PDA

View Full Version : NPR President Schiller Resigns



txradioguy
03-09-2011, 10:09 AM
NPR CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned, the radio network announced Wednesday.

The announcement comes a day after a hidden-camera video was released showing a senior NPR executive criticizing the Tea Party as "racist."

NPR condemned the comments, but the company announced Wednesday that the Board of Directors just accepted Schiller's resignation, "effective immediately."

"The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years," the board said, according to a statement on NPR's website.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 10:16 AM
This story is choice! It kind of proves that the NPR leadership is composed of left-leaning liberal hypocrites. Imagine sucking up to a group promoting sharia law just to get money. NPR would be instantly disbanded under Muslim laws.

Also, scratch lefty, find an antisemite. It never seems to fail.

*shakes head*

Apocalypse
03-09-2011, 11:18 AM
Oh there is more.


NPR’s Ron Schiller: ‘I Have Agreed That My Resignation Is Effective Today’

by Matt Schneider | March 8th, 2011

The fallout from the undercover video of NPR executives began with NPR’s response and now NPR has released… Schiller’s response:

“While the meeting I participated in turned out to be a ruse, I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR’s values and also not reflective of my own beliefs. I offer my sincere apology to those I offended. I previously resigned from NPR effective May 6th to accept another job. In an effort to put this unfortunate matter behind us, NPR and I have agreed that my resignation is effective today.”


Mr. Schiller now claims that he was not representing NPR’s views or even his own. Clearly, he was possessed.


Then for more on Vivian you should read NPR's blog kinda hidden about this.


NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Resigns

By Mark Memmott
March 9, 2011

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller has resigned, NPR just announced.

This follows yesterday’s news that then-NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller (no relation) was videotaped slamming conservatives and questioning whether NPR needs federal funding during a lunch with men posing as members of a Muslim organization (they were working with political activist James O’Keefe on a "sting.")

Vivian Schiller quickly condemned Ron Schiller’s comments, and he moved up an already-announced decision to leave NPR and resigned effectively immediately. But Ron Schiller’s gaffe followed last fall’s dismissal of NPR political analyst Juan Williams, for which Vivian Schiller came under harsh criticism and NPR’s top news executive, Ellen Weiss, resigned.

NPR just sent this statement from NPR Board of Directors Chairman Dave Edwards to its staff and member stations:

"It is with deep regret that I tell you that the NPR Board of Directors has accepted the resignation of Vivian Schiller as President and CEO of NPR, effective immediately.

"The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years.

"Vivian brought vision and energy to this organization. She led NPR back from the enormous economic challenges of the previous two years. She was passionately committed to NPR’s mission, and to stations and NPR working collaboratively as a local-national news network…

"I recognize the magnitude of this news – and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR’s leadership team." …


http://tinyurl.com/4zozm8m

In her condemnation of Mr. Schiller’s remarks, did Ms. Schiller suggest he might have a mental illness, as she did in the case of Juan Williams’ statements?

namvet
03-09-2011, 11:27 AM
move over Kieth Overbite :D

Apocalypse
03-09-2011, 11:44 AM
Get this, on their Twitter, they are saying she didn't leave on her own accord now. Now they are saying she was "Forced Out"!

http://twitter.com/davidfolkenflik/status/45488128512888833

She was fired! :D

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 12:12 PM
This story is choice! It kind of proves that the NPR leadership is composed of left-leaning liberal hypocrites. Imagine sucking up to a group promoting sharia law just to get money. NPR would be instantly disbanded under Muslim laws.

Also, scratch lefty, find an antisemite. It never seems to fail.

*shakes head*

What?

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 12:21 PM
Also, scratch lefty, find an antisemite. It never seems to fail.


Jewish lefties too?

Novaheart
03-09-2011, 12:34 PM
What?

GO to Democratic Underground and read any thread about Israel. A significant number of the folks over there are malevolent anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-"zionist", and inexplicably in support of militant Islam.

