Alarming News

February 22, 2010

Not us, hopefully not ever

Mayor of Swedish town with sharp rise in anti-Semitism to Jews: you deserve it.

Malmo’s Jews, however, do not just point the finger at bigoted Muslims and their fellow racists in the country’s Neo-Nazi fringe. They also accuse Ilmar Reepalu, the Left-wing mayor who has been in power for 15 years, of failing to protect them.

Mr Reepalu, who is blamed for lax policing, is at the centre of a growing controversy for saying that what the Jews perceive as naked anti-Semitism is in fact just a sad, but understandable consequence of Israeli policy in the Middle East.

While his views are far from unusual on the European liberal-left, which is often accused of a pro-Palestinian bias, his Jewish critics say they encourage young Muslim hotheads to abuse and harass them.

The future looks so bleak that by one estimate, around 30 Jewish families have already left for Stockholm, England or Israel, and more are preparing to go.

The worst incident was last year during Israel’s brief war in Gaza, when a small demonstration in favour of Israel was attacked by a screaming mob of Arabs and Swedish leftists, who threw bottles and firecrackers as the police looked on.

Emphasis mine.

The mayor insisted to The Sunday Telegraph that he was opposed to anti-Semitism, but added: “I believe these are anti-Israel attacks, connected to the war in Gaza.

“We want Malmo to be cosmopolitan and safe for everybody and we have taken action. I have started a dialogue forum. There haven’t been any attacks on Jewish people, and if Jews from the city want to move to Israel that is not a matter for Malmo.”

And by “action” he means “talking.” Same thing, right? And by “anti-Israel” attacks, he means attacks on people who don’t live in Israel and have nothing to do with Israeli policy.

Stories like this remind me how lucky I am to be a Jew in America. We’d be hard-pressed to find a place in the US where a mayor would be this openly hostile to Jews and not be thrown out on his…ear. And starting a “dialogue forum” at a time when Jewish families have already fled? That’s just not the American way, we don’t excuse this sort of behavior and deal with it through “dialogue”, even in our most liberal bastions. And I applaud us for it.

Posted by Karol at 05:12 PM |
Comments

More importantly, in America we have that funny 2nd Amendment. This generally means that people avoid doing things like throwing bottles or firecrackers lest the “victims” prove to be interested in a dialogue involving numbers like “.40, .45, and 9.”

Posted by: James at February 22, 2010 at 10:46 pm

This won’t last long in America. We Jews have been expelled from every nation on Earth, and this one won’t be any different. Once it becomes politically unpalatable for America to remain allied with Israel, they’ll come for us here, too. Best to exercise your second amendment rights while you still can.

Posted by: David at February 22, 2010 at 10:57 pm

Those jackasses have to say something to make up for their miserable lives. They can’t be productive so they are destructive. Well to use that idiot’s logic, I guess we have to beat up and harass all muslims because of the understandable consequences of the policy of islamists to kill all “infidels”. Dialogue? I agree with James. The best dialogue to engage them with are the numbers “.40, .45, and 9.”

Posted by: Rick at February 23, 2010 at 12:05 am

There are always lots of holes in the justifications of left wing positions, and this episode is no different.

What the anti-Semitic Mayor has yet to consider, is that with the justification of anti-Semitism that he’s provided, he’s likewise opening the door to the flip side of that coin.
That’s to say that if a person disagrees with the policy of an Islamic state, then that person is justified in attacking or harrassing a Muslim in Sweden, even though that Swedish Muslim is not responsible for the policy of that Muslim state.

Of course, we all know that if Swedish Muslims were being attacked or harrassed, there would be explosive riots in response.
And the cowering Swedish government would make concessions and apologies galore.

On the other hand, Jews and Christians generally don’t riot even when someone merely draws an “offensive” cartoon about their Prophet or Messiah.

Posted by: IAmTheWalrus at February 23, 2010 at 3:24 am

The great thing about anti-semitic fascists is that once they get rid of all the Jews, they start getting rid of everyone else, too.

See you in hell, Mr. Mayor.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at February 23, 2010 at 12:13 pm

What the hell is going on in that town? “Give us your expatriated, your bloodthirsty, your Muslim masses, yearning to kill more Jews”?

