A Suggestion for Israel

Wednesday, January 7, AD 2009

Over at Human Events, Ben Shapiro has an article about how Israel will lose the conflict in Gaza again.  His initial premise states that we keep seeing an essentially endless cycle repeated: Hamas strikes Israel, Israel retaliates, the world comes down hard on Israel, Israel retreats and gives Hamas another chance to strike Israel. Elsewhere, the debate about how justified Israel is in its current cycle of retaliations continues heatedly and almost unanimously denounces Israel’s actions.

As a personal opinion, I believe that Hamas, despite claims to the contrary, is directly responsible for its strikes into Israel.  I believe that Hamas deliberately hides behind civilian shields in order to protect themselves from retaliation and to milk the public for sympathy when Israeli attacks kill those civilian shields.  I believe that Hamas is single-mindedly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and that Israel is justified in trying to defend herself against Hamas’ attacks.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to A Suggestion for Israel

  • Interesting take

  • It isn’t about money or economic development Ryan. It is all about the fact that the vast majority of arabs in Gaza and the West Bank are ashamed that they were beaten militarily by Jews and that Jews rule in arab lands. The Israelis and the rest of the world could provide a terrestrial paradise for the Arabs, and it would not diminish one iota the desire of almost all Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank to drive the Israelis into the sea. The US and the West have sent tens of billions of dollars to the arabs in Gaza and the West Bank in the form of humanitarian aid, monetary grants, development funds, etc. It has made no difference at all.

  • A very well-written and thought out point, and it makes a lot of sense.
    However, I just don’t know that it would appeal to a country that has to “sit still and take it,” so to speak, while at the same time providing aid to the perceived enemy. No doubt while Israel would attempt to pour money and resources and good will into Gaza, Hamas would still be attacking.

    I know this is an imperfect analogy, but if Mexico were firing into Texas, do you think the American public would accept a similar course of action?

  • Ryan,

    One must understand hatred and recognize the fallen nature of man. Many Palestinians hate Jews, not because of any wrong the Jews have committed against them, but because they are taught that by their religion, by their parents and by LIBERALS.

    Bribing them with goodies will do nothing but allow them to use all of their other means to build up and attack Israel again. Besides, Iran already pours massive amounts of money into the Gaza and we know what they spend it on.

    The only reasonable course of action in the interest of Israel, the innocent Palestinians and peace in the Middle East is for Israel to complete the destruction of Hamas and deny Iran it’s satellite regime.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • This past Friday, the Hamas television show Pioneers of Tomorrow (a child-indoctrination version of “Sesame Street”) depicted the bunny Assoud dying in a Gaza hospital after an Israeli attack. Assaud the Jew-eating Bunny was introduced to Gazan children in February 2008:

    The Pioneers of Tomorrow children’s series produced by Palestinian group Hamas and made famous by a Mickey Mouse-looking character declaring jihad on Israel and the US, introduced Assud the Bunny.Assud – who said in his first episode that he would “get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and… will eat them up” – replaced his brother, Nahoul the Bee, according to the translation from the Middle East Media Research Institute.

    […]

    In an interview with the program’s host, a young girl purportedly named Saraa Barhoum, Assud talked about becoming martyrdom.

    “We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not, Saraa?” Assud said on the show.

    Saraa said: “Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland.”

    Assoud will join Farfour, Hamas’ copycat version of Mickey Mouse, in Paradise. (
    Farfour was “martyred” by an Israeli on May 11, 2007).

    Yes, I wish I was joking.

    I’d bet you can plumb the channels of Israeli television and wouldn’t be able to find an equivalent of Hamas’ television show — not even in the town of Sderot, subject to over 3,000 rocket attacks this year alone.

    Ravishing Gazans with economic luxuries won’t change their minds — not while infants are raised from birth in this kind of hatred.

  • Even if one did this, how would one get the truth to the Palestinian people. Many, (most), Palestinians are illiterate. Who’s to say the aide comes in and Hamas tells the people that it was their work?

    As you point out, in this conflict propaganda is important and perhaps decisive. It could also be so in the scenario you propose.

  • Just to clear the record, I am well aware of the militant hatred that a vast swath of Muslims, not just in the Gaza, have for Israel. I am well aware that that hatred is difficult, bordering on impossible, to sway. I also understand the vast propaganda campaign going on (thanks Chris for the heads-up on the despicable TV show) to keep the regular populace both ignorant and seething. I also don’t believe you can ask a nation to sit quietly and accept thousands of rockets being fired across the border, especially when the self-appointed authorities not only will not do anything to help that nation, but also blatantly cheers the aggressors on.