Novaheart
03-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Jewish lefties too?

Quite a few of them.

Novaheart
03-09-2011, 12:36 PM
Jewish lefties too?

Amy Goodman
Ari Lewis
Naomi Kline

namvet
03-09-2011, 12:38 PM
This story is choice! It kind of proves that the NPR leadership is composed of left-leaning liberal hypocrites. Imagine sucking up to a group promoting sharia law just to get money. NPR would be instantly disbanded under Muslim laws.

Also, scratch lefty, find an antisemite. It never seems to fail.

*shakes head*

they don't need $$$.....Soros keeps em afloat. including a 1.8 mill contribution to keep this liberal 5 watt station on the air

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 12:40 PM
GO to Democratic Underground and read any thread about Israel.

Why? I was trying to tie what she said to the story. It came out as a non-sequitur, to me.


A significant number of the folks over there are malevolent anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-"zionist", and inexplicably in support of militant Islam.

Either Israel is a nation or it isn't. Choose, Novaheart.

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 12:50 PM
Quite a few of them.

Okay. Well, Ginger claimed that her axiom never seems to fail. So much for that.

Novaheart
03-09-2011, 12:58 PM
Either Israel is a nation or it isn't.

I'm sure you're terribly clever, but apparently I isn't. You'll need to clarify what you are after with this statement.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 12:59 PM
I'm sure you're terribly clever, but apparently I isn't. You'll need to clarify what you are after with this statement.

I am trying to determine if you believe Israel is a nation or not.

Usually, I am not clear but that time I thought I was. Weird.

Novaheart
03-09-2011, 01:04 PM
I am trying to determine if you believe Israel is a nation or not.

Usually, I am not clear but that time I thought I was. Weird.

Israel is a country. Israel is a nation.

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 01:37 PM
What?

In the video Schiller is seen nodding in agreement to the anti-Semitic statements the two men on the tape (posing as representatives of a Muslim Brotherhood front group) say.

“Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel,” the man posing as Ibrahim Kassam said as Schiller concurred.

When one of the men on the tape joked about how pro-Palestine NPR’s coverage is, the station executives laugh in agreement.

“The Palestinian viewpoint — since NPR is one of the few places that has the courage to really present it — there is kind of a joke, we used to call it National Palestine Radio,” said Kassam while Schiller laughs and the second executive featured in the tape, NPR’s director of institutional giving Betsy Liley, replies, “That’s good, I like that.”

Schiller goes on to boast that while the Zionists have heavy influence over newspapers, he has not found too much Jewish influence at NPR.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/adl-calls-for-an-apology-from-npr-executive/#ixzz1G83Xd4yY

Jewish lefties too?
Yep. Leftist politics often entails renunciation and hatred for previous affiliations. Quite a few leftist Jews are virulently hateful towards observant or non-leftist Jews. Many get it from Marx, who was virulently anti-Jewish. For many leftists, hatred of Jews is part and parcel of the hatred of capitalism.


Amy Goodman
Ari Lewis
Naomi Kline
Noam Chomsky
Karl Marx
J-Street

I am trying to determine if you believe Israel is a nation or not.
Usually, I am not clear but that time I thought I was. Weird.

Israel is a nation. Jews are a people. Israel is a nation founded by Jews, so that Jews would have their own homeland.

In 1973, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote:


Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism. One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism. The old classic anti-Semitism declared that equal rights belong to all individuals within the society, except the Jews. The new anti-Semitism says that the right to establish and maintain an independent national sovereign state is the prerogative of all nations, so long as they happen not to be Jewish. And when this right is exercised not by the Maldive Islands, not by the state of Gabon, not by Barbados… but by the oldest and most authentic of all nationhoods, then this is said to be exclusivism, particularism, and a flight of the Jewish people from its universal mission

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 01:54 PM
Yep. Leftist politics often entails renunciation and hatred for previous affiliations. Quite a few leftist Jews are virulently hateful towards observant or non-leftist Jews. Many get it from Marx, who was virulently anti-Jewish. For many leftists, hatred of Jews is part and parcel of the hatred of capitalism.


