A Random Wondering

I have just started reading “Why I Became An Atheist” by John W. Loftus and came across this in the forward by Edward T. Babinski.

“Again, speaking as someone who has himself spent years of his former Bible-believing life trying to hold on to every word of the Bible “without error,” I wonder today just what conservative Christians do believe, or even if they themselves really know.  There are probably a lot more unspoken doubts going on in the Christian world than anyone cares to personally relate.  For instance, do conservative Christians imagine a literal talking serpent was “the shrewdest beast of the field God created,” but then God cursed it to “go on its belly”?…Do they all believe in the story of the forbidden edible fruit and that all the natural causes of suffering on earth and throughout the cosmos – including volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, as well as diseases, poisonous microbes, and insects – were all simply the result of one human couple’s dis-obedient hungering for a piece of fruit?  Do they believe a woman named Eve was cloned directly from Adam’s rib?  Do Christian apologists really doubt none of those old mythological tales out of Israel’s primeval history in Genesis?  Do they plead that Lot’s wife must have indeed turned into a literal pillar of salt……Do they accept the true scientific age of the earth, regardless of what the “ages of the Patriarchs” adds up to, and regardless of the fact that Genesis states that the first light of the entire cosmos was created simply to accommodate “days/nights, evenings/mornings” as measured on one tiny planet, the earth?” 

Reading that passage brought to mind the following quote from Saint Aquinas:

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

The conjunction of these two quotes got me wondering – are the Christians who become atheists more likely to be of the literalist type or of the more liberal persuasion?

You could argue that the combination of holding a literalist belief in the Bible and believing that if the entire Bible is not literally true then it is worthless makes that person’s beliefs more brittle and thus more likely to shatter if faced with evidence that the Bible can be and is wrong on several subjects. 

Conversely, you could argue that those who hold a more liberal view – say a person who believes the Bible to be inspired by God but written by men with all of their individual biases as well as the limitations of their specific culture and society – has already taken a few steps towards the atheist position and so does not have so far to travel to finish the journey.  Further, they have shown themselves more open to evidence and reason than their literalist brethren and so, possibly, display a willingness to follow said evidence and reason no matter where it leads them. 

Personally I had a mixed background.  My church as I was growing up, United Methodists, leaned towards the more liberal inspired by God position in regards to the Bible.  My parents tended more towards the literalist position but were not dogmatic about it.  I took my parents position at first. 

However I soon gave up a literalist view of the bible as being against reason and evidence and, more importantly to me at the time, demeaning to God.   I remained a liberal Christian for several years before finally following the evidence and reason to my current position of atheism. 

This would seem to indicate that perhaps liberal Christians are more likely to become atheists than literalists.  Of course, there is the fact that both my parents beliefs have changed over the years so that both now believe in the inspired model of the Bible instead of the literalist one.  Despite this though they both remain committed and devout Christians and do not doubt either God or Jesus. 

Also, many former Christians writing about how they became an atheist, such as John W. Loftus and Dan Barker, started out as literalists. 

I know of no good research into this question.  Which, of course, leaves me pondering in vain the question of which type of Christian is most likely to become an atheist, a literalist or an inspirationist?  Or is it a wash?  

 

Acts of Irony: The Anti-Abortionists

From http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/01/18/index.html

“After a period of substantial decline, the global abortion rate has stalled, according to new research from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). Between 1995 and 2003, the overall number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44 years) dropped from 35 to 29; according to the new study, the global abortion rate in 2008 was virtually unchanged, at 28 per 1,000. This plateau coincides with a slowdown, documented by the United Nations, in contraceptive uptake, which has been especially marked in developing countries.”

…..

““The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern,” says Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. “This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.” “

….

“The findings provide further evidence that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

The Southern Africa subregion, where close to 90% of women live under South Africa’s liberal abortion law, has the lowest abortion rate in Africa, at 15 per 1,000 women. Other very low subregional rates are found in Western Europe (12) and Northern Europe (17), where both abortion and contraception are widely available either for free or at very low cost.

Eastern Europe presents a very different situation, with an abortion rate that is nearly four times that of Western Europe. This discrepancy corresponds with Eastern Europe’s relatively low levels of modern contraceptive use and low prevalence of highly effective methods such as the pill and the IUD. After a striking decline in the abortion rate between 1995 and 2003, from 90 to 44 per 1,000 women, Eastern Europe experienced virtually no change in the rate between 2003 and 2008.”

“These latest figures are deeply disturbing. The progress made in the 1990s is now in reverse. Promoting and implementing policies to reduce the number of abortions is now an urgent priority for all countries and for global health agencies, such as WHO,” says Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. “Condemning, stigmatizing, and criminalizing abortion are cruel and failed strategies. It’s time for a public health approach that emphasizes reducing harm – and that means more liberal abortion laws.” “

More evidence that the best way to reduce abortions is to promote easy access to and provide early and complete education about contraceptives.  Those who try to eliminate abortions by promoting abstinence only education, who are against easy access to birth control (Rick Santorum for example), who wish to shut down Planned Parenthood and who work to make abortion illegal are only going to cause the abortion rate to rise in this country. 

Ironic isn’t it? 

 

 

What Will Be Overlooked

I was reading the article in my paper about Moeed Abdul Salam, a North Texas man who went to Pakistan and became an al-Qaeda operative.  He died on Nov 19, 2011 during a raid by the Pakistani military, either killed by the military or killing himself with a hand grenade, depending on whose story you listen to. 

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/16542176/family-of-dead-al-qaida-operative-promoted-peace?clienttype=printable

My first thought on reading about this man and his family was, what a shame that the only thing many Americans are going to take from this story is a “confirmation” of their belief that Islam is a hate filled religion of violence.  They will overlook the example of his parents and brother who show that this belief about Islam is not only vastly over-simplified but false.  

Hasna Shahleen Salam, Moeed Abdul Salam’s mother, is co-chair of the Plano Multicultural Outreach Roundtable.  She has also served as president of the Muslim Women’s Foundation.  Both of these groups work to foster inter-faith understanding and cooperation in improving our society.  Both are worthwhile organizations. 

Monem Salam, Moeed Abdul Salam’s brother, who co-manages Amana Mutual Funds, the largest Islamic mutual fund in the world (by the way, the majority of those investing it this fund are not Muslim),  has also worked to promote a better understanding of moderate Muslims.

Were this a story about a son from a Christian family who had worked with those of other races to promote tolerance and brotherhood but who had nonetheless joined the Aryan Nation and killed an African American, most Americans would have sympathized with the family.   They would not take this as proof that Christianity is a hate filled and violent religion.   To bad this will not be true for the Salam family. 

As Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim interfaith advocate and a Department of Homeland Security Adviser, has said, “The family members are victims in all this.  They did everything to try to set a good example, not only inside their own family but by being good citizens and good Muslims.”

