"Jew Hatred. A Minor Problem, or Overblown?"

Ok, you may not teach your kids that; but based on the massive articles flowing every week, it's clear kids are not being taught to "love our enemy".

It's not morally wrong to love your family and want to protect them. It's morally wrong to do that even at the expense of what is right. In short, that's tribalism. Let me be clear; Arabs are indeed a primitive "honor and shame" tribalistic group. But, I'm not sold on the idea they are intrinsically worse than, say, the Khmer Rouge.

"... trying to avoid describing the followers of Islam in the same way. "

I am dismayed and revolted by the actions of the fanatics among the followers of Islam. I'm dismayed more so to see you believe I would think to downplay it, and instead make it seem the Jews are MORE tribalistic than the Arabs. That would be Anti-Semitism indeed.

No, what I see missing is compassion for those Arabs are unwillingly forced to act a role that they want no part of. You know those huge shows the North Korean dictator puts on, where it seems half the population is dancing in unison in the square? How many of those folks truely believe in "beloved" Kim? How many of them have a choice in the matter? That's what I see throughout much of the Arab world, including Palestine. Only, the dancing, if any, is not synchronized.

I know about the doctored maps, the official policies of ignoring the "Zionist" entity. I know about the "pigs and monkeys". I also know about other cruelities inflicted as well. But that is not what has my attention - it's what is missing that is scary.

Where do you think the idea of fighting for freedom comes from? Do you not see the threat to Israel itself if Americans come to return to the notion of the pre-eminence of blood ties? Most Americans are not Jewish, but the Osamas of the world are doing there level best to make us believe we ARE. Once that happens, then it really is US against THEM, the Judeo-Crusader Alliance against the "good" guys. It fulfills their belief it's been a blood feud all along. I don't want that outcome.

Why we're in IRAQ: Bush said it best in the "Whitehall, 3 Pillars" speech. Those words work fine for me. But, I don't fail to notice we responded to the military implications of 9-11. Osama sent all Americans a letter, via the internet. I have read it. One of the premier motivating facts behind all the Al Queda attacks was the outrage over huge new military bases in Saudi Arabia. You are aware of what has happened to them, since 9-11, yes? Have we thus REWARDED terrorism?

I have mixed feelings about IRAQ. I have never been so proud our President or our Military. If we truely follow through on the 3 pillars, then the American hope is not dead. My guess is this: we won't screw up the area as badly as the British screwed up the Mandate post WWI.

9-11 was directly connected to that, and American soldiers are now killing and dying because of it. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Islam must be reformed, that the Arab understanding of the idea of freedom has to be planted and nutured. And that is never going to happen without the help of the Israelies. Because it is the Jews, and Christians, that did midwife (not by choice) Islam. To continue to abandon spiritual bastards now is to invite more of what we saw in 9-11.

In the USA Today, shortly after 9-11, a letter writer lamented that now that terrorism had come to our shores, "we are all Israelies now". I hope not - accepting routine terrorist attacks on our soil sounds incredibly unAmerican to me. Building a "fence" festooned with military pill boxes isn't going to work - but Israel seems to believe it sets a "morally equivalent" good example that rest of the world should feel free to emulate, or at the least accept. I hope we never buy into that kind of thinking, that kind of surrender. I hope we never follow that kind of example.

Americans are raised to believe we will win; not because our "tribe" is morally better. But because God will favor us if we choose to defend what is right, even at the expense of our tribal roots. Israel seems to currently see survival as the highest good, and hate is justifiable if need be - that is why I equated them. I believe war, unbelievable war will be the outcome if America chooses to follow that example, chooses to become a nation of "survivors".

Finally, do not be so quick to assume I have not experienced evil. To state anything about my refusal to "recognize evil" is to imply your sense of judgement, discernment, is superior to mine. It leaves no room for you to be in error. I would never do the same in regards to what you or your loved ones may have suffered. Evil at its worst is indifference and evil is live spelled backwards. I have experienced, and recognize, both.

Israel will be getting more and more attention of average Americans like myself...the Osamas will see to it....and we need to know more about what it means to live. Israel is destined to figure out how to take the lead in that matter; this problem will not just "go away".

(Boy oh boy this kind of heavy writing is tiring!! I'm looking forward to the next round of playoff games.)

And thank you for answering my question. I appreciate your willingness to spend your time on this. You are the only one who has answered me directly.

Israel seems to currently see survival as the highest good, and hate is justifiable if need be - that is why I equated them.

Nowhere do Israelis claim that it is necessary to hate. You are probably not aware of Golda Meir's famous quote, "We believe there will be peace when the Arabs love their own children more than they hate the Jews."