No biggie. As I've pointed out in the past, even Jesus was theologically anti-semitic.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 01:55 PM
In the video Schiller is seen nodding in agreement to the anti-Semitic statements the two men on the tape (posing as representatives of a Muslim Brotherhood front group) say.

“Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel,” the man posing as Ibrahim Kassam said as Schiller concurred.

Schiller "concurred"? How?

The nodding thing is ridiculous, btw. The pretend-guy was trying to bait Schiller and it wasn't taken. End of that story.


When one of the men on the tape joked about how pro-Palestine NPR’s coverage is, the station executives laugh in agreement.

“The Palestinian viewpoint — since NPR is one of the few places that has the courage to really present it — there is kind of a joke, we used to call it National Palestine Radio,” said Kassam while Schiller laughs and the second executive featured in the tape, NPR’s director of institutional giving Betsy Liley, replies, “That’s good, I like that.”

So he made a self-deprecating joke about NPR because they are not reflexively anti-Palestinian? That makes him anti-semitic?

Pretty low bar, that. You either hate Palestinians and never report objectively on them or you are anti-semitic.


Schiller goes on to boast that while the Zionists have heavy influence over newspapers, he has not found too much Jewish influence at NPR.

Quote, please. Not someone's characterization of what he said.


Israel is a nation.

And should be treated as such.


Jews are a people.

OK.


Israel is a nation founded by Jews, so that Jews would have their own homeland.

I don't give a rat's ass if the nation was founded by Zoroastrians. Either they are a country or not. If they are then they should be held to the same account as any other nation.

If I think The Islamic Republic of Iran is behaving badly, and I consider their torture and murder of opposition wholly unconscionable, and I voice that opinion, it does not make me anti-Islamic or anti-Persian. I am critical of a nation.


In 1973, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote:

[INDENT]Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism. One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism. The old classic anti-Semitism declared that equal rights belong to all individuals within the society, except the Jews. The new anti-Semitism says that the right to establish and maintain an independent national sovereign state is the prerogative of all nations, so long as they happen not to be Jewish. And when this right is exercised not by the Maldive Islands, not by the state of Gabon, not by Barbados… but by the oldest and most authentic of all nationhoods, then this is said to be exclusivism, particularism, and a flight of the Jewish people from its universal mission

Good for him.

Articulate_Ape
03-09-2011, 02:21 PM
Jewish lefties too?

There are fewer and fewer of those every day now that they are waking up to where the Left stands. Trust me, I know a lot of them.

namvet
03-09-2011, 02:23 PM
DXinMaw-1qg

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 02:47 PM
There are fewer and fewer of those every day now that they are waking up to where the Left stands. Trust me, I know a lot of them.

I do not trust you.

namvet
03-09-2011, 02:53 PM
the guy nailed in the vid is Ron Schiller. hubby ???

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 03:08 PM
the guy nailed in the vid is Ron Schiller. hubby ???

They are not related.

namvet
03-09-2011, 03:14 PM
They are not related.

to bad. could have got 2 for the price a one

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 05:10 PM
Schiller "concurred"? How?
The nodding thing is ridiculous, btw. The pretend-guy was trying to bait Schiller and it wasn't taken. End of that story
So he made a self-deprecating joke about NPR because they are not reflexively anti-Palestinian? That makes him anti-semitic?

Pretty low bar, that. You either hate Palestinians and never report objectively on them or you are anti-semitic..
I consider a nod an affirmation, and when someone says something to me that I consider virulently racist, I react, and not pleasantly. Now, maybe he just wanted that $5 million grant, or maybe he agreed, but doesn't it bother you that he was willing to take money from what he thought was a Muslim Brotherhood front? One that bankrolls terror groups like Hamas? No? Or that he's willing to swallow, along with is lunch, a blatantly anti-semitic statement?