As for the prodigal son, I can’t help but wonder if radical Islam would have seemed so attractive to him if we did not have Presidential candidates who say they will not appoint Muslims to their cabinet, did not have state after state passing laws against Sharia but not against laws of other religious traditions, did not have communities trying to keep Muslims from building Mosques in their communities, did not have people protesting Muslim participation in inter-faith activities, did not have Mosques being torched and defaced, did not have people saying that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve the protections afforded religion by our Constitution, did not have pastors burning Qur’ans, did not have so many people saying that Islam is a hateful and violent religion and that all Muslims are terrorists and not to be trusted. 

While it is hard to say for sure I can’t help but believe that were we to live up to our ideals and treat Islam with the same respect we do Judaism and Christianity that radical Islam would lose much of what attractiveness it has for some here in the United States. 

There would still be converts, but they would be far fewer were we not so busy proving the radicals slanders against us to be true.

Ray Comfort’s Anti Choice Video – A Fine Example Bad Logic/High Pressure Salesmanship

Finally found the time and energy to finish this blog.  My apologies for all who have been waiting with bated breath for this – and for all of you who have not been, well my apologies anyway. 

I actually came across this at the same time that I started writing my series of blogs about Islam and anti-Semitism.  However my dander was up over the FLAME ad, had already started that series and so put this off until I had finished. 

I came across this while listening to a Christian talk show.  Ray Comfort was promoting his new video about abortion and claiming that its clear logic and emotional force was causing people to change their positions from pro-choice to pro-life in droves.

A little research revealed that this video, which was released in mid September of 2011, had received over one million viewers by the beginning of November on its website.  That does not include visits to YouTube to see this “life changing video”, where it had over one million viewers in just a few weeks. 

Well, after reading and hearing all of this, of course I had to see this wonderful video.  I went to their website at

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/26/180-movie-changes-opinions-from-pro-abortion-to-pro-life/

and found the following exciting news:

“A new 33-minute documentary film titled 180 is changing public opinion on abortion 180 degrees in a matter of minutes, as author and film producer Ray Comfort  uses the new film to ask students a question that challenges their abortion views.

Titled to reflect the complete turnaround in the mindsets of all to whom the question is posed, the award-winning film shows eight “pro-choice” people, mostly college students, changing their stance to pro-life just moments after the question is asked in its entirety.

…

“While skeptics of 180 say they can’t believe anyone would change his or her mind so quickly, Comfort accepts and even understands their disbelief, stating that he could hardly believe it himself when he first viewed the footage in the editing room.”

…

“It began with two male university students completely changing their minds about abortion when we asked them this one question,” he said. “We realized it wouldn’t be convincing to have only males speaking on the subject, so we took to the streets, asking that one particular question, and found that six women changed their minds from pro-abortion to pro-life in a matter of seconds. It was amazing.”

Well, I do find such claims amazing and was all afire to view this “documentary”.    I viewed it at this site:

http://www.180movie.com/

What follows really is rather amazing – although not quite in the manner that Mr. Comfort and LifeNews.com means. 

The intent of the video is to link the Holocaust – the murder of over 6 million Jews – with abortion.  It tries to do so using a variety of questions and in a series of steps.  This video can be divided very neatly into three parts; the first part about the Holocaust, the second part about abortion, and the third part being his general evangelical pitch for getting people to repent and convert. 

Before I get down to the specifics let me just make a few general comments.

-       They never show the same person answering all of the questions.  In other words they cut and paste so that you never know how a given person answered all of the questions.

-       You only see a few people interviewed.  There is no way of knowing how many total people were interviewed.  Were there a 100 people interviewed and only these 8 or 9 people gave the desired answers (even with never showing all the answers any one person gave)?

-       Many of these people seem to have no firm belief about abortion or given it any thought.  Many seemed remarkably ignorant.  I wonder how many interviews with people who were not so ignorant of the issues involved and who had strong opinions wound up on the cutting room floor. 

-       The questions are all one way.  In other words Mr. Comfort asks all the questions while the interviewees do not get to ask any back or do anything other than respond to Mr. Comfort.  Again, a clear sign this is for propaganda and has no intent of being an honest look at a moral question. 

In other words the supposed impact of this video could be due to a careful editing process and not something real. 

Now, on to the specifics of the film itself. 

Step one is to show both the horror of Nazism and Hitler and to demonstrate how many people do not know who Hitler is. It does this at the opening with clips from the Holocaust and with Mr. Comfort asking several people who Hitler was and with their responses showing that they had no clue. 

This ignorance is emphasized by Mr. Comfort repeating the oft quoted “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.”  This is done with the clear assumption that abortion and the Holocaust are moral equivalents. 

This sets up the premise that humans can be astoundingly ignorant.  Later Mr. Comfort uses this when he links the Holocaust with abortion in America. 

During this segment they also spend some time on both Steve, a neo Nazi with some very extreme, ignorant, and hateful views and on a man who said he was German but believed that Hitler was a good man and that Jews were running America and were responsible for all the world’s problems.

This sets up the premise that humans can be very screwed up morally.   

After setting this up they then go on to pose a series of rather intriguing moral questions.  The purpose of these questions though is not to provide information about how people think on moral issues, nor is it to provide the person a chance to develop their moral thinking.  Instead the moral questions are meant to inch the person towards the position that Mr. Comfort wants them to take.  To further this end he keeps the exploration of these questions and answers shallow. 

The questions are:

-        If it was 1939 and you had both a high power rifle and had Hitler in your sights would you shoot and kill Hitler.  All of the people shown in the film said that they would (looks like they edited out the Neo-Nazi and the German citizen from the beginning of the film). 

-       If it was 30 years earlier and you had a chance to kill Mrs. Hitler with Hitler in the womb would you do so?  Again, all of them say yes.

 

What is extremely interesting here is that later in the film, during the section with the questions about abortion, Mr. Comfort challenges his interviewees if they provide a pro-choice answer, yet he does not challenge their willingness to kill not only Hitler but his mother – something that seems much more morally indefensible than abortion.  Does Mr. Comfort’s silence here mean that he too would be willing to kill not only the fetus that will become Hitler but also Hitler’s mother?  If so, this seems a rather strange position for someone who claims to be pro-life. 

The next step covers the belief of Mr. Comfort that Hitler was not a Christian – something that can be validly argued (although personally I believe he believed in a mix of Christian and neo pagan beliefs popular in Germany at that time). 

Mr. Comfort’s point here is that Hitler created his own image of God and because it was a false image all of these other evils resulted.   This also seems to imply that those who support the pro-choice position have also created their own image of God – even if they call themselves Christians, they are not really such.   

The next section starts with images of the Jews being killed and some very moving eyewitness testimony.  This is again followed by a series of moral questions to interviewees – at least the ones who knew who Hitler was and considered him an evil man. 

-       A German officer points a gun on you and tells to you drive a bulldozer and fill a pit filled with the bodies of dead Jews.  Only they are not all dead and you can hear some voices crying out for help from the pit.  Would you do it or not?

Predictably this gathers a mix of answers ranging from no, through I don’t know, to yes. It would have been interesting to have a tally of how many answered what and then get a more in depth explanation of their answers – however since the purpose of this video is propaganda and not understanding it does not provide such info (there is some questioning here but it is very shallow and the responses given are not followed up on).    

-       The follow up question was; what if the Jews were still alive and an officer handed you a gun and told you to shoot them, would you do it? 

