Saturday, August 16, 2008

On the Saddleback Civil Forum

Flunking the Warren Test
by Tom Van Dyke

Rick Warren is the multimillion-selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of the supersized, non-denominational/unaffiliated Saddleback Church of Lake Forest CA. He hosted the presidential candidates today for an informal chat in front of a few thousand [a few million, counting TV] people.

You don't dis Rev. Rick. He invites, you come.

One of his first questions to the candidates was along the lines of, What does your Christian Faith mean to you?

With 80% of Americans telling pollsters they consider themselves "Christians," it's fair to say that an unsatisfactory answer at Rev. Warren's dog-and-pony show might lose enough votes to lose the presidency.

And although the constitution explicitly forbids "religious tests" for federal office, I have no problem with candidates revealing their beliefs in trolling for votes: on the whole, I'm not going for the Satanist.

Anywayz, Barack Obama's answer was that his Christian belief meant Jesus died for his sins, John McCain's that he was forgiven and saved. Very nice.

But as Thomas Jefferson noted in his diary, never once did George Washington utter or write such a bold profession of orthodox Christian faith, even when the clergy tried to pin him down:

"[T]he old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."

Well, in 2008, the cable news pundits certainly would have noticed his unsatisfactory evasiveness, and pounced on it. If he'd been on Rev. Warren's stage tonight, a decisive sliver of voters might've adjudged George Washington as unfit to be President of the United States. Even a Christian Nationist should be able to appreciate that irony.


Phil Johnson said...

G.W. was the "old fox"?
That's great!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jonathan Rowe said...

Hey Marge Schott really didn't die. She just goes by the name "Barbara."

Lindsey Shuman said...

Wow! I was thinking of deleting that post (and still might if people request it) but decided to leave it to illustrate that hate speech is alive and well.

Lindsey Shuman said...

On second thought, we really don't need that junk here.

Phil Johnson said...

I wonder if "Barbara" could have expressed her thoughts in a way that could be acceptable for consideration.
Otherwise, we are forced to just turn our back on her?
Once again, I think you are wrong, Lindsey. You cannot kill a thought by silencing it. It would be far better to leave it on the table so everyone can see it.

Lindsey Shuman said...

You might be right, Pinky. If people want me to put her comment back up I will. The only reason I took it down was because of its obvious prejudice and its hateful nature.

bpabbott said...

Lindsey: "You might be right, Pinky. If people want me to put her comment back up I will. The only reason I took it down was because of its obvious prejudice and its hateful nature."


Please do put Barbara's comment back up.

I can think of no better justification than to let Barbara fortify her reputation as a hatful bigot ... even better, put it back and disable her ability to delete it herself ;-)

Of course, I'm also inclined to have it put back because it went down before I had a chance to read it myself ;-)

Anonymous said...

Excuse me. This is a blog about religion. You can talk about our forefathers. You can talk about Christians.

Yet we're not allowed to talk about Jews? Why? They are directly related to why this is no longer the nation that our forefathers gave us.

I am opposed to committing a holocaust against Muslims and the Middle East. Which is GOVERNMENT POLICY! We can have a policy where we commit a holocaust against other people but we can't talk about Jews!

Neoconservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement. The neocons took over our government and they have rounded up an ethnic group and locked them away at Gitmo without due process and tortured them. (against the United States Constitution)Then they took us into a holocaust against innocent people who have never done anything to us and who cannot defend themselves against the world's only military superpower. Yet we can't talk about Jews!

Why did we attack Iraq? Why is Israel now demanding that we bomb Iran? We deterred the world's only other military superpower the Soviet Union why would we care if some little nation in the Middle East has weapons.

We were attacked on 9-11 because of our polices toward ISRAEL - yet we are not allowed to talk about Jews and their influence upon our once Christian nation. Thats your brains on drugs. You are nuts!

I said in the now deleted post that Anti-semitism and The Holocaust are the new religion. Every one of you has bowed your knees to it. Thank you for making my point.

We are not allowed to talk about Jews because they are the sacred cows in America. Unbelievable.

Did the Jews take pity upon us when they destroyed out Anglo Saxon Protestant country? Do they feel sorry for us when they demand that we say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" during duh Christmas holidays.

The American system that our forefathers gave us was that any citizen could put forward an idea or opinion. Then the opinion is debated and examined. It either becomes popular consensus or it is debunked. You didn't even examine one point that I made. You just call me names and censor me.

