What is the point?

[cnorman18]

In response to a PM from a friend:

I'm losing interest in the forum, X, and for a number of reasons. First, and probably foremost, I'm not about defending "theism" in general. I'm a Jew, and I speak for Judaism--and not for Christianity, especially the fundamentalist sort.

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

As you know, I don't play the prove-there's-a-God game, but that seems to be the only game anybody wants to play here. I'd like to get past that question, but the atheists won't let me and the Christians, frankly, aren't generally worth my time since that question of bare belief is about all we agree on. I'm agnostic on the question of an afterlife, for instance, and to most of them, there's no other point to religion.

I'm not saying you're doing this or ever have, X, but one of the aspects of the forum that I'm really beginning to despise is the unexamined assumption on the part of virtually all atheists--present company excepted--that atheism is the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion of any mature and intelligent mind. It's rather like the assumption in the political world that anyone who is not a flaming leftwinger is a benighted moron. It's tiresome, it's an enormous pain in the butt to overcome (because it's a prejudice and not a reasoned conclusion), and it's BORING. Trying to find an atheist on this forum who is even willing to consider the possibility that belief in God is not, at some level, evidence of mental impairment or immaturity is even harder than finding an intelligent and articulate theist. How do you debate somebody who takes it as an inarguable given that you are an idiot? How do you discuss something as complex and nuanced as Jewish ethics, history and theology with someone who dismisses that whole universe of thought as a childish and insignificant belief in "invisible super beings" or equivalent to a belief in leprechauns and unicorns?

I have had some very frustrating debate experiences on the board, and few if any rewarding ones. Just when I think we're making some progress, I find myself, once again, put in the same box as the fundies merely because I believe in God, and I have to start from scratch with yet another poster. A few dozen exchanges (and hours of writing) later, I find that layers of wrong (and in any other context, bigoted) assumptions are still firmly in place.

You think fundamentalists are hard to reason with? Try convincing a militant atheist that there is or ever has been any value or truth to religion at all. Not all the bigots and haters are on the theist side here, but try convincing anyone on the other side of that.

I realize the presence of so many fundamentalists makes my job even harder, but from my point of view, it just makes my job pointless. I'd like to make the case that there's such a thing as intelligent and rational religious belief; but the atheists think that plainly impossible, and the fundies are hard at work proving them right. Why bother?

It's been so long since I've seen a thread where I couldn't predict the conversation ten exchanges into the future, I don't remember what it's like. Also: My last five or six cogent, on-point and intelligent contributions to various threads have been utterly ignored by all parties, as if they were never posted. Again, what's the point?

I would LOVE to talk about Judaism and all the things that make it unique and admirable. What are my chances of being able to do that if, every single time, I have to deal with "but how do you know there's a God in the first place?" and the discussion never, ever, moves off that question? I'd rather catch up on my sleep.

Maybe I'll post this as a new thread. Watch what happens if I do:

"But how do you know/can you prove/establish as fact/show evidence that there is a God in the first place?"

Zzzzz...

[Fallibleone]

I'm definitely one of the small fry round here, but anyway, I'd like to point out that I do not assume that anyone who believes in God is a moron. I find a number of theists on this board put forward very reasonable and level-headed arguments - I put Micatala, Jester, Otseng, Achilles, yourself, goat (I'm assuming a level of belief in goat which I'm not 100% sure is there) and others into this category.

Indeed, I often find myself wondering whether I really am missing something obvious which would actually point to the existence of God. I do not hold all the answers. I do not see my atheism as the end point and the winning post. I am willing to concede at any point that I am wrong. I'm of OK intelligence and I believe that I am, to a certain extent, capable of working things out. However, I'm not even among the top 50% on this board, and I am aware that people much cleverer than myself do indeed have a belief in God. There has to be a reason for that. What it is I don't know, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that my atheism is down to an inability in me to see certain things or to place myself in the correct mental/emotional/philosophical position from which God is clearly viewed.

