CAIR Makeover

by

by Charles

Last Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced a makeover:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced the launch of a new brand identity and logo. The new identity focuses on openness, professionalism and the pursuit of mutual understanding and justice.

If CAIR were serious about openness, they would open their books and tell us where their money comes from. For example, last June, CAIR announced a $50 million expenditure:

It was also announced that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) would be launching a massive $50 million media campaign involving television, radio and newspapers as part of its five-year program to create a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the US.

Note that the CAIR website is a dot.com, not a dot.org. [Update:  Never mind.  They are a 501(c)(4) non-profit.]  What is the source for this $50 million? [Update:  Near the end of the article:  "We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project."  Alwaweed is known to be pro-American, which is good.  However, because CAIR won’t disclose, we can’t confirm.  What if Alwaweed doesn’t come through?  Does that mean no campaign, or will CAIR find other Saudi benefactors?]  Most Americans don’t have problems with Islam or Muslims per se, but they do have problems with the militant strain of Islamism and its practitioners. CAIR does a poor job of differentiating this because, in my opinion, the organization is infused with Salafists and Wahhabis, practitioners of fundamentalist Islamic strains.  A substantial amount of their funding is reportedly from Saudis, home to Wahhabist doctrine, although it’s difficult to confirm because they won’t tell us the sources of their funding.

In the interests of balance, here is the anti-CAIR website.

Speaking of Salafis and Wahhabis, Caryle Murphy of the Washington Post wrote a piece today on "conservative Muslims" and their goal of isolation. Wikipedia has this to say about Salafist doctrine:

Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [4] Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah and jihad. Salafi promote sharia rather than an Islamic political program or state.

Salafis seeking isolation or dawa (inviting others to Islam) is just fine; however, not fine are the Salafist proponents of violent jihad, or when Islamists demand that I submit to Islam or die. But that’s just me. 

191 thoughts on “CAIR Makeover”

  1. Note that the CAIR website is a dot.com, not a dot.org.

    And this means what, exactly? They’re actually a for-profit corporation? They’re using the TLD name space improperly? They couldn’t get cair.org because it’s owned by the California Association for Institutional Research?
    Maybe it means that Charles hasn’t figured out how to use google yet.
    http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp

  2. A substantial amount of their funding is reportedly from Saudis, home to Wahhabist doctrine, although it’s difficult to confirm because they won’t tell us the sources of their funding.
    difficult to confirm, but easy to base conclusions upon.

  4. Just for comparison, do you question the sources of funding for non-Islamic organizations? Also, it would be nice to see evidence that “the organization is infused with Salafists and Wahhabis”, other than your say so.
    BTW, this is about the least offensive use of Saudi financing that I can think of.

  5. “Note that the CAIR website is a dot.com, not a dot.org.”
    What significance do you see in that?
    “Most Americans don’t have problems with Islam or Muslims per se.”
    As I quoted in this post, which started off about one thing, another anti-Semitic firebombing, and turned into a comment about vile and bigoted right-wing anti-Muslim blogs:

    A recent Gallup poll showed that 39 percent of Americans admit to being prejudiced against Muslims and that nearly a quarter say they would not want a Muslim for a neighbor.

    So technically “most” may be true, but a hugely significant proportion of Americans apparently are prejudiced against Muslims and Islam per se.
    And hateful comments are endemic around portions of the right-wing blogosphere, most particularly that wildly popular iconic blog, Little Green Footballs, as I pointed out again (although it’s hardly the only such blog, and that blog is linked to and quoted by literally over a thousand other right-wing blogs — they also all rant about leftwing blogs, such as Kos, being allegedly anti-Semitic, too, which is odd, but never mind).
    “…because, in my opinion, the organization is infused with Salafists and Wahhabis….”
    This is odd phrasing, Charles, because that’s not particularly subject to opinion. Either it’s a fact or it’s not, and either you have citations that demonstrate that it’s a fact, or you do not. Your “opinion” is irrelevant. Please do present your supporting citations that demonstrate your case.
    “on ‘conservation Muslims'”
    I’m guessing you mean “conservative,” but in fact the article referred to “fundamentalist.”
    “and their goal of isolation.”
    This is different from various strains of Hasidic Jewry, and various isolationist strains of fundamentalist Christianity how, exactly?
    Do you oppose one, but not the others? Or not?
    “Salafis seeking isolation or dawa (inviting others to Islam) is just fine”
    Okay, then, so why bring it up?
    “…not fine are the Salafist proponents of violent jihad, or when Islamists demand that I submit to Islam or die. But that’s just me.”
    No, Charles, that’s you erecting an idiotic and insulting straw man. Yes, you are the only one who objects to violent jihad. The rest of us here: we’re all fine with it. We all want to have only the choice of submit ting to Islam or dying; only you are enlightened and oddball enough to feel differently.
    You don’t realize you just insulted all your readers with that claim?
    I suggest rewording and apologizing.

  6. It’s really getting to the point where I wish this blog was like Slashdot, where I can filter particular authors.

  8. BTW, this is about the least offensive use of Saudi financing that I can think of.
    Yeah…I’d even go so far as to say it’s a downright positive use of funds and energy. Unless you viewed Islam as something so inherently and unredeemably bad that you thought it should not be the subject any sort of positive image-making and publicity.
    I can’t, uh, see what the objection would be here.

  10. From the Arab News cite: “We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project. He has been generous in the past,” he added.
    Mystery solved. And that’s 10 million/year for 5 years. A proposed $10 million/year.
    Please read your own material carefully before posting, Charles.

  12. Please, please get a different conservative and lose CB. He’s an embarrassment to the site.
    Innuendo. Lack of facts. A simple falsehood (.com!?!?) that would have taken 2 seconds to figure out it was wrong. Special pleading (when Muslims do X it’s bad, but let’s ignore it when other religions do it). Incitement to hatred of perceived enemies based on religion. Just par for the course.

  13. Listen, people: the mere fact that Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal has given money to CAIR means that they can no more be trusted than any of the other recipients of his largesse — the Louvre, Georgetown and Harvard, Phillips Andover Academy, the victims of the earthquake in Kashmir — not to mention, um, Fox News, in which he owns a significant chunk of stocks. (See, e.g., here) There’s also his $10billion stake in Citicorp, which he bailed out in 1990. Clearly, a radical Islamofascist.
    I mean, who but a radical Islamist would ever be described, by Forbes, as “a vocal supporter of women’s rights”? Or have “earned the wrath of the Arab press by declaring; “Let’s give Sharon a chance””? Or have Wikipedia say of him:

    ” His views can be seen as critical of Saudi traditionalism, proposing reforms to elections, women’s rights and the economy. He has also openly criticized operation of the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco. He is vocal about women’s rights and hired the first female airline pilot in Saudi Arabia, Hanadi Hindi.”

    Get a grip, people. It’s obvious that this guy isn’t interested in something as simple as, oh, supporting an organization. He’s a Wasabi, or a Salami, or one of those things.

  16. Just as a check, how exactly is it in the interest of balance to include the anti-Cair website in an anti-CAIR rant? Not that it is wrong to include the anti-CAIR website. In fact, it probably adds important arguments that support your claims. It just seems very odd to include it “in the interest of balance” and makes me wonder if that word has simply lost any meaning it once had.

  17. And please pass me some of that wasabi salami. Sounds ultra-tasty, which is like mega-tasty, but now with more taste.

  18. “is it just me, or does a Wasabi Salami sound delicious?”
    Obviously, like Charles, it’s just you. (Just ate a salami sandwich with mustard, non-wasabi, half an hour ago.)
    From those comments at RedState:

    That’s why we uneducated Americans have such a negative view of Muslims and the Islamic faith:

    Will Charles object, and say that he doesn’t have a negative view of Muslims and Islam, but only of those miniscule few who engage in terrorism, or will he let that comment pass?

    Pick a date, any date in recent history and see how this religion of peace is spreading its message.

    Same query.

    You can literally go to any date and see the bloody fingerprint of Islamic teaching on modern history.

    Same query. Is it difficult to find equivalent events in Christian history, or in the Old Testament? Will Charles make this point, or let it pass?

    Beside a mere clothing update and a pointer to YouTube, there have to be other hints we could give them. You know, as a way to help them assimilate into Western culture.

    Will RedState commenters also offer such tips to Hassidic Jews? The Amish? Do they think it clever and appropriate if they say such things about old-style nun dress? If not, why not? Will Charles make this point, or let it pass?
    Inquiring minds wait and watch.

  19. “Most Americans don’t have problems with Islam or Muslims per se”
    ah, what a lovely phrase, ‘per se’.
    In the mouths of lawyers, it usually means “except actually the opposite.”
    Did you break that vase, Johnny?
    “Well, I didn’t break the vase, per se.”
    (Except, actually, I did break the vase. But its being a vase had *nothing* to do with why I broke it; the baseball would have broken any other object on the mantle-piece, vase or not. So I didn’t break it per se *vase*, you see. That’s not the description relevant to my breaking it.)
    Do you hate Muslims, Johnny?
    “Well, I don’t hate Muslims, per se.”
    (Except, yeah, I hate those ones over there because they’re dark-skinned, and those ones over there because they talk funny, and those ones over there because they come here and steal our jobs, and those ones over there because they’re clearly terrorists.
    But, hey, I would have hated anyone that color/talking funny/immigrant/could be a terrorist. I wasn’t hating them per se Muslim, you see.)
    Great line, really a classic: “Most Americans don’t have problems with Islam or Muslims per se”.

  20. “…does a Wasabi Salami sound delicious?
    Good lord…that’s a goldmine! Quick…to the patent office!”
    Yes, but is it halal?
    On a more serious note, though, this post really isn’t one of CB’s better efforts: leaving aside the CAIR-website triviality (typical Birdism tho’ it is) – what, Charles is the relevance of tacking on the last paragraph about “Wahhabis and Salafis”? Complete with the “convert or die” link, which has, afaict, little to directly do with CAIR. Do you have any evidence outside of your “opinion” that CAIR really is “infused” with followers of radical/fundamentalist Islamist movements? Or does the mere suggestion of Saudi financing for an organization invoke in your mind, as one of your charming fellow-posters at RS put it: “better cutlery for beheadings”?

  21. “You can literally go to any date and see the bloody fingerprint of Islamic teaching on modern history.”
    Kinda confusing – “any date” + “modern”.

  22. “You can literally go to any date and see the bloody fingerprint of Islamic teaching on modern history.”
    sunday evening, my wife and i were at a friend’s house, for a cook-out. an hour or so into the evening, the hostess brought out… pita and hummus.
    as soon as we got home, my wife broke out in screams. she hasn’t come out from under the bed since.

  24. rilkefan: such is the dark genius of these Islamofascists that they can make us see the bloody fingerprint of Islamic teaching on modern history even if we go to a premodern date.

  25. so CB makes a not so hot post and Redstate is it’s usual bigoted self – but why does ObWi have to react as if Saudi money hasn’t been a huge problem in funding terrorism, fundamentalism and certain American politicians; why is it suddenly preposterous to be suspicious of the money behind institutions; why make the prince into a saint when he’s clearly the benificiary of a repressive and inhuman regime?
    and in case you want to know, I have questioned the funding of non-islamic institutions before

  26. as if Saudi money hasn’t been a huge problem in funding terrorism, fundamentalism and certain American politicians
    where did that happen ?

  29. novakant: As one person you might have had in mind, I was trying to be more fine-gauged than “Saudi money”. While I’m sure I’d disagree with him on a lot, this particular Saudi doesn’t really seem, at first glance, to be someone I’d worry about.

  31. why is it suddenly preposterous to be suspicious of the money behind institutions; why make the prince into a saint when he’s clearly the benificiary of a repressive and inhuman regime?
    If the prince is trying to reform the society he was born into, should he be reviled or supported?
    What I’m hearing is that ethnicity or country of origin is more important than what the individual believes or does….
    Or is my hearing going on me?

  32. So technically “most” may be true, but a hugely significant proportion of Americans apparently are prejudiced against Muslims and Islam per se.
    And here’s another poll, Gary. Last April, 45% of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Islam. But then again, a hugely significant proportion of Americans had unfavorable opinions toward Mormonism (39%), Catholicism (37%) and Christian fundamentalism (31%). From a Bahraini journalist:

    “But does such a backlash exist? According to the 2004 FBI hate-crimes report, the latest published, there were 156 incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes; in comparison, there were 95 anti-Christian, and 954 anti-Jewish attacks in the United States. Rather than fear American freedom, most Muslims embrace it. At more than $42,000, average income for Muslim families is higher than the American average.