Quote, please. Not someone's characterization of what he said.


Speaking of Zionist influence at NPR: I don't actually find it at NPR; the zionist or pro-Israel even among funders. No. I mean it's there in those who own newspapers, obviously; but no one owns NPR. So I, actually, I don't find it ... Right, because I think they are really looking for a fair point of view and many Jewish organizations are not. And frankly, many organizations, I'm sure there are Muslim organizations that are not looking for a fair point of view. They're looking for a very particular point of view and that's fine. We're not one of them. I'm gathering that you're not, actually.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Full transcript: Ron Schiller fuels NPR outrage in sting video - National Political Transcripts | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/full-transcript-ron-schiller-fuels-npr-outrage-sting-video#ixzz1G8qhhQon


And should be treated as such.
That would be nice. The left treats Israel as a pariah while ignoring horrific behavior by Arab states.


I don't give a rat's ass if the nation was founded by Zoroastrians. Either they are a country or not. If they are then they should be held to the same account as any other nation.

If I think The Islamic Republic of Iran is behaving badly, and I consider their torture and murder of opposition wholly unconscionable, and I voice that opinion, it does not make me anti-Islamic or anti-Persian. I am critical of a nation.

Okay, then hold Israel to the same standard that you hold other nations to. Iran tortures and murders the opposition. Israel doesn't.


Good for him.
Way to not address the content of what he wrote. Do you disagree with his statement? Do you agree or disagree that some people couch anti-semitism as anti-zionism or anti-Israeli rhetoric?

No biggie. As I've pointed out in the past, even Jesus was theologically anti-semitic.
This is stupid, even for you. Jesus never explicitly attacked Jews. Marx did. Often. And in writing. Some examples:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, 1844

“In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question, 1844

Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan,” New-York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856

… the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan,” New-York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856

… Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan,” New-York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856

… The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.

Karl Marx, “The Russian Loan,” New-York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856

You can concede this point any time you like, Nightie.

Hawkgirl
03-09-2011, 05:20 PM
they are going to need a leftie support group pretty soon....:)

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 07:56 PM
This is stupid, even for you. Jesus never explicitly attacked Jews. Marx did. Often. And in writing. Some examples:


John 8:44-47 (King James Version)

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Yes, I'd say that John 8:44-47 is pretty explicitly an attack on Jews.

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 08:04 PM
What was my "never-failing" axiom?

This NPR rep nodded in response to assertions that were antisemitic. Had the nod come during assertions that all women are conniving bitches or that blacks mostly played the system in terms of affirmation action, those assertions would be sexist or racist and a nodding agreement in that context would be agreement.

When I heard someone in a business discussion label a tribe we were having difficulties with as "fat alkies", I sure didn't sit there and nod. I spoke up instantly. Surely a superbly educated member of NPR doesn't have worse manners, let alone worse morals, that some redneck like me.

Odysseus
03-09-2011, 08:53 PM
I'd say that's pretty explicitly attacking Jews.

I wouldn't. If you go back to the beginning of John 8, you find that he is addressing the Pharisees, not all Jews. But, don't let that stop you from trying to make the claim that Jesus was an anti semite. Facts are stubborn things, but so are you.


John 8
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,
4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e]
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Jesus Defends His Self-Witness

13 [B]The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”
14 Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going.
15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.
16 And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me.
17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”
20 These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come.

Jesus Predicts His Departure

21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”
22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”
23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”
And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”
27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.
28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.
29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”
30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.

The Truth Shall Make You Free

31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Abraham’s Seed and Satan’s

37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with[l] your father.”
39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.
41 You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 08:55 PM
What was my "never-failing" axiom?

This NPR rep nodded in response to assertions that were antisemitic. Had the nod come during assertions that all women are conniving bitches or that blacks mostly played the system in terms of affirmation action, those assertions would be sexist or racist and a nodding agreement in that context would be agreement.