I think the reason why so many discussions here automatically revert to the default 'But you haven't proven God exists' or 'But how do you know God is real?' is simple because that is the very thing on which every single other thing hangs. I can see how that would be frustrating, but I can also see that the mere acceptance or rejection of the existence of a God changes absolutely everything. On a forum such as this, it is the medium through which all other issues are filtered. Rightly or wrongly, i feel that this will always be the case. We do not start from a common base.

[cnorman18]

I'm definitely one of the small fry round here, but anyway, I'd like to point out that I do not assume that anyone who believes in God is a moron. I find a number of theists on this board put forward very reasonable and level-headed arguments - I put Micatala, Jester, Otseng, Achilles, yourself, goat (I'm assuming a level of belief in goat which I'm not 100% sure is there) and others into this category.

Indeed, I often find myself wondering whether I really am missing something obvious which would actually point to the existence of God. I do not hold all the answers. I do not see my atheism as the end point and the winning post. I am willing to concede at any point that I am wrong. I'm of OK intelligence and I believe that I am, to a certain extent, capable of working things out. However, I'm not even among the top 50% on this board, and I am aware that people much cleverer than myself do indeed have a belief in God. There has to be a reason for that. What it is I don't know, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that my atheism is down to an inability in me to see certain things or to place myself in the correct mental/emotional/philosophical position from which God is clearly viewed.

I think the reason why so many discussions here automatically revert to the default 'But you haven't proven God exists' or 'But how do you know God is real?' is simple because that is the very thing on which every single other thing hangs. I can see how that would be frustrating, but I can also see that the mere acceptance or rejection of the existence of a God changes absolutely everything. On a forum such as this, it is the medium through which all other issues are filtered. Rightly or wrongly, i feel that this will always be the case. We do not start from a common base.

Thanks for your comments, and I appreciate your openmindedness. It is, you have no doubt noticed, rather different from the closed-minded position common among militant atheists, which I find to be just as intransigent and unreflective as that of any fundamentalist Christian.

I agree that "prove there is a God" is the default issue around here. My problem with that, as I have written and posted many times, is that it is a phony debate on two counts.

(1) No proof of the existence of God that could be offered by anyone posting on this forum is possible.

(2) This fact is known to all who demand such a proof, and the demand is therefore disingenuous and a mere rhetorical device. There is no actual debate possible on that subject.

On (1), it has actually been established many times here that there is no proof of God possible, period. God Himself could not prove His own existence to the satisfaction of the atheists on this board; there is no proof that even He could offer that could not be attributed to space aliens or mass hallucination. Demanding, or even asking, for proof of God's existence is about as meaningful as demanding, or asking, that one's opponent demonstrate an ability to fly by flapping his arms.

If we could all just agree that the question of God's existence is not, has never been, and will never be settled by a definitive proof or disproof in terms of incontrovertible objective evidence and rigid logic, we might be able to get past that non-issue and find other things to discuss. As it stands, that "debate" has become a colossal bore and a waste of time.

Sure, everything hangs on that question. So what? If it can't be answered, it can't be answered. Let's move on.

[Furrowed Brow]

Blimey cnorman- if you are feeling fatigued, then I guess some of our more strident theists either have very thick skins or they must be in a perpetual state of shell shock. Which might explain some of their opinions....oops....I'm starting to do it.

All I can say is hang on in there. I would say that if you post under theology and dogma then the theistic presumptions are less likely to come under direct attack because that forum presupposes a religious starting point.

And Fallible one you are not small fry.

[Nick_A]

Norm

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

I see the essence of Judaism and Christianity complimentary in the way described by Father Sylvan:

There are the laws of grace. The Hebraic tradition stresses this. And there is the grace of the law, which the Christian tradition stresses. Grace and law: woe to him who chooses one of these over the other. People speak of it as a paradox, which only means they cannot fit it into the computer program of the head. "Religious" people do not like to hear that there are scientific laws governing the movements of all forces, higher and lower. On the other hand, those who are attracted to the idea of lawful precision do not like to hear that these laws are not subject to human manipulation. The problem is: how to move from the holy desire for God to the precise struggle for God without the intervention of the ego? No man can give another man the holy desire, and no guide can give a man the contact with the higher. But what can be taught is the way to recognize and neutralize the initiatives of the ego.