    The point is that if CAIR really wants to improve the image of Muslims, they would be much better off focusing their money and energy working against the forces of militant Islamism. To me, $50 million of PR money toward that end would vastly improve non-Muslim Americans’ opinions about Islam. I suspect that they can’t because there are Saudi strings attached to the money they get, but that’s my own speculation. CAIR dropped its lawsuit against anti-CAIR, most likely because of what they would have to turn over in discovery, such as their finances. As it is, we only get glimpses of where their money comes from.
    One other thing, admittedly not particularly related: Why did CAIR give star treatment to the writers of an anti-Semitic tract at an event at the National Press Club? How exactly does that improve American-Islamic relations?
    I do agree that there are hateful comments in LGF’s threads. Unfortunately, the sum total of CAIR’s responses and non-responses to current events hurts more than helps.
    Please do present your supporting citations that demonstrate your case.
    The anti-CAIR website has some connections. There is a history of ties with Hamas, which in turn has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
    I’m guessing you mean “conservative,” but in fact the article referred to “fundamentalist.”
    “Conservation” was a typo. Fixed. I took “conservative Muslims” and “goal of isolation” straight from the title of the article. If they want to isolate themselves, fine. Same goes for any other religious sect.
    I brought up Salafists and violent jihad because there are Salafists who are okay with it. This has nothing to do with you and the readers opposing violent jihad, because I was trying to say that there are influential Salafists out there who are not opposed (cite).
    On the dot.com thing, I updated the post. My mistake.

  33. “What I’m hearing is that ethnicity or country of origin is more important than what the individual believes or does….”
    Ditto their religion. It’s not how you practice it, or what you believe about it, or how you actually feel about terrorism, it’s simply being a Muslim that makes you suspicious, or outright a practicioner of evil.
    We have a word for lumping all people in a religion, or ethnicity, or gender, or other category, together: bigot. (Note: I am not speaking of Charles in this, but of numerous rightwingers in a frenzy about the evils of Islam, such as those I discussed here, or the ones I quoted here from Charles’ post at RedState.)

  34. “And here’s another poll, Gary.”
    Yes. Reading the article, you put a fascinating spin on it.

    Poll: Sinking Perceptions Of Islam
    Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.
    Forty-five percent of respondents queried April 6 – 9 said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36 percent in February. And the public’s impression of Islam has diminished even more compared with four years ago. In February 2002 – less than six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11 – the country was evenly divided in its impression of Islam.
    Americans today are also more likely than not to believe that Islam encourages violence, at least in comparison to other religions around the world.
    The last few months have seen escalating sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Islamic factions in Iraq and the ongoing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in the United States. The poll finds 46 percent of Americans believe Islam encourages violence more than other religions, compared with 39 percent of Americans who felt that way two months ago and 35 percent who felt that way in March 2002 (according to a Gallup Poll).
    When compared with some other religions practiced in America, positive views of Islam rank below those for mainstream Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Christian fundamentalist faiths. Only Scientology, of all the religions asked about, ranked lower.

    Etc.
    “The point is that if CAIR really wants to improve the image of Muslims, they would be much better off focusing their money and energy working against the forces of militant Islamism.”
    a) There’s no conflict between both; b) this is a silly and rude formulation. Do you also have advice for the B’nai Brith, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Catholic League, as to what they should spend their time on?
    Did you read this article I linked to here?
    Meanwhile, since you like advising other people on what they should focus on, rather than other things, I’m sure you’ll welcome my advice that you should focus on countering the sort of anti-Islamic and anti-Arab bigotry found at Little Green Footballs, RedState, and countless other rightwing blogs.
    I look forward to your posts on that topic until the bigotry comes to an end.
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

  35. “One other thing, admittedly not particularly related: Why did CAIR give star treatment to the writers of an anti-Semitic tract at an event at the National Press Club?”
    I read that article the day it appeared, and I’ve followed the Walt-Mearshimer issue all along. I think they’re asses, and largely wrong-headed, but I see no anti-Semitism in either their piece or the event; anti-Israelism, yes, but that’s not the same thing. Ditto that it’s useful meat for anti-Semites, but again, it devalues pointing out actual anti-Semitism to claim it exists where it doesn’t clearly. Please don’t do that; you’re not doing us any favors by crying wolf.
    “To me, $50 million of PR money toward that end would vastly improve non-Muslim Americans’ opinions about Islam.”
    I doubt it; despite numerous marches, letters, articles, events, and so on, along those line, the bigots and most rightwing bloggers utterly ignore them all and claim they don’t exist and don’t take place. Or they call them lies and subterfuges and cover stories. Perhaps you should spend some time uncovering and denouncing that.
    “I do agree that there are hateful comments in LGF’s threads. Unfortunately, the sum total of CAIR’s responses and non-responses to current events hurts more than helps.”
    Nice complete non-sequitur. I’ll have to remember that next time you have an ill word for the UN, or Human Rights Watch, or Kofi Annan, or whomever your choice to denounce that day is. “I do agree that Human Rights Watch has been unfair to Israel in gullibly accepting biased claims; unfortunately, Little Green Footballs has hateful remarks.”
    Does that make any sense to you? No? So why use that formulation? How does a non-sequitur get you anywhere?
    “On the dot.com thing, I updated the post. My mistake.”
    Completely trivial, but I still don’t understand at all what point you thought you were trying to make.
    Still waiting for you to explain why you feel that “that’s just me” here who opposes “violent jihad, or when Islamists demand that I submit to Islam or die.”
    “I brought up Salafists and violent jihad because there are Salafists who are okay with it.”
    I don’t follow. There are Orthodox Jews who support the JDL and the outlawed (in Israel) Kach Party, and expelling all Arabs from Israel and generally killing Arabs. Does that mean I should bring up Orthodox Jewry to make that point when I’m discussing the B’nai Brith?

  36. From the update:

    However, because CAIR won’t disclose, we can’t confirm.
    That’s right. Other than in this paragraph from the newspaper article I’m citing, CAIR hasn’t disclosed where this funding is coming from.
    What if Alwaweed doesn’t come through? Does that mean no campaign,
    Why, that might actually fall into the realm of possibility
    or will CAIR find other Saudi benefactors?
    Cue ominous strumming of an Oud on soundtrack.

  37. Ditto their religion. It’s not how you practice it, or what you believe about it, or how you actually feel about terrorism, it’s simply being a Muslim that makes you suspicious, or outright a practicioner of evil.
    Though Gary says this as a way of suggesting that Charles is mistaken in his argumentation, the fact is that this is the current zeitgeist, and Charles is just a local rep for that POV. This is why the kidnapped FOX journalists are being treated like traitors. Greenwald discusses this here.
    [on the dot.com thing] I still don’t understand at all what point you thought you were trying to make.
    I think the point Chas was going for was that a com address is a business address and an org address is a non-profit one. That was certainly the idea behind the first abbreviation and I believe that org was supposed to be non-commercial, but it is certainly not how they have evolved. It is similar to the notion when some people argue that because the etymology of a word has a certain meaning, it constrains the current meaning of the word.

  38. “I read that article the day it appeared, and I’ve followed the Walt-Mearshimer issue all along. I think they’re asses, and largely wrong-headed, but I see no anti-Semitism in either their piece or the event; anti-Israelism, yes, but that’s not the same thing.”
    I think in context – smart, well-informed people doing shoddy work to push a thesis on a narrow topic that happens to align with anti-Semitic views – they’re either remarkably reckless or, well, I don’t know how one would distinguish their work from anti-Semitism written to not get censored. That is to say, I certainly wouldn’t affirmitvely say they are anti-Semites, but I wouldn’t affirmitvely say they aren’t – though I expect they’re just unusually tasteless controversy hounds. In any case, as I said above, CAIR should keep far away from such controversies.
    Also, I don’t see the relevance to the conversation of LGF. Charles has I take it somewhat strained relations with RS – how’s he supposed to go clean up LGF? And what’s LGF to CAIR?

  39. If CAIR were serious about openness
    Is it me, or does this construction instantaneously cause you to discount anything that follows. Allow me to demonstrate – if CB were serious about _____, he’d agree with my positions in all regards…

  40. hilzoy, cleek, maybe I was a bit unfair my post, but I sensed a certain automatism in the responses here, throwing the baby out with the bathwater
    gwangung: he’s not just some Saudi who just so happened to make a lot of money; his wealth and influence are directly related to a repressive and inhuman regime that has abused human rights and financed terrorism for ages; some very influential american businesspeople and politicians are in similar ways related to this regime; we spit on them for their corruptness and hypocrisy and rightly so; why do you want to let the prince of the hook? maybe he’s honest and becomes a true reformer, but I’d be as suspicious of him as I am of Bush when he’s talking of human rights
    gary, in case you’re talking to me, rest assured that I’m, surrounded by Muslims on a daily basis and have never suspected the shopkeepers and cafe owners I meet of terrorism, but I also know there’s a mosque up in Finsbury Park where things might be a bit less relaxed; as it happens I think that all religion is bunk but I usually don’t go around telling people that

  42. What I’m hearing is that ethnicity or country of origin is more important than what the individual believes or does….
    To clarify, the issue isn’t all Saudi donors, it’s the fact that we don’t know who CAIR’s donors are, foreign or domestic, or how much they give.

  43. “…but I wouldn’t affirmitvely say they aren’t….”
    Neither would I, but I don’t regard assertion of a conclusion based on evidence not submitted and not visible as an acceptable technique.
    Moreover, I think there’s endless wrong-headed criticism of Israel and folks who argue positively about Israel that is nonetheless not at all anti-Semitic.
    “Also, I don’t see the relevance to the conversation of LGF.”
    I partially brought it up simply because of the convenience of my having written a post dealing with this, and attacks on CAIR, yesterday (Charles has a habit of posting on whatever the fashionable topic sweeping the rightwing blogs du jour is, which is very boring and lemming-like of him, and this is no exception), but the relevance is that these attitudes about Muslims are widespread and unitary across innumerable (though certainly not all) of the extremist rightwing blogs; LGF is simply the exemplar, and RedState just another prominent example.
    “And what’s LGF to CAIR?”
    More to the point would be “what’s CAIR to LGF?,” since Charles and his readers are as obsessed with them as their other fixations, but one answer would be that the FBI investigated a threat against one of CAIR’s executives made at LGF, as it happens.
    “Is it me, or does this construction instantaneously cause you to discount anything that follows. Allow me to demonstrate – if CB were serious about _____, he’d agree with my positions in all regards…”
    It’s not you; it’s part of the point I’ve been trying to make to Charles.
    “gary, in case you’re talking to me”
    I don’t even know about what, so, no.

  44. I don’t know who your donors are either, Charles. There may not be any donors backing you, to be sure, but the point is it’s never been disclosed. Perhaps it’s time I became concerned. It’s pause for thought, regardless.

  45. “There may not be any donors backing you, to be sure, but the point is it’s never been disclosed.”
    Maybe posting-rules territory.
    [posting-rules-skirting comment bitten back]

  47. I don’t know who your donors are either, Charles.
    Neither do we know know what organizations and individuals Charles has supported with donations of his own. Without that info we can’t know how the recipients of Charles’ largesse have used his support. They might have been responsible, directly or indirectly, for any number of terrible things.
    The best thing to do until he comes clean is assume the worst.

  48. novakant: I read the article, saw who the donor was, and googled, is all. I wanted to see who the guy was. Now I know: one of the richest men in the world, and self-made to boot. I didn’t see much that raised red flags, and several things — being quoted as saying Arabs should give Sharon a chance, the stuff about women, etc. — that made him seem a very unlikely Islamist.

  49. I would love to see a case that CAIR matters more in the general effort to promote liberty and justice in the Middle East than the Bush/Cheney administration’s ongoing embrace of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the like.

  50. I should also say that I found it odd that Charles hadn’t noticed the donor’s name, and checked out his identity, in the course of preparing this post, which is what accounts for my comments about the wasabi and the salami (not to mention the tempi, the hibachi, the castrati, the biscotti…) I mean: to me, once the donor was known and the dark but unsupported innuendo was removed, this story was sort of boiled down to: organization gets new look, person gives money.

  51. The rundown…
    Walt & Mearsheimer aren’t anti-Semitic. If anything, they’re anti-Zionist. These are in no way equivalent. If you don’t understand, please ask an anti-Zionist Jew (e.g. me) for explanation.
    I’m waiting for AIPAC to open its books. I bet there’s National Union money in there somewhere.

  54. To clarify, the issue isn’t all Saudi donors, it’s the fact that we don’t know who CAIR’s donors are, foreign or domestic, or how much they give.
    I read these same comments about Japanese American dollars in World War II.
    It makes about as much sense now as it did then: very little. (And my quotation was based specifically on statements made back then)
    To explain further, taking such a stance as you are taking now is far too inclusive and much more likely to take out and derail progressive forces than it would troublesome or anti-Western forces. Perhaps the reason why we don’t know about CAIR’s donors is that we haven’t done the research or work to establish who they are.
    Ignorance is a TERRIBLE basis to recommend action on.

