Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

Peace, Debate, and Dialogue

I was thinking about this the other day...

I am offended by the word "peace." Why should the VICTIM have to worry about 'peace'? Groups such as "Peace Now", and "Jewish Voice for Peace" claim to be even handed and claim to want peace... but by their very focus on ISRAEL as the source of problems guarantees there will NOT be peace. If you look at the history of the Mideast conflict, almost every time, Israel acted either defensively or in retaliation for slaughter of its citizens. Whether it acted in the right way is debateable, what is not debateable from a historical REALITY perspective is WHY Israel has acted. Many people do not actually live in reality and prefer to deny history; we both know that historical reality is not a friend to Arabs as well as Arab apologists. But still, the facts are the facts.

Those who advocate for 'peace' would really ONLY be advocating it from the perspective of putting the onus on Palestinians to stop their low-grade constant conflict and stop teaching hate to their children. The checkpoints did not exist until the Intifada; people forget that. The 'wall' did not exist until the Intifada; again, people forget that. The entire 'occupation' (what a loaded word!) exists solely due to Israel's defensive Six Day War.

'Peaceniks' who really are peaceful would realize Israel has a right to defend itself and stop pretending that settlers are per se evil and the reason for the problems. They would see the root of the problem and demand an end to it. The 'peace' groups I cited, in their failure to do this, necessarily promote war. They make 'peace' an offensive word. Don't sell that 'peace' to ME or to Israel - sell it to those who are preventing peace.

This brings me to a question of dialogue and debate. I believe that dialogue and debate will be counterproductive. I thought about it, as a result of dialogue and debate over the course of a year and a half online, I have become actually more set in my political opinions, and more convinced than ever that the other side are either brainwashed or antisemites, and basically not reachable. Let me put it this way; the other side is not merely claiming "Israel, you overreacted in this situation/that situation." They say "Israel, you are rotten to the core and have no right to exist!" So what "dialogue" is there with them? What "debate" is there with them? How do you "debate" your own existence?

And so I believe that the topic of Israel should simply not even be debated with these cretins, thugs, and brainwashed masses. We will NOT change them, and if anything, make them worse. Instead, I believe the best AND ONLY topic to discuss with Arabs is Lebanon. A secondary topic is possibly Iran. Lebanon is a country on the brink; anyone who actually believes in a future for the Lebanese is against a common (and existential) enemy of Israel's: Hezbollah and Syria. There are banners all over Lebanon that say "I love life." So, promote THAT. Promote an anti-Hezbollah culture of Lebanon, promote love of life and anti-hate; do not even discuss Israel as it will simply enflame passions and lead to nothing. Then maybe have a debate about the way to bring about peace in Lebanon. Bring together a broad spectrum of Lebanese and Arab society that is devoted against the hate. Then, maybe once they are anti-Hezbollah hate, they will start to be pro-Israel. But it has to be side-strike. The same goes with Iran; the Iranian mullahs are anti-Israel, but more than that, they are anti-Iranian. So bring together a broad spectrum of people who again love life and are devoted against the mullahs.

If you do a survey of the Mideast, other than Israelis, the only other countries filled with sophisticated people who love life are Lebanon (at least Sunni/Druze/Maronites, and a minority of Shia) and Iran. They can be reached, and should be reached. And the debate should not be Israel's existence or whether Israel leads a vast cabal controlling world foreign policy, as that debate will lead to nowhere. It should be over the future of a free, just, and pluralistic Lebanon and Iran.

Thoughts?

