CMU Osher: Teaching hate unopposed

It has been almost 30 years since I immigrated in the US as a refugee from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no more, but I am experiencing a déjà vu of my Soviet past. One of the standard responses of the Soviet authorities to any request of the citizens, including that for allowing emigration, was that it was "inadvisable." That meant simply "no" in the Soviet bureaucratese—with no further discussion possible. Attempts to appeal were hopeless. It was particularly so when the decisions had anything to do with Israel or Jews. A standard way to prevent a Jew from enrollment in a college, in order to maintain its Jewish quota, was to grade poorly the composition entry exam, with the comment that the topic was not sufficiently explicated. One could not appeal such a decision—there was no way to prove the opposite. You can imagine my feelings when I received, after my repeated inquiries and long wait, the same kind of response from the leadership of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.

To wit, that response was about the non-renewal of the 5-lecture volunteer course that Stuart Pavilack, the executive director of the Zionist Organization of America-Pittsburgh, and I had presented, entitled "Israel's War and Peace: Past, Present, Future." As we described it in the Osher catalog, the objective was to discuss the causes and consequences of hostilities that have accompanied Israel’s existence. Opposing hateful ideology is always important, especially these days, when threats to the Jewish state and individual Jews are at a peak not seen since before WW2. I stated this goal in the interview about the course  for the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle (1/4/2019, p. 2). Osher Institutes offer their fee-paying members, largely retirees (aged reportedly over 70 on average in Osher at CMU), numerous courses (140 at CMU) given pro bono "by members, volunteers, faculty from CMU and other regional colleges and universities, and representatives from community organizations, all eager to share their expertise and engage in dialogue with their peers."

Plenty of the course material had been collected, and I had presented parts of it in Men’s Club of the Tree of Life congregation in years past (by invitation—I was not a member). Nevertheless, it took quite a long time to write it up and create slides for 7.5 hours of talking, updating them until the last moment. The talks were interspersed with lively discussions, largely initiated by the listeners with a certain, let’s call it “anti-Zionist,” ideological bent. That bent was also obvious in the negative opinions about the course.

It is those opinions, from a small minority among the listeners, that were used as the purported reason to dismiss the course from the curriculum. All the detailed arguments in my attempts of email communication with the chair of the curriculum committee and the president of the Osher board have been quite rudely dismissed as well, without as much as a word about their substance, and eventually left with no reply. While stating that the decision to not renew the course was based on attendees’ evaluations, no criteria have been given in response to my requests. Any possibility of appeal has been denied in the manner one does not expect from an academic institution, albeit neither the curriculum committee chair nor the Osher board president is an academic.

Meanwhile, I was not surprised to find in the Summer 2019 CMU Osher curriculum a rerun of another course, by one Tina Whitehead. Its description states that it is presented "from the perspective of the Palestinian people." That could suffice to characterize the course’s content: according to the latest poll, that perspective is 93% antisemitic. I do know, however, that hers is also the perspective of the organization she represents, Sabeel. That is a “liberation theology” group, with the center in Jerusalem. It is antisemitic as well, under the currently common guise of being peacefully anti-Israel/anti-Zionist. A telling quote, from an Easter message of Sabeel's founder and leader, Rev. Ateek:

Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily.

This is a resurrection indeed—of the familiar image of the satanic deicidal Jew now murdering children, the foundation of Jewish persecution now cloaked in plausible deniability: well, it’s about Israel not Jews. Ateek’s book, “A Palestinian Theology of Liberation: The Bible, Justice, and the Palestine,” contains traditional antisemitic calumnies, such as Jews’ not considering non-Jews human. In his view, “the creation of the state of Israel has been a settler colonial enterprise by Zionism that sought to dispossess the Palestinians—Muslims and Christians—of their land and replace them with Jews.” The Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh cut its partnering with Pittsburgh Theological Seminary after the seminary hosted Ateek.

Sabeel sees Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, which was renamed "Palestine" to erase its Jewish connection and meaning, as evil and affront to Christian theology. Sabeel’s goal is for the millions of descendants of the Arabs who fled from Israel in 1948-9, as well the Arab population of the territories that were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt until the Six-Day War, to flood Israel and eradicate it as the Jewish state. It does not matter to Sabeel, a Christian group, that Israel is the only Middle East country where Christians flourish instead of disappearing. While paying obligatory lip service to non-violence, Sabeel's doublethink website quotes the call for violence by a terrorist poet and threatens violence to the "Israeli people" (obviously, Jews, although 20% of Israelis are Arab) who dare visit Jerusalem. Demanding self-determination for Arabs, who have been self-determined in 21 states, all intolerant Muslim monarchies and dictatorships, it denies the right to self-determination for the Jewish people in a single democratic state with equal rights for all.

Sabeel approves Hamas terror as “the message of the rockets [that] addresses the core issues and the root causes of the problem.” Indeed it does, as those issues and causes are one: implacable Jew-hate. Unsurprisingly, Sabeel calls for support for an American antisemite, a Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar, as it did for the communist antisemite Angela Davis and the academic antisemite Marc Lamont Hill. It also supports the "Great March of Return," Hamas’s ploy to use human shields to penetrate from Gaza into Israel and proceed with mass murder of Israelis in their homes.

