Democracy Without Islam
By Michael Devolin
Sep 12, 2007 - 8:31:16 PM
In her book Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes, "Shouldn't the places where Allah was worshipped and His laws obeyed have been at peace and wealthy, and the unbelievers' countries ignorant, poor, and at war." This is a point of truth Islam's apologists will not touch with a ten foot pole. Of course, in their feverish imposture and denigration of the West, of Israel and her Jews, these apologists haven't scheduled for such bulldozing knowledge. They have failed to comprehend that the West's foreseeable rejection of Islam is not only a consequence of Islam's predictable terrorism and violence, but also our instinctual habit of preservation: We have by now noticed that the average Muslim is not integrating into our culture but only insofar as is necessary for him to exploit the compassionate infrastructures that welcome him into our reasonable world. We have by now become anxious about the intelligible possibility that our beloved Western freedoms and religious liberties will soon be transmogrified and extirpated by Islam's malefic, exponential and insular presence within our borders.
Samuel P. Huntington posits to his trembling students that, "The decline of the West is still in the slow first phase, but at some point it might speed up dramatically." Well, aside from a burning desire to tell Mr. Huntington that he can kiss my Irish-Canadian ass, I am also keen to inform him that the West is not finished. Not yet. Not by a long shot. Western intelligence agencies are well aware of Islam's bludgeoning of our "system" and our accommodative culture. Many of Islam's proponents, whether terrorists or apologists (is there a difference?) are well aware of our cognizance of their exploitation and hatred of our non-Islamic democracy and its Judeo-Christian social appendages, such as "Welfare" and "Immigration". They simply believe (but for entirely different reasons) as Samuel P. Huntington and all his lemming-minded, broken-hearted friends believe-- that the West is on a journey into extinction.
In his provocative book America Alone, Mark Steyn warns the West that our contest with Islam is merely a matter of demographics. He rightly warns that Muslim families are reproducing at higher percentages than non-Muslim families. Oriana Fallaci's controversial statement that Muslims "breed like rats" is, as one would expect from such a brave soul, based on statistical truth. It is by now evident to all who have been following the blood trail of Mohammedanism that this religion and its adherents have envisioned for themselves (whether non-Muslims like it or not) a world ruled by a caliphal Islam.
Democracy is not palatable to Islam's angry clerics unless of course it is a democracy actualized by a majority Muslim electorate. Ajai Sahni related to this pernicious strategy when he wrote of the Muslim populations of Junagadh and Hyderbad, that they believed "they have a natural constituency." Daniel Pipes' high-flying accolades for the "democracy" now being fabricated by the pro-Islamic voters in Turkey is yet another of his sciolistic and ludicrously odd constructs of a democracy that will never exist save in the mind of sycophantic fools like himself. Simply put, a democracy created by a Muslim electorate-as exampled by Hamas' election victory in Gaza-is not a democracy at all but rather the end of democracy and the beginning of a terrorist state. As Huntington so rightly put it, "In Islam, Caesar is God."
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Islam in Profile
Islam in Profile
By Michael Devolin
Jun 29, 2007
I've never understood the meaning of the term 'profiling' in the negative context as bandied about by the politically correct, especially when this same politically correct crowd is defending the millions upon millions of supersensitive Muslims of this world from those of us who, driven by conscience, voice publicly our concerns about the self-evident patterns of violence constantly associated with the religion of Islam.
I was recently accused of "racial and religious stereotyping" by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after I presented to them in writing my concerns about Muslims hailing from certain playful Islamic androcracies in the Middle East being given access to McMaster University's Nuclear Reactor located in Hamilton, Ontario. Even worse, in the employ of the CNSC some of these Muslims have been given the responsibility of security at the site of McMaster’s nuclear reactor. My anxieties concerning these placements were, sadly for all Canadians, deemed by CNSC to be irrelevant and irrational.