    I would cheer on military aggression against Hamas (and now Hezbollah) except for one thing: Israel isn’t going to wage a campaign for victory. And if there is no reasonable expectation of success (and I suppose we could argue that there could be, I would disagree from recent trend lines), then the war cannot be just.

    But I disagree with Donald and others who claim that making the Gaza an economic paradise won’t change anything. Citing the billions that have been poured into Gaza won’t sway my opinion on this, either, because those billions obviously have been redirected to, oh, rockets and whatnot, not to fixing Gaza. Frankly, I think if Israelis are willing (and this either cold of me to say, or just insane, take your pick) to risk their lives to come into Gaza and build schools and power plants and waste management systems and power lines and so on, and hire on many Gazans to aid the construction, then at least Israelis will be visibly helping the Gazan communities. That has a chance of swaying your average Muslim. So I guess talking about spending money on Gaza isn’t the key, but spending money wisely and effectively is the key.

    How to actually make sure that Israeli contractors can flood Gaza and start a massive reconstruction campaign, I have no idea. Which is probably why no one has ever tried to implement it. Indeed, the death toll could be just as high on both sides with my idea.

    But I’m willing to believe that even years of indoctrinated hatred can be swayed with a consistent display of charity.

    I know this is an imperfect analogy, but if Mexico were firing into Texas, do you think the American public would accept a similar course of action?

    Let me answer your question with a question. Who did we just elect president this past Nov 4?

  • Ryan,

    I think a deeper analysis would find that the Israeli counter-offensive into Gaza is clearly just, perhaps material for a new thread.

    What you’re suggesting is akin to the US activity in Iraq and Afghanistan… the problem is that such nation-building requires security to be effective. Kind of a chicken-egg situation. Military defeat of Gaza is a necessary precursor to rebuilding it, regardless of who sponsors the rebuilding.

    God Bless,

    Matt

  • Are you still defending the state terrorism of Israel?!!
    Israel kills Palestinians in their homes, in the fields and in mosques. It kills whole families as well as children with their mothers. Arab countries can – if they want – withdraw the Arab Peace Initiative. But they lost the will; therefore, the Israeli war machine keeps on killing Palestinians.
    The Israeli government, gathering the remaining Nazis around the world, is trying to squeeze the last useful drop from the Bush Administration before it departs. Once again, if Arab countries want, they can pressure the US Administration in many available ways. However, they do not. The reason is that they have lost that same will.
    The Palestinians are responsible, before Arabs, for this tragic situation in Gaza Strip. The division weakened them further; the policy of Hamas killed more than 500 Palestinians in nine ominous days.
    Yet I started with our responsibility, so people would not say I am denying it. In the ongoing crime, Israel appears as a Nazi, military, expansionist nation that has no right to exist in the Middle East.
    Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak are terrorists. She is a terrorist born to two terrorist members of the Argon gang, which imported terrorism to Palestine and the Middle East. She worked in the Mossad to complete her family’s terrorism heritage. Now she is saying that all Israel wants is for Hamas to stop firing rockets. This is also the excuse of Barak, who practiced terrorism as a soldier and is still practicing it as a minister. Both of them say that war on Gaza has nothing to do with next month’s elections. This means that it definitely has something to do with it.
    Then you have the biggest liar in Israel or any other place: “President” Shimon Peres; I heard him say that Israel had the most powerful weapon in the world…Justice.
    Israel is a Nazi state that has no right to exist. The Christian West sought to establish it as a means to repent of its crime at our expense. There was never a Smaller or Greater Israel. The history of the Torah is fiction and not history. The same goes for Peres justice.
    George Bush, who promised a Palestinian State by the end of 2008 and lied or failed, is a full accessory in Israel’s murder. His administration killed a million Muslims in eight years; therefore, it is not hard for him to support the killing of 500 – or even 1000 – Palestinians. He accuses Hamas of terrorism. Yet, with his help, Israel is the terrorist nation. He also said that Hamas did not want the interest of Palestinians. Who wants it then? He or his VP Dick Cheney?
    On a rare occasion, I heard Cheney say the truth. He proclaimed that Israel did not ask for permission from the US Administration to attack Gaza. Why would it ask for permission when the whole administration is under its control and shares its war on Arabs and Muslims? But Cheney, leader of the war gang, cannot stay honest for long: he went on to say that Israel, a UN member state, was attacked by a terrorist organization. The opposite is true. Israel is a terrorist nation that has no right to join any international organization, while Hamas is a national liberation movement. What is also true is that Cheney is a wanted war criminal.
    I would like to add Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy. They both support a cease-fire, but the British PM eventually supports the US administration. As to the French President, he says one thing and does another. On the eve of the attack on Gaza, Israel was offered EU membership, one which is better than that of the original six countries that started the EEC in Rome. Israel was given all privileges without any financial or any other responsibility towards the EU. Even though the Czech Republic was deliberately held responsible, France was the country that spearheaded the campaign. Sarkozy hands it the EU Presidency then comes to us for mediation.
    After this tour of Israeli terrorism, with US-EU connivance, I go back to the Palestinian and Arab responsibility. We are so weak that we cannot win a military confrontation, not even a media confrontation. Israel has been killing, occupying and destroying for four decades, yet it managed to focus on Hamas rockets, blacking out the Nazi occupation, Hamas’ raison d’être. What does Israel expect after a long occupation? To be welcomed by Palestinians with roses and wedding rice?
    Many Israelis, including Livni, evoke the Transfer (Palestinian displacement). In return, we demand a transfer that would send the Israelis back to the countries they came from. Only original Arab Jews, who were in the lands before the establishment of Israel, would remain.
    What I am trying to say is that extremism breeds extremism. If we see a Palestinian extremism and refusal, it is because the other party’s extremism has undermined the moderates among Palestinians, Arabs and others. It made a peace seeker like me call for the withdrawal of the Arab initiative.