But Christianity has degenerated to become Christendom and I don't know what to call degraded Judaism but all these degradations have one thing in common which is hypocrisy.

I acquired direct experiential knowledge of Jewish hypocrisy during the recent controversy over recognition of the Armenian genocide. There were many fine Jews that understood and this other element like Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, that openly displayed their prejudice. Yet I would never want to judge the merit of Judaism by the actions of a Foxman type. Are you willing not to judge Christianity by your experiences with people for some reason calling themselves Christians?

[Goat]

Norm

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

I see the essence of Judaism and Christianity complimentary in the way described by Father Sylvan:

There are the laws of grace. The Hebraic tradition stresses this. And there is the grace of the law, which the Christian tradition stresses. Grace and law: woe to him who chooses one of these over the other. People speak of it as a paradox, which only means they cannot fit it into the computer program of the head. "Religious" people do not like to hear that there are scientific laws governing the movements of all forces, higher and lower. On the other hand, those who are attracted to the idea of lawful precision do not like to hear that these laws are not subject to human manipulation. The problem is: how to move from the holy desire for God to the precise struggle for God without the intervention of the ego? No man can give another man the holy desire, and no guide can give a man the contact with the higher. But what can be taught is the way to recognize and neutralize the initiatives of the ego.

But Christianity has degenerated to become Christendom and I don't know what to call degraded Judaism but all these degradations have one thing in common which is hypocrisy.

I acquired direct experiential knowledge of Jewish hypocrisy during the recent controversy over recognition of the Armenian genocide. There were many fine Jews that understood and this other element like Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, that openly displayed their prejudice. Yet I would never want to judge the merit of Judaism by the actions of a Foxman type. Are you willing not to judge Christianity by your experiences with people for some reason calling themselves Christians?

I disagree. There is no concept of 'grace' in Judaism.

As far as the Aremian Genocide, you are misrepresenting what his position is. From
wikipedia

n July 2007, Foxman's opposition to a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide drew much criticism. “I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Sharistan Melkonian, chairwoman of the Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts, accused Foxman of engaging in "genocide denial" in an interview with the Boston Globe.[11] Various New England communities threatened to sever ties with the ADL-sponsored "No Place for Hate" program in response.[12] In August 2007, Foxman publicly affirmed the position of the Anti-Defamation League, "that the consequences of [the Ottoman government's] actions were indeed tantamount to genocide," but that a United States Congressional recognition of this history was unnecessary and not helpful.[13][14] He went on to state, "we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. We will not hesitate to apply the term 'genocide' in the future." Foxman additionally sent a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressing regret over the difficulty his position caused for the government of Turkey: "We had no intention to put the Turkish people or its leaders in a difficult position." [15]

While yes, Foxman opposed the resolution of the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, he did not say it did not happen. He just felt that the acknowledgment was counter productive to the 'healing of wounds' between the turks and the armenians. That is twice you accused groups of bigotry because they just so happened to oppose government bill about it.

Foxman's point is that imposing the issue from outside is counterproductive. I think I might disagree with his idea, but that does not mean he is a bigot against the Armenians. He certainly does not deny that incident happened.

It sounds like you are greatly exaggerating Foxman's position to call him prejudiced. Same thing with the beliefnet people on this same subject. That does not sound very rational to me.

