Jesus Would Be A Liberal

I totally agree with this. I am a liberal Christian, and it is my most deep conviction that Jesus would be a liberal! Thank your for your insightful thoughts, and I hope to read more of what you have to say.

Sorry for the sixty million error. The "professor" clearly got under my skin.

As far as my hating Jews is concerned, that is in the eye of the beholder. Actually, I am incapable of hating anyone. I may disagree with people, I may be aghast at their actions, I may not like certain individuals, but I certainly do not hate individuals or whole societies.

People like the "professor" carry a big chip on their shoulder and will call anyone who disagree with them bigots, haters, and racists. Yet, it is them who really are the very same thing they call others.

Maybe if those people had a little more compassion and a little less self-impotance they would be able to see other's point of view. Sadly, they are too engulfed in their own little vendetta.

Dear Slim,

Just a closing point before the next question.

I do not hate Jews.

I do not hate Israel.

I do not hate you.

I don't even hate the bigoted professor, though I deplore his abusive behavior. He needs to clean up his act for sure; maybe even grow up.

You should know that I strongly support Israel in her difficulties in the Middle East. Perhaps we can discuss this at some future point.

I know it's off-topic, but there's been a lot of comment about it. At the risk of being stupidly branded as a racist or something, which I most certainly am not, I'd like to throw in a little support for Gaby, Terra and Mr Gandhi here.

I was utterly perplexed by the response to Mr Gandhi's condemnation of violence. Basically what he did was condemn Israel for perpetrating violence. I think very few people would dispute the fact that the state of Israel has done terrible things. But so has the US and so did Nazi Germany. The Arab states in the Middle East have been responsible for their fair share of attrocities. I think none of them should be immune to criticism.

When I read Mr Gandhi's article, I thought it was couragious for condemning the culture of violence in the Middle East. I'm sure he anticipated some flak, but I bet he was surprised at the ferocity of the response. I took what he said as constructive criticism. Getting beyond the Holocaust and overcoming the culture of violence in the Middle East are not bad things are they?

Perhaps his wording was unfortunate, but I really can't see how anyone could have interpreted what he wrote as being racist. Simplistic and biased perhaps, but racist? BTW Arabs and Israelis are the same race. They are genetically indistinguishable. The term "Jew" implies a person of a particular religion, a person of a particular culture and also, perhaps incorrectly, a citizen of Israel. These meanings of the word are are all different. None of them actually says anything about race. I don't think any culture or religion should be above criticism.

If I condemn George Bush's ill considered and disasterous war against Iraq, does that somehow make me a racist because most of the population of the US is Caucasian? Does it make me an anti-Americanist or something?

I re-read Mr Gandhi's article and I can see what got people annoyed. He implied that the Jews have taken advantage of people's sympathy over the Holocaust. I can understand people being sensitve about that, and perhaps it was not a wise thing to say, but it's probably true nontheless.

He also implied that the Jews are more responsible for the violence than the other participants: "Israel and the Jews are the biggest players". While I've never been to the Middle East and I'm not an expert on Middle East politics, as I see it, Israel is the bully in the region surrounded by a bunch of "kids" who want to "take a shot" at the bully to show how tough they are, but they can't really hurt the bully much because he's too strong. I'm not pointing the finger and saying the situation is Israel's fault. I think Israel does not have much choice any more, it has to be strong and tough to survive. But the situation is unfortunate for everyone in the region.

I didn't read all of the ensuing hate mail, but was it the fact that he used the term "Jews" instead of just "Israel" that caused all of the fuss? Maybe I missed something, but would the people who seem to want to start a campaign of hatred and slander against Mr Gandhi please either point out why what he said is either false or destructive or shut up!

Regards,
Realist

Moderate,

When you hate the world Jew based on lies, fallacies, and the exact same canards that were used to attack Jews during WWII, you are a Jewhater.

Some of the biggest Goebbelsesque lies that are propagated are those saying that the US has always loved the Jews, and the US helps the 'imperialist' Jews oppress Muslims.

Read the 'British Record on Partition' to learn the truth. It is the Arabs that were allied with the British and assorted Nazis in their effort to crush the Jewish state. Israel is a geopolitical miracle. And those same forces that were anti-Israel then, are anti-Israel now. The same forces that were Serb haters then, are Serb haters now.

And the US took over the British policy of aiding and supporting virulent antisemites in the ME, culminating in Condi shoving her pabulum about the 'moderate' Islamic nazi Abu Mazen down our throats.

Evidently, only Jews and a few others are able to comprehend why Western media lies about Israel so much--and that is because it is no different than the media of most of the 'great' empires of the past 2000 years.

Those who are predisposed to hating Jews will swallow it wholesale. Those who comprehend history and how not to repeat it will not.

Dear Josh,

Virus? Bacteria?

The "Moderate,"

Thanks for the lesson.

Now, Slavic is an interesting word. Perhaps, you would be so good as to tell us from which ethnic group you were extracted.

Farnaz wrote to The Moderate:

"Otherwise, you risk coming off like the racist pig you are."

The thing is the pig is an intelligent animal. Filth? Scum?

Dear Farnaz,

Gaby clearly meant 6,000,000, and you should give it a rest.

I am of Slavic extraction. Hitler had us in his sights too, you know. He killed twenty million (20,000,000) Russians, and assorted other Slavs. He had it mind that he needed about fifteen million of us for farm slaves, and that the other couple of hundred million would be disposed of the same way the Jews were.

Dear FARNAZ:

"Otherwise, you risk coming off like the racist pig you are."

I support the human race. Is that what you mean?