Apparently the violent and racist profile Islam's very own zealots have for centuries been inadvertently conjuring up for the non-Muslims of this world to delineate goes unnoticed by those of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission whose responsibility it should be, in a post 9/11 world, to evaluate. Have they not noticed, as recounted by Edward N. Luttwak (Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), the "Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shiites"? Luttwak's observations are not in any sense "racial and religious profiling" but rather a picture of veridical Islam - the real Islam. Anyone see a pattern here? I know I do.
In one day in one newspaper I read about the Sword of Islam being bestowed upon Osama bin Laden by Muslim clerics of the Pakistan Ulema Council, death threats (fatwas) issued and angry protests on the streets of cities around the world in reaction to Salman Rushdie being knighted by England's Queen, Hamas and Fatah gunmen of Gaza killing each other (and anyone who happens to be in the line of fire), suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list just keeps growing. No one is profiling Islam more than Muslims themselves. And I'm committing "religious profiling" because I'm discomposed about the fact that adherents of Islam, who emigrated from countries where all this hell-raising is taking place, are working on McMaster University's nuclear reactor? My fear is unjustified? I think not.
The ever prescient Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair, writing in defence of Salman Rushdie’s character and distinguished writing career, points out that "our media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions mustn’t be confused with its lunatic fringe?). As I've written in other articles, one can properly judge a religion, not by its exceptional personalities, but only by how that same religion manifests itself within the masses of those who adhere to its tenets. In this sense, in my opinion, Islam has failed mankind and has proven to be a lethally insalubrious religious ideology. Such a threatening reality corroborates the veracity of the Yiddish proverb, "A crooked light casts a crooked shadow."
Indeed. This media assumption noted by Mr. Hitchens I happened to convey to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. But to no avail. Their measure of my fear of Islam and Muslims being conterminous to a nuclear reactor in my country - in my neck of the woods! - is that "allegations based on religion or race, without any supporting evidence in connection to issues, have not and will not be taken into account by the Commission in its consideration of any matter before it." And with that the CNSC granted McMaster University a licence to operate a nuclear reactor on its campus for another seven years. And so with utter exasperation I now ask those members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, How much evidence do you need?
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
I was recently accused of "racial and religious stereotyping" by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after I presented to them in writing my concerns about Muslims hailing from certain playful Islamic androcracies in the Middle East being given access to McMaster University's Nuclear Reactor located in Hamilton, Ontario. Even worse, in the employ of the CNSC some of these Muslims have been given the responsibility of security at the site of McMaster’s nuclear reactor. My anxieties concerning these placements were, sadly for all Canadians, deemed by CNSC to be irrelevant and irrational.
Apparently the violent and racist profile Islam's very own zealots have for centuries been inadvertently conjuring up for the non-Muslims of this world to delineate goes unnoticed by those of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission whose responsibility it should be, in a post 9/11 world, to evaluate. Have they not noticed, as recounted by Edward N. Luttwak (Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), the "Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shiites"? Luttwak's observations are not in any sense "racial and religious profiling" but rather a picture of veridical Islam - the real Islam. Anyone see a pattern here? I know I do.
In one day in one newspaper I read about the Sword of Islam being bestowed upon Osama bin Laden by Muslim clerics of the Pakistan Ulema Council, death threats (fatwas) issued and angry protests on the streets of cities around the world in reaction to Salman Rushdie being knighted by England's Queen, Hamas and Fatah gunmen of Gaza killing each other (and anyone who happens to be in the line of fire), suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list just keeps growing. No one is profiling Islam more than Muslims themselves. And I'm committing "religious profiling" because I'm discomposed about the fact that adherents of Islam, who emigrated from countries where all this hell-raising is taking place, are working on McMaster University's nuclear reactor? My fear is unjustified? I think not.
The ever prescient Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair, writing in defence of Salman Rushdie’s character and distinguished writing career, points out that "our media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions mustn’t be confused with its lunatic fringe?). As I've written in other articles, one can properly judge a religion, not by its exceptional personalities, but only by how that same religion manifests itself within the masses of those who adhere to its tenets. In this sense, in my opinion, Islam has failed mankind and has proven to be a lethally insalubrious religious ideology. Such a threatening reality corroborates the veracity of the Yiddish proverb, "A crooked light casts a crooked shadow."