This had more people saying no, they would not.  There is some questioning here about why, especially of those who said yes to the bulldozing but no to the shooting.  However this does not last long.

The purpose of this section was to get the Holocaust into these people’s mind – make that horror and evil fresh and real.  It gets them to think in moral terms, especially about what they might consider their moral failings if they had answered yes to either the bulldozing or the shooting question. 

In other words the purpose of this section is to make them uncertain about their own moral judgment.  This can be a good thing if done with the intent to explore and understand difficult issues of morality by breaking down unreasoning barriers.  However, in this case it is done with the intent to promote a particular point of view and for propaganda.    

Now, at last, about 1/3 through the film, we come to the transition point.    Mr. Comfort tells the interviewee that he/she seems to value human life.  Given this, what do they think about abortion? 

Most respond that they think this is a tricky situation and that the woman should be allowed to make the choice. 

Mr. Comfort then asks the interviewee when the baby becomes a life?  He often asks this by asking the interviewee to fill in the blank of the question “It’s OK to kill a baby in the womb when____?”  He also asks what justifies killing a baby in the womb. 

After making the interviewees very aware of issues with their moral judgment, and keeping the image of the horror of the holocaust before them Mr. Comfort then ignores the whole question of what a human person is by using the word “baby”.

The problem, of course,  lies in the definition of baby, the definition of person, and when does a person accrue rights.  I have dealt with this more extensively in an earlier blog that can be seen at this link.

http://badatheist.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/abortion-part-1/

To summarize though, it is not enough that a cell or tissue has the same DNA and will develop into a human being if nothing happens to it in the development process (and most of what prevents it results from natural causes and not abortion).   After all, every person has the potential to become the President of the United States but do we treat everyone as if they are the President? 

What makes tissues and cells a person is the ability to feel pain and to have conscious awareness – neither of which happen until the third trimester.  Until then, when there is a conflict, the rights of the person who already exists trumps the rights of those who are still just potential. 

As I said, this is just a quick summary whose purpose is to show that Mr. Comfort has assumed what has not been proven yet.  By doing so he has set the stage for those who fall for this to answer the way he wishes them to.    

At one point in this section one woman says that he really doesn’t know what could justify “killing a baby in the womb”.  Mr. Comfort is well prepared though and then asks her, if you were in charge of blowing up a building and you were not sure if a human life was inside would you still blow it up?  Again assuming that the two situations are analogous and also pressing her to commit right now without the benefit of doing any thinking of her own. 

At another point during this segment one of the interviewees does say that he would have to think about this some.  Like any good salesman, Mr. Comfort does not want his victim to think at all – he wants a gut response to the situation Mr. Comfort has created and he wants it now.   

So Mr. Comfort replies by asking the young man if he sees that this is just like saying that he needs to give it some thought about whether it would be moral to bury the Jews alive.  Again, Mr. Comfort is already assuming the answer (the fetus is a baby and there is no difference between the Holocaust and abortion) and is not interested in letting anyone think about it and discover the con job he has done on them.   

Let me also mention that at about the 23 minute point Mr. Comfort quotes Hitler as saying “history will recognize our movement as a great battle for humanity’s liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mr. Sinai (a reference to the Ten Commandments)…[God is] a tyrant who orders one to do the very things one doesn’t like.”  The source given is The Ten Commandments:  Ten Short Novels of Hitler’s War Against the Moral Code by Armin L. Robinson.  Perhaps you already see the problem with this quote. 

It s a quote from a novel about Hitler and not a quote from Hitler.  These views may or may not have been Hitler’s but those words most definitely were not and to portray them as such is morally problematic. 

The whole video to this point comes down to answering two questions. 

1)     Is a fetus a human person?

The answer here is that, no they are not.  A blob of tissue that cannot feel pain and is not consciously aware of its surroundings or itself is not a person in the same way that a baby is.  There is a clear difference here.

As the fetus approaches birth this does gradually change, which is why I believe placing severe restrictions on a late term abortion (not outlawing by the way), is entirely appropriate. 

At one point in the video Mr. Comfort points that that a six week old fetus already has eyes, hands, and a heartbeat.  While that is true they still do not look human.  They looks about the same as a chicken or cat embryo at this stage.  Nor does it change the fact that a six week old embryo cannot feel pain and is not consciously aware of anything.    

2)      Is the comparison between the Holocaust and abortion valid? 

The answer here is no.  The Holocaust involved people who already can feel pain and are consciously aware of what is happening to them.  Abortion involves a fetus who cannot feel pain and is not consciously aware.

This video depends on catching selected people off guard, not allowing them time to really think about the issues involved, and then pressing for the answer Mr. Comfort wants.  Watching this I believe that Mr. Comfort would do very well as a high pressure salesman for a time share company. 

About the last 10 minutes of this video involves Mr. Comfort’s standard spiel for converting people.  This involves a series of questions such as:

-       Have you ever lied?  When he gets the inevitable yes answer he then asks”, What do you call someone who lies?”   Obviously the answer is a liar.

-       Have you ever stolen anything?  This includes such items as taking home a pencil from work.  Of course then you are a thief.

-       Have you ever lusted for someone in your heart?  Have you ever used the Lord’s name in vain?  Have you ever engaged in fornication?

After getting the desired answers Mr. Comfort then summarizes the situation by saying that in God’s eyes you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, fornicating blasphemer and given that why shouldn’t God send you straight to the Hell that you deserve. 

This blog is getting rather long so I am not going to go over this section in any depth (in part because there is no depth to these arguments to go into). 

However let me just point out that he starts here by assuming things, just as he did with the abortion questions.  In this case he assumes that God exists, that a literal reading of the Bible gives an accurate picture of how God thinks and acts, and that Mr. Comfort knows how God thinks and would act. 

His questions are also based on poorly defined terms, which can be readily seen by pondering a few counter questions. 

-       Can a person trust a liar?  Obviously not.  Yet, even though I have lied at times though my life my friends, family, and work associates do trust me a great deal.

-       Are all lies evil?  What about those people during the Holocaust who were hiding Jews and told the Nazi’s that they were not? 

-       Can you trust a thief with your property and money?   Yet before I retired my company trusted me daily with large amounts of money.  My friends and family do so too. 

-       Can a society which consists of nothing but liars, thieves, cheaters, and so forth work?    Yet ours and most of the world’s does work.

-       Does God determine morality or does morality exist independently of God? 

• If God determines morality then if he changes his mind and decides tomorrow that rape and torture are moral and helping others immoral will that make it so?  And will you follow it then?
• If God does not determine morality then shouldn’t we be more concerned about what morality is for humans rather than what God thinks it is? 

Mr. Comfort’s video, like his overall approach to evangelizing, relies on poorly defined terms and in making unwarranted assumptions.  This is combined with a high pressure give me an answer now approach and some, I suspect, creative editing of the video involved manages to produce a very superficial video that will only be convincing to those who do not think about it and already agree with Mr. Comfort’s views. 

For those of us who prefer more substance and less salesmanship in coming to decisions on moral issues – there is nothing here.