“After the war, just as liberal Sweden took in Jews who survived the Holocaust as a humanitarian act, it also took in new waves of refugees from tyranny and conflicts in the Middle East. Muslims are now estimated to make up about a fifth of Malmo’s population of nearly 300,000.”

Evidently the “refugees from…conflicts” includes the Mohammedans who are either responsible for the conflict or at least support it. And who dares to say Sweden isn’t tolerant!

Just like in Israel, there’s a clear path to peace: kill every last one of the enemy, and then there will be peace. As for this look-the-other-way mayor:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The founding principle of this country need not be exclusive to this soil: it applies to everywhere else where people desire freedom. So this mayor had better take care: if he isn’t removed by the ballot box, he might find himself removed in a pine box.

As someone else once put it:

“govt.sys corrupt: reboot? (y/n)”

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 23, 2010 at 12:46 pm

you think it’s not possible here? I mean discrimination, suppression of freedom of speech, violence and threats?

think again.

and it doesn’t matter, under what ideology the suppression occurs. I agree with Derb there: it’s all links of the same chain.

Posted by: Tatyana at February 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Stories like this remind me how lucky I am to be a _____ in America.

This.

Posted by: dan dee man at February 23, 2010 at 2:41 pm

> THE EARLIEST “HATE” CRIMINALS

> If you can’t guess the people I have in mind, I’ll give you
> some clues—clues found in a major world religion that is many
> centuries old. I’ll call it Religion X.
> Religion X traces its roots back to the First Couple, Adam and
> Eve. They were on earth before any other form of worship—before
> Islam (appearing 14 centuries ago), before Hinduism or Buddhism
> (appearing 25 centuries ago), before even the worship of various
> gods in Mesopotamia (60 centuries ago).
> Early on, Religion X’ers were told by their God: “Love your
> neighbor—and even the stranger who dwells among you—as much as
> you love yourself.” But it wasn’t long before Religion X began
> rebelling against the laws of the One who had blessed and
> preserved it so much. In response God warned: “All those who hate
> me love death.”
> After centuries of hating their God (which predictably led to
> hatred of fellow humans, God’s creations), Religion X’ers were
> allowed by God to be conquered and transported to ancient Babylon
> where they experienced a 1,600-year-long “vacation.”
> If you haven’t guessed yet, the religion I’m describing is
> Judaism. But don’t stop reading. The
> most shocking stuff is just ahead!
> While in Babylon, the “wise men” among the people began
> formulating new laws which supposedly supplemented and explained
> the time-tested Old Testament writings. But the new rules actually
> contradicted and eventually replaced the original laws!
> The “new and improved” laws are collectively known as the
> Talmud. Even though rabbis are Talmudic experts, probably not one
> Jew in a thousand (and not one non-Jew in ten thousand) knows what
> is in the Talmud. Without further delay, here’s some of the
> Talmud’s “wisdom” (plus sources):
> (I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE:
> Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into
> thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a).
> Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b).
> There’s medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse’s shadow,
> also in a white dog’s excrement (Gittin, 69a,b).
> (II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
> The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b).
> It is never good to talk too much to women including one’s own
> wife (Aboth, 1.5).
> All women are “temperamentally light-headed” (Kiddushin, 80b).
> It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if
> you find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a).
> (III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN:
> It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual
> intercourse (Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin,
> 55b,69a,b; Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b).
> When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age,
> it “is not deemed as pederasty” (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a).
> Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful
> since it isn’t fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b).
> (In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder
> that many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the
> current sexual revolution and are even favorable towards
> legalization of adult-child sex?)
> (IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS:
> Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are
> bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).
> When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew
> robs a non-Jew, he doesn’t have to pay him back. Moreover, when a
> Gentile kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew
> kills a Gentile, “there is no death penalty” (Sanhedrin, 57a).
> It is okay to “use subterfuges” in a court of law in order to
> cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a).
> (V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
> Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus”;
> Yebamoth, 49b).
> Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and “played the harlot
> with carpenters” (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).
> Jesus “practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy”
> (Sanhedrin, 43a).
> Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in
> “boiling hot excrement” (Gittin, 56b,57a).
> Christians will go to Hell “and be punished there for all
> generations” (Rosh Hashanah, 17a).
> Those who read “the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the
> New Testament” will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin, 90a).
> The books of the Christians “may not be saved from a fire, but
> they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names
> occurring in them” (Shabbath, 116a).
> (Now you know what’s been inspiring many of the anti-Christian
> attitudes and actions these days.)
> By roughly 500 A.D. Jewish scribes had completed the voluminous
> Talmud, the written version of what had long been the Jews’ oral
> tradition—the tradition that Jesus condemns in the 23rd chapter
> of Matthew and other parts of the New Testament.
> Whenever anyone claims that for 1500 years the Talmud
> needlessly aggravated Gentiles (who in turn put Jews into ghettos
> and even the Holocaust), Jews can look at even earlier history and
> claim that the “anti-Jewishness” of the New Testament forced Jews
> to hit back with their printed version of the Talmud.
> Actually the New Testament, like a newspaper, merely reflects
> the true condition of Judaism at that time. If someone could prove
> that damaging descriptions of Jews never appeared before the New
> Testament, that would be one thing. But during many centuries
> prior to Jesus or any Christians, Jews were saying and doing the
> same things that we find them still saying and doing during New
> Testament days!
> If the New Testament record of their words and works is
> “anti-Semitic,” is the Old Testament record of the same
> rebelliousness just as “anti-Semitic”?
> A while ago I was talking with a young woman in Los Angeles who
> is training to become a rabbi. I asked her about the Talmud. (She
> seemed shocked I should know so much about it already!) “Oh,” she
> said, “I don’t think it’s as relevant as it once was.” When I told
> her that the “hate” movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was an
> amazingly accurate reflection of the Talmud—and that more such
> “hate” films are in the works because Hollywood takes the Talmud
> seriously—she had no explanation.
> In the future when “hate” laws are passed, will the incredibly
> hate-filled Talmud and some hate-promoting film studios be swept
> under the rug?