  55. gwangung: he’s not just some Saudi who just so happened to make a lot of money; his wealth and influence are directly related to a repressive and inhuman regime that has abused human rights and financed terrorism for ages; some very influential american businesspeople and politicians are in similar ways related to this regime; we spit on them for their corruptness and hypocrisy and rightly so; why do you want to let the prince of the hook? maybe he’s honest and becomes a true reformer, but I’d be as suspicious of him as I am of Bush when he’s talking of human rights
    Then hold the opinion provisionally, and be ready to change the opinion when more information comes in.
    Being way and cautious is sensible, but from what is known here, I sure don’t see justification for anything more.

  56. “You have got to be kidding.”
    No, actually. X says public civil liberties organization C ought to be open about its finances; Y replies, “Well I wonder who’s funding you, X”. Observer O isn’t aware that there are charges that certain people from ideological group I have been paid to push issues or troll liberal blogs – but that doesn’t even matter in my view.

  57. You have got to be kidding.
    Someone has a case of literalitis. Strange, for a poet.
    No, actually. X says public civil liberties organization C ought to be open about its finances; Y replies
    No actually. X insinuates there is something sinister about the fact public civil liberties organization C hasn’t revealed it’s donors (despite the potential and desired source of funding in the matter of contention being revealed in X’s own citation). Y replies sarcastically that X hasn’t revealed his donors either (note: there really aren’t any. Get it?) to demonstrate to X that his concern is misplaced. Observer R claims this is an ad hominem attack and a violation of the posting rules, then breaks the posting rules by calling Y moronic.

  59. rilkefan, spartikus was making a point, not an ad hom attack.
    CB stated that we don’t know who CAIR’s sponsors are, and followed that up with a broad-brush claim that “in my opinion, the organization is infused with Salafists and Wahhabis, practitioners of fundamentalist Islamic strains.” The inference was crystal clear: CB believes CAIR is “infused” (whatever that means) with groups CB also believes to be members of the Islamofascist Axis; therefore, CAIR isn’t really interested in “openness, professionalism and the pursuit of mutual understanding and justice.”
    Those statements are rhetorical sleights of hand, meant to delegitimize without offering specifics. Guilt by vague and unsubstantiated association, in other words.
    Spartikus was using the same technique CB did to show what a null value trick it is, and how it can be used against anyone.
    Turning a rhetorical device back on its practitioner isn’t an ad hominen attack.

  61. “then breaks the posting rules by calling Y moronic.”
    No, I didn’t say you were moronic, and clearly I should have said you can’t read. Also note that “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”, not a possessive.
    mb – great minds, etc.

  62. I don’t agree with these attacks on CAIR, but I’m doubtful that calling it a “public civil liberties organization” is the most accurate description.
    “I dunno, this recent article by Dana Milbank has me wondering about the accuracy of that distinction re: Walt & Mearsheimer (or, at least, Mearsheimer).”
    As I said, I think they’re quite wrongheaded, but I seriously think it’s a bad idea to call people anti-Semites without clear evidence.
    On the other hand I’m perfectly willing to defend Zionism, and justify a democratic State of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, and a country with a state religion (and freedom of religion), just as I’m willing to justify Britain consisting of Welsh, Scottish, English, and Northern Irish countries, with a state religion, and endless other countries as homelands for various nationalities, many of them with state religions.
    And I’m perfectly willing to disagree with anti-Zionists until they at least come out equally against all other nationalisms, including Palestinian, and/or all other countries with state religions.
    This is an entirely distinguishable, and separate, topic from that of anti-Semitism.

  64. Casey, for all I know (and anyone here knows, as far as I know), CAIR may well have sources of funding you and I would find distasteful. CB‘s funding is nobody’s business. And even if you think a call for open finances is a smear, two wrongs don’t make a right, even if supposedly sarcastic. Also note that it’s just not equivalent to say X about an organization and X about a individual.
    Note as the context for my “Maybe posting-rules territory” the general unfriendly reception CB receives here from some parts of the commentariat – I think it verges on bad-faith argument integrated over many posts.
    mb – by the logic in question, I should call your opinion on the matter deliberately obtuse.

  66. rilkefan:
    Oops – well, at least I’m not the only one who read that.
    😉
    Gary: I don’t mean to claim that Walt & Mearsheimer are outright bigots, nor to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Reflexive charges of anti-Semitism in response to any critique of Israel, regardless of legitimacy, tend to lessen the credibility of those slinging the charges, at least in my eyes.
    But the Milbank article does give me pause. Perhaps Milbank is unfairly projecting, or perhaps he is perceptive. I await further evidence before making any conclusions.

  68. rilkefan: how were sparti’s comments ‘ad hom’?
    And please note I qualified with ‘comes across as’.

  69. No, I didn’t say you were moronic, and clearly I should have said you can’t read.
    And this is a non-posting-rules-violating non-ad-hom because . . . ?
    CB’s funding is nobody’s business.
    Actually I can think of sets of circumstances under which it’s quite relevant indeed.

  70. And this is a non-posting-rules-violating non-ad-hom because . . . ?

    Because he was making a point, much like spartikus was making a point, only sparti’s initial point was apparently mean, and thus wrong.
    Or something like that. All this meta is making me dizzy.

  72. “Gary, there was an equation of ‘anti-Israel’ and ‘anti-Zionism’ above – do you distinguish the two strongly?”
    I’d probably try to ask, and elicit, some elaboration on what the person means, and their position, but in vacuo, not off-hand.
    “Off to put food on my family.”
    Isn’t that the baby’s job?
    mattbastard: “But the Milbank article does give me pause.”
    As I’ve said, I think very poorly of Walt and Mearshimer, and their thesis. But there’s enough overt anti-Semitism in the world that I don’t feel a need to waste energy speculating about the covert sort, for the most part; I’m content to simply argue with their bad arguments, if I feel inclined.
    Similarly, for instance, I don’t see any reason to believe Juan Cole is anti-Semitic; I just observe that while he’s worth reading when he summarizes and analyzes Shi’ite actions in Iraq, he’s about as useful an analyst of things relating to Israel as a big bag of poop.
    If any of these three guys, for instance, has a Mel Gibson moment, well, I wouldn’t have a heart attack of surprise, but meanwhile I’m content to go with Ockham. This is because I think their visible flaws are bad enough.

  74. And even if you think a call for open finances is a smear, two wrongs don’t make a right, even if supposedly sarcastic. Also note that it’s just not equivalent to say X about an organization and X about a individual.
    So the posting rules now include “two wrongs don’t make a right” and “no drawing of false equivalencies between organizations and individuals?” Because you claimed spartikus violated the posting rules, not that his argument was weak.
    Spartikus was implicitly arguing that non-disclosure of funding sources is not grounds for suspicion. You may find his analogy inapt, but he was not trying to actually suggest that Charles’ finances suspect. To think that he was trying to suggest such is to also think that he was agreeing with Charles, which he clearly was not. This was not an ad hom.
    Also note that “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”, not a possessive.
    Also note that grammar flames are incredibly lame.

  75. “Because you claimed”
    Fail to read the blog for a few days, and a veritable poor-reading-comprehension epidemic breaks out.
    “Spartikus was implicitly arguing that X”
    See, X is really easy to say. I’d explain why I think he didn’t say X, but it would probably be a violation of the posting rules. Which is an excellent argument for hocb, but since Anarch apparently disagrees with me, I’d best shut up.
    “grammar flames are incredibly lame”
    Perhaps, but that was something else – but it’s doubtless not worth explaining.
    ‘The baby’s job is to put food on the family’
    I’m not quite sure what he thinks his job is, but so far it seems more like looking unspeakably cute (I’m sorry Gromit doesn’t live next door to photograph him), insisting on being fed or held all Labor Day Weekend and driving his parents to distraction, and looking intensey alert and beautiful when out in public so that random strangers come up to him and exclaim and start to cry.

  77. No offense, rf — and you owe us, and the world, pictures of your Unspeakably Cute Baby [doesn’t that sound like it should have a few more words attached, like From Beyond The Stars or something?] — just that I saw sparti’s comment as a standard rhetorical device, taking a broken/scurrilous/calumnous argument and reflecting it back on the author to illustrate its brokenness. It wasn’t gently performed, I’ll grant you that, but it wasn’t a well-constructed enough argument to begin with for me to worry over niceties in that regard, nor was it what I’d consider to be an ad hominem as I use the term.
    OTOH, I have reflection arguments on the brain right now — assuming I’ve made the breakthrough I think I might have, reflection will be key — so maybe I’m reading more, or less, into what’s there.

  78. “Unspeakably Cute Baby [doesn’t that sound like it should have a few more words attached, like From Beyond The Stars or something?]”
    The Unspeakably Cute Baby From Beyond The Particle Accelerator?

  79. assuming I’ve made the breakthrough I think I might have, reflection will be key
    Nononono. Hexapodia is key.

  81. or when Islamists demand that I submit to Islam or die
    I don’t see a report of anyone making that demand in the linked article — assuming that “or die” means “or be killed by Islamists,” and not “or your soul will not achieve salvation.” (The latter reading, implausible in this context, could just as well apply to fundamentalist Christianity, of course.)
    Indeed, the article says that “the video included no direct threats of terror attacks.”

  82. I wasn’t convinced by Walt and Mearsheimer’s article, but the article by Milbank seems pretty logically flawed as well. If you’re going to complain about Walt & Mearshimer focusing on Jews in the government (rather than ignoring ethnicity in favour of policy as Milbank thinks they should), then you shouldn’t start making comments about them have blue eyes and Germanic surnames (which is equally beyond their control).

  83. and driving his parents to distraction

    Normally I elect to drive myself, or, if impaired, to take a taxi.

  85. “and driving his parents to distraction
    Normally I elect to drive myself, or, if impaired, to take a taxi.”
    Moreover, I find it very rarely that I want to be driven to distraction. It’s almost as dangerous a neighborhood as the cliffs of insanity.

  86. Looks like Bush is letting Hitler kick it old school in Waziristan.
    Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a “peaceful life,” Pakistani officials tell ABC News.
    The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a “peace deal” with the Taliban.
    If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden “would not be taken into custody,” Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, “as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen.”
    Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.
    In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the “peace agreement” between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.
    “What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan,” said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.
    The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies “to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world.”
    From:
    The Victory-Only Times
    ————————–
    Miranshah: Pro Taliban militants and the Pakistani government signed a peace deal on Tuesday, according to Pakistani negotiators.
    The militants said they would stop attacks in Pakistan and across the Afghan border on the condition that the Pakistani government stop air and ground operations in the Waziristan region and dismantle newly built checkposts.
    People arrested during military operations will also be released under the agreement and confiscated property, including weapons, would be returned.
    The peace agreement means that there will be no more free movement for tribes to enter into Afghanistan.
    “Except for trade, people will not be allowed to go to Afghanistan to launch attacks,” said Nek Zaman, a member of the tribal council who is also a member of the Pakistani parliament.
    From:
    The No Appeasement Times
    ——————–
    “Nope, no Bin Ladden over there,” said Mr. Bush, as another picture showed the leader of the free world looking under a couch. “Maybe under here,” he continued to more laughter.
    From:
    “How to Appease Bin Ladden and Keep His Backers Happy? (Washington Time)
    “What Excuse Can You Use to Kill 100,000 Iraqis?” (Weekly Standard)
    “How Do You Lose the Man Who Killed 3000 Americans?” (National Review)
    “How to Avoid Saudi Arabian and Pakistani Rage For Capturing the Man Who Killed Thousands of Americans?” (Commentary)
    “How Can Bush and Patriotic Right-Wing Americans Assist Terrorist Who Desire To Kill More Americans? (Talon)
    “How Can Bush and Patriotic Right-Wing Americans Assist the Spread of Iranian Influence In the Region? (NewsMax)

  87. I hope those persuaded by the Milbank article actually looked at the transcript or watched the video of their talk. Milbank’s representations were extraordinarily dishonest. I put up a comparison here.
    Personally, I don’t really know what to make of their paper, and I find it a bit dubious that the Israel lobby is actually a primary reason for the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, is it possible that if we had less of a relationship with Israel, that we would be less involved in the region? I don’t know, but I certainly don’t think it’s insane. I find it pretty frustrating though, that a column as wilfully dishonest as Milbank’s would have any currency in the debate.
    In any case, I didn’t comment in the post, but I think it shows at least 3 important things: 1. No, W&M did not single out Jews. 2. No, they did not fail to distinguish between Jews and the Lobby (in fact, they are adamant that the lobby does not represent Jews generally, many of whom don’t care or oppose the lobby), and 3. No, they did not present polling in a dishonest manner.
    Again, this is simply for those who took Milbank seriously. My wish would be that people could stick to the merits of the argument, like this guy did here, although I would add that I don’t think he totally discredits W&M’s argument either, which fundamentally is simply that there is a powerful Israel lobby with a strong impact on America’s foreign policy, and that this raises questions about whether we are truly doing what’s in America’s interests.

