So, here's Chris Kelly today (January 4, 2008), a blogger on The Huffington Post, ripping one Jonah Goldberg, a Jew and neocon, for Goldberg's upcoming book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, in Kelly's piece entitled, "Jonah Goldberg: The Toughest Whore in Opposite Town." Ironically, Kelly is arguing in favor of just ignoring Goldberg.
Who are the "Liberals" here? The Libertarians would say that neither Goldberg nor Kelly knows. Goldberg and Kelly are talking about the politics of George McGovern. The Libertarians would point to Adam Smith and the "Founding Fathers" of the United States and other leaders of what is passed off as The Enlightenment. Well, we know better. We know that the liberals of Kelly are mixing harmful behavior with generosity and bounty. That's confusion and hypocrisy, as any consistent reading of the teachings of Jesus and just the plain truth bears out. Goldberg is the one who repeated the obnoxious and evil notion that every once in a while, the United States needs to pick up some sh_tty little country and throw it against the wall just to show the rest of the world we mean business. He knows nothing.
Yes, and I remember the disturbed little kid down the street who did the same thing to a batch of new born kittens. I was only in the first grade and wondered what had been done to that kid to mess him up so much. Then there were the kids in sixth grade who killed a dog by "stoning" it with very hard unripened oranges. I also remember the guys who doused a cat with gas and lit it on fire to watch it race around in the dark. Then there was the kid who put Tabasco sauce on another kid's lips while he was sleeping. They had never met before and the sleeping kid hadn't done a thing to that other kid. More than that, I remember the first time I heard of drive-by shooting of total strangers just to get into the Aryan Brotherhood. That's only the tip of the iceberg. This is where Goldberg comes from, out of this mentality. It's call sadistic. It's pathological. He's sick, and only faith in the real God can cure him.
Look, this stuff is contagious. Torture is contagious. All evil is contagious. It's all temptation. When people hear about the evil of someone or experience it firsthand, they often want to strike at those doing evil. Then they can lapse into striking at the innocent. They can lapse and continue the slide until they are in a freefall. I know from personal experience. I'm glad God had me land on an out cropping that didn't kill me.
This is no tell-all site. Nor is it about naming private names. I just want people such as Jonah Goldberg and those who listen to them as if they know what's right to stop to consider. Do some soul searching. Find righteousness. Turn. Repent. Atone. It's the one and only way to complete redemption.
Then there's Eric Alterman, also a Jew, writing in The Nation magazine, December 20, 2007, in his article, "," that bad Jews, such as Goldberg, are getting all the press. Alterman says that the good Jews, "think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena." To make his case, he uses "the American Jewish Committee's 2007 survey of American Jewry, released December 11, [interpreted to mean] a majority of Jews in this country [U.S.] oppose virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration/neocon agenda." Alterman writes as follows:
...the far-right minority is better funded and better disciplined than the liberal majority.
Fault can also be found with lazy editors, reporters, producers and the like who invite neocon and other unrepresentative people to speak for Jews and Jewish values. Consider the most prominent Jewish voices in the punditocracy who regularly sound off on Israel, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc. My list includes Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks and David Frum.
It sounds as if he's making the case for rich, liberal Jews to buy more shares in the media conglomerates to swing the discussion. That's not what he's saying exactly though. He simply is pleading with the rabid capitalists to voice the so-called liberal-humanists views of the majority of American Jews. He probably has other regulatory ideas to help "democratize" the media, but that would rest on coercion, which is offense.
That survey was quoted and cited on numerous websites and in print. We posted, "No Surprise: American Jewish Opinion: Generally Anti-Neocon."," by Glenn Greenwald. Salon.com, December 12, 2007, in our post, "
The false liberals were seizing upon the survey to rub their fellows to speak out especially by voting anti-neocon, which translates into voting anti-Likud and anti-false-Zionist to some degree. This is where James Petras's article comes in about it, "American Jews on War and Peace: What Do the Polls Tell Us and Not Tell Us?" (The James Petras Website. December 15, 2007.). Petras makes the argument that the liberal Jews are being disingenuous since they haven't bought enough shares in the media conglomerates to swing the discussion. They don't throw their wealth around to break through into the spotlight. Here, it might behoove people to read our post, "Despite James Petras: Jewish Liberals Cowed."
What though does all of this or any of it have to do with Christianity? As I stated above, the definition of "liberal" being most used today is incorrect. It is mixing evil with good, which is hypocrisy and must end. Also, "conservative" is being used incorrectly as well. The meanings of terms guide the mind and vice versa. If one chooses between two broken concepts, the result is always broken, which is the case today. That brings me to another article on The Huffington Post.