[You are allowed to publish this non-copyrighted article. To avoid the prevalent internet censorship, feel free to change the title to "The Original 'Hate' Criminals" (or Crooks, etc.) or "The Earliest 'Hate' Rebels" (or People, Persons, etc.) or "The History of Hate" (or the Jews, the Hebrews, Judaism, etc.) or any other meaningful title, or no title.]

[Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]

Posted by: Rachel at February 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Karol,

Since my grandparents lived in Malmo and are buried in the cemetary where the chapel was firebombed repeatedly, I was going to write about that situation. However, you need to check your comments. Rachel is an anti-semitic troll lying about the Talmud.

Posted by: Ron Lewenberg at February 23, 2010 at 9:23 pm

I’m not sure, but I think most holy books contain bizarre things. Rachel and this Mayor are dicks.

Posted by: bryan at February 23, 2010 at 9:41 pm

“I’m not sure, but I think most holy books contain bizarre things.”

But here’s the thing, Bryan: if you’re going to elevate a book to the status of “holy,” doesn’t that mean that it’s, well, holy? Aren’t these books supposed to be the word of God? Does one get to pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe? If so, what does “holy” really mean?

This is one of the multitude of corners followers of “holy books” have painted themselves into.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 23, 2010 at 10:30 pm

The Torah is holy. The Talmud is commentary. As it is very old commentary, it is generally considered more authentic than recent commentary as it is closer in time to the holy times. But that doesn’t mean it’s always right. Like any commentary, The Talmud is a product of men and is not infallible.

Rachel is still an idiot. If you’re going to critique religion, there’s no purpose in singling out one. They all have major moral contradictions inherent to them.

Posted by: Jamie at February 23, 2010 at 10:55 pm

There are good and bad people of all faiths—and there are good and bad people who have no faith.

But I don’t think this example in Sweden lends itself to the secular argument that all holy books, or that all religions are bad, or elicit bad behavior.

By the same token, you wouldn’t say that airplane pilots are generally bad as a result of the crazy left wing pilot who crashed into the IRS offices in Austin, Texas last week.

There is not a worldwide problem of Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists rioting or cutting people’s throats.
In Christian countries, you can publicly practice Islam. In Israel, you can publicly practice Islam. In India, you can publicly practice Islam.
In Saudi Arabia, you can be arrested for publicly practicing Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism.