US versus THEM

I wrote the following email to a friend of mine, when he complained that Moderate Muslims have no reason to side with America/Israel/the West in general, as America/Israel/the West in general is no better (for them) than the alternative. I wrote up a brief statement in refutation, and I hope you like it! --------- Living in America, for all its faults - and there are many faults - Muslims are treated a million times better than they are by corrupt Islamic regimes. Living in Israel, for all its faults - and there are many faults - Muslims (Arab Israelis, Bedouins), are treated a million times better than their alternative. (the horrific Hamas/Fatah 'government' of the Palestinian territories) Muslims have more civil rights in Israel than they do in the Palestinian Territories, where goons are running the show. India has its butchers from Gujarat, and that cannot be excused, and will remain forever a black mark in India's history. I am not justifying or excusing what happened, and I know that there were literal baby killers. I would justify life imprisonment for anyone responsible, and execution of anyone who raped Muslim women. (I hold rape to be a worse crime than murder, that is my personal morals, but anyway) But why did the Gujarat riots happen? They happened because of Indian government policies which were enabling Islamic terror (the catalyst being the inaction to the Godhra train mob attack), and the thought that Hindus had to take the law into their own hands. And yet that said, the life of a Muslim in India, for all its problems, is still far better than in Pakistan, or Bangladesh. The US has never resorted to such mass rioting. Neither has, amazingly enough, Israel. But my point is that the only way to prevent another dip into barbarism again (which the Gujarat riots were), there must be a movement of Muslims to condemn terror groups to the point where terror groups know they will not get any support from their fellow Muslims, and even be branded un-Islamic. (this has yet to happen) There is no moral equivalency between the US, Israel, or the West and the thugs I speak of. Remember, these are organizations who are killing more Muslims than anyone else. And life in Saudi Arabia and Iran is what it is. Lest we forget, people have been killed in Iran for the 'crime' of homosexuality, or the 'crime' of sex outside of marriage. (including a 16 year old girl, who was raped, and then hung for that 'crime') In Saudi Arabia, someone who is caught stealing a loaf of bread has his hands chopped off! Torture? They have torture down to an art form! You really feel that there is a comparison between the US and these nations? And for all the US's strengths and faults, there is no way it is smart enough to invent such divisions of Sunni and Shia. In short, I don't advocate torture or imprisonment without some sort of a hearing. I never advocated this, and I don't advocate it. But to proclaim that the American abuses of human rights is equivalent to anything in the Islamic world (hey, forget Islamic, let's include China and Russia - they are not fond of human rights there, either, and are linked with Islamists!) is simply missing the mark. I have no problem with you setting a higher standard for YOURSELF than you do others. And so certainly I hold the US to much higher human rights standards when looking at the United States individually. But when I compare the US to other countries, I am proud to be an American.

What does the Koran actually say?

I had (and I am having) a very long debate on Sandmonkey's board about Islam. You can read this debate right here. This debate started when Carmen, a Muslim, said that she should be allowed to marry her Christian boyfriend, as this is sanctioned by the Koran. She then cited verses to supposedly back up her "point." Now, let me backtrack for a second and say that I do not care what Carmen does. I do not know her, will likely never meet her (despite her residing in my fair city), and certainly do not care one way or another when she is a good or a bad Muslim. In fact, I am glad she found love. I also understand why Carmen would like to believe that Islam sanctions her actions. What I do care about is that I believe that 'moderate Muslims' such as Carmen are dangerous. Why do I believe this? The fact remains that her 'logic' about the Koran simply is not logical. I explained this in great detail in the thread on Sandmonkey's board. Anyone who spends time to examine her 'logic' will see that it does not add up. But who will be spending the time to examine this logic? Answer: Islamic fundamentalists. The Islamic fundamentalists will read what Carmen has to say and answer back with verses from the Koran, Sunnah, Hadith, etc etc etc, that shows she simply is mistaken. They will not be persuaded by her logic, and in fact, there were Islamic fundamentalists who got to Sandmonkey's thread before me, and did exactly that. So Carmen will not achieve a victory against the people she supposedly aimed her post at. Instead, the people who will be persuaded by Carmen's logic are those who have not read the Koran, and those who desperately want Islam to be moderate and egalitarian. In short, it is the Western non-Muslims who will be persuaded by Carmen's logic. And yet these people need to know that Islam is NOT an egalitarian faith, given the state of the world today. And so that is why I believe that 'moderates' who are in the vein of Carmen, who are moderate because they deny the obvious existence of texts that dispute the conclusions they want to reach, deny Muhammad's actions and deny Islamic history are a very real problem in the world today. If Islam is to reform, it will not reform by denying the very existence of Koranic/Hadith/Sunnah/Fiqh text, as well as Islamic history. I will quote what I wrote concerning the ONLY way that the religion can reform...