Gaby,

6,000 = six thousand

Did you mean that, or 6,000,000, which equals six million?

The "Moderate,"

I find it's always a good idea to read over, or preview, what you plan to post before pressing the "post" button. Otherwise, you risk coming off like the racist pig you are.

Dear Slim:

"You hate the world Jew because..."

I seriously doubt that Gaby hates Jews or much of anyone else. Am I wrong Gaby?

Dear Terra:

I am really sorry to have seen what an abusive person you have been dealing with.

Everyone who knows you here knows that you are a kind and tolerant person who harbors no racism, or anti-Semitism, or anti-Christianity.

Maybe this guy will grow up some day. But if not, then it is his problem.

Peace,

Mod

Dear Anonymous Bigot:

What I will write here is about you personally. So please do not try to pretend that my censure of your vitriol, vituperation, and gratuitous personal abuse of a kind and gentle person as being directed at anyone but you. But on to your rhetoric:

1.) You said: "I have met not Jesus, although from your tone, it is evident that you have. Perhaps, he is sitting by your side. If so, kindly ask him if, in his view, Mr. Gandhi's essay constitutes the sort of speech that belongs on a blog called OnFaith."

You are clearly against Christians, and blindly equate anyone you hate with Christianity. That makes you a bigot. Terra Gazelle is a kindly soul who happens to be Wiccan. Evidently you do not know the difference between Wicca and Christianity. That makes you an ignoramus as well.

2.) You said: "Israel repossessed its own country. There is quite a difference. We had been exiled by force, by the Romans, and when I say we, I do not of course mean all Jews, since some remained, just outside of Jerusalem. The Diaspora has not been good to us. We cannot depend on the kindness of others."

Are prior wrongs in deep history justification for new wrongs? If so, what of the descendants of the Canaanites who were "exiled by force" by the Israelites? According to the Hebrew Testament, the exodus Hebrews attacked the innocent inhabitants of Canaan burned their cities, stole their land, raped their virgin daughters, and conducted genocide against them.

3.) You said: "Now, since you are such an ardent defender of freedom of speech, would you kindly copy us with your letters protesting the firing of Don Imus, who was only doing his shock-jock thing? A person so high-minded as yourself would never have simply stood by and watched. (What would Jesus have said?)"

Don Imus got what he deserved.

4.) Mara said: "I believe I know who you are. If you are who I think you are, both my brother and I took courses with you some years ago. He is at Stanford, while I labor on at Yael, both of us pursuing doctorates in political economy.?

Are you really a college professor who can be recognized by former students from signature examples of bigotry? You clearly abuse the class room to propagate your hate speech. Shame on you. You deserve what Imus got.

5.) You said: "And, Ms. Gazelle, there are the Palestinian Christians, your co-religionists, who also flee into Israel, which takes them. Any comment?"

Terra had already told you she is not a co-religionist to the Christians several times by that point in the discussion. So in addition to being a bigot and an ignoramus, you are completely imperviousness to simple facts.

Terra Gazelle is a kind, tolerant, and well informed person. She should not have to deal with verbal assaults by puerile college professors. If you did not nurse so much hatred and anger you could have had a much more enlightening conversation with her.

Actually gaby, the NY has declared that the others killed in the holocaust are not worth a lick, thus it lies about them just as it does the Jews. Jews never declared such--it is your beloved media that has declared such.

Around 700,000 Serbs were killed in Jasenovac, yet around 1990, when the US became allied with Croatia, all the sudden it started publishing numbers that were closer to 60-80,000. And when the State Department run Holocaust museum opened, were the Serbs invited? Of course not, they had been declared enemies of the State Department. Instead, the Croatian holocaust denying leader Franjo Tudjman was present.

You hate the world Jew because the people that control media such as this site have always lied about the victims of WWII concentration camps. And this is why the Washington Post has no problem publishing Jew-hatred such as that which emanates from Arun Ghandi's warped brain.

Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Read Christopher Simpson's 'Blowback'. Read Carl Bernstein's 'CIA and the Media'. You are a brainwashed Jew-hater, not unlike those that fell for identical Goebbels-esque lies during WWII.

Gaby writes:

"Yes, Hitler and his ilk murdered 6000 Jews, but he also murdered 6000 non-Jews and that you rarely hear about. Every holocaust museum I've been to highlights the plight of the Jews. How about all the other people that perished??? They don't mean a thing???"

It means a great deal, Gaby. Before you go on, however, you should know that during the Holocaust far more than 6,000,000 nonJews were murdered. Tens of millions more. Not so good with numbers, are we? And then of course there was the horror of the Gypsies, who had been deported from India. 25,000 were murdered in one night.

Now, to you, 25,000 may not seem like a large number, but to them, it was practically their entire population. So, it is very important, indeed. The same was true for Jews. Almost our entire Diaspora was destroyed. Simon Wiesenthal, whom you may know something about, struggled on behalf of the surviving gypsies until the day he died. Where were you in this?

Hitler did kill the gypsies. As for us, he was amply aided by ordinary practicing Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. People like your neighbors unofficially went out and slaughtered people. All over Europe.

You ask who cares about all the other genocides? Well the national Holocuast museum, for one thing, where you will find a great deal of information about Darfur and other sites of mass murder.

The survivors care and have written about other genocides. Younger Jews care and have authored numerous books about them.

The problem, you see, is that discrimination agains us began with Constantine and continues to the present. As the professor wrote. in the schools, in the colleges, in the workplace. The question posed to Gandhi had nothing to do with the Holocaust or with Israel. He brought them both up, and you continue with them.