In Judeo-Christian ethics, a person is responsible for his own actions—and he is not responsible for the actions of his second cousin twice removed who lives thousands of miles away in another country.
However, in Sweden, some practitioners of Islam are holding Jews responsible for the actions of other Jews who live thousands of miles away in Israel.
It may be that those particular Swedish Muslims are bad—or it may be that their particular religion lends itself to “misinterpretation” or that Islam lends itself to inspire its practitioners to riot against person ‘X’ as a protest against the actions of person ‘y.’
But the paradigm should not paint Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.

Also, if people of no faith are going to blame all religions for inspiring bad behavior, let’s not forget that the atheists committed horrible murders of tens of millions (probably over 100 million total) in the name of Communism during the 20th century.
In other words, people behaved badly WITHOUT a religious faith to inspire them.

At least the people of faith are attempting to live up to the tenets of their faith.
Whether they do or not, is another question.

Posted by: IAmTheWalrus at February 24, 2010 at 1:59 pm

“Rachel,” if that is your real name, do your eternal soul a favor and stop reposting this tripe that’s floated around for years. There’s so much there taken out of context, and simply wrong, that I can only take it one at a time.

As our resident theologian, I shall proceed. Out of respect, I shall follow the practice of writing the Almighty’s name as “G-d,” though I customarily don’t.

> you love yourself.” But it wasn’t long before Religion X began
> rebelling against the laws of the One who had blessed and
> preserved it so much. In response God warned: “All those who hate
> me love death.”

So because Jews began rebelling against God, Judaism as a religion is therefore based on hating?

God’s warning was spot-on: if you don’t love Him, then you love death. It doesn’t necessarily mean physical death, but certainly spiritual death.

> After centuries of hating their God (which predictably led to
> hatred of fellow humans, God’s creations), Religion X’ers were
> allowed by God to be conquered and transported to ancient Babylon
> where they experienced a 1,600-year-long “vacation.”

This is completely ignorant of historical fact. From when to when? The Babylonian captivity lasted only five decades.

> While in Babylon, the “wise men” among the people began
> formulating new laws which supposedly supplemented and explained
> the time-tested Old Testament writings. But the new rules actually
> contradicted and eventually replaced the original laws!
> The “new and improved” laws are collectively known as the
> Talmud.

Do you actually know anything about the Talmud and its origins? Evidently not.

Free clue: it’s a series of debates intended to explain the original law.

Another free clue: it’s rather rude to use the term “Old Testament” when talking purely about the Hebrew Bible, and I say this as a Christian. It makes me wonder where the original came from — Stormfront?

> Even though rabbis are Talmudic experts, probably not one
> Jew in a thousand (and not one non-Jew in ten thousand) knows what
> is in the Talmud. Without further delay, here’s some of the
> Talmud’s “wisdom” (plus sources):
> (I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE:
> Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into
> thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a).

You forgot the part about a man’s spine turning into a serpent after seven years, unless he bows and gives thanks to God.

So the evolutionary theory here is wrong, as was everything else at the time, and for another 2000 years. But your point is that Judaism is a religion based on hate — where is that here?

> Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b).

That’s Pesachim. And supposedly sexual relations in front of a lamp will produce epileptic children. This wasn’t the modern definition of “epilepsy,” but demonic possession.

Disregard it if you want as superstition, but it’s hardly “hate.”

> There’s medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse’s shadow,
> also in a white dog’s excrement (Gittin, 69a,b).

As I was saying last…

> (II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
> The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b).

This is out of context. The discussion itself says that the world needs both men and women. But the birth of a girl is not unhappy in and of itself, but because at the time of the discussions, it was hard to prepare a dowry and find a husband for a daughter.

That passage also talks about a merchant who sells spices and a tanner. The world needs both, but it’s easier for one profession than the other.

> It is never good to talk too much to women including one’s own
> wife (Aboth, 1.5).

“Talk too much” means gossip. You don’t think this is a good rule to follow?

> All women are “temperamentally light-headed” (Kiddushin, 80b).

I couldn’t find anything about this in that discussion, which is about how unmarried men and women should not be left alone.

> It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if
> you find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a).