Choosing The Longer Rope

No, still not my abortion blog yet (gee, it better be a good one after stringing this out so long).  However I had another thought about an argument against atheism that I thought I would briefly address.  It is:

Atheism takes as much faith as theism. 

Part of the basis for this claim (and I acknowledge it is only part of the rationale for this claim) is that no position can be logical all the way through – at some point a leap of faith has to occur.  So, since this is so, why not make that leap of faith for God and not atheism? 

And this is true, as far as it goes.  We cannot logically show by an unbroken chain of reasoning that logic will always work and that there is nothing else besides logic and empirical/inductive reasoning that provides accurate information about the world.  The best we can do is take a position down to the place where those assumptions have to be assumed

So, since both theism and atheism have a component of faith does this mean that it is simply a matter of prejudice in regards to which faith to choose?   A matter of feelings? 

No. 

Let me illustrate with a metaphor. 

You are at the base of a cliff and desperately need to get up that sheer face to save your child who is in a burning house.    Two ropes hang down from the top of the cliff.  Neither rope reaches the ground.  However one rope is only two feet off the ground.  The other rope is 10 feet off the ground.  Which rope do you chose?

Who Are Really The Prideful Ones

Many Christians explain an atheist’s ability to deny what seems so clear and plain to them by saying that atheists are too prideful – they do not wish to submit their will to God nor do they wish to acknowledge anything more powerful than themselves and because of this we reject God despite the clear evidence.  To which I really must ask:

Really?????

Although the whole rejecting God because of human pride is wrong for most atheists I am not going to focus on that with this blog.  Instead I am going to ask those Christians – who really are the prideful ones here? 

The atheist who believes that she is the chance creation of natural processes, that he will die and stay dead forever with his body decaying into its constituent parts, that there is no inherent meaning in his or her life,  that there is no purpose in our existence, that we are an animal with highly evolved intelligence and social skills but not more than an animal, that we are not the center of the universe, that the universe does not care one way or the other about the human species, that there is no wonderful being looking out for humankind who will make everything right in the end.    

Or

The Christian who believes that although humanity is not at the center of the physical universe is nonetheless the center of the universe’s creator ,that he is more than just an animal, the an omnipotent being who created the observable universe – a sphere with a radius of about  46 billion light years consisting of at least 125 billion galaxies and least 100 sextillion stars all at distances too far away for us to ever visit – created all this vastness just for us and for no other purpose than us, and who provides us with purpose and meaning and with a life after death to take care of all the pains and injustices suffered in this one. 

To my mind it seems as if the Christians are the ones who are filled with pride.  This can be seen when they protest against evolution on the basis that they did not come from no monkey.    Biblical dirt is OK, but sharing an ancestor with a chimpanzee is too demeaning. 

It seems to me as if one of the reasons that many Christians do not become atheists is because of their pride. 

 

 

Note:  I find it curious that many Christians who reject the ancient age of the universe nevertheless accept science’s findings about the size of the universe and use this to proclaim the glory of God and of his majesty.   This is puzzling because the science for the two are inextricably mixed with a mutual sharing of the same theories, the same observations, and the same facts.  Yet the young earth Christians reject one and accept the other.  Very strange. 

 

Final Note:  I had meant to do a post about abortion.  However it involves critiquing a 33 minute video and it is taking me longer than I thought it would.  Especially with all the doings with family during this holiday season – and now a short vacation.  But that overdue blog will be next – I hope. 

 

What Kills People: Or How I Stopped Worrying About Iran and the Bomb

I was listening to a talk show today.  The host was going on about our 2^nd amendment rights and about how ridiculous it was to regulate guns since it should be obvious even to morons that guns do not kill people, people do. 

This made me wonder – how many people who agree with this host are also worried about Iran getting nukes?   If so then perhaps I can provide some ease of mind for them with the thought:

Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people.

Islam, Muslims, and Anti-Semitism Part 9: Final Arguments and Thoughts

In my previous blog, Part 8:  The Creation of Israel, I brought out the fact that its creation was a traumatic event and, when looked at as the culmination of over 60 years of history, more than capable of creating a climate ripe for the development of anti- Semitism. 

Another piece of evidence that this is true lies in a 2006 Pew poll. This poll looked at how many Muslims had an unfavorable view of Jews and found the following. 

• Jordan – 100 percent
• Lebanon – 99 percent
• Egypt – 98 percent
• Morocco – 88 percent
• Indonesia – 76 percent
• Pakistan – 74 percent
• Turkey – 60 percent
• Poland – 27 percent
• Russia – 26 percent
• Spain – 20 percent
• France – 16 percent
• Canada – 11 percent
• United States – 7 percent
• Great Britain – 6 percent

What I find interesting here is that it is the Muslims living in the Middle East that have the greatest number with unfavorable view of Jews.  Once you get away from the Middle East the number of Muslims with unfavorable views of Jews starts to drop.  In fact, in Europe and America more Muslims have a favorable view of Jews than have a non favorable one. 

This to me is a clear indication that the creation of Israel had a strong impact on the anti-Jewish sentiment that is rampant in the Middle East.  Further, it is clear evidence that anti-Semitism is not an integral part of Islam but is instead a cultural artifact of the Middle East. 

I find it interesting that Christian groups in the Middle Eastern countries also have an unfavorable view of Jews.  For example, in Lebanon 99% of Christians there have an unfavorable view of Jews.  Another strong piece of evidence that this is a regional, political, and cultural problem and not one that is integral to the religion of Islam. 

Ad:  Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, which is prohibited in Germany, is, in Arab and Farsi translations, a perennial best seller in Muslim countries. So is the fraudulent invention The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Muslim world is the only place in which those scurrilous books are readily available. A recent Egyptian television series of 41 installments, based on the “Protocols,” was a huge success in the Muslim world.

Response:  It is revealing that the two pieces of anti-Semitic literature this ad mentions are both European in origin; in fact, European Christian.   Further the Muslim world is not the only place in which these books are readily available.  I can get both quite easily.  I have often seen Mein Kampf in area and chain books stores as well as the Protocols. 

Now, I will agree that anti-Semitism is rampant in the Middle East, to the shame of many Muslims.  That much is true.  However there are two facts to keep in mind:

1)     Not all Muslims are anti-Semitic.  Large numbers of Muslims are not.  I have already mentioned the actions of many Muslims in combating the anti-Semitism in Islam, the fact that Albanian Muslims protected Jews from the Nazi’s during WW II, the fact that many Muslims protected Jews during the Palestinian riots, and many other facts showing this to be true.  Above I mentioned the Pew Poll as further evidence of this.   

2)     Islam in the Middle East has not always been hostile to Jews.  At one time a Jew was safer living in Islamic countries than they were in Christian ones, something I have already discussed in Part 4: History of Muslims and Jews.

What this means is that, while there was some fertile ground for it already in the Middle East, the current anti-Semitism is mainly an import from Christian Europe that took root and flourished due chiefly to the effects of colonialism and the creation of Israel. 

In passing, let me also mention that the great American inventor Henry Ford was so enamored of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that in the 1920’s he financed the printing and distribution of 500,000 copies.  Does this make America anti-Semitic? 