Indeed. This media assumption noted by Mr. Hitchens I happened to convey to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. But to no avail. Their measure of my fear of Islam and Muslims being conterminous to a nuclear reactor in my country - in my neck of the woods! - is that "allegations based on religion or race, without any supporting evidence in connection to issues, have not and will not be taken into account by the Commission in its consideration of any matter before it." And with that the CNSC granted McMaster University a licence to operate a nuclear reactor on its campus for another seven years. And so with utter exasperation I now ask those members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, How much evidence do you need?
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
Islam in Profile
Islam in Profile
By Michael Devolin
Jun 29, 2007
I've never understood the meaning of the term 'profiling' in the negative context as bandied about by the politically correct, especially when this same politically correct crowd is defending the millions upon millions of supersensitive Muslims of this world from those of us who, driven by conscience, voice publicly our concerns about the self-evident patterns of violence constantly associated with the religion of Islam.
I was recently accused of "racial and religious stereotyping" by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after I presented to them in writing my concerns about Muslims hailing from certain playful Islamic androcracies in the Middle East being given access to McMaster University's Nuclear Reactor located in Hamilton, Ontario. Even worse, in the employ of the CNSC some of these Muslims have been given the responsibility of security at the site of McMaster’s nuclear reactor. My anxieties concerning these placements were, sadly for all Canadians, deemed by CNSC to be irrelevant and irrational.
Apparently the violent and racist profile Islam's very own zealots have for centuries been inadvertently conjuring up for the non-Muslims of this world to delineate goes unnoticed by those of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission whose responsibility it should be, in a post 9/11 world, to evaluate. Have they not noticed, as recounted by Edward N. Luttwak (Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), the "Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shiites"? Luttwak's observations are not in any sense "racial and religious profiling" but rather a picture of veridical Islam - the real Islam. Anyone see a pattern here? I know I do.
In one day in one newspaper I read about the Sword of Islam being bestowed upon Osama bin Laden by Muslim clerics of the Pakistan Ulema Council, death threats (fatwas) issued and angry protests on the streets of cities around the world in reaction to Salman Rushdie being knighted by England's Queen, Hamas and Fatah gunmen of Gaza killing each other (and anyone who happens to be in the line of fire), suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list just keeps growing. No one is profiling Islam more than Muslims themselves. And I'm committing "religious profiling" because I'm discomposed about the fact that adherents of Islam, who emigrated from countries where all this hell-raising is taking place, are working on McMaster University's nuclear reactor? My fear is unjustified? I think not.
The ever prescient Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair, writing in defence of Salman Rushdie’s character and distinguished writing career, points out that "our media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions mustn’t be confused with its lunatic fringe?). As I've written in other articles, one can properly judge a religion, not by its exceptional personalities, but only by how that same religion manifests itself within the masses of those who adhere to its tenets. In this sense, in my opinion, Islam has failed mankind and has proven to be a lethally insalubrious religious ideology. Such a threatening reality corroborates the veracity of the Yiddish proverb, "A crooked light casts a crooked shadow."
Indeed. This media assumption noted by Mr. Hitchens I happened to convey to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. But to no avail. Their measure of my fear of Islam and Muslims being conterminous to a nuclear reactor in my country - in my neck of the woods! - is that "allegations based on religion or race, without any supporting evidence in connection to issues, have not and will not be taken into account by the Commission in its consideration of any matter before it." And with that the CNSC granted McMaster University a licence to operate a nuclear reactor on its campus for another seven years. And so with utter exasperation I now ask those members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, How much evidence do you need?
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
By Michael Devolin
Jun 29, 2007
I've never understood the meaning of the term 'profiling' in the negative context as bandied about by the politically correct, especially when this same politically correct crowd is defending the millions upon millions of supersensitive Muslims of this world from those of us who, driven by conscience, voice publicly our concerns about the self-evident patterns of violence constantly associated with the religion of Islam.
