Piosity is a very deceptive thing. I suppose that the Levite (Judg 19) that offered his concubine to the scoundrels of Gibeah, and as he heard the clothes tearing and the thump of flesh against the earth, might have prayed something similar. “We pray for thy protection of this young girl that stands in harm’s way to defend us.”

The things that are fitting in respect to a nation that sends girls out with guns to defend it, are apologies and deep repentance, not prayers for God’s blessings on the plan.

But our cowardice becomes double-murder when we realize we are sending them, indeed into harm’s way, but certainly not to defend this country.

My thesis is very simple: the term anti-semitism exploits an equivocation between race and religion that sets up the discourse for fallacious inferences. Moreover, the privileged status that this term has over others in its genre is itself an indication of the racism of those that recklessly purvey it.

The equivocation works like this. Charlie says something negative about Judaism. Himey retorts, “Charlie is an anti-semite.” This premise established, it now follows by rigorous deduction, “Charlie discriminates against people because of their accident of birth” i.e. “Charlie is a racist.”

It can work in the opposite direction as well. Charlie makes an ethnic generalization about Jews that is negative. Someone shrieks, “anti-semite!” Presto, it turns out that Charlie is a religious bigot — though Charlie’s comment had nothing to do with religion.

Bad as this built-in ambiguity is, what is worse is the implicit threat of its being deployed to Bulverize and marginalize anyone that would criticize Jews. Real-life examples are pervasive, and it would belabor the point to cite them endlessly. Here is just one recent example, where Sean Hannity says to radio talk-show host Melanie Morgan,

“[Cindy Sheehan] said, my first son born was killed for lies and for a neo-con agenda to benefit Israel, repeatedly saying ‘America out of Iraq, Israel out of Palestine,’ you’ll stop terrorism that way. Do you think those statements are anti-Semitic?”

Melanie answered, “Well I don’t know if Cindy Sheehan herself is anti-Semitic, I suspect she may have some Jewish friends. But I can tell you for sure that those comments are anti-Semitic and they’re deeply hurtful and divisive.”

Think about this. Sheehan’s statement says, “America in Iraq is terrorism, and Israel in Palestine is terrorism.” Sean does not identify this as “anti-Americanism.” That would be too absurd, as if questioning our policy makes one “anti-” anything. But for some reason, it is not seen as absurd to ask if it is “anti-semitic.”

And Melanie chimes right in that believing Israel in Palestine is terrorism, if consistent, would imply that one does not have Jewish friends; Cindy herself is probably inconsistent, but the sentiment is certainly “anti-Semitic.”

This is a way to model human interaction and thought that would be scoffed at as arrogant and preposterous if any other ethnos tried to do it. Construct, for example, an almost perfect mirror to Cindy’s statement, but concerning Mexico. Suppose someone said, “The transnational highway is sacrificing American small businessmen for lies and for a neo-con agenda to benefit Mexico.” Can you imagine Sean asking, “do you think those statements are anti-mexicite?”

Consider that (as Wex admitted) gentile and Christian are virtual synonyms in Jewish vocabulary. So, by parity of usage, when Hollywood makes one of its routine attacks against Christianity, the NY Times should huff about the ominous “anti-gentilism” that pervades Hollywood, like a disease. “Those dirty anti-gentites,” people should be heard to growl in college film classes.

The situation is actually even more absurd than that. The claim should be (to continue the example) that Hollywood is “anti-Japhethite,” by analogy to the son of Noah we are descended from.

The absurdity reveals itself just by making the analogy; nothing new needs to be said.

It is too much of a digression to pursue right now, but of course the modern purveyors of the expression (excepting their Christian sycophants) no longer believe in the sons of Noah anyway. Later. For now: just think what a linguistic coup it was to identify “anything Jewish” with “descendant of Shem.”

I pass by also the opportunity to note yet another ambiguity nested in the term. Arabs are Semites; yet by the media’s definition, they are (often) anti-Semitic!

Absurd is the idea that our rejection of the Talmudic nest of teaching known as Judaism is a manifestation of racial rivalry. After all, we would be doubly outraged if a fellow Japhethite fell into such error. If anything, we tend to cut the Jew some extra slack on account of his race.