Yes, I do happen to believe that one's own survival takes precedence. The Israelis cannot afford to take your advice of touch-feely-warm-fuzzy-kumbaya "love thine enemy". Been there, done that. Even Jesus advised his followers to "sell his cloak to buy a sword" if need be.

Americans are raised to believe we will win; not because our "tribe" is morally better.

Americans are taught to believe that we will prevail; not because our "tribe" is better but because our SOCIETY and FORM OF GOVERNMENT is SUPERIOR. That's not "racism" and it is not this thing you call "tribalism" either.

Your finding evil "tribalism" in everything you don't agree with reminds me of this Ayn Rand cultist I used to know, pigeonholing everything into "good" and "evil" slots of "STATISM!" "COLLECTIVISM!" "OBJECTIVISM!" force-fitting every situation into these prefab cubbyholes.

what I see missing is compassion for those Arabs are unwillingly forced to act a role that they want no part of. You know those huge shows the North Korean dictator puts on, where it seems half the population is dancing in unison in the square?

Did we have compassion for those Germans who were unwilling forced to act a role they wanted no part of. You know those huge shows that Hitler put on, where it seemed half the population was dancing in unison in the square?

Yes, we did show compassion to those Germans, but not until AFTER we defeated them in an all-out war.

I'm finished with this "tribalism" debate. There are worse things for you to get all outraged about. Loving your enemy won't stop him from killing you, and sometimes you have to go to war to destroy evil--you can't "love bomb" it to death.

A time to tear, and a time to mend,
A time to be silent, and a time to speak out,
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3:7-8

(but additional truth is not mentioned - the role of Christ).

It might be YOUR truth, but were it not for Jews there would have been no Christ because Rome would not have needed him, and the role never came from HIS lips. It came from the Roman/Greco Pantheon. Hellenism. It was a lesson meant to teach us the price for disobedience to Caesar, then centuries later, the way by which to instill an irrational dislike of Jews throughout the world... It also replaced G-d with a man.

As for the Tribal part, of course we are tribal. Everyone is tribal. We had Twelve Tribes of Israel, and we became a Great Nation, just as the US started out as thirteen colonies which were united into a Great Nation.
The indigenous peoples of North and South America were Tribes, Clans, and Great Nations.
Great Britain and Scandinavia each had tribes and became Nations, each with their own cultures.
Tribal is not necessarily a bad thing. It was our tradition and culture which insured our very survival.
Christianity is what threw all these cultures together and took from each a piece, a part of their own tradition, added it to Christian Tradition, and is the reason so many forget their ancient culture.
However, many have not. And many are relearning with great difficulty what was stolen from them. Christians have never understood Christianity because it has never stopped changing. And I am going to stop there, because I have nothing against the people, just the dogma and the way it changes when the wind blows. Christian hell is full of believers who would not be considered sinners this day.

(Well, first, let me say I loved my two years in the Burgh and listened to Quinn every morning.)

"Everyone is tribal".

So far, the (mostly Jewish, I think) freepers I have chatted with about this are divided. It appears everyone agrees the Arabs are unrelenting tribalists, and not good ones at that. However, some say Jews are not tribalists, but others say "it's part of the human condition" and everyone is subject to it. I've learned a bit I think, I hope.

For what its worth, I'm not dogmatic (though some would disagree I guess). I'm Christian indeed - and I'm very glad this way of life has as it's feature constant change. Oh boy did I need to change!

My middle daughter can tell you how much more she loves me because of this choice. About 3 years ago, well, I just didn't "get" her heart I am not proud to admit.

I too don't want to enter a endless debate, but I would state this very definitively. Not one Christian I know sees Christ as a replacement for G-d. They see him as G-d who temporarily manifested himself as a man - for the purposes of creating a gateway. I don't think the exclusivity clause was an accident either.

Now that said, I can report this small exchange was a first for me - a discussion with a Jew about Jesus. And it was CIVIL!! Indeed, there is hope for the future....and I hope we'll talk more. I have looked over your other posts and yes indeed, it's a voice of calmness and reason. So, please keep an eye out for me, and thanks again.

Not quite. The founders of this country didn't *find* it empty. It was already occupied. At any rate, no one really knows for certain who came first, the Vikings, the Spanish, The Italians, the British, the French, or the Germans. But they were all here, for sure. The Indigenous People who were already here added immeasurably to this culture called *American,*
I expect that drivle from liberals and the multi-culti crowd.
The simple fact is that we were FOUNDED in 1776 by WASPs. The verb "to found" is not the same as "to find."
To quote the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: 4found
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French fonder, from Latin fundare, from fundus bottom -- more at BOTTOM
Date: 13th century
1 : to take the first steps in building
2 : to set or ground on something solid : BASE
3 : to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance

It does not matter if the Vikings, Chinese, Irish, Cartheginians, or the discovered America. The only discoveries that mattered were those that led to settlement: that of the Siberians who became Amerindians, and the Europeans in the 15th and 16th century.
Now, there were plenty of groups in the landmass of what is now the US. However, the only ones who set up the government and core culture were the Brits.

