Yeah, I think almost all of those were Dawkin's arguments. [EMANATES CYNICISM]

that was very funny. he did at least 2 python bits, very well too. too bad he makes the same mistake everyone else here does. listen: the state of israel is about as religious as richard dawkins is. stop confusing the jewish religion with the state of israel, just because its convenient to blame all war and pestilence on " the 3 abrahamic faiths". there are no "3 abrahamic faiths", no "judeo-christian" tradition. the jews were the victims of the constant wars of the christians and the muslims for the last 2000 years. the jews are about the most non-violent religious group in the world, even taking into account your favorite bogeyman here, the settlers. so wake up and get your heads out of (our) asses. just like nice, cheese eating, sweater-wearing christians are empowering their lunatic leaders, so harmless anti semitism from ignorance is the support base for the big boys.

i will say this as many times as i have to.

excellent rant, and he's right to bring up as many faiths as he wants to. religion is harmful, bad, cowardly, useless, stupid, boring, pathetic, expensive, destructive, sadistic, perverted and foolhardy. it makes people do very bad things and lets them think they are very good. that's patently insane. ramen.

Becker is true to his delusions, "the jews were the victims of the constant wars of the christians and the muslims for the last 2000 years. the jews are about the most non-violent religious group in the world,"

Why not play the professional victim card one more time? He should perhaps read a couple of books by Norman Finkelstein.

When jews were expelled from Spain, where did they go? To places like a muslim country Turkey,

"The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet welcomed them warmly. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/expulsion.html

Before that, under muslim rule and even xian rule, jews had done very well.

"In the 1930s, Jewish scholar Abraham Joshua Heschel isolated one consoling feature in Spanish Jewry's terrible sufferings: "The Jews [of Spain] ... had held imposing positions [before their expulsion]. The conquest of the New World was accomplished without their collaboration. Had they remained on the Iberian peninsula, they most probably would have taken part in the enterprises of the conquistadores. When the latter arrived in Haiti, they found over one million inhabitants. Twenty years later one thousand remained. The desperate Jews of 1492 could not know what a favor had been done for them."

Having read other posts by Becker, I know he is not too good at history.

He should read about violence in the old testament, about the Amaleks for example. Israel is a religious state based on one thing, its holy book. That is the only pretext it has.

bernarda: the Jews may have been tolerated at various times in history; often better under muslim rule than christian. But the last few thousand years were hardly easy.

that said: JB

the very founding of the state of Israel is a religious act. zionism was/is hardly a secular act.

He should read about violence in the old testament, about the Amaleks for example. Israel is a religious state based on one thing, its holy book. That is the only pretext it has.

israel is not a religious state. the commandment to destroy amalek was 4000 years ago IF you accept the bible as history, which you don't. you bore me, bernarda.

jh: zionism was, and is, an almost purely secular movement, making use of the symbols of jewish "sovereignity" for political goals. zionist leaders, to a man, never even pretended/pretend to be religious. read up, read up for the mystery tour...

Becker again, "israel is not a religious state. the commandment to destroy amalek was 4000 years ago IF you accept the bible as history,"

Wrong again. The old testament was written around 600BCE and the mythology goes back to about 1200 BCE.

The current religious state of Israel is entirely based on that mythology.

Amalek today,

"However, we ought not conclude from this humble caution that the Bible is utterly recondite and irrelevant to the wars we fight. I believe that the key to the Bible's message to us in this moment is remembering Amalek."...

"Indeed our remembrance of Amalek is combined with a chilling pledge from God that is also unique in the Bible: “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exod. 17:16). Our enemies are just our enemies except if our enemy is Amalek. In that case our enemy is also the enemy of God. Amalek thus becomes the symbol of terrorism in every generation. He is the symbol not of evil but of radical evil."...