Therefore again you prove my points. We no longer have a system that reflects what our forefathers gave us but we have a system that benefits one ethnic group, Jews, at the expense of the General Welfare.

I am sorry that my ideas frighten you. I am sorry that you are unable to debate them or examine them. I am sorry that you felt you had to resort to censorship because the ideas are too complex for you and that you are out of your element.

Read this website to learn about Strauss, the Jews' philospher.

Its juvenile to be afraid to talk about Jews. You talk about Christians. Why can't you talk about Jews? Name one reason. What sensible person treats free speech on the same level as a Nazi holocaust. DUH You are victims of Jewish propaganda. Thats why you're afraid to talk about them. This blog is about religion. DUH.

I only stated facts in the post that you deleted. You can't kill a thought by censoring it as Pinky said.

Tell me what the difference is between an Aryan Nation and a Jewish state other than one is Aryan and the other is Jewish?

Does the United States Constitution support the ideology of ethnic states.

Why did we destroy Nazi Germany and then support Zionist Israel? Are the Jews not doing the same things to Palestinians that they claim the Nazis did to them.

According to the CIA World Factbook Jews make up only 1.7% of the United States population. Therefore over 98% of us have ZERO vested in securing a Jewish state. So why does our government spend our tax money and our children's blood on behalf of the podunk state of Israel which is the terrorist engine of the world. Can you say Jewish money, power and influence in our government and media? Yet we are not allowed to talk about them!!!!

If our government now supports the ideology of ethnic states then why can't we make the United States into an Anglo Saxon Protestant country once again. If the Jews deserve their own state don't Christians and white people deserve ours? Whats the difference?

You can of course delete this post also or you can think about what I've said. You shouldn't have opinions that you can't defend. Its not right that Jews demand political correctness and a diverse country where white Christian people are concerned but they demand an ethnic state for themselves. Is it.

If they want their own state THEY should have to sacrifice for it. Would it be right if we created an Aryan nation and asked Jews to secure it for us.

Anonymous said...

Once again let me repeat what I said about Christians beliefs vs the State.

Mercy and pity or feeling sorry for Jews because of The Holocaust belong in the realm of Christianity and religion.

The state simply does what is in our best interests without pity or mercy. That is a Separation of Church and State. We became the economic engine of the world by having policies that hurt third world people and the state did it without any pity or mercy.

Christian missionaries cared about the misery of those people, the State did not.

Therefore the State should not care about Jews or their holocaust. It should care only about doing what is in the interests of America. Israel is NOT the same as America. Israel is an Ethnocracy, not a Democracy. It is an ethnic state.

You can either deal with what I say by engaging your brains or you can deal with it on an Emotional level. But our forefathers used their brains or we wouldn't be here. The Jews wish to play upon your emotions and they have been quite successful.

Phil Johnson said...

You never deleted any of Dan Atkinson's posts. Why would you delete the post by Barbara.
If one agrees with her or not, she makes points that are not dealt with due to some silly idea about what is politically correct speech or not.
What is the First Amendment to our Constitution all about if persons like Barbara can be silenced by a blue pencil?
Are we afraid that some idea might come to the surface that might upset the status quo?
Yupper, I say reinstate the deleted post. If you don't agree that her post doesn't qualify under the slogan, "A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the religious history of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.", Then give your reason and let the post stand so others can judge for themselves.
Of all the things American Creation has to be about, Free Speech has to rank near the top.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I'd have preferred the comment be dumped on the grounds of irrelevance. If the comments are irrelevant, the comments sections will become irrelevant, and that would be a shame.

Anonymous said...

What did Dan Atkinson say?

Tom van dyke - the post above is about a Christian forum of Warren where the presidential candidates gave their Christian testimonies. this happened in an environment where Jews are attempting to get Christians out of the government - and where Jews contribute the most money to the candidates. Therefore my posts about Jews are indeed relevant.

Just as Bush claimed to be Christian and got the votes of Christians and then the White House was controlled by Jewish neocons who made up his inner circle and who gave us policies that helped Israel but bankrupted us and spilled our Christian children's blood.

So what is the significance of Warren's forum or the candidates' Christian testimony? Are they not doing the same thing that Bush did and lying to the people in order to get their votes then when they take office will they not do the Jews bidding instead of doing the Christian thing and what is right?