I was recently accused of "racial and religious stereotyping" by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after I presented to them in writing my concerns about Muslims hailing from certain playful Islamic androcracies in the Middle East being given access to McMaster University's Nuclear Reactor located in Hamilton, Ontario. Even worse, in the employ of the CNSC some of these Muslims have been given the responsibility of security at the site of McMaster’s nuclear reactor. My anxieties concerning these placements were, sadly for all Canadians, deemed by CNSC to be irrelevant and irrational.
Apparently the violent and racist profile Islam's very own zealots have for centuries been inadvertently conjuring up for the non-Muslims of this world to delineate goes unnoticed by those of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission whose responsibility it should be, in a post 9/11 world, to evaluate. Have they not noticed, as recounted by Edward N. Luttwak (Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), the "Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shiites"? Luttwak's observations are not in any sense "racial and religious profiling" but rather a picture of veridical Islam - the real Islam. Anyone see a pattern here? I know I do.
In one day in one newspaper I read about the Sword of Islam being bestowed upon Osama bin Laden by Muslim clerics of the Pakistan Ulema Council, death threats (fatwas) issued and angry protests on the streets of cities around the world in reaction to Salman Rushdie being knighted by England's Queen, Hamas and Fatah gunmen of Gaza killing each other (and anyone who happens to be in the line of fire), suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list just keeps growing. No one is profiling Islam more than Muslims themselves. And I'm committing "religious profiling" because I'm discomposed about the fact that adherents of Islam, who emigrated from countries where all this hell-raising is taking place, are working on McMaster University's nuclear reactor? My fear is unjustified? I think not.
The ever prescient Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair, writing in defence of Salman Rushdie’s character and distinguished writing career, points out that "our media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions mustn’t be confused with its lunatic fringe?). As I've written in other articles, one can properly judge a religion, not by its exceptional personalities, but only by how that same religion manifests itself within the masses of those who adhere to its tenets. In this sense, in my opinion, Islam has failed mankind and has proven to be a lethally insalubrious religious ideology. Such a threatening reality corroborates the veracity of the Yiddish proverb, "A crooked light casts a crooked shadow."
Indeed. This media assumption noted by Mr. Hitchens I happened to convey to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. But to no avail. Their measure of my fear of Islam and Muslims being conterminous to a nuclear reactor in my country - in my neck of the woods! - is that "allegations based on religion or race, without any supporting evidence in connection to issues, have not and will not be taken into account by the Commission in its consideration of any matter before it." And with that the CNSC granted McMaster University a licence to operate a nuclear reactor on its campus for another seven years. And so with utter exasperation I now ask those members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, How much evidence do you need?
Written by Michael Devolin© Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
Crazy Aunt in the Attic
Crazy Aunt in the Attic
By Michael Devolin
Sep 28, 2007 - 1:27:01 AM
There is only one Chosen People. No matter all of Islam's violence and threats and slanders, no matter all of Christianity's calumnious sophistry and laboured theologies, the Jews remain the Chosen People of G-D as defined in their Torah. And isn't this the point of contention between the Jews and all other human invention? Isn't this the one eternal truth Islam and Christianity have never been able to endure? The respective and violent histories of these two religions and their shameless mistreatment of the Jewish people merely confirm the veracity of the proverb, "Who can withstand envy?"
In defining Christianity and its theological relationship to Judaism, James Carroll writes, "The idea is that the Jesus movement, as it evolved into the Church, effectively replaced the Jews as the chosen people of God. Replacement became the motif, even in trivial way..." James Carroll, for all his posturing as a Christian who feels remorse and "contrition" about the Holocaust, fails to take the only conscionable course of action open to him after confessing to the sins committed by his fellow religious during that immeasurably horrific calamity: he fails to repudiate Christianity outright. Such a false humility and imposture is succinctly described by William Blake's pithy rhyme: "A truth that's told with bad intent—beats all the lies you can invent."