It Is Better That One Man Should Stand In For The People

Friday, December 5, AD 2008

Morning’s Minion:

And You Wonder Why I Criticize Evangelicals So Often…

During the election season, I made frequent references to the kinds of evangelical leaders who publicly supported McCain, people like Hagee and Parsely who believe that the US is the instrument of God against evil in the world, actively condoning bloody war. Rick Warren is supposed to be a moderate. And yet when Sean Hannity called for the US to “take out” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Warren had this to say in response:

“Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped…. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.”

God help us.

What interests me about the post above is the title. I have no interest in defending Mr. Warren’s wrong-headed exegesis, but I think this method of indictment is problematic.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to It Is Better That One Man Should Stand In For The People

  • Actually, Warren is correct about what the Bible says. The application is what makes it dubious, or worse.

    MM’s writings about evangelical Christians are nothing short of phobic. Evangelicals are a pox, unclean, irreconcilably Other, a cancer threatening a proper understanding of Catholicism in the U.S. His continuing use of “apostate” to describe the born-Catholic Sarah Palin is very telling.

    Given the consistency of his rhetoric, even the craven “some of my best friends” is not available to him. If he has a single evangelical friend, he compartmentalizes to a degree rarely seen.

  • Do you think it is legitimate to cite one unflattering example as a stand-in for millions?

    The answer, as always, is “it depends.” If there is sufficient evidence that the unflattering example is indeed characteristic of the millions, then it is certainly legitimate. The burden, though, falls upon the accuser to show that the unflattering example is widespread enough to be considered the norm. As a mathematician, I know how to construct proofs of the nature “For all x in D, P(x)”. To an extent, I even have some clue of how, in an infinite domain, to qualify “For most x in D, P(x)”. But how to extend that to people, I’m not sure.

    The true issue, of course, is the extent that we all do this. To a large extent, it seems natural to make generalizations, especially if a significant portion of the people we do sample seem to adhere to one position or another. But then, the problem is whether or not our samples are biased. If the only Native Americans I see are the ones at the bar, getting blitzed, who leave their kids on the doorstep, I might be inclined to extend that to all Native Americans, but the fact that I took my sample from those at the bar means my sampling methods are a little skewed.

    For a more personal example, my sister, who is fairly far Left, is upset any time anyone makes a generalization, because of the nameless masses that are unjustly swept under the rug. Now, I could generalize from her and assume that everyone on the Left decries making these kind of generalizations, which then makes Morning Minion’s post hypocritical. But that does MM an injustice because he might feel that making such generalizations are good and practical, and thus there is no hypocrisy.

