Why choose one?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Ok the basic question is this. If God was trying to reveal himself to a people, wouldn't it make sense to reveal himself according to their culture? It doesn't make sense to deny all religions but your own. Any thoughts? (and I don't want any "no the bible says so" cause so does the Koran and the Torah and the Mormons and almost everyone else.)

[cnorman18]

I don't think any of those are under current attack in the Arab world.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you brought this up, and you brought it up because it is a lie that is primarily directed at Jews.

Why are you arguing with me on this? First it was an historical matter, which it isn't, and now it involves a whole bunch of other people, which it currently doesn't. Do you expect me to say, "Oh, okay then, it's no big deal"?

You've already apologized, and I accepted that apology. Why can't we let it go at that?

Or is it one of your primary imperatives that any conviction held by any theist must be either denied or trivialized?

One of my primary imperatives is that cultural exceptionalism is wrong. Yes, the Holocaust was horrible, but so were all the other genoicdes. Yes, the Blood Libel against Jews was horrible, but so were the blood libels against other targets.

What makes these things wrong is independent of whether the target is Jewish.

TC

I would not argue with that for a moment.

That does mean that facts cannot be recognized as facts.

Many groups are victimized by racism in the United States. Latinos, Indians, Native Americans, Asians, and on and on. But it would be silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that its primary and most frequent victims are African-American.

The Nazis targeted many groups in the Holocaust; Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, dissident Catholics, the Roma, and on and on. But it would be just as silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that the primary targets were Jews. The literal extermination of the Jewish people was the explicit goal of the camp system, and though others were swept up in the effort, that remained true, and is proven so in Nazi records and public statements.

That is not "cultural exceptionalism." That is acknowledgment of fact. The Blood Libel is no different. Yes, it has been directed at others; but Jews have been its most frequent and persistent victims for more than eight hundred years.

I don't see how merely acknowledging that FACT is "wrong."

Aren't you all about recognizing objective facts as facts, and all that? Are some facts to be suppressed, minimized, or marginalized for the sake of politically correct evenhandedness?

I don't ignore or minimize the other victims of genocide and propaganda. Jews in general don't; there is an entire section of the Holocaust memorial and museum at Yad Vashem in Israel dedicated to those victims.

But facts remain facts, and ought to be acknowledged as facts.

[Thought Criminal]

I would not argue with that for a moment.

That does mean that facts cannot be recognized as facts.

Many groups are victimized by racism in the United States. Latinos, Indians, Native Americans, Asians, and on and on. But it would be silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that its primary and most frequent victims are African-American.

The Nazis targeted many groups in the Holocaust; Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, dissident Catholics, the Roma, and on and on. But it would be just as silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that the primary targets were Jews. The literal extermination of the Jewish people was the explicit goal of the camp system, and though others were swept up in the effort, that remained true, and is proven so in Nazi records and public statements.

That is not "cultural exceptionalism." That is acknowledgment of fact. The Blood Libel is no different. Yes, it has been directed at others; but Jews have been its most frequent and persistent victims for more than eight hundred years.

I don't see how merely acknowledging that FACT is "wrong."

Aren't you all about recognizing objective facts as facts, and all that? Are some facts to be suppressed, minimized, or marginalized for the sake of politically correct evenhandedness?

I don't ignore or minimize the other victims of genocide and propaganda. Jews in general don't; there is an entire section of the Holocaust memorial and museum at Yad Vashem in Israel dedicated to those victims.

But facts remain facts, and ought to be acknowledged as facts.

I'm fine with the facts, I'm less happy with the emphasis.

Therefore, when I see a fact that, in isolation, would give undue emphasis, I point out related facts that put it in full context.

TC

[cnorman18]

I would not argue with that for a moment.

That does mean that facts cannot be recognized as facts.

Many groups are victimized by racism in the United States. Latinos, Indians, Native Americans, Asians, and on and on. But it would be silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that its primary and most frequent victims are African-American.

The Nazis targeted many groups in the Holocaust; Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, dissident Catholics, the Roma, and on and on. But it would be just as silly and unrealistic not to acknowledge that the primary targets were Jews. The literal extermination of the Jewish people was the explicit goal of the camp system, and though others were swept up in the effort, that remained true, and is proven so in Nazi records and public statements.

That is not "cultural exceptionalism." That is acknowledgment of fact. The Blood Libel is no different. Yes, it has been directed at others; but Jews have been its most frequent and persistent victims for more than eight hundred years.