Oh, and the Brits gave Jews Israel? Really. Try telling that to the Brits. It is true that had actually been the plan. There was no nation. The area had been under Bitish rule, the AngloChristians having taken it from the Turks. Now,once your co-religionists realized how Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates felt about more Jews coming over, things changed. The Christains, Catholics, et al, love oil. (Hence, they are busily slaughtering Iraqis.)

The AngloChristians actually went so far as to fire on a ship carrying Holocaust survivors, killing some of them. Israelis had to throw off their colonizers, and they did.

My own concern is with contemporary anti-Jewish racism. As the professor asked, whence this fixation with us in so many areas, except discrimination against us?

I have answered your quesion about other Holocausts. Now,perhaps you will answer mine. What about the discrimination against us? All the refugees from the Middle East? The Ethiopian Jews? The Jews of the form USSR nations. The Jews of the US, whom you simply will not leave alone.

I also wonder when you Christians will be dealing with the Native Americans as the professor asked. Clean up your own filthy house. When will you get out of Iraq?

And, most importantly, what is keeping you so terribly blind?

None of this explains why Mr. Ghandi is on this site, and when we will have his explanation of "what he has learned."

Namaste Gaby...

Thank you.

Terra,

I know you are not a racist and there is no reason that you have to defend yourself against this sanctimonious, I-have-the-answer-for-everthing, bigoted Anonymous fool.

Anyone who can write: "Israel repossessed its own country.", and take that statement seriously has to have more than one screw loose. They repossessed their own country after 2000 years??? What a joke. That sliver of countryside was bestowed to them by the Brits with international consent to atone for the holocaust.

Yes, Hitler and his ilk murdered 6000 Jews, but he also murdered 6000 non-Jews and that you rarely hear about. Every holocaust museum I've been to highlights the plight of the Jews. How about all the other people that perished??? They don't mean a thing???

This "professor" needs to get his own slant out of history and view history as it really was.

Just like his statement that 250,000,000 Dalits are enslaved in India. That is a world-wide number, the number for India is about 167,000,000.

Here is one of the few link I find credible http://www.dalits.nl/english.html

Namaste, Terra!

For some reason people here are giving way to much weight to a mediocre, cliché-filled post.
What else would you expect from a dimwit whose sole claim to fame is that he is the fruit of the loins of the fruit of the loins of Mahatma Gandhi?
The Mahatma, as great a man as he was; logic wasn’t always his strong suit! Neither was impartiality! He chose “forgiveness” over “justice”; “appeasement” over “fairness” and believed that “rooting for the underdogs” is ALWAYS the right thing to do!
A student of Indian history will point out how he bungled many times! Whether it be getting involved in the “Khalifat” or botching up the partition or his blind love for his surrogate “Nehru” over the more able “Patel” or “Subhash”. .....But I digress here!

Arun represents a section of Indian intellectuals who have this hackneyed view of history that is irrelevant and illogical.

Ok...you want to see my words as being racist and I say you are blind. All I have is what i have learned of people..and I certainly do not paint all jews with one brush, I paint the gov with a brush of hate and murder. I also paint the other side who will not stop their fighters from lobeing rockets and rocks at the Jews. But one thing that would help...get out of Gaza and the areas that were Palestine. Stop building walls that cut off people from farm lands and businesses and family.
It is the oldest argument in the world to get an argument and to muddy it with "No you're the Racist..." I have tried my best to be even handed...but you are a bigot against anyone who does not see things your way...someone that can not or will not see that you are one of the ones that keeps the killing and hate going. Blame is not helpful.It gets no one anywhere. Brother aganst brother, family against family...country against country will get us more of the same. Does that get any of us the lives or world we want?

So you can keep on blaming me, or anyone that does not kowtow to the blind hate that you reflect.

Yes I do skim alot, I have a hard time seeing...so long posts tend to blur out. So yes, sometimes unless I have the time to continuously go back I do miss things.

I understand coming to this county without knowing language or having anyone here to aid you...my grandfather came here from Calabria, another forebearer from Germany...you do not read my posts fully either do you? If you did you would have known this and that I am not Christain from the first post.

You hate...that is what you do. Blame all of a people for what some have done. You think you and yours have been the only people to have been hurt, killed, tourtured for being who you are? Think again. Four years ago I was attacked, my home broken into, I was beaten for being who I am.I spent a night thinking I was going to be killed.

My best friend a black gay, handicapped man who has lived a life of turning the other cheek. And living it in fullness and in balance.

I know many people that face discrimination and hate with dignity and not playing the blame game. I was followed at a market, a man screaming at me about how I was evil and doomed. I lost family and friends..and not just me but my husband who is not Pagan. There are many who have to live a life of secrecy, because of how we see God.

There is brutality on all sides of your conflict...but being selectivly blind on your own failings and fault does not immprove anything for anyone. Is that racist? To say that both sides are at fault, that without one side building a wall, cutting off family from family and then making the people beg for water and fuel and medicine...is that the way to bring peace? Or is it the way to bring on a Masada in Palestine.Or do you really care? Is that it...kill off a nation...men, women and children so that then the Jews can have the whole of the land?

I want to throw up at the thought that America has a hand in what the jews are doing. Adding to the suffering of both people...but then you don't care. Oh I do not have any degree in foreign relations or the history of the area...all I can see is what is happening. And my heart is breaking at such pain...but hate will not salve that pain, nither will it make the past fade. You can hate or you can go forward.