Ad:  Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is a favorite topic in the Muslim world. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (a reputed “moderate”) wrote his doctoral thesis with this title: “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement.” In some regards, Arab Jew-haters are even worse than their infamous predecessors. For all their terrible deeds, the Nazis never lionized their killers, named streets or buildings after them or encouraged their children to emulate them. That is, however, standard practice in the Muslim world. To kill Jews, to become a martyr, is the highest goal and promises immediate access to a paradise of unbelievable pleasures.

Response;  I have already dealt with much of this already.  I have shown that many if not most Muslims are not anti-Semitic.  I have shown that the anti-Semitism that exists in the Middle East is the product more of Colonialism, the creation of Israel and the history leading up to it, and the exposure to European Christian anti-Semitism than it is of Islam. 

And I have to say – Really????  Nazi’s never encouraged their children to kill and hate Jews?   They didn’t idealize Hitler and the SS?  The creators of this ad must be looking at a different Nazi Germany than I was. 

It is also not a standard practice to name streets and buildings after Nazi’s. 

As for killing Jews to become a martyr, I would love to see some reference from the Qur’an for that because there is none.  Some anti-Semitic Muslims may believe this, but the vast majority of Muslims do not. 

Oh, let me also mention that during the Crusades the Pope promised that any of the crusaders who died during the crusade would gain immediate access to heaven.  I would also advise the writers of this ad to read some of the Klu Klux Klan and white supremist literature to gain a bit more perspective. 

Finally let me point out the many Muslims who I have already mentioned in Part 2, Actions, that acknowledge the terrible tragedy of the Holocaust and who are working to educate others.  By their actions alone the claim that this ad makes that Islam is innately anti-Semitic is proven wrong.   

Ad:  Many people believe that the existence of the state of Israel is the cause of this hatred and that Muslim anti-Semitism would disappear if the Jewish state would disappear. But that is not true. As former “refusenik” and Jewish Agency Chairman, Natan Sharansky, has said: “The Jewish state is no more the cause of anti-Semitism today than the absence of the Jewish state was a century ago.”

Hatred of Jews is an integral part of Arab/Muslim culture and did not come about with the creation of the Jewish state. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, at that time the highest Islamic authority in that part of the world, was a staunch and steadfast ally of the Nazis, a trusted accomplice of Hitler. He personally raised SS Waffen troops among the Bosnian Muslims and promised the Nazis that he would fully cooperate with them in the extermination of the Jews in the Middle East. That was in the 1930′s – 20 years before the creation of Israel. One shudders to imagine what the Arabs would have done to the Jewish residents of the area if the Nazis had come out victorious in World War II.

Response: I have already dealt with much of this in my blogs about Colonialism and the creation of Israel. 

This ad is fond of quoting one Muslim and then pretending that it represents the thinking of all Muslims.  To counter their example of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al – Husseini let me provide you with these tidbits.  Much of this information came from Gilbert Achcar’s excellent book The Arabs and the Holocaust.    

-       Israel Gershoni is a specialist in Egyptian intellectual history at the University of Tel Aviv.  His research concluded that “the overwhelming majority of Egyptian voices – in the political arena, in intellectual circles, among professional, educated, urban middle classes, and even in the literate popular culture – rejected fascism and Nazism both as an ideology and a practice and as “an enemy of the enemy”.”

“The Egyptian public’s attitude toward fascism and Nazism was expressed principally through three types of representation.  The first, imperialistic representation, viewed fascism and Nazism as imperialist forces; the second, totalitarian representation, perceived the Third Reich and the fascist regime in Italy as extreme forms of modern totalitarianism.  And the third, racist representation, scathingly denounced the ideology of Nazism and its racist theories and practices.”   Beyond Anti-Semitism, by Israel Gershoni. 

Please note that in Egypt not only was Nazism rejected for various reasons but also that its “racist theories and practices” were too. 

-       The Muslim daily paper of Damascus, Alif Ba, condemned the Muslims of Algiers for provoking anti-Jewish riots (a drunken Jewish army tailor insulted some Muslims in a Mosque and urinated on them) and also condemned the German government for its treatment of Jews:

“The Jewish religion is one of the most honored in the world, and it is the duty of members of all other religions to treat it with esteem.   It is true that we are fighting Zionism, but we are not fighting the Jews as such.  Judaism is not necessarily Zionism.” 

-       In February 1942 the Palestinian weekly newspaper Al-Akhbar described Hitler as “humanity’s greatest enemy”.

 

-       Zionist intelligence services in Palestine estimated that no more than 60% of the population of Palestine supported Hitler.  Given the fact that the Arabs living in Palestine were already greatly concerned about Jewish immigration and the possible creation of a Jewish homeland out of what was their land, and given the fact that it is human nature to believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, this is a rather surprisingly low number.

This is especially low if, as the FLAME ad states, anti-Semitism in an integral part of Islam.   Other parts of the Arab world were even less supportive of Hitler and Nazism than Palestine. 

Other examples of both words and actions can be pointed out.  But I believe that enough has already been mentioned that it should be clear that anti-Semitism is not an innate part of Islam. 

I would also ask the creators of this ad if they believe the Catholic church to also be innately anti-Semitic?  After all Hitler was raised a Catholic and Mussolini who cooperated with the Nazis’ policy towards the Jews was a devout Catholic.  When you pair this with the history of the Catholic church in regards to the Jews – the Inquisition, the forced conversions, making them wear distinctive clothes, limiting their movements and where they can live, etc. – it seems that just as good a case if not better can be made that the Catholic church is innately anti-Semitic. 

Ad:  Israel has tried for over 60 years to come to terms with its Arab-Muslim neighbors. But it is difficult to make peace with those who think of them as sons of pigs and apes. In the words of Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hasan Nasrallah, who declared: “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak or feeble… we would not find anyone like the Jew.” How can one make peace with such people, with hatred like that?

This ad has been published and paid for by

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159

 

Summation

While this ad provides some accurate information it does not come near to providing a complete picture of the history of Islam and the beliefs of Muslims.  I believe it does so purposely in order to spread fear and hatred of all thinks Islam and is an example of a lies by omission, misdirection, and printing outright falsehoods as if they were true. 

The roots of modern day Muslim anti-Semitism comes not from Islam – although its history and the Qur’an have been wrongly used to support it.  Instead it comes from history.  Specifically five strands that have woven themselves into a strangling noose of anti-Semitism .

1)      An Islamic history that elevated the Muslim politically over the Jews and other non-Muslims.  While this by itself does not constitute anti-Semitism nor would it have turned into such without the other strands, it nonetheless provided some fertile ground for anti-Semitism to be planted.  I would also say though that it was not usually as bad as that of most of Christian Europe

2)     Verses in the Qur’an that could be used and have been used to support anti-Semitism.  Until the arrival of the next two factors this anti-Semitism never reached the virulent stage that it had in Christian Europe.  . 

3)     The impact of colonialism: 

1. Frustration and Anger
2. Broken promises
3. No control
4. Looting of resources and wealth
5. Christian missionaries forced upon them.
6. Looked down upon.
7. Talking the talk of democracy but not walking the walk.

