apology was clever?
I think you are right, which is why it needs a special designation in Apology Hell. When you can embarrass Pazuzu…
Thank you for calling it like it is: blatant anti-semitism followed by an “apology” which reeks of evasion and cowardice. The SJP and its ilk, rather than face the reality that they speak for a culture of helplessness and self-pity, can only snarl. I suppose it beats pipe bombs, from the perspective of those of us whose ethics are not frozen in the 7th century.
Frontier Gibberish: “…it is usually used to describe either intentional or incompetent blather from politicians or others attempting to confuse the public, duck a question, or mislead everyone. It is deliberate communication malpractice, with the motive of not communicating but pretending to.”
____________________________________
I must protest. This term was used to describe some or all of what I attempted in this thread. I have no such intention as intentional deception, nor to confuse anyone, nor to mislead, nor only pretend to communicate. What a terrible accusation!
I operate from a predicate – perhaps this is right, perhaps wrong – that in our world today, our mediated electronic and information world especially – that it is next to impossible to ‘get to the facts’. I would refer even to the present example debated here. Do you (the general *you*) think you understand what happened here? Do you think you have the facts? Do you think you can *see clearly*? If I am wrong to think as I do so be it. I’ll accept being wrong. But as it stands today, right now, I suggest that it is next to impossible to TRUST the solidity of the information that is spun-out for our consumption. Time and time again this becomes clear.
An event is focussed on, and event is described and turned into a Narrative. The Narrative is spun in a particular way, takes on a life like Frankenstein, is ‘supported’ by a faction, is ‘memed’, and then travels in consciousness through what amounts to a Twitter-feed: a hopped-up, tendentious, partial, intentioned set of peculiar facts, which rushes out and ‘captures’ people, ‘convinces’ them. At some point it does not matter what the Truth is, the distortion has become the Truth, and the distorted truth is more meaningful to those who sickly ‘believe’ it than the actual truth itself.
What angers some people is that I suggest that they themselves do not have the skill nor the honesty to see and describe in straightforward terms; that I doubt that they have no biases because I see bias loaded on top of biases (and the man who says he has no bias is likely to be discovered as the most wicked and insidious agent of distortion and confusion).
Each of the *really hot issues* becomes a pit f confusion, distortion, contention and spin: the question of race that comes up now at every turn, how race must be thought about, what is appropriate and inappropriate to think about it and on what is one’s sense of things predicated: this is a crucial question. And I suggest: It cannot actually be thought about or talked about. It is intellectually off-limits. So, there is an Official Opinion and that is the one that goes on TV. Should you think differently, should you articulate a position that opposes the prevailing view, and should you articulate it and should you have any social position at all, you will be destroyed.
The same can be said for a group of different ideological issues, not the least being that of the establishment of Israel in the post-war and many consequent events. To put those ‘events’ on the table and talk about them – because this touches on profound issues of immediate importance in the interpretation of the world and the present, these official understandings are STRUCTURAL elements in an edifice which holds up a given view of Reality. If this idea is too complex for *you* I will not apologize but I will commiserate with *your* existential dilemna. But I certainly will not cease to probe either my perception-system (as one *installed* in me by the surrounding culture), or the one that I develop as a free and independent soul who desires to *see clearly* and thus to live ethically, insofar as this is possible in our twisted, up-ended, opaque, gloomy and murky world.
I have not EVER been dishonest in how I view things, nor have a misrepresented who I am, and I have also described, voluntarily, my own limitations.
Alizia,
As I said before there is a there is a HUGE difference between intelligent articulation and fence post sitting randomness.
Stop your juvenile whining; if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
I used the term recently in response to this passage of yours:
I wrote:
A. A subservient view that demands that others be subservient to it = Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
Of the two alternatives in the definition of AFG you quoted, this comment of mine was clearly designating the second:
“incompetent blather…attempting to confuse the public, duck a question, or mislead everyone.
This use of “Subservient” with the metaphor of subservience is the very model of incompetent incoherence. “Subservient” is one of the words with conceptually contradictory definitions; one meaning prepared to obey others unquestioningly, or “bow down to,” another meaning a tactic or action intended to achieve a particular objective.
Using the two images simultaneously is intentionally incompetent rhetoric, and preemptively using obfuscation to avoid rebuttal. If you are erudite sufficiently to use the rarest of the definitions of the word, you can be presumed to know that mixing it with the more common first meaning will confuse the hell out of everyone.
Other Bill wrote: “Well said, Lisa. Sadly, this is why I often think Israel would be better off just moving out of the neighborhood. As a Jewish guy I worked with was fond of saying, “There is a Promised Land. It’s the United States.” Not to mention another Jewish guy I worked with who was fond of saying, “If we’re the Chosen People, how come there’s no oil in Israel?” I think it would be best for the Israelis to just call the experiment off, buy the Florida panhandle or someplace, build a great place there and let the Palestinians destroy what the Jews have built in “Palestine” to their satisfaction, as they have Gaza. Unfortunate, but I think the problem is otherwise insoluble because of Muslim intractability.”
__________________________
You have just said a group of intensely stupid things and you did so with a staight face. What you reveal is that you do not now and have not ever grasped the actual issues at stake. The concept of a Chosen People is that of a small group of people who are linked with the Supreme Creator of the Universe and the World and who operate in that world as God’s agents. ‘You’ are, according to the Narrative, the opposition to God’s Will, and the empowerment of the Jews as a historical people is to carry and apply a Narrative Structure to events which means, factually, to manipulate the perception of events in accord with that established narrative. This is the Jewish Historical Project in a nutshell.