You do not know me...not how I think or even what I look like, all you can do is color my words with your brush. You are coming at it as if I was a racist to start with. All I can say is I don't care how you read my words...but I do care how my friends on this site reads me, and that is why I keep responding to you. Other then that...think what you want..your feelings toward me mean nothing in the long run. People talking peace and balance are seen as the wrong ones. All we are saying is hate births hate.

terra

Mazel Tov! Professor Anonymouse, Mara, Ken, Sean, et. al.

Ms. Gazelle,

For the final time, there is no such creature as Semite. The term "semitic" was created by a nineteenth-century German linguist to refer to a language group. It was then essentialized by your co-religionists to refer to persons, such as I. Speaking of spelling, I'm glad your orthography is improving.

I have no desire for you to "pile up on the Palestinians," but would like you to learn something about diction, with which Mara could and would help you if she had the time. There are 250, 000,000 Dalit enslaved in India. They are the the concern of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, etc. They are enslaved. You could take the time to find out about them. They are your fellow human beings. Hinduism is far more essentialist than Christianity, Islam, or Judaism; unless their is intervention, this nightmare will continue.

Mara is a political economist. She, therefore, would be interested in the Dalit plight right now, as efforts are marshalling, however slowly, on their behalf. Her degree will give her the ability to help them. I would imagine she is in contact with the Dalit academics currently in the US, persons who have survived the trauma of their ethnicity and have achieved at a level I would wish for you. If I know her, she has been to India more than once in the last few years, and has already had an effect.

My problem with all of your posts is that you do not recognize the racist tenor of your speech, nor that of Mr. Gandhi's, that you are so ill-informed, and yet so passionate about things you know nothing about.

As I have said before, I have no problem with criticizing specific Israeli or Palestinian or French or English or American policies. Israelis criticize their government's policies all the time.

You would like to paint all Jews with one brush. Well, we are doing the same with you. That is how it is working for the moment. Put away the brush, and see what happens. Do not say hateful things, and you will probably not hear them. We Jews cannot say the same. Racism comes at us from all quarters.

People like Ken, Mara, Gloria, Sean have committed their lives, their enormous gifts to developing themselves in order to help others. I wouldn't poke fun at them. I would look to them as models, were I you.

You could also do research and learn. As a start, you could take time to read and reflect. You have skimmed over so much of what I have written, as well as so much of what Mr. Gandhi wrote. The offense he caused was not due to criticism of an Israeli policy, but due to racism, racism I would add, that had nothing to do with the question at hand. You could reread Mr. Gandhi's essay and see why it caused so much offense. You could read Judea Perl's letter to the Post. He is Danny Perl's father. Do you know who he was? If so, why not the read the letter? If not, why not find out?

Jews continually face discrimination, as children in the schools, in college, in the workforce. The country ignores this, as they have ignored the Ethiopian Jews, the Middle Eastern Jews, the NOrth African Jews, etc.

We'd like to know why we are so much the subject of Christian attention in so many arenas, except when it comes to the discrimination we continually face.

You call us "victims," Ms. Gazelle, but you see we have decided not to be victims any longer. You call us, with resentment, "the chosen people," but as I said, those words are in the Bible, which the Christians co-opted, stole from us. If they don't like it, don't read it.

Mara came here at twelve years old, with her family, having fled Iran in the middle of the night. She knew very little English and had a poor education because Iranian Jews are only alowed to attend certain schools. They were desperately poor. Mary struggled all the way, and succeeded brilliantly. Her GRE scores were off the charts. Her brother, who adoped the English name Ken, was beaten so badly by Muslim thugs that he has a limp that he will have for the rest of his life. But look what he is making of that life!

Yes, you could do worse than to emulate them. This will be my last post. I wish you well.

Well Anon,
I am Wiccan...NOT CATHOLIC or any kind of Christian...I am from another religion that has been tortured, imprisioned, hung and burned alive..I am a Witch...Wiccan. Ok got it??what was called a heritic by the good church fathers.

And what I have been saying is that we all need to care about life...stop wars and stop the vengence. Should I start going after the Christians and their inquisitions? If I were alive back then my red hair would get me turned into ash.

But I don't. I do not blame Christians for the 12 year old girl that her school mates tortured and harrassed for so many years that she hung herself. And why? because she was Wiccan. You know she left a diary...Why do they hate me...she asked. She hung herself with a lephard print scarf. Her name was Tempest Smith. I blame the parents that did not teach their children the basic respect for humanity.

I do not blame the Christians for the young Wiccan Mother of a 11 year old honor student son, that the town of Walker, La. ran out of town with bomb threats. I blame the red neck idiots that did it.
And so much more.

Why call me racist? Because I will not pile up on the Palestinians? Maybe because I see that they are fighting for their survival. And you do know that Muslims as well as Jews are Semites???So being on one side or the other does not make you antisemite unless you hate them both.

Hate...? I do not have hate. I try to see all sides of things...after all I have no dog in the Muslim/ Jew fight. If I was a jew I imagine I would be more angry. I got all I can do to fight my own problems. You want to stand up for my fights...I will help you..But so far we Pagans have had to stand up for ourselves except for a few friends.

Oh and Mara, I believe Yale is spelled Yale. It must be interesting to get involed in such a traditional discrimination as the Dalit. What have you discovered? Don't you think that a belief such as that had to come from a source from the beginning of the Hindu?