Does the Koran say “Muslims, you are required to turn whatever state you are living in, even if it is a Kafir state, into an Islamic state”? Answer: No, of course not, and I would never said it does. The Koran was written at a time when Muhammad was preaching directly to a specific group of followers. It didn’t quite anticipate a worldwide ummah, where some Muslims would be living in Islamic states, and some would not. But what is considered a legitimate grounds for war under Islam? Answer: That is a very tough question, and one that could fill thousands of pages even attempting an answer. I do not think the Koran or any Islamic documents are clear on this. And this absolutely does leave room for Jihadists to claim there are grounds for a global jihad. It also leaves room for moderates to claim “No! The only jihad should be the jihad to be a better person! The West has NOT acted in aggression against Islam, and in fact, we should be working with the West!” And so yes, there is room for moderates in that respect. But there is also room for jihadists. And even the moderates have to contend with a religion that, if taken literally, is wrong in places, calls for a system of dhimmitude, treats women as second class citizens, does not exactly treat apostates kindly, and of course is not exactly friendly to gays, either. That’s literal Islam. This is not a ‘moderate’ faith. But it also is not necessarily a faith that necessarily calls for a global Jihad. So how can moderation happen? First, moderates have to call an end to global Jihad, which can be accomplished with and without Koranic literalism. Secondly, in order for modern and egalitarian Islamic states to exist, reformers must call an end to Koranic literalism.

How many Muslims are doing this today? Answer: very, very, VERY few. I can think of Irshad Manji and the singer Deeyah. How many others are out there like her? Hardly any. This is a very real problem, and we in the West MUST acknowledge this. UPDATE: My debate with LouLou led me to make this conclusion:

The history of Islam is one of Islamic imperialism, followed by slow decline and defeat. That is the ultimate, broad-brush stroked history of Islam. At the height of the Caliphate, Europe was in the midst of its Middle Ages, and so from a comparative fashion, the Islamic Caliphate was the height of learning and knowledge. Of course, this was also because of the conquest of the Byzantine and Indian Empires, and the resultant scholars who were captured as dhimmis. That is not to say that Muslims did not make their own contributions, but it is important to note that pre-Islamic Arabia was not exactly known for its contributions to the world of science, art, and learning. The Koran, after all, did not magically give Arabian Muslims knowledge of math, science and art out of thin blue sky. Muslims are proud of this history, and they should be. However, they (and by they, I mean the majority, though not all) refuse to acknowledge the very real contributions to their culture from the dhimmis. In short, this history is also the source of the problems. What is the proof that Islam is right? The ultimate proof Muhammad gave was that he won battles. This was the ultimate proof of the “truth” of Islam. (angels supposedly helped Muhammad and the Muslims fight these battles) And so, when Muslims lose battles, and when their civilization declines and falls…one of three reasons must be attributed to it. a) Muslims lost because they are not “Islamic” enough, and not worthy of winning. (thus, more fundamentalism is the answer) b) Muslims lost because they were vanquished by supernatural forces. (aka, Jews and Christians really are “apes and pigs,” or subhuman, or superhuman, and the like) c) Muslims lost because they were not prepared in battle, didn’t have the right skills to win, the other side was more prepared, etc etc etc. (the last reason is rational) But the problem with accepting the LAST reason as a reason for defeat is that this also partially revokes the foundation of Islam, which was “proven” correct through Muhammad’s victory in battle. Thus, admitting defeat is not really an option. Of course, for some people, it is an option. Sandmonkey, or instance, is fine with accepting Israel and admitting the existence of reality. But please note that the rise of the forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” all sorts of blood libels, and Hitler-esque lies about the Jews started when Jews started becoming successful in what was then Palestine. Decades prior to the State of Israel becoming a reality, Jews were making the desert bloom. And Hajj Amin Al Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Arafat’s mentor) was not happy. So he worked with the Nazis in order to elliminate the Jews. Link about this. It should be noted that the PLO hence has its roots in not only Nazism, but also a mufti who was most certainly NOT secular. I also wanted to note that the Ba’ath party too has Nazi foundations. Actually, the “secular” pan-Arabist movements has very extensive ties to Nazism. I do not know if you are aware of this, but it is a historical fact. This is partly why I am probably one of the few Jews who prefers Hamas to Fatah, as Hamas is openly genocidal, while Fatah pretends to be “moderate,” but really is a (literally) Nazi organization with roots in the Third Reich. In short, the problem here is accepting defeat, more than anything. The problem is Arab pride. But Islam as a religion is one that reinforces Arab pride, as it is an Arabian religion that is steeped in the Bedouin culture. And of course, another huge problem is hypocrisy. Islamic expansionism and imperialism is totally cool…but when the West defeats Islam, it is seen as a sort of abomination…with no similar indictment for what Muslims had done in prior years throughout history and even today. (this is more of a leftist problem, but many Western Muslims use this as their excuse for their anger) And so, there is this yearning for a past that never quite was, and for the humiliation of the kafir and mushrikeen that ironically helped to create the very Islamic Caliphate that is being hailed as the height of world civilization. Does Islamism play into this all as part of the problem? Absolutely. Have ’secular’ Arabs also been causing problems? Yes, but you have to look at why they are espousing what they are espousing, and the roots of their discontent. These roots are in Arab Pride, and the roots of this are in Islamic history, the roots of THAT being in the Bedouin culture. And so what is necessary to change all this? Will changing a book be enough? I agree with you, LouLou, absolutely not. The roots of the problem here are much, much, greater. But it’s clear that that little book, the Koran, is also feeding into the problem. Of course, there could be two kinds of Muslims… One type of Muslim live his life by the sword and values tribalism and conquest. For such a Muslim, the “proof” of Islam being correct is seen in the conquests of Muhammad. For this type of Muslim, any sort of defeat cannot ever be accepted, and Islamic terrorism naturally will be the “cure” for what is plaguing his society. The Koran, if literally taken, does justify these thoughts, but the problem is not with the Koran, but that mentality to begin with. Another type of Muslim does not value violence as a normative matter (simply in the values such a person was raised with), and hence doesn’t see the “proof” of Islam being correct in Muhammad’s victory in battle. Rather, the “proof” would be from when Muhammad made extra dates appear for a little girl, and whatnot. These people will still go out of their way to find peaceful interpretations of Islam, because they are peaceful by nature. However, it is my contention that the religion of Islam is not peaceful by nature, and that it requires work to actually get to these interpretations. It is rather these people who are peaceful by nature. This explains why there actually are peaceful Muslims out there. (I don’t deny that and never did!) In short, LouLou, thinking about it, I think you have a point that the overall problem is Arab culture, not the religion of Islam. However, as I noted, Islam, being an Arabian religion, feeds into this culture. Why, however, are so many young Muslims turning to extremism? I think the answer is Arab oil money. Who is funding many of these mosques? Answer: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is funding mosques and schools and imparting their harsh Bedouin culture upon generations of young Muslims, across the world. The ultimate way to de-radicalize Muslims is to take away the money supply for their radicalism. This means finding alternative energy sources and not relying on oil as we do.