4)     The importation of a more virulent and active anti-Semitism from Christian Europe – including its literature. 

5)     The creation of Israel.  To most Arabs this is the last colonial power, created by the European colonial powers as they were finally leaving. 

 

What is really tragic about this is that this state, Israel, was created for the victims of terrible European persecution covering nearly 1800 years of history and culminating in the Holocaust.   Instead of correcting the problem that they created the European powers, along with the United States, instead perpetuated a new injustice on a people who had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews in Europe.   

 

Had these powers been willing to open their borders to the displaced Jews and to treat them fairly then I believe Israel would never have been created, or if it had been created, created as a two nation country as many Jews and Arabs wished. 

Despite the length of this blog I have not addressed all the claims and inferences of this ad.  If  you see something I have not addressed in this ad please do not assume that it is correct or the whole story.  It is not.. 

Final Thoughts

A religion is what its followers make of it.

At one time, before the Enlightenment, the followers of Christianity made of it an ignorant, intolerant, and violent religion.  The followers of Islam at that time had made of their religion one that was more open and tolerant of other beliefs. 

Today that has changed.  The followers of Christianity have made their religion more tolerant and less violent.  The followers of Islam have, unfortunately, too often made theirs one of intolerance, violence, and hate.  Not because Islam is inherently so, but because of a myriad of historical and cultural factors of which colonialism ranks high as a causal factor.

However, I believe that the followers of Islam today are closer to changing their religion to one of peace and toleration than were the Christians before the Enlightenment.  Today there are many millions of Muslims who have already made of their religion something to be proud of – a religion of peace and fellowship.  Through their examples, words, and actions they are working to bring change all the followers of Islam. 

This process is not recent.  It started as long ago as the 18^th century and despite the deleterious effects that colonialism had on the Middle East it is still continuing today.  In fact, there is a conflict between those Muslims who would create an Islam that is intolerant, that is violent, that is prejudiced, that is hate filled and those who would bring out of the Qur’an the best that is in it and create an Islam that is tolerant, that seeks peace, that includes and seeks to lift up all. 

Just as Christianity changed in reaction to the challenges of Enlightenment thinking and questioning, so too is Islam changing in reaction to the challenges of modern, western democracies.  This has been going on for a couple of hundred years and will likely go on for another couple of hundred.  Christianity did not change quickly either.  Nor did it change peacefully.

Despite what many seem to believe, Islam is not a monolithic entity – no more than Christianity is, or any other religion.  Too many look at the absolute worse examples of Islam, at the repressive and intolerant governments of such countries as Saudi Arabia or the Taliban and then assume that their Islam is the true Islam.

However the vast majority of Muslims do not live in the Middle East.  The vast majority of Muslims are not Arabic.  What they have made of their religion is different from that of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia.

Even within those countries I mentioned, within those areas that have made Islam a violent and hateful religion there are those who have not done so;  who are working to effect change not in spite of their faith but because of it.  The Qur’an inspires them too.

For us to not recognize this, to even deny that such a thing is even possible, is to harm millions of good and moral people.  Even worse, such ignorance only helps those who would make of their religion something violent and hateful. 

My last thought here is a heart-felt plea that you never judge a person on the basis of their religion but rather on what that person’s words and actions have made of their religion.  This holds true for those who are Muslim as well as those who are Jewish, for the Christian and the Wiccan, for the Atheist and the Buddhist – for those of any and all beliefs. 

 

Further Reading

For those interested in learning more, in addition to the links I have provided throughout these blogs,  I would suggest  Islam: A Short History and Muhammad:  A Biography of the Prophet both by Karen Armstrong and also No god But God by Reza Aslan as good places to start.  Also this link takes you to a PBS program about Muhammad.  http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

For a good history of the Arab people and of the effects of colonialism on the Middle East I would highly recommend The Arabs:  A History by Eugen Rogan.    Let me point out that learning the history of the Arabs is not the same as learning about Islam.  Islam started with the Arab people but has spread far beyond them so that today most Muslims are not Arabs.  Something else that the ad seem to not be aware of. 

As for the impact that Nazi’s and the Holocaust had on the Arabs and their reaction, I would suggest Gilbert Achcar’s The Arabs and The Holocaust. 

Finally, I would also suggest reading your paper carefully for stories showing the other side of Islam.  Or better yet, search the web for them.  They do not get the press they should, but they are there.

Islam, Muslims, and Anti-Semitism, Part 8: The Creation of Israel

In my previous blog, Part 7 Israel, I started to discuss, in general, the problems inherent in creating a new nation without the consent of those already living there.  In this blog I will be discussing the specifics of how this was accomplished.

Let’s start by looking at some of the events leading up to the creation of Israel on May 14, 1948. 

-       In 1922 the League of Nations formalized Britain’s rule over Palestine by giving it a mandate for Palestine.  Along with this mandate was the requirement that Britain “facilitate Jewish immigration” while also “ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.”  A rather contradictory mandate. 

 

-       As I mentioned in Part 7 Israel, the number of Jews immigrating to Palestine was of grave concern for the Arabs already living there.  Due to these tensions several riots occurred over the years.  In Old Jerusalem speeches by Arabic religious leaders  started the Palestine Riots of 1920.  Five Jews were killed and hundreds wounded during the four days of violence. 

 

The following year saw a large scale riot break out again.  The Jaffa Riots started out as a fight between two different Jewish groups in Tel Aviv, but when Christians and Muslim joined in to help the police the fighting spread.  It eventually spread from Tel Aviv to several other cities.  The toll after it finally ended days later was – 47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed, 146 Jews and 73 Arabs wounded. 

 

-       In response the British established the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry.  This commission determined that although the Arabs had started the riots they did so because of grave concerns and fears, among these being:

• “The British in Palestine, now led by a Zionist, had adopted a “policy mainly directed towards the establishment of a National Home for the Jews, and not to the equal benefit of all Palestinians.”
• An official advisory body to the government in Palestine, the Zionist Commission, place the interests of the Jews above all others. 
• The immigrants were an “economic danger” to the country because of their competition and because they were favored in this competition.

 

-       In 1924 the British Mandatory authorities put out a proposal for an elected legislative council in Palestine.  Shlomo Kaplansky, a Jewish leader of Poalei Zion argued for this idea even though it would have an Arab majority.  However David Ben Gurion who was the up and coming leader of the Yishuv (the Jews living in Palestine) rejected this and was successful in preventing any further consideration of it.

 

-        At this time Jews organized militia groups to fight against both the British and the Arabs.  Haganah was first and later had Irgun split off from it.  Another Jewish militant group, Lehi, split off from Irgun.  These groups would play a prominent role in clearing the Palestinians out in the days immediately leading up to the creation of Israel. 

 

-       Of course other riots and violence occurred. 

 

• The 1929 Palestine Riots.  These were a series of confrontations and fights between the Muslims and Jews over the access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.  The toll during the week of riots – 116 Arabs and 133 Jews killed, 232 Arabs and 198 Jews wounded.
• The 1929 Hebron Massacre.  Responding to rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and were seizing the Muslim holy places 67 Jews were killed and numerous synagogues and Jewish homes were destroyed.   It should be noted that there were 19 local Arab families who, at great risk to themselves, hid 435 Jews in their homes.