Again Anon,
I am not Christian, I did not take any part of your holy text, I have my own...We do not go by the bible. We are not Jew or Christian, we are pre Hebrew and pre Christian. Pagan...you know the Cannanites? The Babylonians, The Persians....etc. We are the Celts before Christians,we are the Greeks before Paul,we are the Romans before Constantine, we are the Northern Heathen before the Good Word of Jesus. We are the Strega, The Norse,the Astrau, I am a Pagan. A pre Classical Pagan...not a Christian. And I do not use any part of the bible, the torah or anyone elses sacred text...so do not blame pox infested blankets on me, or the thievery of your holy book or anything else on me and mine. We got all we can carry.
terra

Dear Mara,

How wonderful to hear from you, and in such an unlikely place! Yes, I am who you think I am, and I would very much like to hear from you, Ken, Gloria, and Sean. You know, the last time you and I were in communication was when you found out you had been accepted to Yale. I remember, and I also remember you as a night owl, like me, working until the library closed. I guess some things stay the same.

Faculty email addresses, however, have changed, but if you contact the Department they will give you my new one.

Dear Anonymous,

I believe I know who you are. If you are who I think you are, both my brother and I took courses with you some years ago. He is at Stanford, while I labor on at Yael, both of us pursuing doctorates in political economy.

As you know, your courses changed our lives. Ken and Sean, who was in your class with my brother, have done a lot of work on two Indian reservations, very much inspired by you.

I'm sure Mahmood has told you of the work he is doing with Gloria.

As for me, my dissertaion is on the Dalit.

No one but you could have such wide-ranging interests and knowledge of social injustice. You gave us pride in ourselves. Gloria is still a Catholic as is Sean, but they see things differently. The thing is, like so many people, they just didn't know, as they told you, and as you knew so well. We'd all like to get in touch with you.

If you are the prof. I'm thinking of, could you let me know? I still have your email address.

It is appalling that this Gandhi fellow is still on this site. I Knew nothing of this whole mess until a friend mentioned it to me. Hopefully, he'll go away soon. Would that all such persons followed him!

Warmest regards,
Mara

Irate Anonymous:

On Terra Gazelle, I have seen her posts for a long time, and I just don't think that she is a racist, or antisemitic. I am pretty sure that she is not Christian to say nothing of Catholic. I have never seen her say anything hateful.

I don't think you are reacting to the real Terra Gazelle, my friend.

Gazelle,

Poor racist, hateful thing.

Use their victimhood? You mean like the Palestinians? The African Americans?

Or just Jews, whom you cstholics continue to victimize.

Yes, it is hard, when your victims tell you to shove it, or in your case, bring it to your tree, or as Observer suggested earlier back to your rock, your pope, potatoes, pasta, whatever.

See that's just it, Gazelle. We're not going to be your victims anymore. And, as you see, I'm not only referring to Israeli Jews. Stand back. Those days are over.

It all started with you catholics. And by the way, don't you think your pope should be paying a few of his billions in oil wealth to help the Israelis guard your ridiculous shrines, which mean nothing to us and which cost Jewish lives? Which could go to help the Esraeli poor, who are not only Jews?

The Ethiopian Jews?

The Middle Eastern Jews?

The Native Americans?

The African Amrericans--Jewish, Christian, and Muslim?

Your thoughts, or what passes for thoughts in a case like yours?

Gazelle,

How little it takes to see more and more of your viscious racism come out. Hatred and racism.
Jews returned to their own land. Some remained from the beginning, but were exiled from Jerusalem. Others have been returning since the beginning. That does not give Palestinians an excuse for murdering and tortoring them, nor Christians like your bigoted self an excues for condmening them.

And the 1200 Muslims of Gujurat?

The Ethiopian Jews?

The three million Jews deported from their native Middle Eastern lands?

The Native Americans?

I'm waiting. I'm still waiting to see you post on them.

Ironic, isn't it, all these Christian double standards?

On another note, as I wrote to Guyminuslife, you can certainly criticize Israel. The Israelis do it all the time, just as some of us criticize America. The quesion is how you do it. Mr. Gandhi's criticism was racist, as is yours. The "jews" [sic]? I wasn't born in 1948.

You Christians always bring up this "chosen" business, but we didn't say we are chosen. The Bible says so. If you hadn't stolen our text and colonized it with your own, you wouldn't be so preoccupied with it. Why don't you just excise it from your "Old" Testament as you have tried to excise us? Or better yet, get your own text.

I'm done. May whatever tree you currently worship have mercy on your bigoted soul,

Gazelle,

How little it takes to see more and more of your viscious racism come out. Hatred and racism.
Jews returned to their own land. Some remained from the beginning, but were exiled from Jerusalem. Others have been returning since the beginning. That does not give Palestinians an excuse for murdering and tortoring them, nor Christians like your bigoted self an excues for condmening them.

And the 1200 Muslims of Gujurat?

The Ethiopian Jews?

The three million Jews deported from their native Middle Eastern lands?

The Native Americans?

I'm waiting. I'm still waiting to see you post on them.

Ironic, isn't it, all these Christian double standards?

On another note, as I wrote to Guyminuslife, you can certainly criticize Israel. The Israelis do it all the time, just as some of us criticize America. The quesion is how you do it. Mr. Gandhi's criticism was racist, as is yours. The "jews" [sic]? I wasn't born in 1948.

You Christians always bring up this "chosen" business, but we didn't say we are chosen. The Bible says so. If you hadn't stolen our text and colonized it with your own, you wouldn't be so preoccupied with it. Why don't you just excise it from your "Old" Testament as you have tried to excise us? Or better yet, get your own text.

I'm done. May whatever tree you currently worship have mercy on your bigoted soul,

Anon,
It is Wiccan, not wiggan.

Do you like playing the victim? Everyone on this planet has been abused at one time or another for one thing or another.