I hope you all enjoyed reading this long debate I have had with Craig and LouLou. Cheers, Red Tulips

Life and Death, East v. West

I went to the funeral service of my best friend's mom, yesterday, and in addition to the funeral being a tragedy (my friend's mom, who I grew up with, died young, after suffering through cancer for years on end), it was a chance for me to go to a Hindu temple and see a service. I have never done that before. I had to take off my shoes before entering the temple and sat down on the floor, and the service was completely in Hindi. There was a great deal of chanting, as well as a fire within the temple, containing some significance. I really don't know the significance. I was struck by my complete ignorance of Hinduism and a religion and culture with a billion adherants. Of course, I likely am one step ahead of the game - I've been now to a Hindu temple, I grew up with an Indian best friend, I regularly eat Indian food and I am familiar with the traditions of an Indian family. (I also happen to find Indian men to be attractive, but, ahem) Granted, I am no expert in Hinduism, in fact I am as far from an expert as one can be. However, from what I do know of the religion, it is one of the most tolerant faiths on the planet - basically, it has no dogma. Hinduism consists of many beliefs, some of which are monotheistic, and some of which even embrace atheism. There's no death to unbelievers, and many people see Hinduism more as a lifestyle and philosophy than even as a religion. Moreover, this faith and way of life has brought the world contributions to which it is not accredited (such as creating Arabic numbers as well as revolutonizing mathematics in general, and making significant contributions to the world of music, shipmaking, and science) and currently exists in a nation, India, which is critical to the future of the world as a powerhouse contributor to the world of science, technology, and culture - as well as to the fight against global jihad. Sadly, Indian history is also rife with oppression - having been invaded multiple times - and yet somehow Indians have kept their culture and identity. And so one is left to wonder - is Western culture necessarily superior to Eastern culture, and ifso, why? Does this have anything to do with Western Judeo-Christian tradition, or is Western culture great despite said tradition? There is no objective answer to these questions, only opinion - as it is hard to measure greatness against each other. And yet here is my opinion nonetheless. To the extent that Western culture is based upon a bedrock of science, it is inseparable from Eastern culture. The very foundations of science itself were very clearly laid in the East. Muslims are incorrectly attributed with inventing modern mathematics and science, but in fact they generally were simply translators of the work of others, and retransmitted it to the world. That is not to say there were not unique contributions of Muslims to the world, but their contributions have absolutely been exaggerated. And yet, we see India still struggling to pick itself out of the Third World (with a booming economy, but still struggling), and the West is clearly leading the world. Why? How? Many would point to the Judeo-Christian spirit as enabling the West to succeed, and that THAT is what should be saved. But what of this Judeo-Christian spirit? The same spirit that brought about the Inquisition, where untold hundreds of thousands were burnt at the stake? The same spirit that contains verses in the bible stating:

Jesus said unto them [the Jews], If God were you Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye 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. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. (John 8:41-45)

Of course, that is Christian-confined New Testemant text - there is also text that is universal across Judaism and Christianity, in the Old Testemant.

If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction--the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh and your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt. (Deuteronomy 13:12-16)

This sort of dogma is not what encourages innovation, science, and progress. This sort of dogma is what encouraged the Middle Ages, ignorance, and persecution. So why is it that the West is worth saving? Simple. The West has had a Protestant Reformation and an Enlightenment, and religion, for all its faults, is left to the background of life, rather than at the very center of life that it currently holds in the Muslim world. In short, it is secularism that has made science, progress, and the Western way of life possible. It is this tradition that is worth saving. Why was India prevented from being an economic powerhouse all these years? I would argue that in India's case, it was the fact that it was conquered by the Muslims, and then the British, and in a colonial state for centuries on end. This is not proof of India's cultural inferiority, or the inferiority of Hinduism. Actually, as mentioned, India is currently booming. So what is it about Western culture that is worth saving? There is a good argument to be made that while many of the elements are certainly found within Judeo-Christian norms, many pillars in this foundation are also found further east, in the science and tolerance of Hinduism and in India. The West that produced Handel's Messiah also produced the Inquisition. The West that produced the ceiling of the Vatican also condemned Galileo as a heretic (and did not recant this condemnation until 1992). Certainly, it cannot be denied that some of the greatest works of art and music were commissioned by the Church. And yet, how many works were burned? How many works were declared heresies? Why is that always ignored, in the glorification of Western culture? How is it that the West currently embraces democracy and freedom? Where in the bible does it speak of democracy? Answer: nowhere. Certainly, there is the famous quote "Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, give unto God that which is God's," HOWEVER, that is hardly a call for democratic/republican self-rule. It also hardly says "Thou shall not have a religious government." Rather, it says that if there is a non-Christian government, Christians should respect it. (and even this is absent in Islam!) Indeed, the very calls of eternal damnation to those who disobey the letter of the bibical law practically necessitate a Christian government that can act as mommy and daddy for the population, policing the souls of its inhabitants. So why are explicitly Christian governments generally absent from the West? Simple: the years of the Inquisition and Holy Wars have taken their toll, and for the most part, the West learned its lesson, and no longer seeks to impose the 'will of God' via the sword. I am a proponent of Western culture specifically because it was able to overcome its barbarous past, and embrace the values of tolerance and secularism. Such values are what are behind the very foundation of the United States - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - and behind the modern advances in science, medicine, technology, and civil liberties. We are more free now than we ever have been, and yet this has less to do with any principles seen in the bible, much more to do with Greek tradition that was rediscovered by the West, as well as Solomonic principles of tolerance and government that are part of Jewish tradition and culture - but in many ways contradict the faith (Solomon allowed idols within the Holy Temple, and even built temples for other faiths!). Lest we forget, the founders of the United States were deists, as were the Enlightenment thinkers who were advocating democracy/republican rule. To sum this up: we are not fighting a war of Christianity v. Islam. That war was fought during the era of the Crusades, and in many ways led to a stalemate. The war being fought in the world right now is one of civilization against barbarism. Make no mistake about it: barbarism is not limited to Islam, however, the Christian world, unlike the Muslim world, underwent a Protestant Reformation, and more importantly, no longer is advocating bibical literalism. This is not a war of Christ v. Muhammad. The Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Daoists, Confuscists, atheists, and even secular Muslims are all in this fight together with Christians. This is a war of reason v. unreason, science v. dogma, progress v. regression. Religion may be motivating many to fight, and yet unless the Christian fundies succeed in recreating a modern Inquisition and religious state in the West, that ship has sailed. This war being fought is a very old war, and the war against Islamofascism (aka barbarism) is but a new front on the age old war of reason versus unreason. Make no mistake about it: many atheists are themselves quite unreasonable. Their hatred for Christianity obscures them to the threat of Islamofascism, and often causes them to aid and abet those who actually wishes to destroy them. (see: Chomsky, Michael Moore, etc) They are the modern useful idiots. But this war against reason is being fought on many fronts. Lest we forget, Pat Buchanan believes Western culture may not be worth saving as it is not religious enough (and admires the Muslims for their religiousity), as does Jimmy Carter. These are deeply religious Christians. Then there are the "Jesus Campers," who seek to replace the Constitution with the bible. All these people are aiding and abeting the war on reason in their own way. In this war on reason, it is clear that the #1 threat are Islamists. However, we cannot confuse this as a new Crusade, even if the religious right and certainly Islamists see it as such. This is rather a fight to save civilization from un-civilivizing effects of barbarism. Period.