While all the groups who were here in 1776 and those who immigrated latter contributed to America, the core of this country are the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Scotch-Irish.
Think about it. People can hyphenate "Italian-American", "Irish-American", "Polish-America", "Mexican-America", "African-American"..., however it is absurd to hyphenate "British-American" to reffer to those whose ancestors founded and built the republic. We are talking loosely about 35-388% of the population.

RMLEW, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, but the fact is, the Spanish settled the West and some of the south, and the French had settlements in the South as well as in the Northeast and Canada. There are still Cajuns y'know. Remember we BOUGHT Louisiana from de French. We *bought* New York from The Algonquian and we got our name from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian fella, although he missed us completely. Let us not forget Florida and Ponce de Leone. Something about a Fountain of Youth...or something.
I know that people insist that WASPS formed the first real government here, but that is a huge insult to the Great Nations who had governments that had the Brits all beat to heck.
Pennsylvania was Quaker. Maryland was Catholic. And there never was such a thing as Amerindians. There are no Indians except in country of India and in the Indies.
The Siberians who crossed the Bering Landbridge stayed far northwest and are Eskimo and Aleut. They are far more oriental looking than the copperskinned people who were here when the Pilgrims showed up. They were pushed from East to West, not vice-versa, and we have a cave here the UN is trying to get its hands on that is well on its way to proving it. They are trying to take it as a World Heritage Site, even though it is one of the most intense archaeological wonders of this century and last, and we are only part way down.
You wonder why you haven't heard of it and the UN has? Yeah, well so do I. We have long since passed the time the *experts* insist the Siberians covered the land from West to East, but no one will accept our proof because it will change history as we currently know it.
OUR government is set up more like the Ancient Algonquian Government than the British government. If you insist on not believing me, I am not talking about diversity or even multiculturalism. I am talking about pure, non-revisionist history.
We are NOT like Great Britain in almost any way at all. At our own choosing, we departed from them in more ways than you can imagine...although we seem to be coming closer lately. The democrats would simply go ga-ga over it. Feudal estates and peons to the Marxist creeps, (that Dean now represents,) who wanted a captive work force and did not want their people to be free.
This is just historical fact, rmlew. And there is nothing wrong with it. We have the most cool language in the world. It certainly isn't English. It's American. We have some of almost every language on earth imbedded in American. we make it up as we go and we ain't never been purists. Lord help us if we ever go that far, or we will be bowing to a silly Queen who worries more about her satellite TV than the security of Windsor Castle.
Do you really think we need that kind of tourist attraction?
The Church rules the Windsors. It doesn't rule us. At the same time, no one has the right to tell us what or what not to worship where as long as the government doesn't force it on us. Right now, the courts are doing just the opposite. All of this stuff is idiocy.
But believe me, you are giving the British far more credit than they deserve...and our Founding Fathers not enough.
We should keep illegals out whatever possible way we can, because if we don't, there will surely come a day when they institute Sharia here just like they are trying to do in Canada.
WE are different because we had a spirit and we fought and died to make men free. No other country on earth has ever been what we are. They all started by being ruled. They are still ruled. A taste of Freedom isn't enough. We became what we wanted to be, and they are stealing it all away.

RMLEW, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, but the fact is, the Spanish settled the West and some of the south, and the French had settlements in the South as well as in the Northeast and Canada.
And the British Empire and Colonies defeated the French and overwhelmed lal of this colonies with Anglophone immigrants, except for Quebec.
The US purchased or won the Spanish colonies and Americanized them. Until the upsurge of Hispanic (mostly Mexican) immigration in the 1960's, these areas were completely American. The language used was English. In Texas, they clebrated the Alamo, where Anglo-American Settlers took over Tejas and rebelled from Mexican rule.

We *bought* New York from The Algonquian and we got our name from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian fella, although he missed us completely.
The Dutch purchased New Netherlands. The British conquered it.

Let us not forget Florida and Ponce de Leone. Something about a Fountain of Youth...or something.
The Spanish past remains part of the history, but the people and culture were Anglo-American, at least until the Cubans came in the 1960's.

I know that people insist that WASPS formed the first real government here, but that is a huge insult to the Great Nations who had governments that had the Brits all beat to heck.
The "Great Nations" were unable to adapt to the times. Some government.

Pennsylvania was Quaker. Maryland was Catholic. And there never was such a thing as Amerindians. There are no Indians except in country of India and in the Indies.
Pennsylvania and Maryland both lost their regional character as Anglo-Americans settled. Other groups also settled, but the only distrinctive ones are the German Mennonites and Amish.