    From personal experience, I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid making generalizations. But we should, to be charitable, explain that we realize we’re making generalizations and offer some justification for why that generalization is representative of the whole.

  • “From personal experience, I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid making generalizations. But we should, to be charitable, explain that we realize we’re making generalizations and offer some justification for why that generalization is representative of the whole.”

    Agreed, and I would add this is particularly important when we are making unflattering generalizations.

  • It amazes me that some of the Vox Nova crowd display a level of contempt for their Protestant brothers and sisters than they would never show towards Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pro-choicers, etc.

  • “His continuing use of “apostate” to describe the born-Catholic Sarah Palin is very telling.”

    Being a child, she probably cannot be accused of apostasy. But her parents are apostates, absolutely. The problem with you guys is that you have lost sense of an authentic Catholic culture that does indeed have major theological issues with the evangelicals. Part of the issue if your polical marriage of convenience. Part of it is the sheer number of Protestant converts turned Catholic apologists who still wear their Protestant-tinted lenses when they see the world. It’s a very American problem.

  • Easy on the criticism. We will need their help in the event that FOCA becomes law. Pro-life activities have been wonderful in bring religious leaders and folks together who previously had no contact or weird biases against one another. Don’t get too divisive. Leave that to the leftist groups awaiting the Coming of The Messiah- on January 20.

  • Part of the issue if your polical marriage of convenience.

    Indeed. It’s another case in which the Republicatholics place their horrid political allegiances above their faith.

    It’s telling that they would never, ever, under any circumstances defend Episcopalianism/north american Anglicanism in this way, in the name of “ecumenical understanding” with our “Protestant brothers and sisters.”

  • And no, I don’t share MM’s disgust for “Evangelicalism” as a whole. They are of course wrong on a great number of things. But in my studies I’ve met countless Evangelicals who shake up the stereotypes and who would never in a million years forge alliances with the likes of the american Catholic blog.

  • AND many of them really respect Catholicism and are drawn to it for all the RIGHT reasons, namely its unbroken connection to the Lord and the Eucharist, as opposed to right wing Evangelicals who tend to be drawn to Catholicism for the power of the Magisterium alone which, in the wake of the challenges of modern biblical criticism, gives them a more powerful source for their deep-seated fundamentalism. Instead of the bludgeon of sola scriptura, we get sola magisterium.

  • The problem with you guys is that you have lost sense of an authentic Catholic culture that does indeed have major theological issues with the evangelicals.

    MM- I find it ironic that your reply is steeped in the type of generalizations the post criticizes. But, since you leveled the charge, I would invite you to point to a passage in my or my fellow contributor’s writings that denies the theological divides between Catholics and Evangelicals.

    Part of the issue if your political marriage of convenience. Part of it is the sheer number of Protestant converts turned Catholic apologists who still wear their Protestant-tinted lenses when they see the world. It’s a very American problem.

    I appreciate the diagnosis, but let’s identify the problem first. America is not, and has never been, a Catholic culture. It is not surprising in a two-party system in such a country that there will be challenges for Catholics supporting either party. To discuss the issue as if right-leaning Catholic’s marriage of convenience with Evangelicals because of abortion, is a significant, pressing problem, but left-leaning Catholic’s alliance with the party of Planned Parenthood is not, is to strain credibility past the breaking point.

    As an aside, your supercilious, “I’m from Ireland, and therefore have a better appreciation for Catholicism,” tone is as off-putting as it is unjustified by the lack of charity towards Evangelical Christians in your writings. Whatever your background, you have not learned to discuss differences between Christians charitably.

  • Morning’s Minion,

    I never knew that an authentic Catholic culture included acting uncharitably to non-Catholics. I won’t disagree that the theological differences between evangelicals and Catholics are not only serious and problematic, but also very explanatory of what is going on, but I never read anything that prohibits us from working with non-Catholics (be they heretics, apostates, or what have you) towards a common goal that is objectively good.

    Now, before you launch into a tirade about what goals have been worked for, and how objectively good they are, I just want to caution that I’m not speaking of anything in specific here. You undoubtedly would want to argue against this “political marriage” by way of the War in Iraq and economic policies. If we hashed out those topics specifically, we might find ourselves sharing more agreement than we originally thought. But then, we might find our difference exacerbated, instead. But that’s not what I’m after. All I’m saying is that I’m a Gator’s fan, and I’m calling… I mean, all I’m saying is that the “political marriage” with evangelicals is really a neutral matter, and depends on what goals that marriage intends to accomplish.