Iran launches a 'Holocaust conferece;' bans dissenting voices; PM of the Palestinian Authority in Iran; Israeli MKs show rare sign of unity

Today is a historic day. In the face of a Holocaust conference in Iran, the likes of which the world has never seen, Israeli MKs, including the Arab Israeli MKs, are showing a rare sign of unity, to condemn this conference. It is sad that it takes such extreme circumstances to show unity, but it is welcome to see all sides of the Israeli political spectrum agree on something: that the Iranian 'conference' is a threat. It is also notable that Ishmail Haniyeh (PM of the Palestinian Authority) is now in Iran, preaching a jihad against Israel (saying there will never be recognition of it), while Arab Israeli MKs are decrying this 'conference.' It shows where Hamas really stands - with Iran and its Holocaust denying regime. (not that that is a shocka!) (as a side note, Iran repaid Haniyeh with a pledge of $250 million) First of all, I want to backtrack and note that this is NOT a true 'conference.' Only Holocaust deniers need attend, as well as vile anti-semitic Jews such as the Neturei Karta. A Palestinian who runs a Holocaust memorial museum in Nazareth was barred entry into Iran. Do not buy into the lie that this is about free speech. IT IS NOT. It is about hate speech and attempting to prove that all Jews are liars and that Israel should be wiped from the sea. In essence, Ahmedinajad is saying Israel exists due to the Holocaust, which is itself a lie, so as such, Israel needs to be wiped out. Secondly, and this is most important...the conference represents an attack upon civilization itself. This sounds rather extreme, but hear me out. The Holocaust is a proven fact. Survivors are alive today, and a trip to Auschwitz easily proves the existence of gas chambers. This 'conference' is, more than anything else, an attack on history. It is an attack on the facts, and an attempt to delegitimize them. This 'conference' says: "Hey world! We make up our own history!" And the scary, the truly frightening thing about it is, that this 'conference' is occurring while survivors are dying out. In twenty years, there will be almost no survivors left - but there will be the records of this 'conference.' And you will suddenly see it become acceptable to question the existence of the Holocaust. It will be en vogue, and not just in the lunatic fringe. I would not be surprised if, in sixty years, there is a conference that says 9/11 did not happen - it was invented to make people sympathetic for Americans. Already there are 9/11 'truthers' who say Bush/Israel/Mossad/the boogeyman was behind 9/11. Already there are people who say the moon landing was fake. This 'conference' is an attack on knowledge and an attack on the written, oral, and video record. It says there is no truth, it is all opinion, all shades of gray. And if it is all opinion, then all opinions are legitimate. If I want to say that Saddam Hussein does not exist and never did, I am free to, because you see, all opinions are of equal weight. That is the true danger of this 'conference' and the Ahmedinjad regime. I fear for the future, and the concept of any objective truth. If everything is up for debate, then nothing exists, and the foundation of society itself starts to crumble.