"I have no new or fresh or insightful take on the latest battle in the worldwide war on Islamic fascism except the message of our president: victory is the only way. In my heart and prayers, I thank President Bush for remembering Amalek."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13938178/site/newsweek/

Of course you can argue that Gellman is a religious nutcase, but he is a religous nutcase that gets published in Newsweek.

don't confuse religious fanatics using politics to further their ends, or justify their worldview, with politicians using religion, etc. etc. although i can see how it might be tempting.

regarding your claim to knowlege of the historical origins of the bible, well la de da. you can be quite sure i've read everything you've read and then some. your confidence in giving a date (and one so late) testifies to your agenda and willful ignorance. in any case you ignore the point: the jews never did, and are not attempting to now destroy amalek. they're not even trying (really) to identify him. the various enemies of the jews throughout history have been labeled "amalek" but no religious command to destroy the cossaks, the germans, or the arabs has been forthcoming.

Sure, it's most, if not all, from Dawkins, but still it is f#$%^* hilarious!!!

The reference to the Lightfoot girl who went to court over her Christian chastity "Silver Ring Thing" makes me laugh - it turned out that her parents were the sole distributors of the ring in the UK. It was just a big publicity stunt.

A blogger brought this to light:

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/

Using your daughter and the criminal justice system to generate publicity for your business is, to me, pretty fucking low. Don't these Christians have any morals?

Andy.

state of israel is about as religious as richard dawkins is

They are all atheists? Let see some evidence jb. Considering your obvious bias only that will do. :)

I don't think Israel is a religious state per se, but it probably is a lot more religious than Richard Dawkins... Bad argument.

i think i have to untangle something. i have a feeling norm, and maybe dzwonka are talking about a percentage of population. i could try to show how the vast majority of the population are, for all practical purposes, atheists. but that would entail a long and boring discussion of "when is a jew considered religious". try googling "who is a jew" to get a taste of what that might entail.

in any case, i was talking about the founding of the state, the mechanisms of state, and the relationship between state and religion. do you take me at my word that the state was founded by purely secular, often outspokenly atheistic jews, for secular and democratic purposes to be a homeland for the jewish nation?

see, this can get tricky because the jews, alone among the religions of the world (as far as i know) are both a religion and a nation. i know it's a little confusing but not that complicated, really.

Becker, "see, this can get tricky because the jews, alone among the religions of the world (as far as i know) are both a religion and a nation."

Lah, Dee, Dah. A "nation" based on the religion of one holy book which is largely fiction.

Apparently Becker hasn't read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.

sure i have. and a lot more of finkelstiens'polemic against israel. here he's bringing archaology to undermine his peoples connection to the land- but not really- the defiance/guilt ratio in the book is too extreme for the points to be taken seriously as science. finkelstiens' perfidous agenda is transparant.

from my review of the book, as published in "commentary" magazine. :)

A "nation" based on the religion of one holy book which is largely fiction.

no, that would be the religion. the nation is based on a genetic grouping with historical ties to a particular place.

the commentary magazine thing was a joke, btw. hope no one wasted any time googling.

i figured it would be obvious that if i were writing for "commentary" i wouldn't be hanging around here with you godless hippies. :)

the defiance/guilt ratio in the book is too extreme for the points to be taken seriously as science. finkelstiens' perfidous agenda is transparant.

What you say may be true. That is a reason to see what evidence he provides and if it supports his conclusions. Your attack is simple ad hominem.

Dont' listen to him because he has an agenda, no evidence that the 'agenda' is evidence that he is wrong.

Don't listen because the views are extreme.

No evidence that the views are extreme or if they are that they are false. just an attack on the man.

I haven't read the book so can't comment directly, but your ad hominem is not persausive.

the nation is based on a genetic grouping with historical ties to a particular place.

and a common religion.

Are you claiming religion played no significant role? The way you frame it is as if religion played no role at all. The omission is telling.

i figured it would be obvious that if i were writing for "commentary" i wouldn't be hanging around here with you godless hippies. :)

It was obvious and provided needed comic relief.

no, no, no, the whole post was a takeoff on a commentary article. you must have read one or two of those, norm?

doesn't make what i said less true. i accept that its ad hominum.

norm, why are you so keen on tainting the jews with their own religion?:)

I'm keen on tainting all religion. I don't think I play favorites, do I? :)

Are you claiming religion played no significant role? The way you frame it is as if religion played no role at all.

i already mentioned the role it played- as a source of symmbolism. the bible was used as a historical justification for a jewish state in that particular spot- but not a religious justification. the idea of the land being "given by god" was a joke, really, to these atheists. they quoted the bible as a historical document, and had no use for religion, other than political.