‘Israel’ is both a place and the solidification of an Idea, and the cat-n-mouse game between the Terrible Creator (nice in one moment, and a psychotic dismemberer of babies in the next, in point of fact the sole author of Holocaust) and the Victim-People who are oppressed, quite factually, by YOU. You are God’s opposition. And you will be whipped into shape.
The Internal Narratives that function in the Story are what has to be paid attention to: Loss and gain of Israel is our ‘scorecard’ with the Creator Himself. But the establishment of Israel is the embodiment of Jewish will and power on this Earth as-against you miserable, recalcitrant, backa**ward, violent, blind, tortured ‘goyim’ as Humble so eloquently states it.
It is all encased within the Narrative itself, and is in fact plain as day: Genesis. The man is recieved as a guest. He rises to the top. He gains tremendously but it is material gain. The political structure gets suspicious. The Guest is taken down a notch or two. He cannot operate his Will. God hears his plea and this God manifests Himself as a terror-program launced against the host country with metaphysical punishment that translates into plagues. And as The Lord of All Creation helps these valient folk to make their exit, they simultaneously make off with all the gold and silver and other valuable objects. Whoops! Those who wrote the story would have done a little better in concealing the raw intent as it is expressed in the story itself.
‘Call the experiment off’! Call off Israel. “Israel’ is the very foundation of the whole concept of Judaism.
You have – literally – not the slightest idea of what you are talking about, and you have no idea what it is to struggle with these truths as a Jew in real time, here and now. If you wish to understand what getting ‘twisted up inside’ is about, just ask!
I renounce Judaism at the basic, foundational and metaphysical level and begin to define an oppositional position.
I take my metaphysics seriously. Who in the heck knows what *you* take seriously. Maybe very little when it coes right down to it.
Though I doubt you are too concerned or interested, Other Bill, here is an interesting reference to the ‘locate Israel to the USA’ suggestion. As ridiculous as it all is, and as unlikely as it is, you are very right to say that in Jewish history the opportunity of the US for Jews has been incomparable to any other historical situation in all of Jewish history.
I realise that this (and my exposition generally) is tangential to the small ethical issue of the racial insult and I regret in a sense that I expand toward ‘larger concerns’. It is a feature of the way my mind works.
An article in the Times of Israel:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-labour-suspends-mp-who-wanted-israel-dismantled/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=20d97feecf-2016_04_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-20d97feecf-54833013
Antisemitism Antisemitism Antisemitism . blah blah blah. The kid behaved like an idiot buy why is this news? News on bigotry would be Trump that wants to ban Muslims from entering US… supported by over 40% of a population that claims to stand for freedom.
Like seriously. If someone says “Jews like sucking Nazi penises” does it have to be news? I don’t see anyone in a huff when some somebody says “Greeks like it in the ass” or “Irish are all drunks” or “English have bad teeth”
Frankenstein is right. Antisemitism has become an industry with very little to do with actual human rights. If anything it breeds resentment for dual standards of conduct. One isn’t tolerated. The other is treated as free speech.
The funny thing about those that support the holocaust industry … most of them aren’t actually Jewish. Case in point… fundamentalist Christians in America gleefully support Israel ethnic cleansing Palestinians from Palestine precisely because they see it as intrinsic to their biblical scripture (i.e. part of the coming apocalypse…. i.e. they are at least partially crazy)
But hey I better not single anyone out (least I be slandered as “racist”) So let me equally offend.
Virtually everyone that claims they know with absolute certainty the holy noddleness exists and base their laws and foreign policy on those beliefs… whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc.. etc….._ is at least in part an asshat. Stone age savages had an excuse to believe in such obvious nonsense. They were ignorant. We don’t have the same excuse today. Myths certainly shouldn’t be the basis for our lconduct.
Seems like many have forgotten that the Renaissance wasn’t about religious values as some fanatics claim today.. It was largely about a rejection of those values.
Well THAT was incoherent.
1. I write about issues that have some ethics teaching value. This lesson: bad apologies.
2. If you don’t like the choice of topics, write your own damn blog. This kind of complaint is covered in the guide to commenters above. Do NOT say, “why are you writing about A when B is more important?” There are 7000 posts here. I take the issues one at a time.
3. Trump’s proposed blunt-edge ban on Muslim refugees is not religious discrimination, and if I have to explain to you the difference between “This group has a lot of murderers in it and we don’t know how to distinguish them from the non-murderers” and “Muslims are bad,” you aren’t bright enough to comment here.
“fundamentalist Christians in America gleefully support Israel ethnic cleansing Palestinians from Palestine”
There is a groundswell of support for Israel among the Christian population yes. But you’ve loaded the assertion with the outright falsehood that Israel is pursuing a policy of Ethnic Cleansing. Foul #1
“precisely because they see it as intrinsic to their biblical scripture (i.e. part of the coming apocalypse…. i.e. they are at least partially crazy)”
As one who borders right on the edge of Christian Fundamentalism and still having yet to hear such preaching to any general population, you’ll have to elucidate this particular bit of scriptural exegesis for me. Lacking that, you’re pretty much revealed as a bigot yourself. Foul #2
“Virtually everyone that claims they know with absolute certainty the holy noddleness exists and base their laws and foreign policy on those beliefs… whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc.. etc….._ is at least in part an asshat.”
So cultures that craft laws from inherited cultural values are composed of “asshats”, got it. You’re a moron.
“Seems like many have forgotten that the Renaissance wasn’t about religious values as some fanatics claim today.. It was largely about a rejection of those values.”
I think you’re looking to generalize the era known as the so-called “Enlightenment”, as the “Renaissance” did little to reject religious values, as any, even lazy effort of research, will reveal that much diversification, proliferation, entrenchment and communication of religious ideas was the currency of the day.