All political and military assaults on the State of Israel and the Jewish people by non-Jewish personages and nations I view as an attack on the veracity of the "choseness" of the Jewish people. Such a small nation existing precariously in the middle of such an enormous ocean of anti-Jewish hatred is the only reason powerful politicians like George Bush and Condoleeza Rice can so unctuously propel an intimidated and embattled Israeli government toward ousting entire communities of Jews from their homes and into what their G-D must surely view as an exile of immense contradiction - within the borders of the very Israel He gave to the Jews as their inheritance. Such callous disregard for Jewish national sensibilities on the part of the Bush Administration is nothing short of an attempt to controvert the validity of the Jewish Torah and the exclusivity with which it charters the Jewish people as "a light unto the nations."
If any man believe in the G-D of the Jews, as defined in their Torah, Who only is the Creator of the Universe - a belief that excludes, in my view, Allah and Jesus - then that same man would surely regard as grave imprudence any attempt to extirpate Jewish ownership of Israel or to calumniate the morality of Israel's defence against Islam's terrorists and the genocide they surely intend against all Jewish life within and without the borders of Israel. To disbelieve in the exclusivity of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, in the last analysis, is to oppose the very G-D Who designated it as such. Likewise, to excoriate Israel's military and its defence of her Jews against the violent manifestations of Islam's madmen is therefore tantamount to wishing those same Jews dead.
Some men choose to believe in Jesus and Rome, some in Allah and Mecca, but every Jew is born into the Mosaic requirement of being faithful to the G-D of the Torah and the numinous intransigence of its laws, one of which is to inhabit the land of Israel. Consequently, our world is imposed upon by Christianity and the Apostle Paul's negative and sophistic concepts of the "spiritual Jew" and the "new Israel; by Islam and Mohammed's viciously simplistic libels against Judaism and the Jew. Both religious constructs, Christianity and Islam, were conceived as calumny against the Judaism of their day and the morality that same Judaism intimated as salubrious for the Gentile world. It's no wonder then that there exists a Yiddish proverb which declares, "A half-truth is a whole lie." And contrary to James Carroll's imperious denials, anti-Judaism is definitely a form of anti-Jewish hatred.
The religious refutations both Christianity and Islam have served to precipitate against the validity of the Jews as G-D's Chosen People are, to be quite frank, uncomfortably similar to the brazenness of Holocaust denial. That these refutations, at once ugly and angry and strained, are putatively accepted by most of the Gentile world reminds me of Deborah Lipstadt's depiction of modern historians insouciantly admitting into their ranks a David Irving as "the crazy aunt the family sequesters in the attic. Everyone knows she is there, but if you don't shine a light on her, she can be ignored." Likewise many of us are cognizant of the unexposed side of Christianity and Islam, regardless the glossing over these religions inspire from their attendant sycophants and apologists. But at the same time we know for a fact that the Jews were divinely identified in their Torah as the Chosen People of G-D - long before Christianity and even longer before Islam. We choose to muffle this knowledge in order to accommodate centuries-old religious traditions, a course of action which, in the case of Islam, shall be to our peril. This denial of the truth, this our refusal to accept that the Jews and only the Jews are the Chosen People of G-D, is the crazy aunt the Gentile world has for millennia sequestered in the attic. We cannot ignore her any longer.
Written by Michael Devolin © Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
By Michael Devolin
Sep 28, 2007 - 1:27:01 AM
There is only one Chosen People. No matter all of Islam's violence and threats and slanders, no matter all of Christianity's calumnious sophistry and laboured theologies, the Jews remain the Chosen People of G-D as defined in their Torah. And isn't this the point of contention between the Jews and all other human invention? Isn't this the one eternal truth Islam and Christianity have never been able to endure? The respective and violent histories of these two religions and their shameless mistreatment of the Jewish people merely confirm the veracity of the proverb, "Who can withstand envy?"