While the 3 Abrahamic faiths are a convenient bracket, this whole "rant" would still never have such purchase without the current global ramifications of fundamentalist Islamic violence. That's what is so consistently disingenuous about all this fervor, which is more than not an opportunistic blanket for bigotry. --and that's not to say that this wasn't a very funny piece which I enjoyed and that Christians and Jews aren't culpable within their own spheres. And I don't blame the Brits for disparaging their state-run religion in good measure. But there seems to be no moderate voices and that's the most dangerous reflex of all, as the only language in the void is dualistic bile bent on annihilation.

Your move.

i already mentioned the role it played- as a source of symmbolism.

Without a couple of millennium of Judaism holding the culture together there would have been no "genetic grouping" of people to form a nation of Israel in the first place.

No genetic group has suffered more than Native Americans and they will never get their historic nations back. But then they don't have a mash-up book of prehistoric ignorance to justify taking them back from the current residents.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions are the same blood oaths.

This guy is way funny and very sharp at the same time. Thanks many times for posting this Norm.

Becker, I agree with whyoung. If Israel is a secular state then why is the national flag a Star of David and the national coat of arms a menorah? It is ridiculous to claim that a state is secular when any Jewish person in the world has an automatic claim to citizenship that they can take at any time. Didn't know that? But you're right! Maybe it's just symbolism that people of a specific religious faith are not only the majority of the population of that state, but the only ones that have an unconditional claim to be a citizen of that state, even if they were born in another. The phrase "you must be f'ing joking" comes to mind.

It is ridiculous to claim that a state is secular when any Jewish person in the world has an automatic claim to citizenship that they can take at any time.

your point would be a good one if the criteria for jewishness had anything to do with religion. except in the case of converts, who can be genetically from anywhere, it doesn't.

as far as the symbols on the flag and "coat of arms" (what?), i would have chosen the iron gates of aushwitz and henny youngmans' violin, but that's just me.

if you're really that interested in the subject, you might want to research the star of david as a "jewish religious symbol". solomons' seal had 5 points. but whatever. your use of the term "unconditional claim" is also far off the mark, but the devil is in the details.

the fact remains, israel is a secular, democratic state. its democracy has all kinds of twists and weirdnesses (you ever look into what the greeks meant by democracy? no votes for women, slaves, or even non-landowners?) as does americas' version, but it is far, far from any kind of theocracy, which i think is what you're trying to say.

btw, i wanted to mention that the most consistantly intelligent post i've seen at this thread (including my own) was by fritzheadsaid.

As for the Abrahamsters:

When all is said and done, the Jews DID come first. The other two are just mutant offshoots, affiliates.

Zarathustraism was a distant cousin at most.

The real problem with Israel is real-

ly Location, 3 times. What was wrong with Utah (back in '48)? A land without people, really (except for a few strays from the 3 lost tribes, the Anglos, the Saxons, and the Utes*).

The point is, The Holy Land is, well, The Holy Land. You can't change that.

.

.

*according to the Book of Macaroni

What was wrong with Utah (back in '48)? A land without people, really (except for a few strays from the 3 lost tribes, the Anglos, the Saxons, and the Utes*).

waddaya say, norm, is that a fair description of utah in '48?

yeah, uganda was a nice idea too.

That pretty much nails it. I must say I chuckled when I read the comment. The 'Book of MormonMacaroni,' indeed.

Tell you what, have another go as a worm...

Superb.

Regarding the Book (chapter?) of Macaroni:

What I like is the way the Golden Tablets were translated into Greek, before being translated (again) into English. How else to explain all the pseudo Greek-Hebrew "ph"s (e.g., "Nephi") in those neonames, and pseudowords? Greek has no "F" in its alpha-bet. Hence, the best approximation, "ph", an aspirated "P" in Greek ("P" as in "Pecker", NOT an "F" sound as in our English).

What a bunch of alphalpha-hayseeds,

Phuckin' Phunny!

Phucktards!