I don't see how merely acknowledging that FACT is "wrong."

Aren't you all about recognizing objective facts as facts, and all that? Are some facts to be suppressed, minimized, or marginalized for the sake of politically correct evenhandedness?

I don't ignore or minimize the other victims of genocide and propaganda. Jews in general don't; there is an entire section of the Holocaust memorial and museum at Yad Vashem in Israel dedicated to those victims.

But facts remain facts, and ought to be acknowledged as facts.

I'm fine with the facts, I'm less happy with the emphasis.

Therefore, when I see a fact that, in isolation, would give undue emphasis, I point out related facts that put it in full context.

TC

I agree that that is fair, and looking back, I can see that that is what you were doing. I apologize for taking offense and retract my objections.

I have many faults--just ask my ex-wife--and I admit that one of them is taking things personally when there is no reason to do so.

Again, I apologize.

[Thought Criminal]

I agree that that is fair, and looking back, I can see that that is what you were doing. I apologize for taking offense and retract my objections.

I have many faults--just ask my ex-wife--and I admit that one of them is taking things personally when there is no reason to do so.

Again, I apologize.

If you'd done anything that needed apologizing for, I would gladly forgive you. Since you haven't, there's nothing more to say.

TC

[cnorman18]

I agree that that is fair, and looking back, I can see that that is what you were doing. I apologize for taking offense and retract my objections.

I have many faults--just ask my ex-wife--and I admit that one of them is taking things personally when there is no reason to do so.

Again, I apologize.

If you'd done anything that needed apologizing for, I would gladly forgive you. Since you haven't, there's nothing more to say.

TC

LOL! TC, if my ex-wife had been more like you--gender excepted, of course--I might still be married. With her, 40 apologies still weren't enough, whether I had done anything that warranted one or not.

Seriously, I think after essentially snarling at you as I did, an apology was appropriate. I call it civility. But lest we begin to argue about whether or not I should have offered one, thanks for your gracious response.

[Thought Criminal]

LOL! TC, if my ex-wife had been more like you--gender excepted, of course--I might still be married. With her, 40 apologies still weren't enough, whether I had done anything that warranted one or not.

Seriously, I think after essentially snarling at you as I did, an apology was appropriate. I call it civility. But lest we begin to argue about whether or not I should have offered one, thanks for your gracious response.

I've made a point of not talking about my own background here, and in fact, haven't specified my gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity. It's funny that people draw their own conclusions. For example, a participant on Volconvo decided that I must be a black lesbian, based on my politics.

TC

[cnorman18]

LOL! TC, if my ex-wife had been more like you--gender excepted, of course--I might still be married. With her, 40 apologies still weren't enough, whether I had done anything that warranted one or not.

Seriously, I think after essentially snarling at you as I did, an apology was appropriate. I call it civility. But lest we begin to argue about whether or not I should have offered one, thanks for your gracious response.

I've made a point of not talking about my own background here, and in fact, haven't specified my gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity. It's funny that people draw their own conclusions. For example, a participant on Volconvo decided that I must be a black lesbian, based on my politics.

TC

Good point. I dunno. I'm not really in the habit of thinking about it much.

Black lesbian, hmmm....

I have no fricken clue how anybody could draw that conclusion from anything.

[Thought Criminal]

LOL! TC, if my ex-wife had been more like you--gender excepted, of course--I might still be married. With her, 40 apologies still weren't enough, whether I had done anything that warranted one or not.

Seriously, I think after essentially snarling at you as I did, an apology was appropriate. I call it civility. But lest we begin to argue about whether or not I should have offered one, thanks for your gracious response.

I've made a point of not talking about my own background here, and in fact, haven't specified my gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity. It's funny that people draw their own conclusions. For example, a participant on Volconvo decided that I must be a black lesbian, based on my politics.

TC

Good point. I dunno. I'm not really in the habit of thinking about it much.

Black lesbian, hmmm....

I have no fricken clue how anybody could draw that conclusion from anything.

That's pretty much my point.

The person drew this conclusion based on the standard conservative/libertarian fallacy that, since we should only care about ourselves and perhaps a few people near us, anyone who expresses unhappiness with bigotry towards blacks or lesbians must be both. I chose to use racism, sexism and homophobia as examples of unacceptable social policies, so I must be a black lesbian.

I think the real point here is that it really doesn't matter what I am.

TC