  88. The strength of Charles’s post aside, I find the semi-defense of CAIR in this thread very strange. I would have thought that their terrorist ties were pretty much common knowledge at this point.
    Here is a pretty good primer with tons of links. Don’t dismiss the information because of the forum or the authors – every claim they make is substantiated with footnotes and links to source material. Just read the source material yourself.
    Teasers:
    -“at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.”
    -“Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR’s claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.””
    -“a number of links to the terror organization Hamas”
    -“under the guise of participating in counterterrorism, CAIR does its best to impede these efforts”
    -“protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists”
    -“affinities to extremists of both the left and right”
    -“CAIR has a key role in the “Wahhabi lobby””
    -“CAIR attempts to close down public debate about itself and Islam in several ways, starting with a string of lawsuits against public and private individuals and several publications”
    -“CAIR has a long record of unreliability and deceit even in relatively minor matters”
    I challenge anyone here to read all of the linked materiel in that article and then defend this organization in any way.

  89. Your primer is full of, er, broken links (ex. CAIR has a key role in the “Wahhabi lobbyand/or spins on stories that CB has been blasted for here (ex. the “links to Hamas” story is actually not about CAIR’s “links to Hamas”, but 2 of it’s members attending a meeting with a second groups characterized as a planning session for Hamas, Holy Land Foundation, and Islamic Association of Palestine to find ways to disrupt Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy and raise money for Hamas in the United States. A judge issued a verdict where damages were awarded to the parent of David Boim. But it wasn’t CAIR, it was the Islamic Association of Palestine. Guilt by association because two members of CAIR (the same two members recycled from the “terrorist links” bullet point.
    And so on.

  90. I don’t know who your donors are either, Charles.
    There are no donors, so now you know. I get zero money from blogging. The only money I’ve donated to are local churches, World Vision, Amnesty International and, over a decade ago, the Concord Coalition. Except for the Concord Coalition, I haven’t given even a penny to any politician or PAC or political movement. Ever.
    Now that I’ve made full disclosure, it’s CAIR’s turn, sparti.

  91. “Posting rules violated? And just how do you figure that?”
    Ad-hom. Well, that and the comment was moronic.
    ….
    “Because you claimed [spartikus violated the posting rules]”
    Fail to read the blog for a few days, and a veritable poor-reading-comprehension epidemic breaks out.
    It appears to be confined to one person – hardly an epidemic.
    See, X is really easy to say. I’d explain why I think he didn’t say X, but it would probably be a violation of the posting rules.
    If it involves an analogy, then it probably would be.

  92. As I mentioned on hocb.net, Charles, CAIR as a 501(c)(4) and is not required to list it’s donors (donors not receiving any tax benefit for donations and thus it’s deemed there is no public interest in disclosure), and like the majority of 501(c)(4)’s doesn’t.

  93. “Nevertheless, is it possible that if we had less of a relationship with Israel, that we would be less involved in the region?”
    The primary reason for U.S. interest in the Mideast is, of course, and this long predates Israel, oil.
    Regardless, would it make sense to cut Israel loose from ties with the U.S.?: a country that, while as flawed as any country, and perhaps more than a few, is democratic, generally shares the values of the U.S., and yes, has endless direct blood ties between numerous of its citizens and relatives in the U.S., and a fair number of whom emigrated from the U.S.?
    What if a bunch of Caribbean Islands had oil, and regarded Puerto Rico as stolen land, and vowed to wage war for a hundred years, or eternity, until Puerto Rico was their’s again? Or the same re Hawaii and Pacific Islanders? Or Britain was threatened that way by a hostile Europe? Would the right thing to do to cut ties in exchange for better relations for those surrounding countries, even though it’s likely they’d go on hating us anyway?
    Is responding to blackmail and threats useful?
    It’s certainly a legitimate topic of debate, and I could make some arguments on the cease-recognizing-Israel side, but that the answer would be “yes” isn’t obvious to me.

  94. “I would have thought that their terrorist ties were pretty much common knowledge at this point.”
    I would have thought that if that were the case, the government would have made arrests and shut them down. Why are you accusing the Bush Administration of incompetence and slackness in the War On Terror, OCSteve?
    “Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR’s claim to speak on their behalf.”
    This makes them different from AIPAC and American Jews, how? Or from any ethnic organization? Your point is that this is an ethnic lobbying/defense/public relations group that, unlike all other such groups, doesn’t speak for every single member of their ethnicity?
    Damning, indeed.

  95. Gary Farber wrote:
    The primary reason for U.S. interest in the Mideast is, of course, and this long predates Israel, oil.
    Bingo!
    I can’t believe all these right-wing WASPs are, all of a sudden and out of the blue, sympathetic to Zionism.

  97. Gary Farber,
    I think all of that is pretty much true. But I have to say, I think W&M do as well. I don’t think they want to altogether cut off our ties with Israel. They specifically acknowledge their belief in its legitimacy as a nation. So what do they suggest? Well, 1. that the Israel lobby has a greater impact than many realize or acknowledge, and 2. that we could benefit significantly from showing a lesser degree of partisanship in its various controversies that arise. At the same time, of course their application of these ideas to actual issues is going to be controversial.
    More on topic, though, I can’t say I understand this maligning of CAIR. I’m sure many of its members have unacceptable beliefs. But isn’t this about the most moderate Muslim-advocacy group out there? The effort to smear CAIR as essentially a terrorist organization seems pretty overblown to me. These criticisms would seemingly prevent Muslims from having any sort of advocacy group. Now it’s considered damning that a couple of professors would even speak in front of them? I haven’t seen the justification for that view. It seems suspiciously like an effort to delegitimize any Muslim advocacy, to the extent that it ignores basic principles, i.e., of course a broad religious advocacy group is going to have some fundamentalist members. The question, I would sure think, would be what the group itself says and does, unless it is somehow completely obviously simply an arm of a terrorist organization. I just haven’t seen that established.
    Basically, if it becomes clear that any group advocating Muslim interests is going to be delegitimized, I think that’s a problem.

  99. Bush is transferring Khalid Sheik Mohammed,Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaydah, and others from secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo.
    anyone want to bet against the likelyhood a high-profile Parade Of Baddies ?

  100. from secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo
    Very successful secret prisons, mind you. One might think impeachment proceedings might be in order…

  101. anyone want to bet against the likelyhood a high-profile Parade Of Baddies ?
    And the trial getting started a couple weeks before the election? And, despite all previous secrecy, video tapes of KSM et. al. denouncing the U.S. from the witness stand on the nightly news?

  103. Anarch, I sort of suspect I have a good photographic eye, but if so it doesn’t extend to babies, which is why I mentioned Gromit.
    To be fair, rilkefan, the photos I took of my son at that age look pretty much like that. They don’t do much other than eat, sleep, and the other thing at that age, and a hospital is a terrible place to try to take photos. Other than that, taking LOTS of photographs, then picking out the few good ones is really helpful. A high-speed 1 GB compactflash card can be gotten for ~$50 these days.

  104. Well, Rilkekind now has an I’m-so-cute-I’m-sort-of-embarrassed-about-it smile, and he’s supporting his own weight while standing with his dad supplying lateral nudges for balance – the former being evanescent and hence hard to capture, the latter requiring extra arms. Probably I’d do better if I took him outside on a blanket in indirect sunlight and took snake-perspective shots, but my back is stiffening at the thought. Maybe when the chaos at home is a little lessened (we just moved, and Mrs. R. has gone back to work, and blah blah), I’ll fill up a flashcard.

  105. I can’t believe all these right-wing WASPs are, all of a sudden and out of the blue, sympathetic to Zionism.
    Eh? As long as I’ve been an adult (which is an alarmingly long time), Israel has been held as an important ally by a goodly fraction of the right, even if there’s not always full agreement on that. There isn’t even complete agreement now, so I’m not sure what sea change it is that you think you’re seeing. Maybe something more than the casual tossing-off of insinuation might be in order, here.

  106. Your primer is full of, er, broken links
    It was published in the spring. It is not a surprise some links no longer work. There are several hundred (links) going to news stories, government indictments, etc. Take a few hours to go through it all, and see how many more you can “blast”. There is a mountain of materiel there.
    I would have thought that if that were the case, the government would have made arrests…
    They have.
    …and shut them down
    One of their strengths is using our freedoms against us. So no, they won’t be shut down unless something really damning comes to light.
    This makes them different from AIPAC and American Jews, how? Or from any ethnic organization? Your point is that this is an ethnic lobbying/defense/public relations group that, unlike all other such groups, doesn’t speak for every single member of their ethnicity?
    The point was Mr. Pipes’. Ethnicity? In any case, the linked article gave 5 examples of prominent Muslims/groups who actually do promote tolerance and are against terrorism speaking out against CAIR.
    “Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR’s claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”[8] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR’s goal is to spread “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.”[9] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.”[10] Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States.[11] And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that “CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA.”[12]
    Links in the original.

  107. One of their strengths is using our freedoms against us. So no, they won’t be shut down unless something really damning comes to light.
    Much like the Republican Party, eh?

  108. One of their strengths is using our freedoms against us.
    Well, heck, maybe we should just get rid of those freedoms, then. That would solve everything!

  109. Well, heck, maybe we should just get rid of those freedoms, then. That would solve everything!
    What do you think the Bush Admin has been doing?

  110. “One of their strengths is using our freedoms against us.”
    Ah, They. They are always very threatening, indeed.
    They are insidious.
    “The point was Mr. Pipes’.”
    Indeed. And you rely on Mr. Pipes as a credible analyst, or at least cite him as such.
    I’m no particular fan of CAIR, as it happens, but, then, offhand, I can’t think of any ethnic lobbying organization I’m a fan of; they all knee-jerk defend their group, go overboard, make dubious claims, tend to be questionably sympathetic towards militants and even terrorists on their side, and so forth.
    Similarly I largely abhorred the JDL, and entirely abhorred Meir Kahane, wasn’t impressed with Irish-American organizations that raised money for the IRA, don’t agree with Cuban-American groups that defend hijacking planes as protests against Castro, and so on and so forth.
    But I don’t lump all Jews in as a They, nor Irish, nor Muslims.
    And I don’t think there’s all that much defense of CAIR in this thread; what there are are attacks on Charles’ typically sloppy rhetorical techniques, logical lapses, and dopey points. CAIR just happens to be caught in the cross-fire.
    Feel free to reread my first response to Charles, at September 05, 2006 at 03:10 PM; not a word about CAIR in it.
    I’m still, however, waiting for Charles to apologize for, and withdraw, his claim that it’s “just” him who is an opponent of violent jihad, and just him that would object to a choice of submitting to Islam or dying.
    I’m still waiting for Charles to show up on his own comment thread at RedState and address the bigoted remarks of the folks enthusiastically agreeing with him, as I wrote about above at September 05, 2006 at 05:16 PM.
    It’s a day later; Charles has had time to revise his post and write various responses here. Has he been too busy to take a stand on anti-Muslim bigotry at RedState that he provokes? Where does he stand? With or against the bigots?
    I hadn’t realized, by the way, that my link to this post, which I tried to make above, about both LGF and various other rightwing blogs being rife with vile and bigoted comments, as well as a cite of an article about actual American Muslims, hadn’t worked. Oops.

  111. OCSteve,
    Seifeldin Ashmawy is a strange one to cite, given that he died in 1998. I mean, it is possible that CAIR has been completely unchanged from that time, but this implies that they were, say, involved in 9/11.
    Jamal Hasal seems to have second thoughts
    Kamal Nawash seems to appear a lot on O’Reilly and Ingraham’s shows and it is not very clear where he is coming from
    Tashbih Sayyed seems to have the order for solving thing, imo, bass-ackwards
    These are all google search things, so if you have some information that would refute this, fine. But I have the impression that you are simply seizing on Arabic names attached to the letterhead of a organization that sounds nice and citing them
    Stephen Schwartz is the only one of the group I have heard about, and he does not exactly inspire confidence. I recall Geertz’s discussion of his book here (unfortunately behind a subscriber wall now) and it is not kind.
    And as Gary notes, the whole edifice seems to rest on a foundation of Pipes’. Not your best bet.
    Again, I say this not as a knock out punch, but it really seems that you are just throwing names in the air rather than actual facts about CAIR. This is not to claim that CAIR is morally pure, but when someone seizes on this kind of info as definitive, it tells me a lot more about what you want to believe rather than what is actually out there.

  112. Similarly I largely abhorred the JDL…
    Did you mean the JDL or the ADL here? And if the former, what’s your take on the latter?