The course we presented was the only one in CMU Osher's annual curriculum that, based on the rich factual material, could counter the antisemitic/anti-Israel propaganda by the Sabeel emissary and inform the audience of the complex history, current status, and potential outcomes in one of the most important points of contention in the world. The brief "explanation" of its cancellation, from the curriculum committee chair Circe Curley, contained falsehoods, such as that my "extensive discussion of anti-Semitism in one of [my] classes differed from the original course outline and the published course description." It certainly did not. Moreover, the very idea that a discussion of antisemitism in a course about Israel could be somehow outside of its scope is preposterous and illustrates the mindset of the committee. Most importantly, the committee ignored the clear ideological bias of the negative evaluation statements, despite my repeated pointing that out and the committee chair’s recognition that they "normally do not experience that [negativism] in course evaluations."

Given CMU Osher’s continued support for anti-Israel antisemitic lecturing, the cancellation of my course—after its first presentation and based on no objective or, indeed, known criteria—should have been expected. It also cannot be viewed as other than support for the views that historically have led to pogroms and terror around the world. It is those views, propagated by the likes of Sabeel ideologues, that have led to the resurgence of lethal antisemitism lately. In effect, CMU Osher has become an antisemitic propaganda platform, a tool of hate.

In this light, it is hardly a mere coincidence that the CMU Osher board president, James Reitz, is an active member of the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, which is partnered with Sabeel and supports the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The ideological predecessors of Sabeel, including the Soviet KGB that contributed so much to "the perspective of the Palestinian people," would be happy to know that their views are now mainstreamed unopposed from American university podiums.

________

The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle's take on the story is published at  https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/cmu-osher-course-on-israel-canceled-palestinian-perspective-course-renewed/ (in the print edition: May 17, 2019, vol. 62, No. 20, p. 4 )

"Grandfather was...", Or Obama's faith

Why is so little attention paid to the choice of vice-president? Unless, that is, this is somebody of whom the left entertainment business can make a bogey like it was made of Palin. Why is there only one debate between the VP candidates, when even on the memory of the present generation the VP has become a POTUS twice? Moreover, aren't they supposed to be a team, in consultation with each other? I would suggest then that the debates should be conducted between the candidate POTUS-VP teams, with the same question answered by both in the couple, first by the prospective POTUSes and then by VPs, with the latter then being able to show their ability to contribute and, if needed, to replace the president. To be sure, the inability would also manifest. Perhaps at some point the debate rules will be so changed. No rules, however, need to be changed in order to discuss the president's convictions. Here we go, with no segue.

I don't care what religion anybody professes, if any, as long as that anybody leaves mine alone. One would think that this criterion should leave me indifferent to the issue of Obama's faith and religiosity. Shouldn't Obama's religion, anyway, concern only those firmly assigned to the category of wingnuts, in the company of "birthers", those certified paranoids who keep pointing out that Obama was listed as "born in Kenya" until after the start of his first presidential campaign? Shouldn't Madonna only  be allowed to call him a "black Muslim in the White House" without raising an outcry? Obama himself has emphatically called himself a Christian, attended a church for 20 years, and held a Reverend from that church as a member of his family until he was told he should not anymore (can happen to anybody). That's what he is then, right?

It seems, however, that the hypothesis of Obama's Islam is viewed as offensive by the Democrats and the media not only because of all  the above, but also because it has been considered to be detrimental to his candidacy - despite his handlers' supposed view of Islam as a religion at least equal to Christianity. Sometimes the stridency of insistence on Obama's Christianity is reminiscent of Clinton's "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman". Even mentioning his second name is considered an affront, as if it were something shameful and "Barack" were not a Muslim name as well. I have been reprimanded by an Obama faithful for using his three initials, as if that was any different from FDR, JFK or LBJ. A progressive colleague of mine prefers "BO" instead, which is, I think, a real insult. Is it Islamophobia among Democrats, including Obama himself? I can't see any other possible reason for these consistent attempts to dissociate Obama from Islam. Be it as it may, apparently, nobody has been ready to celebrate the first Muslim-born President (in Islam, one is a Muslim if born to a Muslim father) - at least, as much as the first "black" president was celebrated (even though Morgan Freeman says Obama is not "black" - and Freeman should know). 

Do I then smell hypocrisy in Obama's declaration that "part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States [is] to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" - a promise he has made to no other religion? Not to Christianity in Islamic countries, where conversion to it is punished by death, and Christians are persecuted into extinction, as they are in Egypt and in the "Palestinian" territories. Not to Judaism in both the realm of institutionally antisemitic Islam and in some Christian countries where the Jews are still routinely maligned as hell's spawn. Can you imagine Obama traveling to Jerusalem and telling Israelis that it is his responsibility to fight against antisemitism everywhere? It is hard to imagine him traveling to Jerusalem at all,  the city he called the undivided capital of Israel in front of a Jewish audience - just before he took his words back when no longer facing it. Now nobody in his entire administration can find Israel's capital on the map.  

It is this smell of hypocrisy that drives me wingnuts about Obama's beliefs - that and some concrete facts. For instance, if one is to believe Obama's memoirs, a barber once asked him, upon learning his name, “Barack, huh. You a Muslim?”. To which Barack Hussein gave a rather evasive response, "Grandfather was". The question was not about his grandfather, and he did not say "yes" or "no". Or did he? Hardly any curious barber would be satisfied by this response. 

