Replies

No one questions the facts he uses, just the remedial conclusions he reaches from those facts. And most of us strongly disagree with those remedies and think we see an obvious prejudice that leads him to those conclusions (to which we disagree) So some of us voice that opinion here at FR. What's the problem?

The problem is that I never see anyone actually refute his supposedly fallacious logic and the conclusions that arise from it. I see vicious ad hominem attacks and unwarranted charges of "racism," "anti-Semitism," "nativism" and the like--attacks, I might add, that used to be heard mainly from people of a progressive persuasion. People should debate the merits of logic and arguments, not play the "race" card whenever it suits them.

And I will say this: it seems like there are a few people on FR who, whenever anyone starts to question Ariel Sharon, the Likud Party, or dispensationalist theology, react as if that person were about to say something "anti-Semitic," "Arabophilic," or "pro-terror." It may well be the case that Sharon/Likud/dispensationalists are right, but it is not healthy to blindly assume that. I always feel like I'm treading dangerous waters even bringing up the remote possibility that they aren't.

I never see anyone actually refute his supposedly fallacious logic and the conclusions that arise from it.

That's hard to believe. I've seen plenty of it. For example when he was asserting that we should have stayed out of WWII. Plenty of folks refuted his fallacious logic and the conclusions that arose from it. I saw it myself.

I always feel like I'm treading dangerous waters even bringing up the remote possibility that they aren't.

You are exactly correct. I fear this type of thinking, a sort of rigid favoritism, will someday come to haunt the right. In order for an intellectual and political movement to remain strong, it must be open to the consideration of all things and must be willing to reassess previous beliefs. It is possible to do this while maintaining basic principles.