In defining Christianity and its theological relationship to Judaism, James Carroll writes, "The idea is that the Jesus movement, as it evolved into the Church, effectively replaced the Jews as the chosen people of God. Replacement became the motif, even in trivial way..." James Carroll, for all his posturing as a Christian who feels remorse and "contrition" about the Holocaust, fails to take the only conscionable course of action open to him after confessing to the sins committed by his fellow religious during that immeasurably horrific calamity: he fails to repudiate Christianity outright. Such a false humility and imposture is succinctly described by William Blake's pithy rhyme: "A truth that's told with bad intent—beats all the lies you can invent."
All political and military assaults on the State of Israel and the Jewish people by non-Jewish personages and nations I view as an attack on the veracity of the "choseness" of the Jewish people. Such a small nation existing precariously in the middle of such an enormous ocean of anti-Jewish hatred is the only reason powerful politicians like George Bush and Condoleeza Rice can so unctuously propel an intimidated and embattled Israeli government toward ousting entire communities of Jews from their homes and into what their G-D must surely view as an exile of immense contradiction - within the borders of the very Israel He gave to the Jews as their inheritance. Such callous disregard for Jewish national sensibilities on the part of the Bush Administration is nothing short of an attempt to controvert the validity of the Jewish Torah and the exclusivity with which it charters the Jewish people as "a light unto the nations."
If any man believe in the G-D of the Jews, as defined in their Torah, Who only is the Creator of the Universe - a belief that excludes, in my view, Allah and Jesus - then that same man would surely regard as grave imprudence any attempt to extirpate Jewish ownership of Israel or to calumniate the morality of Israel's defence against Islam's terrorists and the genocide they surely intend against all Jewish life within and without the borders of Israel. To disbelieve in the exclusivity of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, in the last analysis, is to oppose the very G-D Who designated it as such. Likewise, to excoriate Israel's military and its defence of her Jews against the violent manifestations of Islam's madmen is therefore tantamount to wishing those same Jews dead.
Some men choose to believe in Jesus and Rome, some in Allah and Mecca, but every Jew is born into the Mosaic requirement of being faithful to the G-D of the Torah and the numinous intransigence of its laws, one of which is to inhabit the land of Israel. Consequently, our world is imposed upon by Christianity and the Apostle Paul's negative and sophistic concepts of the "spiritual Jew" and the "new Israel; by Islam and Mohammed's viciously simplistic libels against Judaism and the Jew. Both religious constructs, Christianity and Islam, were conceived as calumny against the Judaism of their day and the morality that same Judaism intimated as salubrious for the Gentile world. It's no wonder then that there exists a Yiddish proverb which declares, "A half-truth is a whole lie." And contrary to James Carroll's imperious denials, anti-Judaism is definitely a form of anti-Jewish hatred.
The religious refutations both Christianity and Islam have served to precipitate against the validity of the Jews as G-D's Chosen People are, to be quite frank, uncomfortably similar to the brazenness of Holocaust denial. That these refutations, at once ugly and angry and strained, are putatively accepted by most of the Gentile world reminds me of Deborah Lipstadt's depiction of modern historians insouciantly admitting into their ranks a David Irving as "the crazy aunt the family sequesters in the attic. Everyone knows she is there, but if you don't shine a light on her, she can be ignored." Likewise many of us are cognizant of the unexposed side of Christianity and Islam, regardless the glossing over these religions inspire from their attendant sycophants and apologists. But at the same time we know for a fact that the Jews were divinely identified in their Torah as the Chosen People of G-D - long before Christianity and even longer before Islam. We choose to muffle this knowledge in order to accommodate centuries-old religious traditions, a course of action which, in the case of Islam, shall be to our peril. This denial of the truth, this our refusal to accept that the Jews and only the Jews are the Chosen People of G-D, is the crazy aunt the Gentile world has for millennia sequestered in the attic. We cannot ignore her any longer.
Written by Michael Devolin © Copyright 2002-2007 by Magic City Morning Star
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)