Jews would never tolerate a Christian forum since their agenda is to get a separation of Church and State. Yet they tolerate it because they know it is a political necessity to get the Christian vote for their candidate. They laugh because they know who has the real power and who is being duped.

Remember how Hillary and Barack fought over the Jewish Hollywood money a few months ago.

Rahm Emanuel is the Democrat who chooses party nominees. He was born in Israel and he served in its military and now he is a King Maker in the United States government. His Father was an Israeli terroristswho served in the Israeli Ergun.

We should be exposing the Jewish conspiracy to sabotage the Christians in America and deny them self government because the Jews' money actually runs the political agenda.

Jews are the real terrorists. They have certainly terrorized all of you into silence haven't they? They have terrorized you and they have made you into terrorists who go after other Americans who dare to oppose Jewish politics which we have every right to oppose because that is a right our fore Fathers gave to us.

Rick Warren has no political power. The biggest failure of the Southern Baptist Convention and of Protestant groups in America is the failure to value intellectualism and education so that now Christians and people such as yourselves are helpless to defend our government, our culture, our heritage and our religion from the Jews. You don't even see the obvious which is right in front of your eyes.

After WW2 when Jews came here from Europe they begin advertising on Saturday morning cartoons telling us how wonderful diversity is. Bring up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it. So true.

Tom Van Dyke said...

No, my post's relevance was linking the Saddleback Forum question with George Washington, who was one of America's Founders.

Your post is beyond the purview of this blog, which discusses current events only in the context of the Founding, and even then it's seldom.

You hijacked any discussion of a post I worked for an hour on, Barbara. I'd consider it a courtesy and a personal favor if you don't do it again.

Phil Johnson said...

How can any uninformed person really argue with what Barbara is posting here?
How much do I really know about the claims she has made? I'm seventy-seven years old and have never heard any open discussion on the subjects.
Maybe she can be inveigled upon to provide a paper on her thoughts regarding the Founding of our America and how that has played out?

Just a thought.

bpabbott said...

Barbara commented: "Excuse me. This is a blog about religion. You can talk about our forefathers. You can talk about Christians. Yet we're not allowed to talk about Jews? Why?"

Barbara, you are not "talking about Jews". You are (largely) supporting an ideology that is plainly anti-Jewish ... commonly called hate speech. In other words, you are talking about an anti-Jewish Ideology.

To qualify, being critical of the actions of individuals, of groups, or of their ideology (properly represented) is not verboten, but generally encouraged.

Please take not that demonizing of Christians, Muslims, Jews, or other theists on this blog is a rare and discouraged practice. The same is true of demonizing atheists.

Regarding your request to be excused, I'm at a loss as to why you are so prejudiced against Jews. Even if the first thousand you met spit in your eye, the next might save your life. Every individual should be given the chance to earn their own reputation. In my opinion, stereotyping is one of the great affronts to individual liberty that we are all subject to. It is a weakness we should each be aware of and confront it when reason dictates.

Take note, that I've already taken the position that you should be given the opportunity to earn yours ... meaning your words and actions reflect upon you. The words and actions of individual Jews reflect upon them as individuals.

Back to your anti-Jewish position, where did such sentiments originate for you? ... personal experience or through indoctrination?

Phil Johnson said...

I'm afraid I can't go along with Abbot in his comments to Barbara just above.
She made some comments about neocons for which I would like to see her reference(s).
And, that is germane to this thread on the Faith Forum sponsored by Rick Warren and company.
So, WHY is Israel singled out as America's best friend in the middle east. It isn't even a democracy as we know the idea.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "I'd have preferred the comment be dumped on the grounds of irrelevance."

As I've successfully dug up the original post by Barbara off of GoogleReader, I've changed my mind.

I'm with Tom.

Lindsey, you are correct to delete it (imo).

At the same time, I still have passions for Pinky's position as well as my original response, which means I am happy either way.

After all Barbara is at liberty to repost her sentiments in a manner that is relevant and more secular ;-)

bpabbott said...

Pinky: "I'm afraid I can't go along with Abbott in his comments to Barbara just above."

I'm curious as to the specifics of your objection> Can you elaborate?

Pinky: "So, WHY is Israel singled out as America's best friend in the middle east."

I have no clue. From my arm chair that relationship costs us more than we gain.

Pinky: "It isn't even a democracy as we know the idea."

Actually, Israel is a democracy as I understand the idea.

bpabbott said...