 

-       The British set up another commission to investigate.  This one was led by Sir Walter Shaw and was called, of course, the Shaw Commission.  Its report attributed the violence to “the twofold fear of the Arabs that, by Jewish immigration and purchase, they might be deprived of their livelihood and, in time, pass under the political domination of the Jews.”

 

-       Since nothing had been changed or resolve the violence, of course, continued.  This time in the form of an Arab revolt in Palestine, the 1936 – 1939 Arab Revolt.  This revolt was against both the British mandate and the Jewish immigration.  Let me mention a couple of factors that contributed to this revolt. 

 

• The discovery of a large arms shipment bound for the Jewish militant group Haganah in the port of Jaffa in 1935.  The Arabs feared that the Jews were planning a military takeover of Palestine. 
• Jewish immigration peaked in 1935, just months before the uprising. During the previous five years the Jewish population in Palestine had doubled.  

 

-       The British established the Peel Commission of 1936 – 1937 to find a way to end the violence.  This commission concluded that only a partition could do this and proposed a partition plan.  While some of the Jewish community accepted the plan, others did not.  The Arab community in its entirety rejected the plan, especially since the plan included population transfers of Arabs. 

 

-       In 1939 Britain issued its White Paper.  This paper clarified Britain’s position that “it is not part of policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State” and that “The independent State [of Palestine] should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”

 

This paper placed a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants per year.  It also required Arab consent for further Jewish immigration.  This was seen by the Jewish community as a revocation of the Balfour Declaration and caused an increase in Jewish militant activity against the British.  It was also, due to the Holocaust in Europe, widely ignored and Jews continued to flood in illegally.

 

-       This continual violence, as well as the cost of WW II, caused Britain to turn over the Palestinian issue over to the United Nations in 1947. 

 

-       The UN set up two subcommittees; one to look at both partitioning Palestine and the other to look at all other options.  The subcommittee set up to look at all other options pointed out that partitioning a country against the wishes of its inhabitants was, according to the UN Mandate, illegal and instead proposed a unitary democratic state that would protect the rights of all citizens equally. 

 

Instead the General Assembly went with the first subcommittee’s work on partitioning Palestine – the one that gave the Jews control of over 50% of the country.  The Jewish community accepted this plan.  The Arabic community did not (would you if this were happening to your country?). 

 

-       Something to note, the creation of a Jewish homeland was not something universally sought by all Jews.  Such prominent Jews as Martin Buber and Albert Einstein were against it.  In America in the 1940’s an anti-Zionist organization was created by Reform rabbis – the American Council for Judaism.  Instead of a separate country this council favored a “single democratic, secular Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would enjoy equal rights.  The UN Special Commission on Palestine took note in 1947 of the ACJ’s position that “proposals to establish a Jewish state…. are a threat to the peace and security of Palestine and its surrounding area, are harmful to the Jews in Palestine and throughout the world, and are also undemocratic.”  From The Arabs and the Holocaust by Gilbert Achcar

 

In the Ad it states that “Compare that to the Palestinian refugees, who, mostly at the urging of their leaders, fled the nascent Jewish state in 1948.”   However, this is not true. 

From  http://www.nmhtthornton.com/mehistorydatabase/1948_arab.php

“Israel was to claim that Arab radio broadcasts had urged Arab civilians to flee so that Arab armies could sweep in against the Israelis without harming Arab non-combatants. Investigations of these charges by American and British analysts (including examinations of transcripts of the monitored broadcasts) painted a different picture: the broadcasts had, in fact, urged Arabs to stay put.”

So, if the Arabs did not flee because they were told to, then why did they flee their homes?  One reason – fear. 

Due to its nice summation of events I will be copying the following from Wikipedia (although I have confirmed the same information from other sources including The Arabs: A History by Eugen Rogan). 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

“The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people. The assault occurred as Jewish militia sought to relieve the blockade of Jerusalem during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine.

 

Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes. Several villagers were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, though accounts vary.^[4] Four of the attackers died, with around 35 injured

….

Deir Yassin was a Palestinian-Arab village of several hundred residents, all Muslim, living in 144 houses.   The International Red Cross reported that there were 400 residents; Yoav Gelber writes that there were 610, citing the British mandatory authority figures; and Menachem Begin‘s biographer, Eric Silver, 800 to 1,000.  It was situated on a hill west of Jerusalem, 800 meters above sea level, overlooking the main highway entering Jerusalem. The village was relatively prosperous, thanks to the excavation of limestone from the village quarries, which allowed the residents to make a good living from stone-cutting. By most accounts, they lived in peace with their Jewish neighbors in nearby villages, particularly those in Givat Shaul, an Orthodox community just across the valley, some of whom reportedly tried to help the Deir Yassin villagers during the Irgun-Lehi invasion.

 

On January 20, 1948, the villagers met with leaders of the Givat Shaul community to form a peace pact. The Deir Yassin villagers agreed to inform Givat Shaul should Palestinian militiamen appear in the village, by hanging out certain types of laundry during the day—two white pieces with a black piece in the middle—and at night signaling three dots with a flashlight and placing three lanterns in a certain place. In return, patrols from Givat Shaul guaranteed safe passage to Deir Yassin residents, in vehicles or on foot, passing through their neighborhood on the way to Jerusalem. Yoma Ben-Sasson, Haganah commander in Givat Shaul, said after the village had been captured that, “there was not even one incident between Deir Yassin and the Jews.”

….

 

The Jewish forces that entered Deir Yassin belonged in the main to two extremist, underground, paramilitary groups, the Irgun (Etzel) (National Military Organization) and the Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), also known as the Stern Gang, both aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement.

……

The fighting was over by about 11:00 am. Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Red Cross delegation in Palestine, visited Deir Yassin on April 11, 1948 and observed “a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children. Sharif Kan’ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and published figures in 1988: 107 villagers had died, 11 of them armed, with 12 wounded.   An Irgun fighter testified years later that Irgun and Lehi men had killed 80 prisoners after the fighting was over. Gelber writes that the figure is inflated and has not been corroborated. Kan’ana writes that 25 villagers were executed and thrown into the quarry after the battle, which Gelber regards as accurate. The only alternative to killing prisoners was to release them, according to Gelber—maintaining underground POW camps was impossible under the noses of the British authorities.

 

Morris writes that the Irgun and Lehi troops began pillaging the houses and corpses, stealing money and jewelery from the survivors, and burning corpses. Many of the eyewitness accounts come from Haganah officers. Eliahu Arbel, Operations Officer B of the Haganah’s Etzioni Brigade, arrived at the scene on April 10. “I have seen a great deal of war,” he said years later, “but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin.” Morris writes that the most detailed report comes from Meir Pa’il, a Palmach intelligence officer who said he visited the village on April 9 to observe the operation on behalf of the Haganah:

 

“The dissidents [Irgun and Lehi] were going about the village robbing and stealing everything: Chickens, radio sets, sugar, money, gold and more … Each dissident walked about the village dirty with blood and proud of the number of persons he had killed. Their lack of education and intelligence as compared to our soldiers [i.e., the Haganah] was apparent… In one of the houses at the centre of the village were assembled some 200 women and small children. The women sat quietly and didn’t utter a word. When I arrived, the “commander” explained that they intended to kill all of them. [But] in the evening I heard that the women and children had been transported and released in Musrara.”