[Nick_A]

Norm

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

I see the essence of Judaism and Christianity complimentary in the way described by Father Sylvan:

There are the laws of grace. The Hebraic tradition stresses this. And there is the grace of the law, which the Christian tradition stresses. Grace and law: woe to him who chooses one of these over the other. People speak of it as a paradox, which only means they cannot fit it into the computer program of the head. "Religious" people do not like to hear that there are scientific laws governing the movements of all forces, higher and lower. On the other hand, those who are attracted to the idea of lawful precision do not like to hear that these laws are not subject to human manipulation. The problem is: how to move from the holy desire for God to the precise struggle for God without the intervention of the ego? No man can give another man the holy desire, and no guide can give a man the contact with the higher. But what can be taught is the way to recognize and neutralize the initiatives of the ego.

But Christianity has degenerated to become Christendom and I don't know what to call degraded Judaism but all these degradations have one thing in common which is hypocrisy.

I acquired direct experiential knowledge of Jewish hypocrisy during the recent controversy over recognition of the Armenian genocide. There were many fine Jews that understood and this other element like Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, that openly displayed their prejudice. Yet I would never want to judge the merit of Judaism by the actions of a Foxman type. Are you willing not to judge Christianity by your experiences with people for some reason calling themselves Christians?

I disagree. There is no concept of 'grace' in Judaism.

As far as the Aremian Genocide, you are misrepresenting what his position is. From
wikipedia

n July 2007, Foxman's opposition to a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide drew much criticism. “I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Sharistan Melkonian, chairwoman of the Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts, accused Foxman of engaging in "genocide denial" in an interview with the Boston Globe.[11] Various New England communities threatened to sever ties with the ADL-sponsored "No Place for Hate" program in response.[12] In August 2007, Foxman publicly affirmed the position of the Anti-Defamation League, "that the consequences of [the Ottoman government's] actions were indeed tantamount to genocide," but that a United States Congressional recognition of this history was unnecessary and not helpful.[13][14] He went on to state, "we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. We will not hesitate to apply the term 'genocide' in the future." Foxman additionally sent a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressing regret over the difficulty his position caused for the government of Turkey: "We had no intention to put the Turkish people or its leaders in a difficult position." [15]

While yes, Foxman opposed the resolution of the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, he did not say it did not happen. He just felt that the acknowledgment was counter productive to the 'healing of wounds' between the turks and the armenians. That is twice you accused groups of bigotry because they just so happened to oppose government bill about it.

Foxman's point is that imposing the issue from outside is counterproductive. I think I might disagree with his idea, but that does not mean he is a bigot against the Armenians. He certainly does not deny that incident happened.

It sounds like you are greatly exaggerating Foxman's position to call him prejudiced. Same thing with the beliefnet people on this same subject. That does not sound very rational to me.

Goat, I won't be critical of you since if you had to look in Wiki, you don't know what this is about. It is ugly stuff. So as not to derail this thread i began another on rejection of the Armenian genocide:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#165581

I go out of my way to use Jewish sources. Yes I am highly critical of the ADA Jinsa, Beliefnet, and other groups that support rejection. I have an open invitation from anyone from Beliefnet management to debate me in open forum on their suppression of evidence during the debate over the congressional bill in thus favoring genocide denial.

What you and many do not understand is the dehumanizing effect of this denial. Any Jew knowing his history would be well aware of the importance of acknowledging the Holocaust. If it were all of a sudden decided not to refer to it as the Holocaust, it would be denying the reality of what occurred. It is easy for you to say why not talk about it. You don't see that this is dehumanizing denial of what happened and inviting its recurrence.

The attempt to kill a race is not the same as a war with individuals. It is far more sinister and something we owe ourselves to stand up to. This is why the Armenians wanted the Jews tp stand with them as part of a collective front. Sad to say those like Foxman, even though they know well the truth of this, prefer look the other way. Sad but true and just additional proof that we are in Plato's cave.

[Goat]

Norm

I'm a polite kind of guy, and it's difficult to continue to avoid observing openly that most of the Christians here are schnooks. I'm incredibly, extremely, horribly tired of being lumped in with them, and even more tired of having to educate every damn atheist and non-theist that comes down the pike from the ground up on why Judaism is different, and to what extent--and, even more, of having to overcome the huge hump, for them, of the bare fact of belief in a God when that aspect of my religion is almost peripheral.