Pinky: "Maybe [Barbara] can be inveigled upon to provide a paper on her thoughts regarding the Founding of our America and how that has played out?"


How about it Barbara? ... do you have anything more than unsubstantiated claims and rhetoric?

Phil Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Johnson said...

Pinky: "I'm afraid I can't go along with Abbott in his comments to Barbara just above."

Abbot: I'm curious as to the specifics of your objection> Can you elaborate?

It looks to me as though you are using an off the rack argument to close Barbara down. I can’t go along with that.

Pinky: "So, WHY is Israel singled out as America's best friend in the middle east."

Abbot: I have no clue. From my arm chair that relationship costs us more than we gain.

But, never the less, it gives some fuel to Barbara’s complaints. I don’t know why Israel gets such special treatment from the US either.

Pinky: "It isn't even a democracy as we know the idea."

Abbot: Actually, Israel is a democracy as I understand the idea.

Israel borders on the political idea of bi-nationalism (also multi-nationalism), i.e., two constitutions within one state—two or more sets of people that have different sets of rights. In a certain sense, Israel is either occupying Palestinian territory while in another sense, Israel is legislating a separate constitution for its Palestinian citizens and neighbors as well as a separate set of rights for them. That’s a democracy? Who gets to vote?.

Phil Johnson said...

Have you heard of the "Two State Solution"?

Brad Hart said...

Well, you leave town for one day and look what happens! Dan Atkinson has been replaced with Barbara!

As for deleting the post, I never had the chance to see it and therefore cannot comment on it. Pinky, I think you may have a point, especially since you had a posting wrongfully deleted a couple months back, which should not have happened in my opinion. With that said, however, I trust Lindsey's judgment. If she thinks someone is being racist, prejudiced, etc., then it's her call (and I'm glad she is the one making the calls and not me. Let's not try to jump her too much. Even if the posting should have been kept, remember that she is human and is doing the best she can).

Barbara, people are not against you talking about Jews on this blog. We talk about pretty much everything under the sun AS LONG AS IT RELATES TO THE BLOG'S THEME! Ray Soller actually did a couple of excellent pieces on the Jews. We welcome any insight, so long as it relates to the blog.

Tom, I am sorry that you posting has essentially been "hijacked." Let me say that I am in agreement with you. The press of the 21st century -- not to mention the majority of the religious community -- would have a field day with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. if they were interviewed in a forum such as this.

I also agree with your following statement:
"I have no problem with candidates revealing their beliefs in trolling for votes: on the whole, I'm not going for the Satanist."

However, I do believe that religion, to a large degree, has gone too far. We don't expect our candidates to be Christian, we DEMAND it. This was not the case during America's early years. And I know that somebody will bring up the Adams/Jefferson election of 1800, citing how Jefferson was thrashed by the Adams campaign for his religious beliefs -- or the lack thereof. But remember, JEFFERSON WON! I seriously doubt that we would elect a Jefferson type today, and we may even pass on a Washington as you point out in your post.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It's true the "infidel" Jefferson won (and as I've pointed out the irony is Jefferson was not as atheistic or deistic as his clerical opponents claimed and Adams wasn't as traditionally Christian as Jefferson's opponents supposed either).

However -- and this is one area I have to bone up on -- the "elite" aspect of the electoral college was even more in play. "Joe American" had even less of a say than they do today. Who was even eligible to vote back then? I doubt Jefferson could win a majority of the popular vote if all adults but felons were eligible to vote as they are today and they had Timothy Dwight et al. to rabble rouse. Still the "infidel" Jefferson was elected not once, but twice.

The Electoral College by the way, was one of the Founders classic "republican" checks on "democracy." "Republicanism" in many ways has to do with stacking the deck in favor of a minority elite and away from the passion of the "masses."

Republicanism has absolutely nothing to do with rule by God's biblical law. The only reason I bring that up is because I've actually learned one reason why David Barton gets the Christian Nationalists to repeat as a mantra "the United States is a republic not a democracy," is that they actually believe republic = rule by God's biblical law, whereas democracy = rule by majority vote.

You could have fooled all of those pagan Greeks & Romans who invented the notion of "the republic" that their concept had anything to do with rule by the biblical God's law.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Why thanx for actually responding to the content of my post, Brad. I caught Edward J. Larson on C-SPAN today, hawking his book Magnificent Catastrophe, about the 1800 election. [Free preview at link.]