 

Pa’il writes that the Haredi people of Givat Shaul came to help the villagers at around 2 p.m., and were able to stop the killing:

 

[A] crowd of people from Givat Shaul, with peyot (earlocks), most of them religious, came into the village and started yelling “gazlanim” “rotzchim”—(thieves, murderers) “we had an agreement with this village. It was quiet. Why are you murdering them?” They were Chareidi (ultra-orthodox) Jews. This is one of the nicest things I can say about Hareidi [sic] Jews. These people from Givat Shaul gradually approached and entered the village, and the Lehi and Irgun people had no choice, they had to stop. It was about 2:00 or 3:00 PM. Then the Lehi and Irgun gathered about 250 people, most of them women, children and elderly people in a school house. Later the building became a “Beit Habad”—”Habad House.” They were debating what to do with them. There was a great deal of yelling. The dissidents were yelling “Let’s blow up the schoolhouse with everyone in it” and the Givat Shaul people were yelling “thieves and murderers—don’t do it” and so on. Finally they put the prisoners from the schoolhouse on four trucks and drove them to the Arab quarter of Jerusalem near the Damascus gate. I left after the fourth truck went out. “

 

The reason I quoted this at length was to show this was no peaceful exodus on the part of the Palestinians.  They were scared.  Arabs were fighting the Jews and the Jews the Arabs.  And as this shows there was not much concern on distinguishing who were combatants and who were not – the innocent were as likely to be killed as the guilty. 

 

Let me copy another passage from Wikipedia, once again verified by my readings using other sources.  This one concerns a plan that to remove the Palistinians from  new Jewish homeland. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

 

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד’‎, Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary group and the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, in Palestine in autumn 1947 to spring 1948. Its purpose is much debated. The plan was a set of guidelines the stated purpose of which was to take control of the territory of the Jewish State and to defend its borders and people, including the Jewish population outside of the borders, in expectation of an invasion by regular Arab armies. “Plan Dalet” called for the conquest and securing of Arab towns and villages inside the area alloted to the Jewish state and along its borders. In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.  According to the academics Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe, its purpose was to conquer as much of Palestine and to expel as many Palestinians as possible

 

According to Benny Morris the Plan’s execution lasted about eight weeks, beginning April 2. In these weeks the Yishuv’s position changed dramatically. About 100 Arab villages were conquered and emptied of their inhabitants, and almost all Jewish settlements enjoyed territorial continuity, with the notable exception of Jerusalem. Many Arab leaders left the country and local leadership collapsed. On the Jewish side, the number of those killed during the execution of the plan was 1,253, of which 500 were civilians. On the Arab side, Jewish counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass exodus of 250,000-300,000 people. According to Benny Morris this “massive demographic upheaval…propelled the Arab states closer to an invasion about which they were largely unenthusiastic”.

            …

 

In his book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem Israeli historian Benny Morris discusses the relevance of the idea of “population transfer in Zionist thinking. Morris concludes that there was Zionist support for transfer “in the 1930′s and early 1940′s”, and that while this “transfer thinking” had conditioned the Yishuv’s hearts and minds to accept it as natural and inevitable when it happened, it “was not tantamount to pre-planning, and did not issue in the production of a policy or master plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion.”

 

On the intent of Plan Dalet Morris writes:

The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State’s borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. The Haganah regarded almost all the villages as actively or potentially hostile

 

The plan was neither understood nor used by the senior field officers as a blanket instruction for the expulsion of ‘the Arabs’. But, in providing for the expulsion or destruction of villages that had resisted or might threaten the Yishuv, it constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions. However, during April–June, relatively few commanders faced the moral dilemma of having to carry out the expulsion clauses. Townspeople and villagers usually left their homes before or during battle, and Haganah rarely had to decide about, or issue, expulsion orders…”

 

 

The great majority of the Palestinians who fled their homes did so intending to return once peace had returned.  However afterwards they found that they could not due to Israeli laws.    

 

It is rather ironic that a nation that has created the Law of Return whereby anyone recognized as a Jew has the right to settle in Israel even though generations may have passed since that person’s ancestors last live in Israel will not allow a people who have actually lived on the land and whose immediate ancestors had lived on the land just 60 years ago to return. 

 

Given this history is it any surprise that the creation of Israel has fostered anti-Semitic feelings where they either did not exist before or existed only minimally? 

 

In my next, and I believe final blog in this series – Part 9; Final Arguments and Thoughts – I will deal with the rest of the ad and give some final thoughts on anti-Semitism and Islam. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Interrupt This Series To Bring You An Important Religous Freedom Issue – Action Required Now

Just as I was finishing my last two blogs (maybe three) about Islam up comes a news piece about how Lowe’s is pulling its ads from the TV show “American Muslim”.  I have no idea on the quality of this show –whether it is good or bad.  Given that it is a reality show I have my doubts about that its quality (I am not a fan of reality shows).  However I have no doubt about the reasons for Lowe’s pulling their advertising from “American Muslim.  They are caving in to pressure from an Islamophobic group.

From  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45644758/ns/business-retail/t/lowes-stands-decision-pull-ads/#.TuaM_sIafRc.facebook

“Lowe’s stopped running commercials during “All-American Muslim” after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Association e-mailed advertisers to ask them to stop advertising on the show.

The group said the program, which follows the lives of Muslim families living in the Metro Detroit area, was “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

This group, the Florida Family Association, out of a mixture of ignorance and bigotry display a fearful hatred of a people they know very little about.    What is ironic is that by their actions they are actually increasing the risk to our “American liberties and traditional values.”  

They do so by:

1)     Violating our constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief.  If all religious beliefs are not protected then all are in danger.  Even those of the Christian majority. 

That is one of the reasons that, even though I am an atheist and believe that Islam is as wrong about the ultimate nature of reality as the Christian, I defend their faith so strongly on this blog and other places.   If their freedom to practice their faith and to live their lives as their conscience dictates is not protected then neither is mine.  For that matter, neither is that of the Florida Family Association.    

2)    By not recognizing the differences between Muslims, by not recognizing that the vast majority of Muslims, especially in the United States, are moderates they empower the radicals by making the lies that they tell about the United States – that our talk of religious freedom is a lie, that we discriminate against Muslims, that we are carrying on a war against Islam, etc. – true.  And by making these lies true they make it more difficult for the moderate Muslim majority to defend their faith and religion from the radicals.   

Which means that they have made the radicals that they are so fearful of even more powerful.  Fear has a funny way of doing that somehow. 

The link below will take you to the Lowe’s website where you can leave comments. 

http://www.lowes.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContactUsCategoryFAQPageView?storeId=10151&catalogId=10051&faqId=51

I strongly urge all Americans reading about this to let Lowe’s know that they have made a mistake – one that should be corrected, quickly.