  113. One of their strengths is using our freedoms against us.
    Wow. 4 replies to that one line. I’ll have to add it to my favorites. Now – can someone debunk it? Show me how it is that that “they” (does quoting help) do not use our freedoms against us? It seems clear that you take advantage of the freedoms of your enemies’ society and use it against them. Open borders? TSA? Student visas? State Dept.? Anyone?
    Ah, They. They are always very threatening, indeed.
    They are insidious.
    Indeed they are.
    Indeed. And you rely on Mr. Pipes as a credible analyst, or at least cite him as such.
    Yes I do. I have stated here before – I could have happily gone to my grave knowing nothing about Islam. I do not have the experience or the knowledge – so I seek out those who I consider to be experts. I have seen a lot of attempted take-downs of Pipes – but none really credible. He cites his sources. If you can provide credible evidence why I should not trust him as an authority in this, I will reconsider.
    But I don’t lump all Jews in as a They, nor Irish, nor Muslims.
    I don’t see 1.9 million Muslims as “they”. Just the 10% or so that want to do away with my country and my way of life. They are, in my book, “they”.
    And I don’t think there’s all that much defense of CAIR in this thread
    I read every comment, and the overall tone seems to be a reflexive defense of CAIR – possibly that is just a reflexive attempt to tar Charles. But I have definitely not seen many comments against CAIR.
    Seifeldin Ashmawy is a strange one to cite, given that he died in 1998. I mean, it is possible that CAIR has been completely unchanged from that time, but this implies that they were, say, involved in 9/11.
    CAIR has been around for more than 10 years. Where did I imply they had any involvement in 9/11? After the fact, they spinned madly yes. They only gained prominence after 9/11. They had things to say (excuses) about terrorism well before that:
    “CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, is the largest American Muslim civil rights organization. Given its growing prominence, CAIR is in a position to mold U.S. Muslim opinion.
    Prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, CAIR attempted to shield Osama bin Laden from US attention. In 1998 a Los Angeles television station put up billboards showing people in the news, including a picture of bin Laden labeling him “the sworn enemy.” CAIR called the depiction “offensive to Muslims.” Following the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, CAIR issued a press release, “American Muslims ask journalists to exercise restraint in reporting on embassy bombings.”
    Even in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR showed great reluctance to accept bin Laden’s involvement. Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Communications Director, refused to condemn Bin Laden outright for the attacks. He would only say, “if Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name.”
    More explicitly, Al-Haj Ghazi Khankan, Executive Director of CAIR’s New York chapter, told The New York Times more than a week after the attacks that the United State government had not proven Usama bin Laden’s role in the terrorism. “We need to have proof. We need to have facts. If there is something wrong, let’s get together through the United Nations, not act as a lynch mob.”
    Again, I say this not as a knock out punch, but it really seems that you are just throwing names in the air rather than actual facts about CAIR.
    Did you click through and read even 25% of the links in the Pipes’ article? Forget Pipes – just read everything you can find about them. They are not exactly covert.
    BTW – LGF – why do so many write him off? Commenters – yes. Just like FDL, KOS, RS, etc. Does it detract from Charles’s main posts? He posts articles – in their own words, provides a link to the source, highlights what he thinks is particularly damning, and occasionally adds a bit of snark. He does not make anything up – you are free to follow the link and read their own words for yourself. They say on a daily basis what they plan to do, what they want. Charles points this out. Stick your head in the sand and kill the messenger.
    Or honor the threat.

  114. “BTW – LGF – why do so many write him off? Commenters – yes.”
    I explained that.
    It’s like saying “why do so many write off David Duke? His KKK followers, yes….”
    It’s because Charles publishes his commenters, and carefully deletes the “offensive” comments.
    He publishes the most vile, disgusting, material of any blog I’m aware of; that he doesn’t write it himself changes nothing.
    “Just like FDL, KOS, RS, etc.”
    I don’t link to any of those sites (why all caps for “KOS”?; is is a hitherto unknown acronym?), either, but if you can show me that any random checkable thread at any of those sites is rife with disgustingly bigoted comments, I’d certainly like to know.
    If not, your comparison is utterly inapt and false.
    “Or honor the threat.”
    Or honor vile racism, and hateful, disgusting, bigotry, in comment after comment, thread after thread, hour after hour, day after day.
    Why would you do that? Would you tolerate it if instead of Islam, it were Judaism or Christianity written about in such terms as LGF is filled with? If not, why support such vileness? And tout it here (and I assume elsewhere)?

  117. “Did you mean the JDL or the ADL here?”
    JDL.
    “And if the former, what’s your take on the latter?”
    Haven’t paid enough attention to them to have much of an opinion, really.

  118. “Show me how it is that that ‘they’ (does quoting help) do not use our freedoms against us?”
    Sure. I’ve seen CAIR spokespeople on tv saying reasonable things. That didn’t use our freedoms against us. Q.E.D., I have shown them not using our freedoms against us.
    I’m sure CAIR leaders have drunk water. That didn’t use our freedoms against us. Etc.
    Otherwise: you want us to prove a negative? Ha.

  119. They are insidious.
    Indeed they are.

    Who is your “they”?, since you seem to have missed my point?
    “I could have happily gone to my grave knowing nothing about Islam.”
    Isn’t that rather foolish, not knowing anything about what such a large proportion of the world believes in? Do you generally find ignorance something to brag about, or useful?
    “We need to have proof. We need to have facts. If there is something wrong, let’s get together through the United Nations, not act as a lynch mob.”
    Shocking, indeed. I am swooning with alarm.
    Meanwhile, I already said what I think of CAIR; but if you’re going to throw up laughable assertions, I’ll duly laugh.

  120. In 1998 a Los Angeles television station put up billboards showing people in the news, including a picture of bin Laden labeling him “the sworn enemy.” CAIR called the depiction “offensive to Muslims.”
    Osama bin Laden wasn’t identified in the billboard. To most Americans at the time, he would simply be a man in a turban with the word “the Enemy superimposed. I certainly don’t blame CAIR for protesting.

  121. OCSteve,
    I did try and and read as much as I could, as well as looking up the people that you mentioned. Did you ascertain who they were before you quoted them as examples? Did you read the article with a critical eye or did you assume that because Daniel Pipes was a co-author, there was no chance that these people were not on the up and up?
    You seem to take exception about my point about Ashmawy. As Gary noted, it was not clear whether it was you talking or Pipes, but for us to take Ashmawy’s criticism seriously, we would have to assume that CAIR (which, as the invocation of Schwartz suggests) had the notion of worldwide jihad planned before 9/11. That is pretty wacky, if you ask me.
    BTW, I did find (a probably illegal copy) of Geertz’s review here
    I quote the part on Schwartz
    Stephen Schwartz, who has also run into political difficulties in the capital, and stirred thereby a teacup-storm on the right, is a strange and outland-ish figure.[4] He grew up in San Francisco as part of the City Lights literary crowd around Lawrence Ferlinghetti, whom his father had published; he became a so-far-left-he’s-right Trotskyist- anarchist under the nom de guerre “Comrade Sandallo,” worked for a while as an obituary writer and street reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, shifted his affections and his energies to Reagan during the micro-war in Grenada, and ultimately made his way as a freelance journalist to Sarajevo in the 1990s, where he converted to Islam and joined a Naqshabandi Sufi order. He changed his name again, at least for some purposes, to Suleyman Abmad, and found the Medusa’s head every conspiratorialist needs: “Wahabism.”
    Wahhabism (so called after an eighteenth-century legist, Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who wrote and preached in northwest Arabia, largely, it seems, to an empty desert) is the name generally given to the radically puritanical version of Islam dominant to the point of absolutism in present-day Saudi Arabia—the sort that stones adulterers, decapitates apostates, forbids female car-driving, and, apparently, breeds such people as Osama bin Laden. Rather little is known about Wahhab, whose scholarly output seems to have been both small and unoriginal. But he has become, since the petroleum rise of the House of Saud, which has taken him on as its spiritual totem, the exemplary figure just about everywhere of severe, ultra-orthodox, totalistic Islam—what Schwartz, whose rhetoric has survived his allegiances, calls “Islamofascism.”[5]
    His book consists in a monomaniacal tracing out, laborious and repetitive (the word “wahhabi” or “wahabbism” appears in almost every paragraph), of the thousands of ways, ingenious, insidious, and implacably relentless, in which the machinations of the House of Saud in the service of this mad creed reaches out to poison the souls of Muslims, turn them against one another, against us, against everybody. Mobilizing their petro-dollars to found religious schools all over the world, set up popular-front-type propaganda foundations, finance lobbying efforts, bribe the powerful, infiltrate legitimate organizations, recruit supporters, eliminate enemies, and most especially to finance jihad, terrorism, and the destruction of Israel, the Saudis work tirelessly to turn Islam, in its essence a peaceful, mystical, unifying force “preaching love and healing,” into a world-dividing, world-destroying “two-faced” one.
    There is, of course, more than a grain of truth in this, as there is in any comprehensive indictment of faction-ridden politics, and the Saudi factions, like the Ayatollahs, Hamas, Syria, and Mubarak are, surely, playing for keeps. But Schwartz’s discussion (he has virtually nothing to say about the concrete details of intra-Islamic conflict and, except for the Koran, he does without source references) is a prime example of how to transform an arguable argument into an obsessional fantasy:
    With the collapse of the Soviet State, Wahhabism effectively replaced the Communist movement as the main sponsor of ideological aggression against the democratic West…. The ideological division of humanity into “two worlds” has been promulgated on different bases: Wahhabism applied a religious distinction, Communism a class standard, and Nazism a rac-ial criterion…. Wahhabism, like the other totalitarian ideologies… compelled members of the new middle classes in the Saudi kingdom and the Gulf states to eagerly kill and die, rather than to procreate and live…. The conduct of the Saudis was devious. They assured the West of profound affection, while fomenting worldwide adventurism and seeking to bring every Sunni Muslim on the face of the earth under their control…. The Wahhabi-Saudi regime…embodies a program for the ruthless conquest of power and a war of extermination…. [Its] face…is a great deal uglier than that of a general Islamism, or radical Arab nationalism,…or even of Soviet Communism, and its threat to the peace of the world is immensely greater.
    There is also a tidbit in the review to explain why Pipes and CAIR might not be on the best of terms
    It is perhaps not altogether surprising that when President Bush recently nominated Pipes, who runs an activist think tank in Philadelphia and writes columns for The New York Post and The Jerusalem Post, to be a director of the Congress-founded “US Institute of Peace,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a D.C.–based action group, suggested he lacked detachment and called on the White House to withdraw his name.
    While it may be that there are actual differences of substance, Geertz’ point that Pipes lives in a Manichean world seems to be borne out by the fact that he feels that if you are not with him, you are against him
    On to other points, if the argument is that Charles merely presents what he finds, highlights and seasons with snark, I would suggest that for this site, at least two more steps are necessary, which is to respond to commentators and to acknowledge points they make. To be fair, Charles seems to be trying to participate more, but I don’t see any kind of acknowledgement of some of the points raised here.

  124. From the bozo Gary cites:
    “For those who are unfamiliar with Neuro-Psychiatry and Psychology, the Amygdala has been long recognized as a crucial part of the Limbic System, the emotional circuitry of the brain.”
    The man has a way with capitals.

  125. Now – can someone debunk it? Show me how it is that that “they” (does quoting help) do not use our freedoms against us? It seems clear that you take advantage of the freedoms of your enemies’ society and use it against them.
    You miss the point.
    If enemies use our freedoms against us, then such is the price of freedom.
    Why fight for democracy by giving up what makes democracy great?
    (I’d quote the Team America song if it didn’t violate the posting rules).

  126. I mentioned the assertion to G. Greenwald in e-mail, by the way, who also found it “hilarious.”
    Also, if Sebastian is reading this, Ezra Klein said he’d put up a post about the California health insurance bill tomorrow, but he dismissed it as pure politics and not going to happen.

  129. To be fair, Charles seems to be trying to participate more, but I don’t see any kind of acknowledgement of some of the points raised here.
    There are different kinds of participation, though…

  130. Wow. 4 replies to that one line. I’ll have to add it to my favorites. Now – can someone debunk it?
    Why? I mean, it’s like asking someone to debunk “They hate us for our freedoms” or “All we need is the will to win.” It’s all the same kind of content-free sloganeering, and the only proper responses are mockery or dismissal. And I, for one, have never been much good at dismissing stuff.

  131. “They hate us for our freedoms” is not only empty sloganeering, it doesn’t lead inevitably to “Therefore, we must make war upon them.”
    Flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed a lot of people. It did not, however, suspend any of the rights enumerated in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.
    Flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed a lot of people. It did not, however, force women into burkhas, or demand forced conversions to Islam, or take away anyone’s firearms, or shut down the communications media, or confiscate private property, or prevent people from entering into private contracts, or even prevent people from traveling freely (apart from the temporary and inevitable disruptions in air travel).
    Flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed a lot of people. It did not, however, use the instrumentality of the State to whisk people off to secret prisons where they could be tortured and killed – it was our own government that did that.
    Flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed a lot of people. It did not, however, tell people what they could and could not say about the attacks, nor threaten their lives and/or livelihoods if they said the “wrong” thing – it was our own government that did that, along with its supporters.
    Flying airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed a lot of people. It did not, however, demand and get authority to spy on American citizens, to monitor their movements and friendships and reading habits – it was our own government that did that.
    If you’re going to inveigh against someone who actually has a proven track record in attacking, destroying, and suspending “our freedoms,” in other words, evidence strongly suggests you should aim the invective against our own government, not the terrorists.