Gender, color, sexual orientation, religion...natives called savages because someone else wanted their land and resources...the rich taking what they want and the poor kept poor for their use.

There will always be those who want to have power over others. Then there will always be those who use their victimhood.

Oh and my forebearers did not get to this country until early 1900's. They came from Ireland, where the rich took the land and people were dieing from starvation....and from Calabria.Where the nobility taxed the people into poverty. I can guarentee that they did not send one blanket to any indian res with pox on it.

terra

Anon,

"Christians used to have the option of not being anything. If you asked one who was non-practicing, s/he would say s/he was nothing, or s/he was an atheist. That is less and less the possible for them. Now, one things of them as either secular of religious, as they have always thought of us, of everyone who was not them.Since Christians cannot dispense with essentialism, this, in some ways, is a salutary development for us all."

What???

I am not Christian (I say again for the third time)

The jews took the land that they lived on from others. So how far do you want to go? The original people were Canannites. They lived on the land 3 millenium BC, 2000 years before there were Hebrews. The Hebrews stold the land, killed the people, took the virgins as slaves or wives, forcing them to marry or serve the murderers of their familes. But then the god's chosen people...I wander if anyone thought to ask, "chosen for what?" ot if it was a great exuse to be seen as righteous after all the stealing and murderering.

If you are going to go back in history...then go all the way.

terra

Jesus would vote according to the issues, not the party. Jesus would be for truely life-affirming laws and policies, and the defense of the dignity of the poor and weak both foreign and domestic.

Dear Guyminuslife:

Just read your last. You don't say what your ethnicity is, but if you are a Jew, you are a Jew. This is not my doing. It is the world's. Christians used to have the option of not being anything. If you asked one who was non-practicing, s/he would say s/he was nothing, or s/he was an atheist. That is less and less the possible for them. Now, one things of them as either secular of religious, as they have always thought of us, of everyone who was not them.Since Christians cannot dispense with essentialism, this, in some ways, is a salutary development for us all.

Still, their case differs significantly from that of Jews. Being Jewish, notwithstanding the Enlightenment, remains an essential category. If you are a Jewish man, I assure you, you are not "white." Now, take a look at history and the world around you. Would you want to be?

The issue remains Mr. Gandhi's essay. What is a racist doing on a panel devoted to issues of faith?

Dear Guyminuslife:

The term "manifest destiny" was introduced into this country by a Christian referring to the will of God for Americans to push their way west.

Israel repossessed its own country. There is quite a difference. We had been exiled by force, by the Romans, and when I say we, I do not of course mean all Jews, since some remained, just outside of Jerusalem. The Diaspora has not been good to us. We cannot depend on the kindness of others.

But I wonder whence all this obsession about tiny Israel? I'd like to hear more on the Native Americans who are colonized in their own country as a result of manifest destiny. Have you spoken out for them? I have.

Also, are you not afraid to criticize the Sudan for detaining and torturing Ethiopian Jews?

Are you not afraid of criticizing Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc., for forcing what are now three million, yes, three million Jews out of the lands in which they dwelled for centuries?

I wonder if you even know of these crimes against humanity. I rather doubt it. We Jews have no oil money, no oil producing nations to back us up.

But, you know, none of this goes to the point, which is that Mr. Gandhi's essay is racist. As for your point, anyone can criticize anything. Certainly, it is acceptable to criticize Israel on specific issues, just as it is acceptable to criticize this country's. One can do these things and still not do so in a racist way. Israelis criticize their country constantly.

It is also possible to criticize Turkey for its treatment of Kurds; Spain for Basques; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al, for their treatment of Palestinians; India for its slaughter just a few years ago of 1200 Muslims while the police stood by (see human rights watch), India for enslaving 250,000,000 Dalit (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International); Palestinian Muslims for driving out Palestinian Christians, for honor killings, car bombings, etc.

What is so curious to us Jews is why so many people seem to be so obsessed with us in so many arenas. Could it be due to the racism spread throughout the world by the Christians, racism that in the Middle East has been Islamicized? Could that be possible?

You would think that a panelist on a blog called "OnFaith" would know that you can criticize a nation without doing so in a racist way. Why don't you take a look at some of the hundreds of emails that followed his essay? Particularly, look at Judea Perl's letter. He is the father of Danny Perl, neither the first nor the last to be killed because he was a Jew.

On that note, I think I can list off several ethnic identities of mine that were at some point oppressed, though. Heinously. By Nazis. By communists. By capitalists. People who were starved and beaten, who were viewed as inferior species, who were killed, quickly and slowly and mercilessly, by virtue of nothing but their last name.

Lucky me, grandchild of the suffering masses, I just get to be "white," "male," "American." But apparently I'm oppressed and I have carte blanche to do my own goddamn oppressing. And if anyone calls me out on it, well, you're racist against my identity du jour. That's the mentality we're at. That's the insanity.

I called China's government communist once, and so I am racist against Chinese people.

I thought that the Rwandan genocide was heinous, and so I am racist against black people.

I'm not a big fan of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, so clearly I hate Hispanics.

I'll talk at length about the evils of King Leopold's Congo, too, so I must despise Belgians.

I do think that Britain treated Ireland unfairly during its occupation, so I'd have to check "yes" on whether I am prejudiced against limeys.

Really, the Napoleonic Wars were completely unjustified, I'd say, so I'm opposed to French people.

I must be un-American for wondering whether it was really necessary to give all those diseased blankets to Indians.

Let's not even talk about Turks, Germans, Russians, Serbs, Romans, Spaniards, and Tlingits!