There is no Gittin 91a. Gittin ends at 90.

> (III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN:
> It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual
> intercourse (Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin,
> 55b,69a,b; Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b).

No, this is talking about betrothal, the mere promise to marry. The minimum age for marriage is 12, and “minimum” does not mean “always.”

> When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age,
> it “is not deemed as pederasty” (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a).
> Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful
> since it isn’t fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b).

This is an outright lie. Jewish law has always prohibited homosexuality. These discussions are talking about not punishing the young boy, because he’s too young to give consent, but the accuser is still guilty.

> (In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder
> that many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the
> current sexual revolution and are even favorable towards
> legalization of adult-child sex?)

No, “in other words” this whole thing you posted is one lie after another.

> (IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS:
> Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are
> bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).

Completely a lie. This discussion is about Jewish law as applying to converts. Gentiles are nowhere called “animals,” nor are their children called “bastards.”

The specific issue here was of an Egyptian husband and wife who converted to Judaism while the wife was pregnant. Legally they were the mother’s children, but under Jewish law, they were not legally the children of their father — he was not Jewish at the time of conception and thus could not be taken for certain as the father. So using “bastard” is a ridiculous derivation.

> When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew
> robs a non-Jew, he doesn’t have to pay him back. Moreover, when a
> Gentile kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew
> kills a Gentile, “there is no death penalty” (Sanhedrin, 57a).

These are more outright lies: nothing there is even close to this.

> It is okay to “use subterfuges” in a court of law in order to
> cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a).

Another lie. In this discussion, R. Ishmael believed that in a suit between an Israelite and a Gentile, if the Gentile was indeed at fault but Jewish law itself could not prevail, then “subterfuge” was permissible — not to cheat, but so that justice could be served. R. Akiba disagreed because of what it does to G-d’s holy name.

This is a perfect example of why the Talmud is commentary, not the holy word of G-d.

> (V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
> Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus”;
> Yebamoth, 49b).

Another lie: there’s nothing there about Jesus.

> Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and “played the harlot
> with carpenters” (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).

Another lie: there is the phrase “She who was the descendant of princes and governors,” but nothing like Mary. The time period is 1000 years before.

> Jesus “practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy”
> (Sanhedrin, 43a).

This is merely a historical observation of the accusations against “Yeshu.”

Side note: Christian tradition and scriptures hold that there was no 40-day period of a herald announcing the death sentence.

> Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in
> “boiling hot excrement” (Gittin, 56b,57a).

Another lie: there’s nothing about Jesus mentioned there. It is written there that “Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement,” but I have yet to meet a serious Jew who believes that what Jesus ever said was “mockery.”

> Christians will go to Hell “and be punished there for all
> generations” (Rosh Hashanah, 17a).

Another lie: that discussion is about heretics, which hardly means “Christians.” A heretic is someone who blasphemes G-d and His word.

> Those who read “the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the
> New Testament” will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin, 90a).

You don’t even need to read the discussion to know this is another lie. How would a discussion in Mishnah (first century CE at the latest) talk about “Judeo-Christians” and “New Testament”? No proper translation to English would use those terms.

There is the discussion that people who deny resurrection, the Torah, and who read “uncanonical” (meaning heretical) works will not have any portion of the afterlife.

> The books of the Christians “may not be saved from a fire, but
> they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names
> occurring in them” (Shabbath, 116a).

There’s nothing there about Christians. That discussion refers to minim, who are Jewish heretics.

> (Now you know what’s been inspiring many of the anti-Christian
> attitudes and actions these days.)

No, but we see what’s been inspiring many of the anti-Semitic lies that have been going around the WWW and Usenet for years.

> By roughly 500 A.D. Jewish scribes had completed the voluminous
> Talmud, the written version of what had long been the Jews’ oral
> tradition—the tradition that Jesus condemns in the 23rd chapter
> of Matthew and other parts of the New Testament.

Actually, Jesus in Matthew 23 was warning the scribes and Pharisees about damnation for loving their power, making grandiose appearances, and being thoroughly hypocritical in how they administered G-d’s law.

“Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?”