Yes, Jefferson won, but it was very very complicated. The Virginia electoral vote was changed to a winner-take-all, and Jefferson's selection of Aaron Burr [grandson of fire-and-brimstone preacher Jonathan Edwards, BTW] for VP carried New York. Otherwise, Adams wins.

I would say this about the American electorate "demanding" a Christian for president---in the olden days, before Darwin and Nietzsche and Marx and Sartre, even unorthodox religious beliefs in America spoke in the same moral language as the orthodox, as my friend Matt Huisman elegantly points out elsewhere.

In this day of relativism-materialism-nihilism, such a common worldview vocabulary cannot be assumed: it must be explicitly stated. Jesus-as-Savior makes for a reassuring shorthand.

But I do not think Gore's selection of the observant Jew Joe Lieberman as VP cost him the 2000 election. It probably made Florida closer than it otherwise would have been.

Although it might have cost him Barbara's vote. ;-[D>

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jon, I think "republic," as in federalism, as in religion was left to the individual states, was a point the late Dan Atkinson began to make, but not intelligibly enough to be intelligent.

Too bad he left. I could have shown him some decent arguments for his position, instead of the recycled and brain-dead ones he offered as "truth."

Anonymous said...

Pinky have you read Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid"

Also Walt and Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby".

I'm sorry I hi jacked your thread Tom van dyke but I don't see how you can have a discussion of American politics today and Christianity without talking about Jews.

I don't think the founding Fathers could have known that this nation would ever be anything but Anglo Saxon Protestant. After all they wrote the Constitution and all of the other documents while owning slaves.

Israel is an ethnocracy, not a democracy.

Phil Johnson said...

So once again I am asking Barbara to put a paper together that shows how her ideas--on Jews--has some bearing on the Founding of the United States or how the Founding is related to the thoughts she has presented here so far.
What part did Spinoza--the father of Jewish Secularism--play in the thinking of the Founders? Any?

Anonymous said...

Here are quotes from our forefathers about Jews.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.

"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.
In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.

Anonymous said...

JEFFERSON, THOMAS. 18th century American statesman.

"Dispersed as the Jews are, they still form one nation, foreign to the land they live in. " (D. Boorstin, THE AMERICANS)
"Those who labor in the earth are the Chosen People of God, if ever he had a chosen people. " (NOTES ON VIRGINIA)

GRANT, USYSSES S. 19th century American general, politician. While in command of the 13th Army Corps, headquartered at Oxford, Mississippi, he became so infuriated at Jewish camp-followers attempting to penetrate the conquered territory that he finally attempted to expel the Jews:

"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold. (Letters to C. P. Wolcott, assistant secretary of war, Washington, December 17, 1862)
1. The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department.
2. Within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order by Post Commanders, they will see that all of this class of people are furnished with passes and required to leave, and anyone returning after such notification, will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permits from these headquarters.
3. No permits will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Major Gen. Grant Jno. A. Rawlings, Assistant Adjutant General (General Order Number 11, December 17, 1862)

DREISER, THEODORE. 20th century American writer.

"New York to me is a scream - a Kyke's dream of a ghetto. The Lost Tribe has taken the island. (Letter to H. L. Mencken, November 5, 1922) "
"Liberalism, in the case of the Jew, means internationalism. If you listen to Jews discuss Jews, you will find they are mone-minded, very sharp in practice. The Jews lack the fine integrity which at last is endorsed, and to a certain degree followed, by lawyers of other nationalities. The Jew has been in Germany for a thousand years, and he is still a Jew. He has been in America for all of 200 years, and he has not faded into a pure American by any means - and he will not. (Letter to Hutchins Hapgood, The Nation magazine, April 17, 1935)"

Anonymous said...

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYANT, three times the Democratic Party candidate for President said:

"New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible Power represented by the allied forces of finance and industry. This Invisible Government is reactionary, sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of conscience... This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed."

HENRY ADAMS (Descendant of President John Adams), in a letter to John Hay, October 1895

"The Jewish question is really the most serious of our problems."

SPRING-RICE, SIR CECIL. 20th century British politician.

"One by one, the Jews are capturing the principal newspapers of America. (Letter of November 1914, to Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary. Letters and Friendships)

CAPOTE, TRUMAN. 20th century American writer. In an interview, he assailed "the Zionist mafia" monopolizing publishing today, and protested a tendency to suppress things that do not meet with Jewish approval. (Playboy magazine, March 1968)

Anonymous said...