    I also think you oversimplify, if not completely miss the mark, when you talk about former Protestants who have converted and yet still see things through Protestant-tinted lenses. But then, I don’t know specifically who you have qualms with, and what they’re saying that you find objectionable.

  • “Being a child, she probably cannot be accused of apostasy. But her parents are apostates, absolutely.”

    Absolutely not.

    Apostates completely reject the Christian faith, in toto. Evangelicals do not. Take a look at CCC 2089 and 818.

    It’s the sloppy laziness of your hostility which continues to astound, and is at odds with VN’s tenor toward other Christians and non-Christians.

  • Obama’s Minion hates evangelicals for only one reason: they, by and large, do not share his left-wing politics.

  • I imagine most posters here would have no problem defending Episcopalians and North American Anglicans who hold fast to the Traditional creeds. Ditto the renewal wings in the struggling mainline. The pluralistic/denial of biblical inspiration/purely social “gospel” wings…not so much.

    Likewise, I doubt that American Catholic would ever be a soapbox for the defenders of the Hellish prosperity “gospel.” If it ever does, I’ll repudiate it wholesale.

    It’s possible to make distinctions and hold fast to what is good. MM never does.

  • “Apostates completely reject the Christian faith, in toto. ”

    Bravo Dale! That is why we say Julian the Apostate, but not Luther the Apostate. Of course that particular line of attack in the last election by Catholics supporting a man in favor of abortion on demand up to the time that the cord is cut had a certain charming Alice in Wonderland devouring camels and drawing the line at gnats quality about it.

  • Obama’s Minion hates evangelicals for only one reason: they, by and large, do not share his left-wing politics.

    That’s changing. And fast.

    I imagine most posters here would have no problem defending Episcopalians and North American Anglicans who hold fast to the Traditional creeds.

    Do you hold Evangelicals to the same standard? I know Evangelicals (some of them with great politics) who essentially could care less about the creeds.

  • John:

    You are right that the US has never been a Catholic culture. But, to put it bluntly, should Catholics care so much about national boundaries? The US once had a vibrant Catholic sub-culture, largely among the immigrant communities of large cities. There were many socio-economic forces that drove greater integration, which was for sure not always a bad thing. But much has been lost.

    The main point I want to make is that the political marriage of convenience with the evangelicals has simply led to blurring boundaries, much to the detriment of Catholic culture and outlook. This nation is very Protestant, and its Calvinist individualism is alluring. We must hold the line, by outlining the differences, and that thinking with the fullness of Catholic faith.

    Look, I am not saying that evangelicals are some “other” (that in itself is a Protestant way of thinking). Nor am I saying that we should not work with them to achieve common goals– I think we should work with anybody to achieve the common good, and that includes Obama, George Bush, Vladamir Putin, or Hassan Nasrallah. But do not get blinded by the sun. For example, how many Catholics supported the Iraq war in 2002 because they saw the e world in dualistic Calvinist terms? (And this is not just me speaking by the way, many at the Vatican said exactly the same thing at the time– see here http://vox-nova.com/2008/02/01/calvinism-in-america-vatican-voices/.)

  • “That’s changing. And fast.”

    Hah! After two years of Messiah government you gentlemen will be lucky to get a majority of the atheist-anarchist vote.

  • Dear M&M,

    And as the Islamists come swinging their Sharia Sword (let alone the Jihad one!) who will be standing at your side defending your “catholic culture” (ok, remanants thereof) – or, at least, standing nearby to collect your beheaded head?

    [ed. This comment is off-topic and somewhat offensive. Please refrain from making similar comments]

  • Hah! After two years of Messiah government you gentlemen will be lucky to get a majority of the atheist-anarchist vote.

    Huh?

  • “Do you hold Evangelicals to the same standard? I know Evangelicals (some of them with great politics) who essentially could care less about the creeds.”

    Sure. “Oneness” (read: denying the triune nature of God) Pentecostals are problematic for precisely that reason. Ditto those who don’t practice trinitarian baptism.