... and I am unafraid to criticize the Israeli government and the manifest destiny of Zionism, so I guess I'm an anti-semite, too. (My Jewish friends will be very dismayed, I am sure.)

I agree, but then again, neither of us are Christians.

Ms. Gazelle:

We continue to see in your posts so much hate and so much racism.

When a young boy carrying his lunch to school winds up missing, his remains painted on the walls of a cave by Palestinians, when hundreds of boys and girls are burned beyond recognition so as not to unduly harm their assailants, one has to ask how long this would go on in the US. When a seven-year-old girl covers her two-year-old brother in the middle of a car bombing, and dies, leaving the brother an orphan, since his parents died as well, one has to ask how long such things would go on here.

Diasporic Jews are in the Diaspora because they were driven from Jerusalem by the Romans, following the Bar Kochba war. Islam had not yet been created, as that remarkable historian, Ms. Gazelle, certainly knows.

Then came the Muslim Turks, about whom we can expect more from Ms. Gazelle, then the Christians, who in between killing Jews and Muslims, took time out to spread anti-Jewish racism.

As a Wiggan, former Christian, I can certainly understand your concerns. After all, your people not only stole this land from the Native Americans, but tortured them in the process, giving them blankets infected with small pox, burning them to death and showing how this atrocity was predicted in the "Old" Testament.

Now, you have them on reservations, where they are dying like flies. You will honor none of your treaty obligations. How frightening it would be for the likes of you if they decided to repossess the land that was theirs. The Lord be with them if they do.

Mexico is one of the poorest countries on earth. The Christians stole Texas, New Mexico, and much of the Southwest from Mexico. What if, they, too, chose to repossess their land?

Christianity and Islam have a history of Imperialism. Of course, their nations fear the rebellions of the dispossessed.

Another liability for Israel--it has no oil-producing nations supporting it.

A funny thing: You have not yet posted on the three million Jews who have been forced to flee Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc., where they dwelled for centuries.

Why not?

What of the Ethiopian Jews,many thousands of whom have been airlifted out of Ethiopia by the Israelis so that they could continue to live? There are still Ethiopian Jews living in that hell hole, as Israel continues to do its best to get them out.

In the meantime, they are walking, yes walking to Israel. On the way, many of them have been stopped, detained and tortured in Sudan.

Now, as you know, the Sudanese have been fleeing from their own hell hole, ending up in Egypt, where they had been turned back unless they made it to Israel, which,of course, took them in. They took them in until the Ethiopian Jews protested and protested and protested. They did not want to live among their torturers.

They asked some questions: We are a very tiny state. Are there no Christian countries in the world? Are there no Christian countries that could take them in?

Well....

And, Ms. Gazelle, there are the Palestinian Christians, your co-religionists, who also flee into Israel, which takes them. Any comment?

What of the fact that one of every three murders of Palestinians is by Palestinians and is an honor killing, the murder of a woman, usually by her brother for the crime of having been raped?

And, Ms. Gazelle, I'm surprised that one as knowledgeable as you does not know that there is no such thing as a "semite." The term originated among nineteenth-century linguists to describe a language group. It was then essentialized by the EuroChristians to refer to Jews, Arabs, and Iranians. There is no such animal as Semite. Hence we use the terms antisemititsm and racism interchangeably. The latter is more accurate.

I regret the polemics, but your writing is racist. Perhaps, you haven't read Gandhi's essays carefully enough. Perhaps, you are arguing out of your league....I don't know. I'm thinking of an email I just received from a Pakistani friend, Mahmood,who asks about the war you Christians started in Iraq: "How can they call themselves the religion of love? What has hardened their hearts against so many people?"

That is what I always ask myself. What has hardened the hearts of so many Christians for so many centuries?

assuming there was in fact a historical jesus, i agree with arun gandhi.
Jesus would be a liberal, and very likely under serveillance by the current christian government

I see that hate is the fad of the times. I am not bigoted toward Jews, Muslims or anyone else. Is our policies really representative of the people?
I can seperate the wrong headedness of this President and the millions of people that do not want a hundred year war or torture.

When a young American girl stood to protect a Muslim home from the Israeli tanks...they ran over her. When bombs are dropped by the Israelis and suicide bombers kill them selves for vengence of those Muslim dead...who wins? How many more generations should die? Maybe some of you should read some history. No one is innocent, and no one is all evil. But with our help with Billions of dollars abd weapons we have taken sides in this war...and we are hated because of it.

George Washington said that this nation should not take sides in other nations...he was right. It has brought about 9-11 and much more.

Now as far as being antisemetic? Muslims are Semetic...same as the Jews. They come from the same tree.

Now say what you want to me... I can shrug my shoulders at you because what you think of me is of no count. We all have the right to voice our opinions, I have done that, as have you.
terra

Looks like you people don't know much about Prophet Jesus.

Poor Fellows! Atleast listen when someboby boldly talks to you.

Mr Gandhi,

Actually I think Christ had this to say about people like you:

"...if the blind lead the blind, both shall into the ditch."

Terra Gazelle wrote to Anonymous:

"After reading your comment I have to wander what you are bent about."

Funny,I was just wondering a couple of things about you! Precisely what rock was it that you climbed out from under? And would you kindly return to it and trouble us no more?

You are yelling fire in a croweded theatre. When you go back to your rock, contemplate that.

The Jesus of the Gospel believed in exacting capital punishment for sin so much that He Himself accepted the capital punishment for the sins of the world.

Jesus would definitely support the capital punishment in principle. Only in extreme and utterly rare circumstances would He be merciful in sparing people of the capital punishment for crimes. Again, He does this only in extremely rare circumstances to teach us about the Gospel and His loving character. This is more of an exception than the rule.