Then the reader of "The Dreams..." learns that the "Muslim faith" was in Obama's mind "linked with the Nation of Islam". Nowhere in the book that has any negative connotation, while "the much-admired success of the Nation of Islam in turning around the lives of drug addicts and criminals" is noted more than once. He "would occasionally pick up the paper from these unfailingly polite men, in part out of sympathy to their heavy suits in the summer, their thin coats in winter; or sometimes because my attention was caught by the sensational, tabloid-style headlines (CAUCASIAN WOMAN ADMITS: WHITES ARE THE DEVIL)" - but that "sensational, tabloid-style" is the extent of his criticism of the fascist movement. I can't imagine how such a headline could catch anyone's attention, unless it evoked interest rather than disgust. It is then not surprising he got no criticism - until forced to have it - for the man "who helped introduce [him] to [his] Christian faith", another fascist. The latter quote suggests that before Wright's "introduction" he had no such faith. Whether that was the case, and whether he was a Muslim or tabula rasa in that regard, I can't know for sure, but I do surmise that Christianity was more promising in his political  "mind" of an aspiring "community organizer" than Islam, his obvious alternative choice.

What kind of Christianity - is a different matter. As it happens, the religion of Rev. Wright, Obama's spiritual father who baptized Obama's children and connected him to the black community, was such as to give Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan  - because, in Wright's view, the antisemitic leader of the Nation of Islam "truly epitomized greatness." The award was a year before Obama's election and his abandonment of the Trinity Church under the campaign's pressure. That award must have been part of what Obama called "the much-admired success" of the Muslim faith. Indeed, in many ways, the odious "Christianity" of Wright and the "Islam" of Farrakhan, the fellow antisemites and racists, are alike. It would be an insult to everybody's intelligence to insist that Obama was unaware of that similarity and the mutual sympathies between Wright and Farrakhan, just as it is unlikely he had not heard anything truly revolting throughout the 20 years of his attendance of Wright's sermons.

One would think, however, that by the election time Obama had found out that the Nation of Islam's Islam was a bit different from historic Islam, however diverse that historic one still is. Perhaps that "link" was weakened, but not Obama's with Islam. When the time came for his foreign affairs, he declared "A New Beginning" for the relations between the US and... not another country, as one would think appropriate in those affairs, but with Islam, supposedly a religion. Now, that makes Islam a polity, doesn't it? His first TV interview was with Al-Arabiya, and in it he addressed "the Muslim world" - an entity that exists only in the minds of those who think that Islam unites countries and separates them from the other countries, a split into the world of Islam and the world of "disbelief", a familiar structure of Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb, the realm of Islam and the realm of war. Whereas in fact there is no "world of Islam" among the eternally conflicting "Islamic" countries and groups and tribes within them, Obama's declaration of America's reconciliation with the "Islamic world" creates that world in full accordance with Muslim mythology.

Then, of course, came the much-discussed Cairo speech, in the Al-Azhar University, "a beacon of Islamic learning" as the president, ostensibly knowledgeable of that learning, referred to the place. That's the same place whose Grand Imam, Tantawi, legitimized suicidal terror and wrote a 700-page book on antisemitic Islamic exegesis. His death in 2010 was lamented by Obama, as spoken of in his spokesman Gibbs's statement. It is this murderous source of "Islamic learning" who "graciously hosted President Obama last June in Cairo". Sure, Obama did admonish somebody anonymous in that Cairo speech that "Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews [which is done any time when the Jews are mentioned in a mosque] -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve." Bad memories, you see - as if the "peace process" has not resulted in hundreds of terror murders and is not by itself a war negating peace. 

Then Obama negated that admonishment anyway by equating terror and wars that Israel has been subjected to since before its reestablishment in 1948 with "the pain of dislocation of the Palestinian people" they "have endured" for "more than 60 years", that is, since 1948. No word about how those dislocated came to be dislocated, and what "occupation" he means that he speaks of in the very next sentence. There was no occupation "more than 60 years ago" - unless Obama agrees with the "Palestinian" narrative of "Naqba", whereby it is the very existence of Israel that is the occupation. To Obama, Israelis and Arabs are just "two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive," even though it is only for the "Palestinian people" that the situation is "intolerable" in his view. To Obama, the war waged by Arabs and Islam against Israel is nothing more than finger-pointing - "for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond." In his opinion, to see this conflict from the Israeli side is as wrong as seeing it from the Arab side and means to "be blind to the truth". What is Obama's truth? Simple: forget who the aggressor is and meet the "aspirations of both sides... through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security". Never mind that even in the poisonous internationally doctored prescription for that, "land for peace", Israel's part is "land". Peace is denied by the Arabs, regardless of how much land Israel is willing to give up.