When I heard someone in a business discussion label a tribe we were having difficulties with as "fat alkies", I sure didn't sit there and nod. I spoke up instantly. Surely a superbly educated member of NPR doesn't have worse manners, let alone worse morals, that some redneck like me.

Wow! You have a short memory. See post #2.

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 08:57 PM
I wouldn't. If you go back to the beginning of John 8, you find that he is addressing the Pharisees, not all Jews. But, don't let that stop you from trying to make the claim that Jesus was an anti semite. Facts are stubborn things, but so are you.

Really? What comes after John 8:47?


John 8:48 (King James Version)

48Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

Then answered the Jews!

malloc
03-09-2011, 09:05 PM
Really? What comes after John 8:47?

John 8:48 (King James Version)

48Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

Then answered the Jews, not then answered the Pharisees.


I'm no biblical expert, but if all Pharisees are Jews, but not all Jews are Pharisees, some interesting logical facts come to light. One such fact is a matter of language, once the specific object is made the subject it is perfectly acceptable to later refer to the subject in a more general form.

i.e. "I was discussing a topic with some Frenchmen and asked a difficult question. Those Europeans couldn't answer me with anything rational." (Does this imply I was talking with all Europeans?)

i.e. "I was loading apples into the back of the truck all day today. By four o'clock, I was too worn out to lift any more of the fruit!" (Does this imply that I was lifting random fruit?)

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 09:18 PM
Wow! You have a short memory. See post #2.

Still not seeing it. The response was antisemitic. :confused:

The Night Owl
03-09-2011, 09:35 PM
Still not seeing it. The response was antisemitic. :confused:


Also, scratch lefty, find an antisemite. It never seems to fail.

An anti-semite is not found every time one scratches a lefty. So, it can't be said that your axiom never seems to fail because it seems to fail quite a lot.

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 09:40 PM
An anti-semite is not found every time one scratches a lefty. So, it can't be said that your axiom never seems to fail because it seems to fail quite a lot.

I didn't label it an axiom and "seems" appears to be qualifier but one I didn't need in this context.

In this case, the lefty was scratched and revealed to be a bigot against Jews.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 10:00 PM
I didn't label it an axiom and "seems" appears to be qualifier but one I didn't need in this context.

In this case, the lefty was scratched and revealed to be a bigot against Jews.

How? I didn't see it.

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 10:08 PM
How? I didn't see it.

I know. :(

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 10:11 PM
I know. :(


I feel the same way about your joining the lynch mob so we are even.

Gingersnap
03-09-2011, 10:40 PM
I feel the same way about your joining the lynch mob so we are even.

Thanks for stereotyping some other racial/cultural/religious group on my behalf. Your penetrating insight into my own antecedents is.......novel.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2011, 10:46 PM
Thanks for stereotyping some other racial/cultural/religious group on my behalf. Your penetrating insight into my own antecedents is.......novel.

Truth sucks, huh? Trust me, I know.

Live with your "intellectual" choices, Ginger, and don't get tetchy with me when I point them out.

txradioguy
03-09-2011, 11:17 PM
Thanks for stereotyping some other racial/cultural/religious group on my behalf. Your penetrating insight into my own antecedents is.......novel.

Don't worry Ginger...he doesn't mean it. He never does. He'll change his mind in a little bit and say something completely different.

People with no convictions and who are willing to change their views on a subject just to be contrarian are like that.

And when it boils down to it...it's not worth getting upset when you consider the source.

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 09:33 AM
Really? What comes after John 8:47?

Then answered the Jews!
As Malloc points out in the next post, all Pharisees were Jews, but not all Jews were Pharisees. It describes an argument with some Jews, not a condemnation of all Jews. It's a passing reference that you are conflating to a mass indictment. Marx's attacks on Jews are directed against all Jews and Judaism as a religion and philosophy, and clearly constitute a blanket condemnation. Anyone calling themselves a doctrinaire Marxist has a more than passing chance of being an anti-semite.