  132. Benny Morris on Mearshimer and Walt, btw.

    Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have
    studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body.

    He has a lot more to say.

  133. Gary,
    The problem with Morris’ charges is the same as the problem with Milbank’s claim that W&M dishonestly presented one poll without presenting a bunch of others. Essentially, he completely misses and misrepresents their point. The reason W&M don’t include the information these guys want him to include is simple: they’re not making the argument that these guys accuse them of making. It just isn’t a paper about why Israel is worse than the Muslim world. This is why they didn’t present counter-information to that argument.
    In any case, after his wild accusation about their “nasty” paper not having an honest bone its its body, what does Morris say his case against the paper comes down to?
    Mearsheimer and Walt build their case mainly by means of omission:
    they tell certain facts while omitting others, sometimes more apt and
    crucial. And occasionally they distort facts and figures.
    I mean, really. What argumentative paper in the world has ever been written that somebody can’t say omits certain information and occasionally distorts facts and figures?
    The fact is, Morris disagrees with W&M’s paper. I think he should have stuck to saying that. I don’t think that makes it a bad or nasty paper, which is obviously just another way of calling them anti-Semites. When else does the word “nasty” get used to describe an alleged misrepresentation about foreign policy?

  134. It seems clear that you take advantage of the freedoms of your enemies’ society and use it against them. Open borders? TSA? Student visas? State Dept.? Anyone?

    CaseyL’s response to this rocks, but is still too obliquely for my taste. OCSteve: do you or do you not advocate the exchange of the two freedoms you mention (open borders– whatever “open” means, and student visas) for the additional security that would result?

  135. Eh? As long as I’ve been an adult (which is an alarmingly long time), Israel has been held as an important ally by a goodly fraction of the right, even if there’s not always full agreement on that. There isn’t even complete agreement now, so I’m not sure what sea change it is that you think you’re seeing. Maybe something more than the casual tossing-off of insinuation might be in order, here.
    Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 06, 2006 at 04:54 PM
    Sorry so late, just realized that you responded.
    | September 06, 2006 at 04:54 PM
    The Zionist project has been, primarily a Socialist project. Most of the Westerners/Christians supporting an ethnic state for Jews were primarily Leftwing and/or liberal.
    End-Timers did not have the popularity and influence among Protestant sects that it has now. It seems many right-wingers viewed the creation of the state of Israel as proof of the United Nation’s world socialist intentions.
    It seems the average right-winger began to value the Jewish state when they saw that they were useful killing Arabs/Muslims. Oil strategic interests began to see their utility when Arab states began to get independent with their oil wealth. However, the average right-wing Protestant viewed the creation of Israel as theft. Leftists really do not take on this view until the New Left Movement of the 60’s.
    These are a lot of assumptions, but the Zionist movement is grounded in the social Democratic movements of Europe.

  136. Until when, though? As I said, my perception is that Israel has been important to the Right pretty much as long as I’ve been alive. Call it 1960s through the present. I could be off by a decade, possibly, or wrong altogether, but to imply that Israel has gained a following on the right just is a very recent development…I don’t see how you can say that. Maybe you’re not saying that, but that’s the way it sounded.

  137. Slarti’s recollection matches mine. By the time I was noticing political trends in the latter ’70s, support for Israel was a very well-established position on the right, and criticism of Israel was common among both liberals and leftists. That hasn’t changed much in the time since then.

  139. I’m am not a fan of Gary North’s politics (I’m a hard leftist) but he has a pretty good handle on Protestant/Christian history.

  140. To give context.
    Gary North, is a hardcore Dominionist, guys like him consider themselves Reformed and Orthodox and separate from Fundamentalism. Many Fundies use some of their (Reformed) work to justify a “theonomic” view of the world, but stay clear of many of their other traditional Protestant views..

  141. For what it’s worth: I lived in Israel in 1982-3. During some months of that period, I was going out with someone in the Israeli foreign ministry, one of whose jobs was to give speeches to various visiting audiences; and since he was my boyfriend and all, I went to rather a lot of these speeches. There were quite a number of substantial groups of visiting pro-Israel evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. This was my first encounter with the alliance between Israel and the Christian right (curiously, I wasn’t aware of it while I was a Christian.) It was quite real then.

  144. From your link, “as long as I’ve been alive” isn’t a bad description of how long a decent fraction of the Right has been pro-Israel. I’m not sure how firmly it’s hooked into Protestantism, though. I grew up Catholic, and support for Israel was widespread among Catholics. North’s citing of various fundamentalist kooks opposing Israel is not well quantified, unfortunately.
    Surely if one goes back to, say, the various Inquisitions, one can find outright persecution of Jews among Christians. That’s not what I thought we were talking about, though. Back then, well, “Right” and “Left” weren’t widely held paradigms, in the realm of politics. Caveat: I realize I’m speaking from a dearth of information, here.

  145. I don’t want to argue or quibble line-by-line with SomeOtherDude’s 5:14 p.m., since he’s sort of 3/5ths right; certainly it’s true that Israel was a socialist, leftwing, endeavor, and American non-Jewish support wasn’t really significant until the Six Day War of June, 1967, and American governmental support wasn’t remotely significant until the 1973 war (prior to that, Israel’s primary military supply support came from France, and Germany, and was often outright opposed by the U.S., particularly, of course, in 1956, but also before and after).
    However, this isn’t really fair: “However, the average right-wing Protestant viewed the creation of Israel as theft.”
    I think that’s unfair. I don’t think there really was any sort of coherent “right-wing Protestant” American view prior to 1967, frankly; mostly it was some incoherent combination of anti-Semitism, some sympathy for a doughty little country, largely based on some Hollywood propaganda films, like Cast A Giant Shadow and Exodus, but mostly ignorance and indifference and simply being off the radar, more or less.
    “Leftists really do not take on this view until the New Left Movement of the 60’s.”
    I think the left didn’t remotely begin to turn against Israel until after the aftermath of ’67 (and the New Left started somewhat prior to the Port Huron Statement of 1962, which is part of why I’m arguing on this), but didn’t significantly start to become anti-Israel until after 1973, and really by the late Seventies (and the clincher, and with some good reason, alas, was Sharon and Begin and Shamir’s horrifically awful decision to invade Lebanon, up to Beirut, and change the government there, in 1982.
    So I think this assertion putting the change with “the New Left Movement of the 60’s” is sufficiently misleading as to be somewhat more wrong than right, though not wholly so.
    “These are a lot of assumptions, but the Zionist movement is grounded in the social Democratic movements of Europe.”
    That’s correct, however.

  146. “Surely if one goes back to, say, the various Inquisitions, one can find outright persecution of Jews among Christians.”
    “Caveat: I realize I’m speaking from a dearth of information, here.”
    Well, yes. There’s no shortage of innumerable incidents of pogroms and mass slaughters of Jews by Catholics and Christians in the 20th century, and not all just in the first half, either, and that’s excluding Nazi-related. And that’s counting only mass slaughter as “persecution,” and neither, say, Leo Frank, nor mere virulent anti-Semitism, housing covenants, and “Gentleman’s Agreement” level of bigotry.
    One hardly has to go back to “the Inquisitions” or even the 19th century.

  147. I guess what I’m trying to say is, traditional right-wing Protestants of the NON-End-Times variety were not “friendly” to the state of Israel. It is very recent many of them jumped on the bandwagon and it is not their love of Jews and Zionism that motivated them.

  148. Even with all the caveats, I’d want to know what your definition of “recent” is, and of course I’d want to see a cite or a half-dozen.
    And of course there’s the intimation that you know why this monolithic WASP-Rightwing jumped onboard with Israel; sharing more about that would be good.
    As for GF’s points vis a vis persecution of Jews, of course one doesn’t have to go all the way back to any of the Inquisitions to see persecution of Jews outside of the Third Reich. I wouldn’t have given it a mention if the discussion in SOD’s link hadn’t wandered back into the seventeenth century and earlier. There are any number of Russian Pogroms I might have offered, too, as well as wholesale slaughter, pillage, rape and other kinds of nasty behavior toward Jews.
    None of which I’d wish on anyone or any group of Jewish folk, even were I not an avid subscriber to whatever pro-Israel brainwashing the Right has, possibly, been subjected to.
    That last was a little joke, but not pointed at Gary.

  149. And not that it’s likely to make a difference, but I’m not an “End-Times” Protestant. I know lots of people that don’t fit that description that consider Israel an ally. The only people I’m aware of that aren’t, these days, are the David Duke types and the Pat Buchanan types, both of which have been marginalized.
    Not data, I know, but I’m not seeing much in the way of data in support of SOD’s thesis (the exact nature of which isn’t yet clear) or notion or whatever it is.

  150. I think that the notion of ‘recent’ is probably related to the rise of Falwell and Robertson, and the ties they established with the Begin administration in the late 70’s. While there has been a strain of fulfilling the biblical prophecies in Evangelical communities, dating back to the 19th century (as the notion of Christian Zionists suggests), the political alliance set up (I think that Begin gave either Falwell a Lear Jet in thanks for his help) can be defined as recent, if you think of the past 35 years as being recent. I can dig up some cites, but I’m sure Gary could add more, faster, than I could.

  151. Sorry, that should be either Falwell or Robertson, and I double checked that and found it was Falwell, but a lot of the sites that cite this are more than a bit icky.

  152. “Not data, I know, but I’m not seeing much in the way of data in support of SOD’s thesis (the exact nature of which isn’t yet clear) or notion or whatever it is.”
    I’d say that there are certainly many fundamentalist Christians, and also evangelical Christians, who are not necessarily the same group, and in each of these groups there are many who “support” Israel to one degree or another and for one reason or another, not all the same.
    Similarly there are many non-fundamentalist, non-evangelical, Christians who “support” Israel to one degree or another and for one reason or another, not all the same.
    Some of the fundamentalists hold “end times” beliefs regarding the Jews and Israel that I regard as pernicious, but by no means all of them do, let alone do all those other groups of “pro-Israel” (a terribly vague, and not altogether universally useful term) Christians.
    A lot of people on the left, particularly those who tend to write and speak (and think?) sloppily tend to sloppily over-generalize about this.
    Just as innumerable of the more rabid and unreasonable rightwingers (unlike the other sorts) tend to babble and make vast generalized assertions nowadays about “the anti-semitism of the left,” which they grossly, grossly, grossly exaggerate.
    None of this is helpful, no matter that both have grains of truth. Both groups of individuals tend to slur and tar vast numbers of people on The Other Side inaccurately and unjustly on these topics. IMO.

  153. Gary, we probably cross posted, so this is just a question. Do you think that the rise of Falwell’s Moral Majority and Robertson’s 700 Club base could be described as a qualitative difference in the type of ‘support’ that we see among evangelical Christians or is that an unsupportable generalization?

  154. “Gary, we probably cross posted, so this is just a question. Do you think that the rise of Falwell’s Moral Majority and Robertson’s 700 Club base could be described as a qualitative difference in the type of ‘support’ that we see among evangelical Christian…?”
    Perhaps. Arguably.

  155. Thanks, Gary. Sometimes I think it’s just me that’s regularly WTF’ed by this sort of thing.
    “This” to be left as an exercise for the reader.

  156. Oh, and there are varying qualities of WTF; my comment above wasn’t referring to this kind, oh no. That sort is exquisitely chuckly/horrorshow.

  157. One thing is that the right-wing support for Israel can and often does coexist with anti-semitism. Both the religious conviction that Israel as a nation has a necessary role in prophecy and the secular conviction that Israel as a nation has a necessary role in regional politics are compatible with a dislike, fear, and/or contempt for Jews as actual people.

  158. “often”. One-tenth percent of the population? More? Less? Can we at least narrow it down to an order of magnitude?

  159. “Can we at least narrow it down to an order of magnitude?”
    Myself, I’m aware of no stats, which is why I try to be cautious about pronouncments that are suggestive of quantification. “Often” is one of those vague terms that is relatively unquantified and unquantifiable, but I’d probably still lean away from using it myself, in such an instance, although I also wouldn’t be hard on anyone who did. That’s the pros and cons of using such a term. “Sometimes” is safer.

  160. Though I think ‘often’ gets at an interesting point, which is that strong emotions generally don’t exist as solitary ones. The oft-repeated notion that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it is indifference. That may have been what Bruce was pointing out. It is also important to note that the US has really had very little experience with Jewish culture and its experience has been through the prism of Reform Judaism rather than thru Orthodox Judaism. (I know that one can point out a lot of Jewish influences on American culture, but I believe that those are not really taken as ‘Jewish’ unless pointed out) That, coupled with the high intermarriage rates, creates a situation where people have a weakly defined shell that they can fill up with whatever notions and images that come to mind.