David Horton writes in his post, "Copyright on values," January 4, 2008, the following:
You will all have seen it - whenever an atheist points out that in fact there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that a god or gods exist the believers (moderate and fundamentalist) respond that you need religion to have morals. This kind of response I saw formalized in a recent article by the former Bishop of Oxford. While pretending to be broadminded he takes it two steps further. Atheists may think they have morals but - "As human beings we can recognise and respond to particular moral insights. But a religious believer claims to understand these as part of a much larger whole in which they have a vital place", and uses an analogy of appreciating a piece of music without understanding that the piece is part of a symphony "and can be even more appreciated when heard as part of the whole in which it has a crucial place". I have trouble writing down these nonsensical arguments which are presented as if they have some factual basis, but stay with me, it gets worse. Not only can atheists not understand that their piddling little bits of morality should be part of a religious whole, but even those piddling bits are stolen from others - "many people who have strong moral commitments without any religious foundation were shaped by parents or grandparents for whom morality and religion were fundamentally bound up" and "many of those in the forefront of progressive political change, who have abandoned religion, have been driven by a humanism that has been essentially built up by our Christian heritage". The good bishop refers to this proposition as "living on moral capital". That is, no atheist can have morality, they are simply, whether they know it or not, using the morality of the religious (and without acknowledgment - must be a copyright issue here, surely!). Boy, and they accuse atheists of arrogance!
Thing is these kind of comments come from representatives of groups that together have some combination of the following moral values - misogyny, telling expedient lies, homophobia, hatred of all religious groups except their own, anti-immigrant, pro-war, anti-science, pro-capitalism, a love of slaughtering animals, burning widows, executing rape victims, executing juveniles, jailing drug users, a hatred of black people, support for forest clearing, support for severe child punishment, torture, pro-military, anti-intellectual, pro-censorship, anti-universal health care, suicide bombing, acceptance of collateral bombing deaths, nuclear war, brain washing of children, blaming the poor for their circumstances, a belief in doing unto others before they do unto you, a belief that life after death is preferable to life before death. I may have missed some.
My values are the opposite of all that. I treat people equally, I would never set out to physically harm another human being, or an animal. I believe in conserving forest not destroying it, am against war, for social justice, for intellectual curiosity and freedom of speech, for telling the truth, for empathizing with others. I love my family, my friends, animals, my world. I love life in fact, not death. Values derived from my sense of humanity, not from some imaginary edicts emerging from the sky.
So I don't share many values with the Pope, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ayatolla Khomeini, Pat Robertson, Augusto Pincochet, Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair, Mitt Romney, Pervez Musharraf, Rudy Guiliani, Moqtada al Sadri, Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Laden, Ian Paisley, Ehud Olmert, Slobodan Milosevic - good religious men all. Think I should?
That's his whole article. Now, Horton wrote, "Thing is these kind of comments come from representatives of groups that together have some combination of the following moral values." Then he went on to run off a list of evils as he sees them. He also says, "good religious men all" about a group that is hardly all "good."
I had read the Bishop's piece earlier, understood exactly what he meant, and know it is grounded in fact. I take it much further however.
Horton is trying to laud his morality by listing off his positions; however, where's his call to bringing forth the full righteousness called for by Christ? How far is he willing to go in sacrificing himself for the sake of his loved ones? How far does he extend that circle and why? What does he make of the kind and degree of love Jesus showed his friends when Jesus went to the cross for them and for the many to keep the message alive even to today? What does he make of Jesus forgiving the mob for their ignorance? To what does he attribute Jesus's compassion and his own, to a soup of matter that just happened to combine given eternity? What power brought forth the matter? He doesn't know. There is nothing higher than he is, but he doesn't know. He gives no credit where credit is due. He gives no credit out of his humility. He takes credit from his "sense of humanity" but fails to understand that the most moral message has been kept alive due to Jesus's love. Oh well, the blind lead the blind.
But, how does this tie in with neocons and liberal Jews, etc.? It ties in, in that it is absolutely correct that only those of sufficiently softened hearts to accept Jesus as he really taught and lived will ever bring forth full morality on the Earth or in the Universe. Horton has a taste for what he has defined as morality. He falls short, so too do the people he listed. None will dare be consistent, for to strive for consistency means heading in the direction Jesus demonstrated. That means giving and sharing all and foregoing coercion. It means foregoing all harm to others and self. It really means the Golden Rule to its fullest extent. Does Horton really want to go there, or is he reserving or hiding some harmful desires from his most conscious thoughts?
Everyone on Earth must come to the position of knowing, understanding, and following the example of Jesus for the Heaven of Jesus and the Earth to be conflated. Then there will be no hypocrisy or immorality.