I'm no biblical expert, but if all Pharisees are Jews, but not all Jews are Pharisees, some interesting logical facts come to light. One such fact is a matter of language, once the specific object is made the subject it is perfectly acceptable to later refer to the subject in a more general form.

i.e. "I was discussing a topic with some Frenchmen and asked a difficult question. Those Europeans couldn't answer me with anything rational." (Does this imply I was talking with all Europeans?)

i.e. "I was loading apples into the back of the truck all day today. By four o'clock, I was too worn out to lift any more of the fruit!" (Does this imply that I was lifting random fruit?)
If you were lifting random fruit, it would no longer be forbidden under DADT. :D

An anti-semite is not found every time one scratches a lefty. So, it can't be said that your axiom never seems to fail because it seems to fail quite a lot.
No, but there is a correlation between leftist politics and anti-semitism. The left, as a group, doesn't not care for the things that Judaism stands for, which are the supremacy of one God, His covenant with Abraham and his decendants, the rule of His law and the pursuit of knowledge as a means of knowing His creation and living as He intended. The single most obvious reform of Reform Judaism is the breaking of the covenant for political expediency.

I feel the same way about your joining the lynch mob so we are even.
There's a lynch mob? Who brought the donuts?

txradioguy
03-10-2011, 09:40 AM
How? I didn't see it.

Wow. Big surprise there.

The Night Owl
03-10-2011, 10:28 AM
No, but there is a correlation between leftist politics and anti-semitism.

You should take that back. True lefties disike religion in general. The left has no special aversion to Judaism or Jews.


The left, as a group, doesn't not care for the things that Judaism stands for, which are the supremacy of one God, His covenant with Abraham and his decendants, the rule of His law...

What you mean to say is that freedom is not compatible with monotheism. Monotheism is totalitarianism built on occultism.


...and the pursuit of knowledge as a means of knowing His creation and living as He intended.

Knowledge is not pursued in monotheism. It is revealed.

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 04:30 PM
You should take that back. True lefties disike religion in general. The left has no special aversion to Judaism or Jews.

Nope. True lefties who are devoted to Marx have a special animus towards Jews. I've provided the quotes in which Marx attacks Jews. It is not an aberration, but a long-held belief on his part, and one that infused the policies pursued by many of his followers.


What you mean to say is that freedom is not compatible with monotheism. Monotheism is totalitarianism built on occultism.
I'm perfectly capable of making my meaning clear. Freedom is not only not incompatible with monotheism, but the monotheistic religious traditions of individual salvation and responsibility in herent in Judaism and Christianity were the critical factors in the liberty of those states which are based on Judeo-Christian values.


Knowledge is not pursued in monotheism. It is revealed.
False again. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were driven by monotheists whose belief in a rationally created universe that was set in motion in accordance with natural laws compelled them to seek knowledge of that universe and its laws and, by doing so, to gain knowledge of its creator. Islam, OTOH, does not posit a rationally created universe, but presumes that every event is driven by the will of Allah, and that to seek to understand Allah's creation, and thus Allah, is to seek to know the unknowable, and a blasphemy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rZN2hph86mo/TXees64noQI/AAAAAAAACtU/oNDC3lXdZhQ/s640/National%2BPublic%2BRidicule.jpg

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/031011.jpg

The Night Owl
03-10-2011, 04:49 PM
I'm perfectly capable of making my meaning clear. Freedom is not only not incompatible with monotheism, but the monotheistic religious traditions of individual salvation and responsibility in herent in Judaism and Christianity were the critical factors in the liberty of those states which are based on Judeo-Christian values.

You said it yourself: Judaism and Christianity stand for the supremacy of one God. How would you describe a state ruled by a supreme authority who knows every thought of every subject and who is in control of every aspect of existence? I would describe that as a totalitarian state nightmare.

The Night Owl
03-10-2011, 05:03 PM
False again. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were driven by monotheists whose belief in a rationally created universe that was set in motion in accordance with natural laws compelled them to seek knowledge of that universe and its laws and, by doing so, to gain knowledge of its creator.