While paying lip service to the need for the "Palestinian Authority" to "develop its capacity to govern" (Abbas's capacity to govern should have expired in January 2009), he demands that "Israelis must acknowledge [Palestine's right to exist] just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's" - as if that "right" of "Palestine" has not been asserted by Israel since Rabin. If Obama thinks that acknowledgment is still lacking, just as the Arabs do, nothing can convince him it's not. It is all the same to him that "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away" and that "many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state" (obviously, not privately). Aside from the question about how he could penetrate the private thoughts of "many Muslims" - how exactly can one compare the alleged private thoughts and the official position of the Israeli governments? Another question is why those thoughts are still "private" - despite all the Osloism and "peace process". The response is, of course, that those who might have such thoughts run the risk of being murdered by the "many Muslims" if they make those thoughts public. To Obama, it is "continued Israeli settlements... construction" that  "violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace" - not the continued Arab terror, incitement, the official glorification of "martyrs", and the fact that the articles calling for the annihilation of Israel have never been removed from the "Palestinian" ruling Charter, despite the "peace process". Sure, Obama said that "Palestinians must abandon violence", but in the very next sentence he calls it "resistance", exactly what terror is called by Fatah, Hamas, Hizballah and all other terrorists and terrorism supporters. He is concerned that this "resistance" will not succeed "through violence and killing"  - not about that "Palestinians" have no right to that "resistance", moral or otherwise. This is exactly what is expected from the pupil of the antisemites and Israel-haters Rev. Wright, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said.

Just as he whitewashes terror by calling it "resistance", he whitewashes Islam by using the standard lie that "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind.  (Applause.)  And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.  (Applause.)" As other disingenuous apologists of Islam, he does not give the complete quote of this Koran 5:32 verse, 

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." 

There is a teaching, but it is Jewish, indeed found in the Talmud. It is referred to as a Jewish belief in the Koran, which is "holy" only to the Muslims. Nowhere is it seen that Islam accepts this belief despite all the applause of the Al-Azhar audience. What sounds much more genuine is another statement of Obama's that caused applause, the one expressing his pride that "the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it". One wonders why the US government does not yet punish those who interfere with the "right of women and girls" to wear burqa - in fact, it wages a war against people who "protect" that right, in Afghanistan, wasting, as it were, the lives of young Americans.

In the end, it does not matter whether Obama's choice is antisemitic Islam or Wright's racist version of Christianity, the "black liberation theology". Both are terrible. What matters is Obama's position on the concrete issues that is defined by his ideology. This position, in which the perfectly legal building construction is equal to murder, Israel is called to return to the pre-1967 "borders" with no tangible obligation on the part of Arabs, and Jerusalem is no longer Israel's capital. This is the position where America's enemies are to be mollified and promised "more flexibility", while America's friends are to be let into the White House clandestinely, if at all, and maligned behind their backs.  It is of no interest what Obama's grandfather's faith was. His grandson's is no good, whatever its name.

Who wins?

Why waste money and effort? Too bad they'll never listen to me - or the Romney and Obama election campaigns would have stopped that waste and donated that enormous money to charities and to the IRS, respectively. As per the sympathies, that is: "conservatives" are known to be more conscientious than "liberals", giving more to charities despite being poorer. Which is not surprising, because the difference is ideological, not material. In the Soviet Union, always my point of reference, giving alms, personal charity, was considered a sign of contemptible weakness to the beggar's reprobate behavior. The state was supposed to be thought of as taking care of everybody - against all facts to the contrary, particularly concerning the elderly and the disabled. Their pensions, if any, were often at the starvation level, and even that meager money was frequently stolen from them by their alcoholic relatives. Under the capitalist system, the progressive viewpoint is the same: the state is supposed to take care of our needs. Of course, we need to pay ever more taxes - as much as the state says it needs for taking care of us. The state's perceived generosity is very attractive to both the progressives, because it relieves them of the pesky responsibility of a civilized person to make the uncomfortable donation decisions, - and to the prospective recipients, because they get that as a legitimate entitlement and have nobody to thank for that (but the state, sometimes also known as Dear Leader).

While being demonstrably more charitable, the conservatives are presented as vicious predators, ready to push the granny off the cliff. The progressives (aka "liberals"), like Al Gore who donated one seventh of the average for donating households, are to be thought of as striving to take off their last shirt, or perhaps the $6,800 designer jacket, helping "the poor". Regardless of what one may voluntarily donate, it is never a "fair share", as the Leader... uhm, the President, defines it. Because it is the state that determines what that share is, it can only be paid through taxes.

I digress, but not much. The administration has succeeded in ensuring that half of the population uses and is used to governmental handouts, which are firmly associated with the Democrats. Add to these the progressive intelligentsia and money-hating "millionaires and billionaires" like Soros and Buffett, and the electoral majority is clearly in Obama's hands - no need in campaigning. In fact, no need in elections: the People has spoken already - just look at the polls. Never mind that over two thirds of the population are thinking that the country is going in a wrong direction - they still prefer the one who is taking it there. Something else matters, not the facts of life. It does not matter to the black voters that a leader of the Party, Sen. Harry Reid, likes Obama because he is “light-skinned” and capable of speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”. After all, Reid is no different in that from another idol of the progressives, "Che" the La Cabaña Butcher Guevara, with his insightful observations: “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations”; and “The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing…” (The Motorcycle Diaries). 