    Also, I think there’s an important distinction between “caring less about the creeds” and denying the underlying definitions (for lack of a better word). I was a Methodist, and while the Nicene Creed was not in any sense authoritative as such, we didn’t deny that it was an accurate summary of Christian faith. It was even in our prayer book. Sadly, the same cannot be said for all Methodists, including influential leaders in that body, such as retired bishop C. Joseph Sprague of Chicago, who flatly denies the Resurrection, for starters.

    Those are the kinds of distinctions that have to be made. In other words, I wouldn’t write off all the members of the UMC because Bishop Sprague makes a hash of the Gospel. From the comment above, it looks like MM can do the same with evangelicals, which is heartening. Just wish he’d do it more often.

  • From the comment above, it looks like MM can do the same with evangelicals, which is heartening. Just wish he’d do it more often.

    I wish many of the contributors here at Americanist Catholic would do so as well instead of assuming that all Evangelicals have regressive political beliefs in the manner of republicatholics.

  • Michael – To my knowledge, no one here (other than MM) suggested that Evangelicals are monolithic, much less that they have regressive political beliefs.

  • “Regressive political beliefs” isn’t a meaningful term.

  • “Look, I am not saying that evangelicals are some “other” (that in itself is a Protestant way of thinking).”

    MM,

    Your not saying evangelicals are some ‘other’ because that is an attitude those other guys have?

  • The main point I want to make is that the political marriage of convenience with the evangelicals has simply led to blurring boundaries, much to the detriment of Catholic culture and outlook. This nation is very Protestant, and its Calvinist individualism is alluring. We must hold the line, by outlining the differences, and that thinking with the fullness of Catholic faith.

    Certainly I agree that Catholics need to maintain a distinctive identity. However I am struggling to see the connection between maintaining a Catholic identity, and speaking so uncharitably about other religious groups. One of the reasons Catholics had a separate identity historically in this country was because they were treated as ‘the other,’ and being Catholic was often a social and political liability.

    It is odd to me that you should select Evangelicals as the exemplars of ‘individualism’ and ‘Calvinism’. Certainly, many evangelicals are Reformed, but it is far from being the dominant feature of Evangelical theology, which tends to be all over the map. It seems to me that the individualism of people like Pelosi, Biden, Cuomo, Giuliani, etc. is a much larger threat to well-educated (but not well-catechized) Catholics, and it is unlikely they were influenced by Evangelicals. Name the last prominent Catholic intellectual or politician who became an evangelical. I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Being a faithful Catholic is challenging regardless of political persuasion, and both parties have their faults. But scapegoating Evangelicals is unhelpful.

  • The Catholics who make common cause with evangelicals politically tend also to be those Catholics who most clearly understand and appreciate the theological gulf between Catholics and evangelicals. I regularly work with all types of Protestants at the crisis pregnancy center in my county for example. They are great people and I admire them intensely. Doesn’t make me have any doubts as to the efficacy of the Sacraments, the role of Mary as Queen of Heaven, the infallibility of the Pope, etc. As to the Protestant culture of this nation, nonsense! The country’s culture is an eclectic mishmash and has been since at least the beginning of the last century. Perhaps those Catholic countries that have less than replacement rates, Spain, Italy, etc could learn something from us, at least in producing segments of the public optimistic enough about the future to want to have kids, something those countries seem not to be very good at.

  • “Regressive political beliefs” isn’t a meaningful term.

    I suppose that if such beliefs were the air one breathed, it would not be a “meaningful” term.

  • No, it’s just an insult. I could just as well say that your beliefs are “regressive.”

  • No, it’s just an insult. I could just as well say that your beliefs are “regressive.”

    And I would shrug it off. Wouldn’t be the first time.

  • As an aside, your supercilious, “I’m from Ireland, and therefore have a better appreciation for Catholicism,” tone is as off-putting as it is unjustified by the lack of charity towards Evangelical Christians in your writings. Whatever your background, you have not learned to discuss differences between Christians charitably.

    John Henry: I agree with this assessment, and your original point that negative generalizations about Evangelicals are commonplace and tolerated in a way that derision and condensation toward other groups would never be. Good post.

    There is much we could learn from Evangelicals, especially when it comes to charity. Few groups are more charitable and kindhearted as a whole, something I also admire a great deal about Mormons, another group it seems perfectly acceptable to go after full force.

  • And I too shrug off your cognitively meaningless insults. You’re just letting off steam in the only way you know how.

  • Pingback: christianity