> Whenever anyone claims that for 1500 years the Talmud
> needlessly aggravated Gentiles (who in turn put Jews into ghettos
> and even the Holocaust), Jews can look at even earlier history and
> claim that the “anti-Jewishness” of the New Testament forced Jews
> to hit back with their printed version of the Talmud.

This is such a lie that it isn’t even necessary to go into detail why. It’s like trying to prove two plus two does not equal five.

> Actually the New Testament, like a newspaper, merely reflects
> the true condition of Judaism at that time. If someone could prove
> that damaging descriptions of Jews never appeared before the New
> Testament, that would be one thing. But during many centuries
> prior to Jesus or any Christians, Jews were saying and doing the
> same things that we find them still saying and doing during New
> Testament days!

Of course there have been Jews who strayed from God over the last 3000 years, just like there have been Christians who strayed from God in the last 2000. But to condemn an entire religion based on this? Rubbish.

> If the New Testament record of their words and works is
> “anti-Semitic,” is the Old Testament record of the same
> rebelliousness just as “anti-Semitic”?

How is it “anti-Semitic” to point out the hypocrisy of scribes and Pharisees who, at that time, were concerned about their appearances and insignificant parts of the law? Instead of helping the people understand G-d’s word, they were leading the way toward damnation.

> A while ago I was talking with a young woman in Los Angeles who
> is training to become a rabbi. I asked her about the Talmud. (She
> seemed shocked I should know so much about it already!) “Oh,” she
> said, “I don’t think it’s as relevant as it once was.”

As if you knew anything about the Talmud?

The fact that it was a woman studying to be a rabbi should be a bit of a clue. Just a small one.

> When I told
> her that the “hate” movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was an
> amazingly accurate reflection of the Talmud—and that more such
> “hate” films are in the works because Hollywood takes the Talmud
> seriously—she had no explanation.

Assuming this actually happened, she had “no explanation” because she was dumbfounded at the utter stupidity of “TLTOC” reflecting the Talmud.

> In the future when “hate” laws are passed, will the incredibly
> hate-filled Talmud and some hate-promoting film studios be swept
> under the rug?

In the future, will these anti-Semitic lies ever stop?

You liar, you serpent, how can you escape the damnation of hell?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 24, 2010 at 10:39 pm

“Another lie: that discussion is about heretics, which hardly means ‘Christians.’ A heretic is someone who blasphemes G-d and His word.”

Let us not forget that, during the middle ages, many thousands of people were killed or ejected from various European countries for heresy, but not the heresy of blaspheming God–rather, the then-unforgivable heresy of being Jewish. “Blasphemy” is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at February 25, 2010 at 9:53 am

Let us not forget that, during the middle ages, many thousands of people were killed or ejected from various European countries for heresy, but not the heresy of blaspheming God–rather, the then-unforgivable heresy of being Jewish. “Blasphemy” is in the eye of the beholder.

This is certainly true, and some of my German ancestors may have been among those victims. However, the heresy and blasphemy mentioned in the Talmud are very clearly defined — nothing at all like this liar’s claim that merely being “Christian” condemns someone to hell. So if individuals go out and maim, murder and oppress, well, don’t blame the Torah, Talmud, New Testament, and certainly not G-d.

Let’s not forget that there’s a major religion that even today, in some countries where it’s predominant, holds people of other faiths, and even its own women, as second-class people. And this is not only customary, but according to its scriptures.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 25, 2010 at 12:12 pm

To be completely selfish American society has greatly benefited from the ignorance and bigotry of other societies, specifically European religous intolerance.

Sweden is a tad suprising, but let’s face reality folks European anti-semetism = not a shocka.

That wall of text lost me at “Rachel” but I’m sure the copy paste was fantastic.

Posted by: dan dee man at February 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm

scratch any fundy like Rachel, and you see the bigot.

Posted by: spaniard at February 28, 2010 at 3:06 pm

¿De verdad, mi amigo español? I am a “fundamentalist” Christian, so what do you say now? Necesitatas aprender más de los fundamentalistas cristianos antes de hablar esa mierda.

It is true that there are anti-Semites who parade under the banner of Christ, but they will have no part of the kingdom to come. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 4, 2010 at 12:11 am

I agree with your final bold statement.

Posted by: spaniard at March 5, 2010 at 4:23 am
Post a comment