The revolutionary icon, by the way, was also an antisemite, as comes from another quote from the same book, about "a certain Cohen, who we were told was Jewish but a good sort; there was no doubt he was Jewish, the problem was finding out if he was a good sort.” Then again, so are the plurality if not majority of Democrats, who not only list all the congressional antisemites, but are hardly half sympathetic to Israel vs. "Palestinians" (53% in 2012, but 48% in 2010) - in striking contrast to the overwhelming support of Israel among the Republicans. A progressive colleague, with his usual irrelevant cussing attributions, pointed out that this support is due to the eschatological motivations of "the lunatic fringe fundamentalists". I replied that if a Jew pays attention to these alleged hopes for the ultimate conversion of the Jews, he must believe in that as well as in all the surrounding events happening - the second coming, and the first one for that matter. Otherwise, why would he worry about that motivation that has no effect on the present, except positive? Suppose the "fringe" believe we the Jews will eventually convert, but meanwhile they help us against our sworn enemies – why would you be concerned about their dreams? Considering that they sincerely believe, it would be very inconsistent of them  –  and a reason of concern to us the Jews  –  not to worry about our redemption: it is a sine qua non for a believing Christian to hope for universal redemption. Democrats, on the other hand, believe in something else – their ideology of robbing the haves and spreading, however eventually thinly, among the designated have-nots – at their wise discretion. The ways-and-means are well described in Animal Farm. 

To get a taste of the components of that ideology pertaining to the Jews, check out Jimmy Carter’s slanderous masterpiece, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, along with another contemporary version of the Protocols –  the Walt and Mearsheimer treatise. This is who the Jewish majority in this country vote with – Carter, Sharpton, Farrahan, and their fellow Judeophobes. The latter, of course, include Obama himself, the first US president who has supported the return of Israel to the pre-1967 lines, better known as "Auschwitz borders". It is often said, and repeated by that colleague of mine, that Obama's minions' inability to name the Israeli capital is the US policy since Reagan. Well, I don't worship Reagan, like the progressives worship Obama. When I make my pick, I don’t need to make good out of bad, as they do with Obama who they think is infallible, if not immaculately conceived.  I've been well inoculated against idol-worship, much as I respect Reagan for his unique role in the destruction of communism. I see clearly the good and the bad, the latter including Reagan’s treatment of the Jerusalem issue, advised by James "f... the Jews" Baker. The fact that Obama follows in those steps, instead of the steps of the Democratic competitors of Reagan, Hart and Mondale, who both promised to move the embassy, and of Moynihan who introduced the US Embassy Jerusalem relocation bill, only confirms Obama's antisemitism and my colleague's inconsistency. Reagan, however, instructed to veto any possible UN resolutions that, prompted by Arabs, would characterize east Jerusalem as “occupied territory”. The Reagan Plan called for "Palestinian" autonomy, but not an independent "Palestinian" state, and Jerusalem as an undivided city – obviously no "Palestinian" capital. Obama did the Jerusalem piece too – only to renege the next day. Obama's sympathies, inspired by his uncommon upbringing, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, and Rev. Wright, are clear.

His motivations, which are not, unfortunately, of the fringe of the Democrats anymore but of their mainstream, - are clear too. He has been quite open on that, starting from the beginning of his career of an "organizer": 

That’s why people become involved in organizing—because they think they’ll get something out of it... With enough actions, I could start to build power. Issues, action, power, self-interest. I liked these concepts. They bespoke a certain hardheadedness, a worldly lack of sentiment; politics, not religion.

He took to heart the advice of his organizer mentor: "the last thing we need is to join up with a bunch of white money and Catholic churches and Jewish organizers to solve our problems. They’re not interested in us." Obama made them all "interested". He did need a friendly advice, though: "When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change." He has continued pronouncing that, and that has taken him straight to the White House. 

Power, which he has built so successfully, is the ultimate goal of the progressives - not “the problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland", that "become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought”. The progressives always care about humanity - not about humans. About The People - not about people. But people are just that - people, suckers for populist slogans, freebies and discounts, flattery and the "cool", their memory short - in this case often literally, as the Obama-faithful majority of the youth have none. That's why the response to the question above is so easy.

The pretty sounds of Islam

Defending Islam is a job that is dark but far from lonely. While the whole world observes if not feels the effects of Islam daily - in the continuous warfare Islam wages against it, - apologists of Islam are legion. Moreover, the intended audience for Islamic propaganda is generally quite willing to accept it, happily providing it with high pulpits of the leading newspapers and magazines, and amplifying that propaganda with its own progressive and "tolerant" scholarly commentary. This is understandable - after all, if the world refused to deal with terror-producing Muslim countries, it would have to also refuse another product of theirs, without which it simply cannot survive. Oil, you know. Then there is so-called religious tolerance , which is a definitive sign of civilization and progress. Because Islam is known as a religion, it is immune from the just criticism and accusations that could target its very existence. Thus Muslim propaganda dutifully continues to be fed to the "well-informed" Western audience, which then builds its political sympathies on this information platform. Meanwhile, politicians that are drawn from the same progressive and educated audience know that it's best for them to be in tune with their constituency, and increasingly are on the side of Islam. We now have a US president who, having received Muslim education during his formative childhood years, refers to the call to Muslim prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset”. Perhaps it is worth remembering that this sound contains the same words as heard by Danny Pearl and others who shared his fate, before they were beheaded by other lovers of that sound, - "Allahu Akbar!" and the statement of acceptance of Muhammad as the Apostle of Allah. Barack Obama recites those words perfectly and knows their meaning well. It does not matter to what political orientation the willing or inadvertent propagandists of Islam belong - whether it's George "the Religion of Peace" W. Bush or the naive leftist Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times - as long as the job is done, by omission or commission. 

