The Closing of the Zionist Mind | Informed Comment


Tom Usher wrote or added | Well, I don't agree with everything Juan Cole has written here, but I can relate. At least Juan will discuss things.

I've never met him. I've never had a conversation with him. I've seen him in videos though. He doesn't strike me as the type who would be unwilling to discuss whatever. He might lose patience. I don't know.

I disagreed with him over the Iran elections. He came across as sure that the fraud was widespread. I took my cues directly from independent pollsters with solid reputations in the US and world who said that Ahmadinejad won the election not by fraud but by having more voters in favor of him. That said, I still enjoy reading professor Cole's post and won't hesitate to say that I learn things from them – valuable things. He's very knowledgeable. No one should attempt to take that away from him.

He deserves huge credit for translating Ahmadinejad's quoting Ayatollah Khomeini so that we would all come to know that Ahmadinejad did not say, "wipe Israel off the map." I hammered on that one over and over and over until the mainstream media dropped it. That's what it takes.

So, I reserve judgment as to whether or not there is archaeological evidence for David and Solomon beyond "nice tents." (Juan did make me laugh there but not at anyone. It was just funny.) I've seen some pretty wild stretches on both sides of the arguments when it comes to these types of issues. Some of the conclusions of "biblical scholars" of the Protestant Higher Criticism variety for instance just leave me shaking my head as to how in the world they could come to such conclusions (what-if's? maybe; hard and fast conclusions based upon their "points"? never).

There is a huge body of "disputed" evidence for much of the Old Testament. That's not narrowing it down to a 100-year window, but it's still relevant. In addition, whole peoples have been wiped out without much of a trace if any and regardless of the chattiness and recordkeeping of their enemies. There are examples of leaders having the names of their predecessors stricken from the record including statues and monuments. Who knows how much of that went on? We weren't there.

On balance though, Juan Cole's piece here is most important for pointing out how people hit and run. They say things but duck out before they are challenged to support their statements. I run into this constantly.

I don't agree that homosexuality is harmless. I based that upon all sorts of things. I've handled every point ever thrown at me on it; yet, even recently, I've had two people call me names and then run away – one even blocked me. When I was engaged by one of them on another thread that had nothing to do with the subject, I answered point-by-point and leveled my own points only to be met with exactly what Juan Cole is talking about in his piece. In fact, one of my points was exactly that the other party was using tactics typical of Zionists. It's ironic in that the one who blocked me is the leader of the Free Gaza Movement, Greta Berlin – just summarily blocked me before I even responded to her comment on my Wall-post. Well, I'm still an anti-Zionist, and Greta needs to comprehend that Hamas is decidedly anti-homosexuality. She doesn't duck the Zionists, but she ducks those who are anti-homosexuality even when non-coercive, which I am. That should tell you something about her heart.

I explain that I'm not coercive, but I get accused as if I'm killing people with whom I don't agree. I'm not killing them. I'm watching out for people who are fed lines just the way the Zionists are fed lines, just as Juan correctly says that they are.

The same thing applies to the issues of capitalism and war-making. I engage capitalists in discussions, and invariably to-date, none concedes points but rather goes silent or dodges. Silence should mean that they are convicted by their consciences, but it hasn't meant that yet – not once. It has only meant that they want to leave and continue with others who don't know the inherent falsehood that lies at the base of capitalism, which base is utter selfishness and hypocrisy.

I have yet to meet the militarist who can handle the Golden Rule {"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12)} as Jesus enhanced it via his New Commandment that he lived. "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34)

It's not easy to love each other as Jesus loved his closest disciples. However, once there, it is the lightest yoke to bear.

Peace, love, and giving and sharing all,

Tom

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.