(And that is surely incipient racism!)

Now if the Jew protests, “we can’t help believing this stuff; it’s in our race,” I say: “repent of your race then.”

But only by way of calling his bluff.

In fact, we are hopeful that Jews will repent of that dark, arrogant, and self-worshipping pseudo-religion, without needing to reverse history and be born to a different line of ancestors than they in fact have been.

To think otherwise would itself be to commit the judaic mistake.

Unlike oxymora such as these, “Christian-Zionist” is not humorous. It is as offensive and absurd as “Christian-sodomite,” “Christian-abortionist,” and “Christian-witch.” But in an era such as ours, the absurd becomes the norm.

One of the main proponents of “Christian-Zionism” is the dispensationalist cult leader, “Rev.” John Hagee. Hagee usually performs weekly in front of his 18,000 member non-denominational Cornerstone faux Church in San Antonio, Texas. Last week he took his act on the road to the annual Israeli lovefest in Washington D.C. known as the AIPAC Policy Conference.

In his speech he assured the Judaics and Zionists in the audience that he and his followers were committed to Israel’s ongoing persecution of Arabs and Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) and, after repeating the tired comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolph Hitler, made clear that he would like nothing better than to see the U.S. invade and destroy Iran. To cap off his performance he publically apologized to the Jews for the “anti-Semitic” attitudes and actions that Christendom has regularly been guilty of over its long and unsavory history. Not only did he feel free to speak for Protestants, but Roman Catholics as well. This man is a walking definition of audacity.

“Rev.” Hagee aside, Christianity, of course, has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism is a modern movement organized by some Jews which has set as its main goal the stealing of land from Palestinians and Arabs through intrigue, intimidation and brute force. It is predominately a secular religion, although numerous Judaics have been willing to provide Talmudic and Cabalistic cover for the land grab. (There is a good deal of irony here. Not even the most crazy Lubavitcher rabbi would accept Hagee’s comic book version of the Old Testament.)

Wishing to be a peacemaker, let me propose a deal. Hagee and his cult can have the Zionism, those of us who are followers of Jesus Christ and are members of the Holy Catholic Church will take the Christianity. This should make all sides happy. The orthodox can get the good name of their religion back while Hagee and his kind can keep their goy religion as they like it: rabbinically-approved and kosher.

The Talmud is a difficult work to summarize. It is a huge work (the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud consists of 27 volumes) written and compiled by numerous rabbis over several centuries. It is filled with legends, petty regulations of every aspect of life, and sophistic reasoning. H. L. Mencken undertook the arduous task of reading it in its entirety. Here is his summation.

“I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, ‘Science and Health’ and the Book of Mormon.”

Apart from this, the Talmud is one of the most anti-Christian books ever published. It teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a harlot (Sanhedrin 106a), that Jesus is in hell burning in “hot excrement” (Gittin 57a), that Jesus was a sorcerer (Shabbos 104b), and that he lusted after women (Sotah 47a).

Though shocking, such vitriol is not surprising when we consider that it comes from those who rejected the Son of God. What is surprising is how the majority of American Christians came to believe that there is some fundamental commonality between Judaism and Christianity – the “Judeo-Christian Tradition.” That story is an interesting one. And one I will reserve for a future post.

Fascism has two basic usages today, one precise, and one nebulous.

The precise usage is in the field of Economics, which defines fascism as a command economy retaining private property. On this definition, ours is arguably more of a fascist economy than some Muslim nations.

The nebulous usage includes a smorgasbord of attributes, such as authoritarian. Usually, you can expect the N-word to crop up in the same discussion (I mean of course “Nazi”). There are two problems with the nebulous usage:

1. Each attribute by itself defines too broad a class; but in conjunction the list defines too narrow a class if not indeed the empty set. For example, someone might say, “willingness to use torture to maintain power,” but then communists were willing to do so, and they are generally regarded as anti-fascists. Likewise, examine any list of attributes in conjunction: “A and B and C and … Z” and you will often learn more about the writer than any group of people that fits the connotation.