The printed word from the sources accepted as serious and progressive, such as The New York Times, is perceived by the "educated" public like Pravda was by faithful Communists in the Soviet Union - unquestioningly, immediately becoming part of the foundational axiom. Our omniscient intelligentsia like to think of themselves as independent but follow the media's call like Pied Piper's - pick yourself the appropriate group of his listeners. Both their ignorance about Islam and disinformation are used by the Muslim propagandists. In this disinformation, the apologists of Islam employ deceptive cliches that, thanks to the progressive media, never get tired. Recently I wrote about one that was used by the Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison. To counter Bill Maher's characterization of the Koran as a "hate-filled book" (forward the video to 2:26), Ellison quoted a wonderful passage from that book, "anyone who takes the life, it's as if he killed the whole world" (Koran 5:32). What he failed to say, of course, was that the Koran gives that passage only as a quote from what the Jews were "decreed", nowhere indicating that this decree pertains to the Muslims. The Koran mentions this decree only to accuse the Jews of violating it, among their other transgressions ("And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors"), to justify the Koranic hate toward the Jews, unambiguous and lethal. It is remarkable that hardly any other Koranic quote is usually given to illustrate Islam's pacifism - so hard is it to find expressions of tolerance in the "religion of peace". One possible and oft-repeated exception is "There is no compulsion in religion", which is quoted without mentioning, of course, that it was abrogated by verses like "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war" (Koran 9:5). The journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, kidnapped and forced to convert under pain of death, can testify to the veracity of "no compulsion".

No wonder that the same Jewish decree, lifted by Muhammad from somebody familiar with the Talmud, was cited by the 9/11 mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in his recent article, in which he tries to bring the reader to understanding that Islam is just another Abrahamic religion. That decree, having nothing to do with Islam and negated by the whole history of Muslim conquest, is the only support he could muster to his "fact ... that true adherence to Islam at its essence is as peaceful as true adherence to Christianity". These propagandist lies were published by another beacon of the Western capitalist freedom - The Wall Street Journal, which could not stay behind the progress. Now that we know what "true" adherence to Islam is, we only need to enlighten the miriad of Muslim clerics of the highest authority who swear by violent jihad as the primary virtue of a Muslim. Rauf has as much right to call Islam "Abrahamic" as a thief who stole an heirloom to claim his membership in the family he robbed. Muhammad used the Biblical names he learned from Jews and Christians who had lived in Arabia before he mass-murdered and expelled them. Pathetically plagiarizing the Scriptures while accusing the Jews and Christians in intentionally perverting Allah's word (Koran 5:13-15, 41), he distorted the meaning of and relations between those names, conflating Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the wife of Moses, and Haman with pharaoh. In contrast to the Pentateuch, the Koran never names Abraham's son in the sacrifice story, which results in the Muslims' belief that it was Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs, not Isaac, the ancestor of the Jews. Islam's founder and "perfect man" whose example is to be followed, Muhammad could do no wrong - whether he "married" a 6 year-old girl (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64), murdered his critics, ordered genocide of the Jews, or reneged on treaties at a concocted pretext. 

As for Islam being a religion, it is telling how imam Rauf describes himself in the article's footnote as "the founder of Cordoba Initiative, an independent, multifaith and multinational project that works to improve Muslim-West relations." Usually, in expressions like that "Muslim-West", a certain symmetry is implied: "Jewish-Christian", "capitalist-communist", "East-West". The "West", to be sure, is not a religion - but so is "Muslim", a totalitarian political ideology counter to the "West" democracy, with the goal of making Muslim both the West and the East, conquering Rome of the West as it did Rome of the East, Constantinople, reconquering Cordoba and Andalus, killing and subjugating the disbelievers - truly a "multinational" project. "True adherence to Islam", Rauf says, "would end terrorist attacks" - and he is right. Of course it would, as that true adherence, from the Muslim standpoint, is when the entire world adheres, and terrorism is needed no longer. When everybody hears the call to Muslim prayer as pretty, and the sounds of other faiths are heard no more, as they are in Saudi Arabia, the land of Allah's Apostle. 

Monument to murderers

by Galina Kirillova

It is said that great times call for great people. Apparently, such times have long since passed for America. During the relatively long period of American prosperity, the government has become replete with individuals who are inordinately cynical, corrupt and simply daft. Driven by personal interests, they manipulate social consciousness, juggling with the concepts that for the majority of people still have moral value: the Constitution, equality before the law, freedom of speech and conscience, peaceful coexistence, respect for religious views, etc. Worse even, they shrewdly substitute and rig these concepts, counting perhaps on the simplicity of "simple Americans" - a recently popular definition of a part of the American population, about which the liberals care so much. Along with that, there is another popular expression, "rich people", with whom members of the government tend not to identify themselves. The prevalence of violations of law and unconscionable lies among the ruling elite is frightening. People who are not afraid of dishonor are dangerous, because little if anything keeps them from committing crime.

Is it then surprising that while the human tragedy of 9/11 is perceived as a personal disaster by the majority of Americans, decision-makers actively support building a mosque on the territory where 3,000 people were executed in the name of the same Allah who would be worshiped in that mosque? Can there be a monument to a murderer on the grave of his victim? Is it believable that the leadership of New York indeed protect the principles of the Constitution and democracy in this manner? If so, why is this protection so one-sided? Or is it that the structure priced at $100 mln is more attractive than common human values? There is nothing complex in the situation related to the plans of building a Muslim center, but it appears that in the structure of the American government there are no effective mechanisms capable of stopping the unethical actions with profound consequences for the American population. Probably the Founding Fathers could not foresee the degree to which morality, instinct of self-preservation and simply common sense might decay. And this is a national problem. Building the center is certain to result in a deep psychological trauma and will only exacerbate distrust toward the Muslim community.