Proverbs 2:6 (King James Version)

6For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.


Islam, OTOH, does not posit a rationally created universe, but presumes that every event is driven by the will of Allah, and that to seek to understand Allah's creation, and thus Allah, is to seek to know the unknowable, and a blasphemy.

Ephesians 1:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 05:51 PM
You said it yourself: Judaism and Christianity stand for the supremacy of one God. How would you describe a state ruled by a supreme authority who knows every thought of every subject and who is in control of every aspect of existence? I would describe that as a totalitarian state nightmare.
So, what you are saying is that the universe is a totalitarian state? Well, natural law brooks no challenge. But that doesn't mean that the religions are totalitarian. In fact, scientific thought was advanced by religious men and women throughout human history, whose desire to know the workings of the universe was based on their belief that the universe was created and set in motion in accordance with laws which could be discerned rationally:


Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions."

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 05:52 PM
Proverbs 2:6 (King James Version)
6For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Ephesians 1:11-12 (King James Version)
11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

So?

The Bible contains revelations, but also commands that men seek to understand God's will. The Talmud saw science as a system of truth, but also a manifestations of the same divine truth as the Bible. One example, from Psalm 104:

24 How many are your works, LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

The funny thing is, I'm not a believer, but an agnostic, but I find your contempt for believers more annoying than their professions of faith. If I take their side, it is not because I believe in God (I am firmly agnostic), but because I find your proclamations of certainty to be more dangerous than theirs.

The Night Owl
03-10-2011, 07:23 PM
So, what you are saying is that the universe is a totalitarian state? Well, natural law brooks no challenge. But that doesn't mean that the religions are totalitarian.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't believe that the universe is a kind of totalitarian state because I don't believe there is a supreme authority ruling over it.

One nice thing about the universe we have is that there are no rules. There are laws and constraints but they are the incidental consequences of how the universe came to be, not a thoughtful scheme imposed by a ruler.


In fact, scientific thought was advanced by religious men and women throughout human history, whose desire to know the workings of the universe was based on their belief that the universe was created and set in motion in accordance with laws which could be discerned rationally:

Science was advanced by religious men and women throughout history because there weren't any other kind of men and women until only recently.

Odysseus
03-10-2011, 08:39 PM
You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't believe that the universe is a kind of totalitarian state because I don't believe there is a supreme authority ruling over it.
No, I'm pretty sure that I've got you pegged for who you are.


One nice thing about the universe we have is that there are no rules. There are laws and constraints but they are the incidental consequences of how the universe came to be, not a thoughtful scheme imposed by a ruler.

Science was advanced by religious men and women throughout history because there weren't any other kind of men and women until only recently.

And now, non-religious men and women are reducing science to superstition. See the AGW hysteria for an example.

RobJohnson
03-11-2011, 05:59 AM
Jewish lefties too?

My boss is as left as they get, but mostly due to the fact he is clueless. He claims that he and his wife are athiest, but his wife is Jewish. I always thought you had to believe in God to be Jewish, but hey I could be wrong. :p

I know one thing. It might be very warm where you end up. Eternity is forever. :)

RobJohnson
03-11-2011, 06:03 AM
they are going to need a leftie support group pretty soon....:)

It would be limited to a 3 step program...it's difficult for them to focus on more then that.. :p

Odysseus
03-11-2011, 10:50 AM
My boss is as left as they get, but mostly due to the fact he is clueless. He claims that he and his wife are athiest, but his wife is Jewish. I always thought you had to believe in God to be Jewish, but hey I could be wrong. :p

I know one thing. It might be very warm where you end up. Eternity is forever. :)
Generally, we know we're Jews because we're reminded of it by gentiles. :D

It would be limited to a 3 step program...it's difficult for them to focus on more then that.. :p

Step one: Get power
Step two: Abuse it
Step three: Throw a tantrum when you lose it.