  161. Sites and folks I trust, concerning American Protestant Sects.
    Max Blumenthal, Gary North, Theocracy Watch, Public Eye and Reformed Theology.
    Here is a snapshot of some of the PDF Files I’ve obsessively gleaned and collected. Anybody want to host them?
    [American Ethnologist, 1987] Frontiers of Christian Evangelism – An Africanist Comment
    [American Quarterly, 1984] Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America
    [Annual Review of Anthropology, 1998] Multiple Modernities – Christianity, Islam & Hinduism in a Globalizing Age
    [Anthropological Quarterly, 2005] The Christian Right & the Right to be Christian in America
    [British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1994] Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam
    [Buddhist-Christian Studies, 2001] Monotheistic Violence – Violence, Non-Violence, Peace
    [Church History, 1995] The Arab Christian – A History in the Middle East +book review+
    [Comparative Studies of S. Asia, Africa & the ME, 2004] Thoughts on Zionism in the German-Middle Eastern Context
    [Critical Sociology, 1999] Small Business, Status Politics & the Social Base of the Christian Right Activism (Val Burris)
    [Ha’aretz] Survival of the Fittest – An Interview with Benny Morris
    [Holocaust & Genocide Studies, 2003] The Theological Reaction of National Religious Zionism in Palestine to the Holocaust
    [Institute for Christian Economics, 1983] Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction #1 (Gary North)
    [Israel Studies, 1997] Rashid Khalidi–Palestinian Identity (Benny Morris)
    [Israel Studies, 2002] Contemporary American Christian Attitudes to Israel Based on the Scriptures
    [Jerusalem Report, 2004] The Tantra ‘Massacre’ Affair (Benny Morris)
    [Jewish Quarterly Review, 2004] Elvis in Jerusalem – Post-Zionism & the Americanization of Israel
    [Jewish Quarterly Review, 2005] On Jesus, Paul & the Birth of Christianity
    [Journal of Democracy, 2004] Christianity & Democracy – The Pioneering Protestants
    [Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1996] Pagan Apologetics & Christian Intolerance in the Ages of Augustine
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1978] Israel’s Zionist Left & ”The Day of the Land” (Khalil Nakhleh)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1982] Collective Punishment in Beit Sahur (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1986] What Happened in History (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1995] Falsifying the Record – A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948 (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1992] Dilemmas of Arab Christianity +book review+
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1995] Falsifying the Record – A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948 (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1996] The Israeli Press & the Qibya Operation, 1953 (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1998] Fabricating Israeli History – The ”New Historians” (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 1999] Operation Hiram Revisited – A Correction (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 2000] Israeli Intransigence (Benny Morris)
    [Journal of Palestine Studies, 2000] Israeli Militarism (Benny Morris)
    [Latin American Perspectives, 1993] Marxism & Christianity in Latin America
    [MEMRI, 2001] ‘’The Arabs Are Responsible’’ – Post-Zionist Historian Benny Morris Clarifies His Thesis
    [MERIP Reports, 1978] The Israeli Communist Party & the Radical Anti-Zionist Left
    [Modern Judaism, 2005] Christian Zionism & Its Historical Significance
    [Modern Middle East Sourcebook Project, 2004] The Evolution of Political Zionism, 1897-1917
    [New Left Review, 2001] The Tears of Zion
    [New Left Review, 2006] ZIONIST REALITIES (Debating Israel–Palestine)
    [New Political Economy, 2005] Post-Zionist Perspectives on Contemporary Israel
    [New Republic, 2001] The Failure of Israel’s ‘’New Historians’’ to Explain War & Peace (Benny Morris)
    [Political Science Quarterly, 1996] Second Coming – The Strategies of the New Christian Right
    [Public Opinion Quarterly, 1999] Religious Outlook, Culture War Politics & Antipathy Toward Christian Fundamentalists
    [Religion & American Culture, 2004] The Christianization of Israel & Jews in 1950s America
    [Review of Politics, 1961] Germany, Turkey & the Zionist Movement, 1914-1918
    [Reviews in American History, 2004] How Would Jesus Vote – The Prehistory of the Christian Right
    [Shoah Resource Center] Response of the Jewish Daily Press in Palestine to the Accession of Hitler (Benny Morris)
    [Social Forces, 1999] Voting with the Christian Right – Contextual & Individual Patterns of Electoral Influence
    [Social Identities, 2002] European Zionist Emissaries & Arab-Jews
    [Social Text, 1979] Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims (Edward Said)
    [Social Text, 1989] The Violence of the Hyphen in Judeo-Christian
    [South Atlantic Quarterly, 2003] The Left Behind Series & Christian Fundamentalism’s New World Order
    [Strategic Insights, 2005] The Effects of Zionist Discourse on the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
    [Tikkun, 2001] The Right of Return (An Interview with Benny Morris)
    [Western Political Quarterly, 1972] Study of a Successful Interest Group – The American Zionist Movement
    American Freedom & Zionist Power
    The Zionist Plan for the Middle East (Israel Shahak & Oded Yinon)

  163. Incidentally, quite a few of those seem to have nothing to do with “American Protestant Sects.” That’s not a topic Benny Morris writes on, to my knowledge, for instance.

  164. No, these are all in a folder from the last excursion into some databases.
    I’ll type certian words into JSTOR and ProjectMuse (Neoconservative, Zionism, Evangelical, Colonialism, Leftist, Socialist, Right-Wing, Judeo-Christian, Postmodern, Aesthetics, etc.) and see what comes up. What were the earliest dates some of these words start getting placed into the discourse. The context.
    No I do not have permission. I still do not know what the rule is for academic journals.

  166. “No I do not have permission. I still do not know what the rule is for academic journals.”
    I know little about the practices of academic journals, but I would point out that if you publically post copyrighted full articles by other people from whom you do not have permission, that you are committing a crime, both legally and morally.
    If the authors wish to grant you permission to make their work available on the net, they are contactable and will grant permission. If they don’t wish you to post them, obviously you should not.
    You do agree, right?
    That you don’t appear to have considered this, that you asked if anyone is interested in hosting the work of others from whom you don’t have permission, is troubling. Were you planning on obtaining permission if someone agreed to host them, or had the need not occurred to you?
    And if it hadn’t occurred to you, why not? I’m assuming you don’t usually steal from people and not even think about whether it’s wrong to do so.

  167. Gary, if it is publically available, I can see how someone who hasn’t dealt with copyright issues might not realize that it is problematic. Also, it is not altogether clear if they were hosted on my office computer, if they wouldn’t be clear because in Japan, there is a rather large cut out for ‘educational purposes’, as long as I don’t profit from them and give proper credit.

  168. although I also wouldn’t be hard on anyone who did
    Agreed. I’m coming more from “what do you mean by that” than “prove it”. Often can mean that a dozen people did/thought that, or it could mean fifty percent of Republicans. Pretty wide range, and my feeling is that the real answer is far away from either end of that range.
    Given that I’ve never met a single person that’s as Bruce described (which is not nearly the same as saying they don’t exist), I’m thinking that “often” means something more like “dismayingly often”, but I wouldn’t want to put words in Bruce’s mouth. I’m thinking that if you threw that Pat Buchanan crowd and the David Duke fringe in a bucket, you’d probably have a majority of “often” covered.
    Again, not trying to obsess about this too much, just narrow down a little bit on what slice of the population is thought to be right-wing anti-semites. Loosely speaking.

  169. Gary is the type of person who loves to pick at a misquito bite so that he may have a bloody gooey gashing wound to play with.

  170. Slarti, there is a bit of a leap here from
    Bruce’s
    One thing is that the right-wing support for Israel can and often does coexist with anti-semitism.
    to your
    just narrow down a little bit on what slice of the population is thought to be right-wing anti-semites
    the presence of anti-semitism does not demand the presence of anti-semites. It was Sartre who said that saying Jews were intelligent was just as racist as saying that they were greedy (or something close to that) Any notion that creates the notion that Jewish people are locked into one set of circumstances or ignores the possibility of there being variety is anti-semitic, but the person who holds such a view is only anti-semitic if s/he refuses to let go of that belief.

  171. Zionism’s roots in socialist Europe made many right-wing Protestants suspicious and hostile to the ideology.
    There is already a traditional anti-Semitism inherent in traditional/conservative forms of Protestantism (and Roman Catholicism, for that matter), a belief that Jews (Marx, Freud etc.) “started” anti-Christian ideologies in the West and Zionism would be the natural out growth from “these people”
    I will search to see what I can find. The Republican Party and its WASP establishment were not friendly to Jews in the United States, let alone allowing a socialist organization like the UN, backed by the Democratic Party and the Soviets to carve out a sliver of the Middle East for “those people.” They were Marxists getting special treatment.
    Jews, according to many of these types, were at the heart of Hollywood and anti-Christian forces in the United States.

  173. the presence of anti-semitism does not demand the presence of anti-semites
    Ok, now you’ve lost me completely. Are you saying that any holding of racial/cultural/ethnic stereotypes is “anti-” that race, culture, or ethnicity?
    And I disagree completely that “Jews are intelligent” is racist. I reject that, regardless of whether it was your idea or Sartre’s.
    Probably, context matters. To observe, sans context, that Jews are intelligent is a fairly bland statement. Jews are intelligent. Muslims are intelligent. Christians are intelligent. People are, in general, intelligent (while, paradoxically, being in general tragically ridiculous). In another context: “Hey, Jews can be intelligent, sometimes” is absolutely racist.
    So quoting Sartre without context isn’t the best idea. I actually can’t find this statement of his anywhere, so it’s hard to know what the context was.

  174. By “isn’t the best idea”, I mean that it confused rather than enlightened. The problem could all be over on this side of the screen, of course.

  175. Slart,
    When somebody says that “Jews are intelligent” they generally mean that they are more intelligent than the population as a whole, or more intelligent than other racial/ethnic groups. They probably aren’t making a banal statement about the general intelligence of humanity. As such, it would certainly be racist, as it attributes a quality to the members of a racial group based solely on their belonging to that group. It’s a less harmful sort of racism than others, but racism nonetheless.
    JFTR, I don’t think that such a statement would be anti-semitic, just racist.

  176. “Gary, if it is publically available, I can see how someone who hasn’t dealt with copyright issues might not realize that it is problematic.”
    There are always people with various excuses for stealing intellectual property, just as there are people who justify other forms of theft and crime.
    “Also, it is not altogether clear if they were hosted on my office computer, if they wouldn’t be clear because in Japan, there is a rather large cut out for ‘educational purposes’, as long as I don’t profit from them and give proper credit.”
    The Berne Convention is binding in Japan, and I’d point out that the works in question aren’t published in Japanese journals.
    (I’m trying to avoid getting into the odd and obscure language of “be clear” and “cut out,” since although I’ve never seen these usages before, I was able to puzzle out what you apparently meant.)
    SomeOtherDude so far hasn’t otherwise responded, which is again troubling. Perhaps his response will appear any moment.
    He did have time, however, among making other comments, to say “Gary is the type of person who loves to pick at a misquito bite so that he may have a bloody gooey gashing wound to play with,” as an entire message, which strikes me as both not a discussion of any issue, but a pure ad hominem violation of the post rules.

  177. “Gary, if it is publically available, I can see how someone who hasn’t dealt with copyright issues might not realize that it is problematic.”
    There are always people with various excuses for stealing intellectual property, just as there are people who justify other forms of theft and crime.
    “Also, it is not altogether clear if they were hosted on my office computer, if they wouldn’t be clear because in Japan, there is a rather large cut out for ‘educational purposes’, as long as I don’t profit from them and give proper credit.”
    The Berne Convention is binding in Japan, and I’d point out that the works in question aren’t published in Japanese journals.
    (I’m trying to avoid getting into the odd and obscure language of “be clear” and “cut out,” since although I’ve never seen these usages before, I was able to puzzle out what you apparently meant.)
    SomeOtherDude so far hasn’t otherwise responded, which is again troubling. Perhaps his response will appear any moment.
    He did have time, however, among making other comments, to say “Gary is the type of person who loves to pick at a misquito bite so that he may have a bloody gooey gashing wound to play with,” as an entire message, which strikes me as both not a discussion of any issue, but a pure ad hominem violation of the posting rules.

  178. When somebody says that “Jews are intelligent” they generally mean that they are more intelligent than the population as a whole, or more intelligent than other racial/ethnic groups.
    Hmmm. Well, it just goes to show you that some people read between the lines better than others. And, as I said, context matters.