There is no reason to believe that the planners of the construction worry about healing the wounds that their coreligionists inflicted on 9/11. They know that the center will be salt on those wounds. Those interested in this issue are likely to be familiar with the ideology of Islam. The media is full of materials about this amazing "religion of peace", which for centuries wages wars against the kuffar, "unbelievers". At the time of substantial social shifts in America, when some Christians got tired of Christianity, and Jews of Judaism, when America got tired of its well-being and world leadership and is rushing to the Utopian shores of social equality on which the Communist world has already crashed, America remains the country of endless possibilities. To wit, political promiscuity provides endless possibilities for the inhuman ideology that, in almost 1,500 years, has changed neither its goals (world domination) nor methods (subjugation and extermination of infidels), and, as Europe's example shows, has started taking over new territories.

So you say there is no God…

by Lina.

Well thank you, a well-meaning atheist, for disabusing me of all these false notions. You really mean that god won’t throw lightning bolts at me as punishment for my sins?! And science totally explains the origin of the species?! Woweeh! All my questions finally answered and addressed. Totally, man. Free at last. I can leave my shtetl, liberated from these religious shackles. Love mankind for its ingenuity in dealing with ethical/moral questions throughout the ages -- ways that I hope are about to get even more creative now that we can just flush the ol’ 10 (or 7) commandments down the drain. And feel the love – from humanity that demonstrates daily its intuitions about compassion and justice.

I am totally stoked about viewing life from the perspective of almost complete determinism in which I am just a tiny rusty nut in the magnificent human race machine, not to mention the rest of the universe. My life mattering in the big picture about as much as a speck of dust on the surface of the moon. Oh, wait. May be I’ll get lucky and in a million years, should life on this planet exist for that long, my well-preserved corpse will be discovered by scientists to be that important link between their highly evolved forms and the schmendricks that came before us. That is bound to give meaning to my existence. Yay! As they pry open my skull while still debating whether such thing as consciousness exists and wondering whether the presence of an opposable thumb on the compost I’ve become could have been its symptom.

“Thanks again for shedding light into the dark swampy hole where I have been all this time, guys/gals or whatever you might now be in a million years. What can I say, it really made a difference.”

“Scientific” Atheism

The popular (bestselling!) book, “The God Delusion”, tells more, and definitely more convincingly, about its author, Richard Dawkins (and so many others of his mindset), than of its purported subject. Inconsequential as it is from the enlightenment standpoint, it is definitely not The Guide for the Perplexed. If anything, it may add to the confusion of Dawkins's audience, adolescents, who are biologically driven to distance themselves from parents and therefore their beliefs. Because of that, and since nobody asked me to write a formal review of this book (no surprise here), I’ll just have some thoughts about and around it.

Scientists are primates (in case you had doubts)
Scientists' supposedly high intelligence is but a thin veneer on their human, primate, nature, sometimes making that nature shine all the brighter. As other humans, they are often vain and petty - and not just with their pet theories, which are proffered with intensity fitting a prophet, regardless of how small their impact could be. My statistics professor found nothing better on which to focus than on his long-lasting conflict with a colleague, who, in his obstinate benightedness, used x bar to denote average, whereas our esteemed teacher wisely used capital M. Talk about Lilliput and the Big- vs. Little-Endian conflict. Methods in research, when only possible, are as subject to fashion as dimensions of pants at some royal court, which everybody was supposed to maintain if he were to have a chance of being 'in'. I’d list some funny examples of the changing vogue from genetic research, my field, if they were not so boring and banal at the same time. A researcher's attainment of a position in academia frequently imbues him with the sense of infallibility - not just in his scientific judgments, but in anything where a lack of knowledge may pass unnoticed among the like minds - e.g., politics, international relations, religion. (Yes, I may be afflicted as well).

Dawkins the prophet

Which brings me back to Dawkins. Rarely have I seen such sincere and unchecked infantile messianism as in that book of his. It does not matter whether the new prophet rejects "religion" (it's his business); what matters is that he "hope[s] that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, 'I didn't know I could'." Oy-vey! This is the same  hope, nay, confidence, that Muhammad had - you remember, the one whose pictures may leave you headless. Surely, in that other "prophet" case the repercussions for humanity have been more drastic: because it is not possible, after he blessed humankind with the Koran, to say, "I didn't know", there is no other way than the global acceptance of Islam. Muhammad's jihad against non-believers is certainly deadlier than Dawkins's disdain for them (oops, his non-believers are "religious"). This, however, doesn't change the essence of this primate behavior: the desire to dominate - if not over body then over mind. Any doubts are verboten.

As would any "prophet" who has just been blessed with epiphany, he demands of his followers purity of the doctrine, relegating, as did Muhammad, the rest to the hypocrite category. The only options he entertains for those infidels are either their lack of intelligence, or their acting cynically to get the Templeton prize (as Dawkins half-jokingly cites a half-joke of Dennett that he should do that if he falls on "hard times"), or, at best, their self-deception while deceiving others. The first option becomes less likely if you are in the select group of "elite scientists". But then you simply are a statistically negligible case, still likely to merely "sound Christian" while most likely being atheistic in reality. In any event, Dawkins knows better: he even "satirically" imputes thoughts to Dyson, one of the "elite", who had the dishonesty or stupidity, if you believe Dawkins, to accept the prize (Dawkins condescends that "Freeman Dyson is way above being corrupted", clearly meaning the opposite).