You say that you are perplexed about why the United States favors Israel.

Perhaps it is not so perplexing but it is just difficult to let go of your preconceived notions about the issue.

Occam's Razor would suggest that we are sacrificing so much for Israel because Jews have enormous control, power, money and influence in our government and our media.

I hardly think that our forefathers wished to make an exception of them when they talked about keeping a separation of church and state. Do you?

so what is the significance of Rich Warren and the candidates' Christian testimonies upon the future White House and its occupant's policies.

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,252,595"


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America'sWar On Iraq 4,138

The War And Occupation Of Iraq Costs

See the cost in your community

Phil Johnson said...


Anonymous said...

Pinky why don't you put together a paper that refutes what I say since you are the expert on our founding fathers and history.

This is supposed to be a forum and debate isn't it. So if you oppose what I say then let me see YOUR arguments. All anyone has done so far is to delete my comments and call me a bigot. Which of course does not refute anything I say.

Anonymous said...

Pinky did you read
for a better understanding of why the Jews attack Christians or White Anglo Saxon Protestants - in order to remove the old ruling class WASPs and replace them.

That is the only reason I dislike criticism of Christians. Of course Christians must become intellectual and educated and that will lead to thinking that changes everything. But it must be Christians themselves and Americans other than Jews who bring about these changes because the Jews do not have good intentions toward Americans or Christians.

Our forefathers certainly tolerated Christians even if they had contempt for what they believed. There is no tolerance among today's citizens even tho they are not half as brilliant as our forefathers.

Humans evolved with a need to believe in a higher power. So we should use the Church to promote the general welfare of America since the church will probably always be with us and should probably play a productive role in society. But Christians have to be smart and educated and not have dogmas and lowbrow thinking like those in the right wing.

For many people the church plays a role socially and it is a place of comfort in times of trouble. It also held us together for over 200 years and it symbolized that we were a common people who shared the same goals and beliefs which informed our government.

Today we are a country of various groups with each seeking its own welfare at the expense of the general welfare. That is not what our forefathers intended.

Phil Johnson said...

I have not called you a bigot.
I am not an expert on the Founding.
Nor do I know enough about what you have written here to refute any of it.
For a fact, I find it most interesting.
And, to the degree you stick to the rules here, I will defend your right to publish. I have so far, haven't I?

Phil Johnson said...

I printed the paper out. I will read it.
Barbara writes, "Today we are a country of various groups with each seeking its own welfare at the expense of the general welfare. That is not what our forefathers intended."
What do you think the Forefathers intended. And, what proof do you present to show that is true?

bpabbott said...

Pinky to me: "It looks to me as though you are using an off the rack argument to close Barbara down. I can’t go along with that."

Actually, I have no desire to have her closed down. I don't want to censor her. However, I do think that she should stay on topic and provide posts with substance.

While I find the majority of her posts objectionable, there is only a minority that are in need moderation (imo).

Phil Johnson said...

Heeeay Aabbot!
You say you find the majority of Barbara's comments objectionable.
Could you list a couple and tell what you think is objectionable about them?
I'm interested in that.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The quotes from Washington and Franklin are patent frauds. I didn't even bother with the rest of them. I protest giving this individual the time of day.

Hey, Here's a great new blog. I suggest you take this over there. They could use the traffic.

Anonymous said...

tom van dyke you are the only one who thinks those quotes are frauds.

I think maybe you are a fraud. Jews are certainly free to discuss Christians so I don't why you have a problem.

Rick Warren and his Christian forum cannot be discussed out of the context of the power of Jews in America. Jews do not represent what our forefathers intended.

A Christian political forum is news. Jews however are all over the media and even CSpan is run by one so its certainly not news when the candidates prostrate themselves before the jews.

Nevertheless it is your blog and I will leave as you suggest.

Phil Johnson said...

How about it, Barbara? Tom is accusing you of posting quotes that are patently fraudulent. Is that true? Can you prove Tom is wrong?
Tom, why should the reader take your word over Barbara's?
As far as your post being hi-jacked, Tom, It's still there. No one has absconded with it.
You said your purpose was to make a point about George Washington?

Phil Johnson said...

By the way, the truth is out on the Cone of Silence in which McCain was supposedly sequestered so he couldn't hear how Obama handled the questions.
Are we gonna get another liar in the White House?

bpabbott said...