I see the essence of Judaism and Christianity complimentary in the way described by Father Sylvan:

There are the laws of grace. The Hebraic tradition stresses this. And there is the grace of the law, which the Christian tradition stresses. Grace and law: woe to him who chooses one of these over the other. People speak of it as a paradox, which only means they cannot fit it into the computer program of the head. "Religious" people do not like to hear that there are scientific laws governing the movements of all forces, higher and lower. On the other hand, those who are attracted to the idea of lawful precision do not like to hear that these laws are not subject to human manipulation. The problem is: how to move from the holy desire for God to the precise struggle for God without the intervention of the ego? No man can give another man the holy desire, and no guide can give a man the contact with the higher. But what can be taught is the way to recognize and neutralize the initiatives of the ego.

But Christianity has degenerated to become Christendom and I don't know what to call degraded Judaism but all these degradations have one thing in common which is hypocrisy.

I acquired direct experiential knowledge of Jewish hypocrisy during the recent controversy over recognition of the Armenian genocide. There were many fine Jews that understood and this other element like Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, that openly displayed their prejudice. Yet I would never want to judge the merit of Judaism by the actions of a Foxman type. Are you willing not to judge Christianity by your experiences with people for some reason calling themselves Christians?

I disagree. There is no concept of 'grace' in Judaism.

As far as the Aremian Genocide, you are misrepresenting what his position is. From
wikipedia

n July 2007, Foxman's opposition to a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide drew much criticism. “I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Sharistan Melkonian, chairwoman of the Armenian National Committee of Eastern Massachusetts, accused Foxman of engaging in "genocide denial" in an interview with the Boston Globe.[11] Various New England communities threatened to sever ties with the ADL-sponsored "No Place for Hate" program in response.[12] In August 2007, Foxman publicly affirmed the position of the Anti-Defamation League, "that the consequences of [the Ottoman government's] actions were indeed tantamount to genocide," but that a United States Congressional recognition of this history was unnecessary and not helpful.[13][14] He went on to state, "we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. We will not hesitate to apply the term 'genocide' in the future." Foxman additionally sent a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressing regret over the difficulty his position caused for the government of Turkey: "We had no intention to put the Turkish people or its leaders in a difficult position." [15]

While yes, Foxman opposed the resolution of the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, he did not say it did not happen. He just felt that the acknowledgment was counter productive to the 'healing of wounds' between the turks and the armenians. That is twice you accused groups of bigotry because they just so happened to oppose government bill about it.

Foxman's point is that imposing the issue from outside is counterproductive. I think I might disagree with his idea, but that does not mean he is a bigot against the Armenians. He certainly does not deny that incident happened.

It sounds like you are greatly exaggerating Foxman's position to call him prejudiced. Same thing with the beliefnet people on this same subject. That does not sound very rational to me.

Goat, I won't be critical of you since if you had to look in Wiki, you don't know what this is about. It is ugly stuff. So as not to derail this thread i began another on rejection of the Armenian genocide:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#165581

I go out of my way to use Jewish sources. Yes I am highly critical of the ADA Jinsa, Beliefnet, and other groups that support rejection. I have an open invitation from anyone from Beliefnet management to debate me in open forum on their suppression of evidence during the debate over the congressional bill in thus favoring genocide denial.

What you and many do not understand is the dehumanizing effect of this denial. Any Jew knowing his history would be well aware of the importance of acknowledging the Holocaust. If it were all of a sudden decided not to refer to it as the Holocaust, it would be denying the reality of what occurred. It is easy for you to say why not talk about it. You don't see that this is dehumanizing denial of what happened and inviting its recurrence.