2. To the extent that a meaningful list of attributes can be given, it applies par excellence to the very people that throw the term around! See an excellent analysis of this phenomenon here.

My $20 to your ten that anyone using the term “Islamo-fascism”

• doesn’t know what fascism is
• doesn’t know what Islam is
• doesn’t know about the relation of language and logic

What they do know, is how to commit rhetorical terrorism.

Upon analysis, the words, “I take full responsibility,” when used in such a way, mean nothing of the sort. Rather, a string of phonemes that sound like the otherwise meaningful sentence, “I take full responsibility,” has been vocalized. As such, the sounds are as vacuous as the men who utter them.

Here is an invitation to the world: send me a documentable citation, and I will reholster my revolver.

(One internet doctor claims Voetius, but could not give a citation in response to my email query. Not that Voetius counts as a Reformer anyhow.)

Let’s think about the slogan. I give my dynamic-equivalent translation: “The Reformed Church should continually be formed again” (lit. “is always to be reformed.”)

If the expression were merely saying that all councils and creeds are in principle subject to err, then it is utterly missing the point to single out the church reformata as the one always to be reforming. Indeed, if we really are Reformed, we should believe that above all the non-reformed church needs to be reformed. Even then, we would not use semper. It just needs to be reformed, not continually re-forming: “Ecclesia non reformata reformanda.”

Or if it is an expression used in in-fighting, say in a debate at Presbytery against someone arguing “we’ve always done it that way,” then that sense should be brought out with a qualifier like “even,” such as: “Ecclesia et reformata reformanda est.” (And again: no semper needs to be inserted in such a context.)

However, that too goes too far. We don’t believe that the reformed church needs to be ready to undergo a new overhaul comparable to that of the Reformation which brought about the name reformed in juxtaposition to the superstitions of popery that preceded it. So why use the same word when mentioning that further tweaks to the system may be envisaged? At best (and this is being charitable) it introduces an equivocation. Why not instead something like: “Potest ecclesia et reformata se parve emendare.”

If we believe a major overhaul is always possible, of the same order of magnitude as the Reformation itself, then we have not really embraced Reformed theology in a heartfelt way. We are mere grumblers, stuck in a pasture we don’t like very much, always seeing, or expecting to see, greener grass over yonder.

If we are confessional, we should on the contrary stand confidently on the creeds and confessions of our church, and not have a mindset that is always looking to lay down a new floor.

The Reformers did not think the accepted creeds needed to be overthrown. Instead, it was chiefly the corruption due to the rule of men that needed to be reformed.

The truthful expression would go something like “the true, reformed church should move forward confidently in terms of its confession (while also willing every so often to re-examine this or that detail in response to a complaint or overture).” This is hardly worthy of being sloganized, in Latin or otherwise.

There is a cyclical view of history built into the slogan “ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.” It is not much of an exaggeration to suggest there is even a latent belief in chaotic renewal, a Saturnalia view of human history. In contrast, when Jefferson predicted we would need a new revolution every 15 or 20 years to preserve our freedom, he was in a sense being the ultimate reactionary. The danger was in what men would do, not in the foundational creed. It wasn’t as though he was suggesting that a new revolution would be needed to undo the freedom of the press.

Leaving aside those that ignorantly parrot what they have heard, I suspect that most people that use the expression are opposed to the confession they allegedly stand upon; or at least, opposed to enforcing it very strictly.

Eek, there’s a Mexican Southerner Spaniard German Japanese Russian Korean Vietnamese Arab under your bed.

Are Hollywood types stupid or evil, that is the question.

There is no need to waste many words unpacking his statement.

1. Everyone already can marry anyone else, subject to constraints such as parental approval, age, physical capability, and so forth, unless one redefines what marriage is; in which case, I wonder if Brad has considered all the possibilities, absent an objective standard, that that would open up.
2. If an injustice is being done somewhere by someone, why should Brad’s female consort, and his bastard children, have to suffer because of it?

He might just as well have said, “I’m going to continue to batter my girlfriend until a man marries a moose.”