My greatest objection to Barbara's posting style is the lack of substance ... and the volume of rhetoric. The rhetoric I find most objectionable his her reliance on demonizing Jews ... as if by calling an individual, country, position, etc "Jewish" automatically condemns it :-(

Keep in mind that I am very unhappy with the what Israel deals with its neighbors and treats Palestine.

For good examples of anti-Jewish rhetoric, look at the many quotes she has provided above. Notice that these might be indicative of individual opinions but do not reflect upon an intent of the founders to persecute any group because some one called them Jewish.

Being Jewish can be ethnic or religious, or both. What does Barbara's position have to do with any ethnicity or religion? Is she attacking ethnicity or religion ... or something else?

I think it is the latter.

Barbara: "Jews have enormous control, power, money and influence in our government and our media."

Sounds like an attack on the success of Jews.

While it is rather clear that ethnic Jews have more disproportionately successful (at least it appears so to me), why is that a problem?

Don't we all strive for success? ... is the success of any group a justification to persecute it?

In any event, it appears to me that Barbara objects to the success of "Jews". But why is a successful Jew any more a problem than a successful Protestant Evangelist, or Sunni?

Please notice Barbara does not attack those with control, power, money and influence in our government and our media. She attacks the Jews and entices us to join her hunt with rhetoric, not substance.

Phil Johnson said...

I just don't know, Abbott.
I had a Jewish brother-in-law. He was one heck of a salesman. I was a Yellow Pages Account Manager for the Bell System and recommended him to my boss when I knew there was an opening. He was brought in for an interview.
Later, my boss took me aside and chewed me out good for having recommended a Jew. That was the beginning of a chain of events that caused me to resign my position. I have always been supportive of the equal rights of individuals. You may even notice that characteristic of mine here in these blogs. I have this thing about justice--a carry over from my Fundamental Baptist days.
So, I guess I'm not going to chime in and write Barbara off without a fair go. I know one thing for sure, the situation has turned around 180 degrees since my boss refused to put my Jewish brother-in-law through the hiring process where he would have been accepted or refused based on other traits than his Jewishness.
But, it may be a mute point as it looks as though Barbara isn't going to stick around. That's too bad as I'm finding the paper on Strauss quite interesting. I remember being is Boston a few years back and reading a full page article on Leo Strauss and his influence in Washington, D.C.

bpabbott said...

Pinky: "I just don't know, Abbott. I had a Jewish brother-in-law. He was one heck of a salesman. I was a Yellow Pages Account Manager for the Bell System and recommended him to my boss when I knew there was an opening. He was brought in for an interview. Later, my boss took me aside and chewed me out good for having recommended a Jew. That was the beginning of a chain of events that caused me to resign my position. [...] So, I guess I'm not going to chime in and write Barbara off without a fair go."

Pinky, I'm confused ... Is your point;

(1) It was the Jew's fault, so you are sympathetic to Barbara's ideology?

(2) Don't be supportive of a Jew because it will cost you?

(3) or something else?

Phil Johnson said...

My point is that I am sympathetic to people who are discriminated against based on prejudice of one kind or another.
So, I have to be sympathetic to Barbara as much as I would be to you if people where putting you down out of hand.
Or don't you think your prejudice is showing?

bpabbott said...

Pinky: "Or don't you think your prejudice is showing?"

We might argue that prejudice is the a different perspective of preference.

As it is my preference that superficial prejudice (ex: ethnic and religious) be suppressed, you can qualify me as showing a prejudice.

However, I think it is quite a different thing to critique and target an individual for their actions than to attack them for the ethnic / religious / cultural labels which are applied to them.

My genuine view of Barbara's position is that she would like us to embrace and take actions to propagate her anti-Jew ideology ("Jew" being a superficial label associated with an ethnic, religious, or cultural group(s)) ... but she has not provided any just and reasoned motive to do so.

Barbara *has* pointed out that many Jews have been materially successful in their lives.

But that is goal that is admirable, and should be encouraged among all people. I don't think it just to attack "Jews" for their successes.

If someone is to be attacked it should be for their failings or short comings.

Phil Johnson said...

In response to Abbott's, "If someone is to be attacked it should be for their failings or short comings.", we need a side bar blog to flesh out related issues that can go off topic.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Washington "quotes" - this is easy enough to settle:

You're wrong, Barbara. There you have it. Van Dyke was right.