  179. Gary, you do have a compulsive and charming way about picking at small things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, if I had the time, my manic-obsessive ass would be there picking those things with you. Since I just do not have the patience to get into copyright theft with you, I will not actively pursue a host, around here. I’ll tell you what, Gary. Anybody who would like to “borrow” any of my files (but please return them after you finish reading!!!) I would gladly e-Mail them to you. And the picking stops.
    Some Other Jems.
    [American Historical Review, 1965] Hans Zehrer as a Neoconservative Elite Theorist
    [American Prospect, 2004] Neoconservatives & the American Republic
    [Annual Review of Sociology, 1998] Fundamentalism et al – Conservative Protestants in America
    [China Quarterly, 1997] Order & Stability in Social Transition – Neoconservative Political Thought in Post-1989 China
    [Foreign Policy in Focus, 2002] Neoconservatives Consolidate Control over U.S. Mideast Policy
    [History Teacher, 1990] Conservative Intellectuals & the Reagan Ascendancy
    [Hudson Institute, 2005] Foreign Policy Divisions on the Right – Are We All Neoconservatives Now
    [International Politics, 2005] The Political Morality of the Neo-conservatives – An Analysis
    [Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1992] John T. Flynn – Exemplar of the Old Right
    [Journal of Modern History, 1966] The Fichte Society – A Chapter in Germany’s Conservative Revolution
    [Journal of Negro Education, 1986] Neoconservatives as Social Darwinists – Implications for Higher Education
    [Journal of the History of Ideas, 1971] Two Neo-Conservative Myths in Germany 1919-32
    [New German Critique, 1982] Reshaping the German Right – Radical Nationalism & Political Change
    [Partisan Review, 1979] The Neoconservatives
    [Political Science Quarterly, 1978-79] Societal Overload (Neoconservatives & Sociology)
    [Political Science Quarterly, 1996] Second Coming – The Strategies of the New Christian Right
    [Political Science & Politics, 1992] Coalitions, Cues, Strategic Politics & the Staying Power of the Religious Right
    [Political Studies Association, 2004] The Right & the No-Globalization Movement in Italy
    [Political Theory, 1987] Structural Foundations of Neoconservative Political Opportunities
    [Public Eye, 1999] Affirming Racial Inequality – The Right’s Attack on Affirmative Action
    [Social Forces, 1999] Voting with the Christian Right – Contextual & Individual Patterns of Electoral Influence
    [South Atlantic Quarterly, 2004] Dead Right – Hegel & the Terror
    [@ Paper, 2000] A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF JOHN GRAY’S NEOCONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON GLOBALIZATION
    [@ Paper, 2003] Conservatives & Neoconservatives
    [@ Paper, 2005] Neoconservatives & the Universality of Human Rights
    [@ Paper] The Use & Abuse of Leo Strauss in the Schmitt Revival on the German Right

  180. THIS IS GOLD!!! C’mon, don’t any of these articles and/or papers turn you on?
    [American Ethnologist, 1987] Patriarchy & Its Transformation in Sicilian Pentecostalism
    [American Ethnologist, 1987] Saintly Men, Sinner Women & an Appalachian Pentecostal Revival
    [American Ethnologist, 1990] ”Like a Veil to Cover Them” – Women & the Pentecostal Movement in La Paz
    [American Ethnologist, 1995] Crisis of Presence in Italian Pentecostal Conversion
    [American Journal of Sociology, 1956] Interviewing Negro Pentecostals
    [American Journal of Sociology, 1965] The Pentecostal Religion for Intellectualism, Politics & Race Relations
    [American Journal of Sociology, 1968] Protestant Groups & Coping with Urban Life in Guatemala City
    [American Political Science Review, 1972] A Study of Puritan Political Ideas (Michael Walzer)
    [American Music, 1985] Stance, Role & Identity in Fieldwork Among Folk Baptists & Pentecostals
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 1999] Baptism in the Spirit & Speaking in Tongues in Northern Europe
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 2000] Pentecostal Theology of Mission & the Challenges of a New Millennium
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 2002] Korean Pentecostal Spirituality – A Case Study
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 2002] Pneumatic Experience as Teaching Methodology in Pentecostal Tradition
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 2003] Pentecostal Spirituality in a Postmodern World
    [Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, 2003] Postmodernism & Asian Pentecostals
    [British Journal of Sociology, 1961] ‘Working-Class Authoritarianism’ – A Critique of Lipset
    [British Journal of Sociology, 1980] The Ethics of Covert Methods (Enquiry in a Community of ”Old Time Pentecostals”)
    [British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1994] Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam
    [Center for the Religion & Civic Culture, USC] Spirituality & Social Transformation in Mainstream American Religious Traditions
    [Church History, 1996] The Place of the Azusa Street Revival in Pentecostal History
    [Comparative Studies in Society & History, 1970] Protestantism & Politics in Chile & Brazil
    [English Literary History, 1997] Religious Affiliation & Dynastic Allegiance in Eighteenth-Century England
    [History & Theory, 1962] The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation, 1570-1640 (Michael Walzer)
    [History & Theory, 1963] Puritanism as a Revolutionary Ideology (Michael Walzer)
    [Journal of American Folklore, 1983] The Power of Women’s Speech in the Pentecostal Religious Service
    [Journal of American Folklore, 2002] Maya Pentecostals & Folk Catholics
    [Journal of Interamerican Studies & World Affairs, 1975] Pentecostal Women in Colombia
    [Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 2002] Charismata – Gifts, Enablement’s or Ministries
    [Journal of Policy History, 2005] Aimee Semple McPherson & the Origins of Pentecostal Political Activism
    [Journal of Southern African Studies, 1997] Pentecostal & Catholic Interactions in Zimbabwe in the 1950s & Early 1960s
    [Journal of Woman’s History, 2004] God, Authority & the Home – Gender, Race & U.S. Pentecostals, 1906-1926
    [Journal for Cultural & Religious Theory, 2003] Speaking the Language of the Christian Cosmopolis
    [Journal for Cultural & Religious Theory, 2003] The Philosophy of Truth in Christianity.
    [Journal for Cultural & Religious Theory, 2004] Derrida (1930-2004)
    [Journal for Cultural & Religious Theory, 2005] In the Wake of Edward Said
    [Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1967] Validation of Authority in Pentecostal Sects of Chile & Brazil
    [Latin American Research Review, 2003] Metamorphosis of Latin American Protestant Groups
    [Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1998] The Stylite’s Liturgy Ritual & Religious Identity in Late Antiquity
    [Journal of Interamerican Studies & World Affairs, 1999] Religious & Social Participation in War-Torn Areas of El Salvador
    [Journal of Politics, 1993] Political Consequences of Religious Group Attitudes
    [Journal of Southern African Studies, 2000] Religious Competition & State Mediation in Contemporary Mozambique
    [Latin American Research Review, 1999] Pentecostalism & Black Identity in Brazil
    [Latin American Research Review, 2003] Feminism, Women’s Movements & Pentecostalism in Latin America
    [Man- New Series, Vol.23-No.1, 1988] On Protestants & Pastoralists
    [Pedagogy, 2001] Hidden Intellectualism & Growing Up Pentecostal
    [Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 1967] Kant, Kierkegaard, & Religious Knowledge
    [Phylon, 1974] Black Pentecostalism in the United States
    [Phylon, 1981] Black Spiritual Churches – A Neglected Socio-Religious Institution
    [Public Opinion Quarterly, 1999] Religious Outlook, Culture War Politics & Antipathy Toward Christian Fundamentalists
    [Radical History Review, 2004] Early Pentecostalism, Radicalism & Race in Southeast Missouri, 1910-1930
    [Religion & American Culture, 1992] Holiness & Pentecostal Responses to Darwinism
    [Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2004] Filled with the Spirit – Rhetorical Invention & the Pentecostal Tradition
    [Social Forces, 2001] Restructuring of American Religion – Religious Affiliation & Patterns of Religious Mobility
    [Social Forces, 2003] Political Implications of Pentecostalized Religion in Costa Rica & Guatemala
    [Speculum, 1996] Religious Polemic & the Intellectual History of the Mozarabs, c. 1050-1200
    [@ Paper] Tillich & Religious Existentialism
    [@ Paper] Pentecostalism & Gangs in El Salvador & the United States
    [@ Paper] THE GLOBALIZATION OF PENTECOSTALISM – A Review Article
    [@ Paper, 1998] Faith Outside the Evangelical Pentecostal-Charasmatic Church of New Zealand
    The Expansion of Protestantism in Mexico – An Anthropological View
    Pipa – Puritan Apologetical Method – Premise – Vol III, No 3, 1996
    Fields.of.Faith.Theology.and.Religious.Studies.for.the.Twen
    Sacred.Gaze.Religious.Visual.Culture.in.Theory.and.Practice

  182. Gary,
    Berne provides a minimal set of guidelines. Japan has some educational protections that make it not as clear cut a case as you seem to believe it is. IANAL, but this question has come up here in Japan, and the current consensus is that being hosted under the auspices of an educational institution is a different case. I don’t agree, so I’m not offering to host SOD’s PDFs, but I am trying to point out that you have a rather American centric view of this. (I say American because even in the UK tradition, there are much more robust view of educational use, termed fair dealing.) Here is an English version of a summary of Japanese law.

  183. Sorry, before I get accused of obscure usage, I had a long discussion of ‘fair dealing’, which I deleted, and I just wanted to note that educational use is more strongly accepted as a defense in terms of ‘fair dealing’) Like SOD, I’m not going to try and solve the problem of defining copyright theft today, my point is that of Dr. Ngo’s in the transfer thread.

  184. If anybody is still reading:
    A noticeable change, among right-wing Protestants, happened when Bush 1 was running for a second term. I believe Bush 1 (and Scowcroft, Baker and the type) represented the traditional WASP attitude toward Israel and the Arab sheiks.
    When Bush 1 “got tough” with Israel it pissed off a community (the Born-Again/End-Timers), he was not fully aware of their power. Bush the 1, back in the day, was an elder or deacon in the Episcopalian church and his wife was/is [?] a Presbyterian. I suspect they were familiar with the beliefs of the Born-Agains/End-Timers. What they didn’t realize was their influence and size in the Republican Party.
    This is where Bush the 2 came in. He knew their growing numbers and, I suspect he knew some triangulation was going to have to happen among the Arab sheiks and the WASPs who loved them, the Israelis and the Born-Agains/End-Timers who loved them and the Muslims and the racist who wanted to kill a bunch of them.
    Shifting alliances and new narratives had to get into the political bloodstream.

  185. Let me change this passage:
    This is where Bush the 2 came in. He knew their growing numbers and, I suspect he knew some triangulation was going to have to happen among the Arab sheiks and the WASPs who loved them, the Israelis and the Born-Agains/End-Timers who love 144,000 of them and the Muslims and the racist who wanted to kill a bunch of them.

  186. As such, it would certainly be racist, as it attributes a quality to the members of a racial group based solely on their belonging to that group.
    For that to be the case you’d have to presuppose that intelligence in the above sense is purely genetic, and I think that’s a dubious presupposition.

  187. For that to be the case you’d have to presuppose that intelligence in the above sense is purely genetic
    Don’t think so, jpe. It may not be intelligence. It may be work ethic, study habits, ability to acquire a language, a thousand things that have nothing to do with intelligence. And the fact is that no one ever says something like ‘wow, you are white, no wonder you are a great swimmer/accountant/lawyer’ or something like that. Achievements by the majority are considered to be the result of hard work and effort, the achievements of the minority are easily devalued when those achievements come about because of some lucky alignment of genetic traits.

  188. When I would compete in high school debating teams, students in the Orange County schools were always astounded by “how articulate and clever” I was. Many of the “darker” students would always find this to be the most popular “comment”.
    I have to admit…I was always astounded by “how all too human” the students of Orange County were.

  190. In an attempt to provide more context, I took SOD’s comment as pointing out that simple compliments can, in certain contexts, function as racist comments. It admittedly is different from my observation, but related. The fact is that this is a problem that relates to distribution, so this occurs whenever you have a case of marked and unmarked sets. You say that the statement ‘Jews are intelligent’, without context, is a simple observation. However, no comment ever stands without context, and the context in this case is that Jews are a minority, so they are intelligent because of some secret genetic factor X rather than something they have done. That someone can express this signals an unexamined anti-semitism, which doesn’t mean the person is an ‘anti-semite’, especially in a meaningful sense to establish a percentage in order to prove the validity of Bruce’s observation.
    Of course, I’m one of those people who thinks it is all related, so you may have a hard time proving the existence of a true non-sequitur…

  191. Anglos are inherently clever, look at how much power they wield.
    Anglos are inherently greedy, look at how much money they wield.
    Anglos are inherently clever with violence; look at how much power they wield.
    Anglos are inherently smart, look at how much culture they can impose.
    Anglos are inherently smart, look at how they wiped out cultures that questioned their dominion.
    Anglos are inherently clever, look at how they stole rock ‘n roll.
    Anglos are inherently passionate, look at what they did to the Jews and Africans.
    Anglos are inherently wise, look at Western philosophy.

Comments are closed.