And there never was such a thing as Amerindians. There are no Indians except in country of India and in the Indies.
You damn well know to whom I was reffering. Would you preffer the term "Pre-Columbian Americans?"

The Siberians who crossed the Bering Landbridge stayed far northwest and are Eskimo and Aleut. They are far more oriental looking than the copperskinned people who were here when the Pilgrims showed up.
Linguistic analysis shows that virtually all Pre-Columbian American languages are related and come from the Proto Finno-Ugrian tongue.

They were pushed from East to West, not vice-versa, and we have a cave here the UN is trying to get its hands on that is well on its way to proving it.
If you are thinking of the Ainu like people (Kennewik Man), these were supplanted by the other Asian settlers.

OUR government is set up more like the Ancient Algonquian Government than the British government. If you insist on not believing me, I am not talking about diversity or even multiculturalism. I am talking about pure, non-revisionist history.
Give me one shred of evidence that the Framers modelled our government on the Native governments instead of Enlightenment histories of Rome and Greece, Locke and Montesque, and the Helvetic/Swiss confederation!
The Pre-Columbian peoples were viortually ignored by our Founders writtings on political theory. You are the revisionist.

We are NOT like Great Britain in almost any way at all. At our own choosing, we departed from them in more ways than you can imagine...although we seem to be coming closer lately. The democrats would simply go ga-ga over it. Feudal estates and peons to the Marxist creeps, (that Dean now represents,) who wanted a captive work force and did not want their people to be free.
That is a 10th grade arguement.
Do some studying. We were founded by people in the tradition of the British Whigs, ie the anti-Monarchists. Look uup the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution! As for fuedal estates, take a look at the Chesapeak Colonies and Southern States.

We have the most cool language in the world. It certainly isn't English. It's American. We have some of almost every language on earth imbedded in American. we make it up as we go and we ain't never been purists.
American English comes from British English dialects. That is our core. We developed independantly for 200+ years, but our heritage is clear and inescapable.

Lord help us if we ever go that far, or we will be bowing to a silly Queen who worries more about her satellite TV than the security of Windsor Castle. Do you really think we need that kind of tourist attraction?
That is a silly arguement and you know it. Our history is Anglo-American. We are not British.

But believe me, you are giving the British far more credit than they deserve...and our Founding Fathers not enough.
No, I pay attention to what they wrote. The American Revolution was argued in British terms.

The "Great Nations" were unable to adapt to the times. Some government.

The indigenous peoples here initially welcomed most of the strangers who came into their land. And because of it, and the greed of every other invading force, they were nearly wiped out, or is that something you won't acknowledge, either? Those who weren't wiped out had to deal with Missionaries who were so benevolent, they built compounds that were akin to prisons and told the people who had been pushed off their land that they could not build on *church* land or start a fire to warm themselves outside the locked gates, could not hunt for their own food on *church* land, and the only way for them to survive was to convert and enter the compound or watch their children and eventually themselves starve or freeze to death. Convert or die. The M.O. of Rome and Mohammad.
It was genocide to the nth degree.
I could tell you plenty about the Original People, the Lenape, but I don't think you really care. The root language, however, is not "Proto" Finno-Ugrian which covers most European and Baltic languages going back at least 6,000 years. The Hungarians spoke some of that, plus two other root languages, West Turk, and Mesopotamian, which is far older than the language you assign to the Lenape. Unami bears no resemblance to Finnish or Baltic. It is far more like the ancient Akkadian language with it's glyph markings and pronounciations.
There has been spoken language for at least 100,000 years. Why are you so convinced that the people from here couldn't possibly have gone out from here and watched their great-great grandchildren come back?

There are no Pre-Columbian Americans either. My arguments are only 10th grade if you are so ethno-centric that you cannot, and will not, recognize the reality of who America is.
There is no debate when someone has such a closed mind they will repeat verbatum what they INTEND to believe no matter how much proof to the contrary.

The people who first came here as settlers were not anti-monarchists as much as they were anti-theocracists. They came to flee the church and the feudal pomposity of the elite who were in league with the church to keep their power.
So you speak of decades of all these myriad happenings and end up with we are *Anglo-Americans.* Well, heck. That explains everything. Now I at least know why there are no British-Americans.
Geez!!!
There are none so blind as those with closed minds. I guess that makes me an Orthodox Jewish, Lenape, Irish, Polish, *other*-American, eh? I always thought I was an American free to practice my religion, period. I also guess that with red hair and blue eyes, I just don't fit your mold whatsoever. Dang!
And I thought the Fronnsch were bad. (mispelling intended)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.