Logic
Dawkins decides which arguments are worth considering, what attributes of God to dismiss, and how this term should be defined for this 'scientist' to better disabuse the public of such a preposterous notion. Intellectual dishonesty is always characteristic of false prophets. Dawkins invited himself to be not only judge and jury, but prosecutor and defense attorney. This allows him to safely but fruitlessly argue without an opponent. This is a game of chess with himself, with the outcome preset. Surely he can defeat any argument of the 'opponent', straw men sitting at the table with red herrings – logical fallacies abound. Among those, there is repeated appeal to authority, i.e., to "elite" scientists, many of whom did not endorse some poll's statement about a personal god. Correlation (of high intelligence with doubts of this nature) does not mean causation and, least of all, objective support for atheism. Not only scientists are prone to mistakes in anything that is not their immediate domain (and in that too, by the way), but they may be more prone to some of them than a common Joe Blow is.

The ability to believe is necessary for information transfer. Those who produce information (scientists nowadays) should be less likely to uncritically accept anything, especially something that they cannot in principle verify by commonly available scientific means. Clearly, the proportion of information producents has always been small - ever since some of them (surprise, priests) separated from the crowd. The role of priests, who were the original scientists (Mendel, the founder of genetics, included :)), was the same as today's scientists'. This is probably why some of the latter, when immature like Dawkins, have Oedipal fantasies toward the “religious” or simply are anxious because of perceived competition.

Rhinoceros horn

Spinning Darwinism to satisfy his agenda, Dawkins applies at will, when it suits him, obnoxiously conceited and banal value judgments to phenomena deserving much better, particularly in the evolutionary context. For instance, the native legend that the horn has aphrodisiac properties is 'fatuous' to him, despite his earlier citings about the placebo mechanisms of homeopathy, which make it thus very different from 'magic' he invokes. Were he not so ideologically engaged, it would not take him much to infer a clear evolutionary benefit to the human ability to employ effective placebo mechanisms in the absence of other means to deal with disease, grief, stress, etc. He would also see that a placebo effect does not rule out the real one, which can be even further augmented by the placebo effect. This, however, would require exercising some logic.

...ex machina
For all the absolute rejection of religion, professed by Dawkins, he could find nothing better to offer than the expression of what he calls "our consensual ethics" (p. 298), which, in his opinion, "has no obvious connection with religion". Well, except for the name, "New Ten Commandments", and a little detail that the first commandment is the negative Golden Rule (do not do unto others...) as formulated by the great Jewish sage, Rabbi Hillel. That was a century before the same rule, but in its positive form (do unto others...), is said to have been pronounced by Jesus. Hillel formulated that rule in response to a question about the essence of Torah (Judaism) as can be taught while the student stands on one foot. "This is the whole Torah," he said, "the rest is commentary. Go and learn."

The "New Ten", written by a plagiarizing "ordinary web logger" (definitely no sage, to see which the reader does not need Dawkins's comment), are either redundant or trivial. Dawkins qualifies as neither a new Moses nor a new Hillel by adding to those ten his own 'progressive' four, the first being his order to enjoy one's sex life. He cautiously (probably so that it would not be perceived as sanctioning rape for those who like it) adds, "as long as it damages nobody else", leaving the reader under impression that one's sex life inevitably damages at least him/her, if not more people.

It is hard to imagine that Dawkins does not know the origin of the Rule, again illustrating his dishonesty or, at best, ignorance. The Bible-plagiarizing Moral Code of the Builder of Communism in the atheist Soviet Union was another example of “consensual ethics”, apparently coming from nowhere. At least the communists did not plagiarize the title.

It is simply not interesting to see his tried and tired and recycled Marxian spiel, his Old Worldian comme il faut derision for America, and newly fashionable antisemitism (the ominous influence of the nefarious Jewish lobby - he does not even attempt to gentrify it by its 'Israel' moniker). In general, unless you are a Dawkins, another man’s faith is not of your concern - as long as it does not drive him to change yours or kill you. Whatever your faith is, mine, Judaism, says it’s the deeds that matter. As Maimonides wrote (translation in Am J Psychiatry, 2008, 165, p. 426),

As for religious commandments, however, the harm and benefit that they bring are not evident in this world. The fool might, therefore, imagine to himself that everything that is said to be harmful is not harmful, and everything that is said to be beneficial is not beneficial, because these things are not clearly evident to him. For this reason religious law compels one to practice good and punishes for doing evil, for the good and evil will only become apparent in the world-to-come. All this is benevolence toward us, a favor to us in light of our foolishness, mercy upon us owing to the weakness of our understanding.

Dawkins will not change anybody’s faith with his arguments, much as he tries. Naïve, they are so much alike those we heard during classes in 'Scientific Atheism', which were mandatory for every student – back in the USSR.
______
03/27/2018. An update: Dawkins has finally been scared by Islam into lamenting Europe's atheism, https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-against-celebrating-demise-of-relatively-benign-christianity-in-europe-221909/