The attempt to kill a race is not the same as a war with individuals. It is far more sinister and something we owe ourselves to stand up to. This is why the Armenians wanted the Jews tp stand with them as part of a collective front. Sad to say those like Foxman, even though they know well the truth of this, prefer look the other way. Sad but true and just additional proof that we are in Plato's cave.

Did you read the statement posted on beliefnet? They have a commentary about it.


http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/20 ... enian.html

Did the Ottoman Turks commit genocide against the Armenians? No doubt. Is it shameful, bizarre and outrageous that the Turks today not only won't acknowledge their nation's historical guilt in this atrocity, but persecute Turks (like Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk) who dare to say so in public? Absolutely. Would it feel great for Congress to poke the Turks in the eye by passing the resolution now before both houses, officially recognizing the 1915-17 ethnic cleansing as "genocide"? Oh, you bet.

But to do so would be shockingly irresponsible. The Turks are crazy about this stuff. It's hugely important to them, emotionally. And the US absolutely cannot afford to antagonize Turkey now. The Turkish government is dealing with a population that's overwhelmingly anti-American, and has been since the Iraq war started. Ankara has threatened to cut off US access to Incirlik, the air base that's absolutely vital to our Iraq and Afghanistan war effort, if Congress passes this nonbinding resolution. Can we afford that? And given that Turkey is on the brink of launching a (justified) war against Iraqi Kurdistan for deadly cross-border raids carried out on Turkish territory by Kurdish guerrillas -- a war that could conceivably have US and Turkish troops, NATO allies, shooting at each other -- well, is it really a smart idea to stoke the fires of Turkish nationalism right about now?

[Nick_A]

Goat

That blog is from outside and not a part of management. Secondly, he doesn't realize that the Turks don't want Iran to take over Iraq nor do they want to miss out on the 14 billion dollars of trade going their way. They will huff and puff but it will just subside.

This mindset, as has been proven with appeasement, only becomes taken advantage of. It cannot solve anything because everyone knows that the heart is being replaced by fear. Once politics openly suppresses the moral good it is like a cancer that destroys the whole.

What Beliefnet did was to claim that such letters as by Dr. Michael Siegel posted on the Armenian Genocide thread I just created must be deleted along with the whole subject because it is "insulting" and "disruptive" to a controlling agenda there. Being disruptive and insulting is against the RoC. Hitler couldn't have invented better logic to explain and defend genocide denial and suppress evidence.

How they've acted in comparison to what they assert as their aim is a complete disgrace.

[Goat]

Goat

That blog is from outside and not a part of management. Secondly, he doesn't realize that the Turks don't want Iran to take over Iraq nor do they want to miss out on the 14 billion dollars of trade going their way. They will huff and puff but it will just subside.

This mindset, as has been proven with appeasement, only becomes taken advantage of. It cannot solve anything because everyone knows that the heart is being replaced by fear. Once politics openly suppresses the moral good it is like a cancer that destroys the whole.

What Beliefnet did was to claim that such letters as by Dr. Michael Siegel posted on the Armenian Genocide thread I just created must be deleted along with the whole subject because it is "insulting" and "disruptive" to a controlling agenda there. Being disruptive and insulting is against the RoC. Hitler couldn't have invented better logic to explain and defend genocide denial and suppress evidence.

How they've acted in comparison to what they assert as their aim is a complete disgrace.

Yes, it is from outside. However, by posting it on their site, they are showing their approval of it.

I see you are 'lets see what we can do to deny the evidence, and make unsupported claims'.

If you say that the Beliefnet people deny the Armenian holocaust, since that is a rather strong accusation, back it up with their own words.

I gave evidence to show they are against the political statement about it, but that they accept it happened. There is a difference you know (well, you should, it doesn't appear you actually DO). Now, unless you can back up your accusation with hard evidence, and not just someone making an ad hominem attack against them, I will have to assume you do not know what you are talking about.

You misrepresented Foxman's position, as shown by his quotes. Let's see if you can back up your accusations. Show us evidence that their position is the way you claim it is.