Gotcha, Ms. Gazelle. It's only Jews who can be victimized by bigotry. Now, how did I know that what you erroneously lable free speech extends only to racism against us?

If you followed your own illogic, you certainly would have advised that those who fired Imus "turn the other cheek," and you would suggested the same for Mayor Giuliani.

Jesus also said, "Love thy neighbor." Apparently, you are very selective in whom you love and in whom you choose for neighbors.

Why don't you read Judea Perl's response to Mr. Gandhi? He is the father of Danny Perl.

I'm so sorry for you, Ms. Gazelle, as I am for all bigots, and racists. Bigotry is a form of intellectual surrender. Bigots deprive themselves of so much of the world's loveliness.

Still, I don't think they belong in discussions of faith. They need healing first, and I sincerely hope, that as a bigot you choose the path of seeking moral health.

Gee what alot of hate slammed toward a gentle man because he is for love, understanding and tolerance...and as a non Christian believes that Jesus would be all for it.

As a Wiccan I also think he would.

What mean and contrary people you all are.

terra

Mr.Gandhi,

I think you are wrong about the Democrat party. Almost every bit of progress that this country made was because of the Democratic party. Social Security, Unemployment, Welfare, civil rights and the voter act...etc.

The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic as well as social matters.

The economically left-leaning activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party's economic agenda since 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until 1964. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles.

Do not confuse us with those like the Blue Dog Democrtes. They are a small group of Republican Lite stuck in the senate. Hopefully com e the election they will be thinned out.

Can I say...OBAMA 08!
terra

Well Anonymous, you are asking alot from me but then you dare not give a name.

And as far as knowing Jesus...Love your neighbor as yourself, if a man should strike your cheek, turn to the other...if a man be cold, give your coat. I met him years ago...he is a nice man...goes door to door, barefoot and healing.

But then I am not Christian...I am Wiccan.

and what is "copy us"?

I find the act of going in a parade in black face is bigotry. It is offensive and hateful. They should have been fired. After all Giuliani may wear a dress, but his blush is pink.

Don Imus should still be collecting unemployment. All the talking heads that think it is ok to belittle and humiliate others as long as they say it is just a joke..they need to learn that humor does not hurt.

There is a difference in protecting free speach and shouting fire in a crowded theater.

So you allow free speach for everyone except those you disagree with? Poor nameless thing.

After reading your comment I have to wander what you are bent about.

terra

Dear Ms. Gazell:

I have met not Jesus, although from your tone, it is evident that you have. Perhaps, he is sitting by your side. If so, kindly ask him if, in his view, Mr. Gandhi's essay constitutes the sort of speech that belongs on a blog called OnFaith.

No one wishes to censor Mr. Gandhi. There are many venues for racist speech, and not only on the internet. The question is whether or not it belongs here. Many of your co-religionists think not. But then, they probably do not know Jesus as intimately as your self-righteous self.

Now, since you are such an ardent defender of freedom of speech, would you kindly copy us with your letters protesting the firing of Don Imus, who was only doing his shock-jock thing? A person so high-minded as yourself would never have simply stood by and watched. (What would Jesus have said?)

Also, kindly copy us with your letters to Mayor Giuliani when in 2003, he fired a policeman and two firemen for dressing up in blackface, in a parade, on their own time. This made national news. The men, in previous years, had made fun of several ethnic groups including there own. What did you and Jesus do then?

Do tell. And if the answer is that you did nothing, spare us your sanctimonious, hypocritical nonsense.

Now, I ask myself: Would Jesus countenance the following on a discussion of fath? Or would he suggest Mr. Gandhi go elsewhere with his racism? Would Jesus suggest you accompany that man?

I haven't met Jesus. But I think he'd answer in the affirmative:

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

If Jesus was God, why would he be against the laws of God. Your whole article doesn't make sense. Jesus even said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it! Yes Jesus showed us that God is love. But he also taught us to fear God who could throw both our body and soul in Hell! Even love demands responsibility.

It seems like this question has been a clarion call of Bigots...and it is not Arun Gandhi.

What a crowd of unthinking proofs of Darwin's Theory.

And not only that...but where are their flag pins..I must see them, or you are UNAMERICAN? I mean not allowing Free speach is the proof of their pudding brains. They would not know antisemetic speech if it layed an egg on them.

I guess they are doing what Jesus did?
terra

Speaking of racist haters....

JJ's back.

HARE KRiSHNA is JEZEUS! Visa Viz! YaYOYAYAYOYOAH!

WahibiCorridor

I can see that you write, bur reading is another matter. I suggest that you look at the pope's text for yourself. It was offensive. As for Christianity, Catholocism, etc. beginning as early as the first crusade the Christians began exporting anti-semitc garbage to Muslim lands taking the time to spread their garbage in between killing Jews and Muslims. Christians continued to do this up until the internet, when it became unnecessary. Now, Christian antisemitism has been Islamicized.

You would like to paint Muslims the same, while viewing the Christians as the Universal. You would like to say that while some Christians may have exported antisemitism, others may not.

You need a course in logic.

For you Islam is ideology, but Chrisitanity is theology. Yet Christians like to say things like "The [sic] Jews killed Christ." Priests, Archbishops, reverends" teach this sort of essentialism with abandon. Christians would like to say that Islam is violence. Read the "New" Testament. The Cateschism, the church fathers, etc.

Essentialism is essentialism. Christianity is essentialist. Hence, playing by its rules, which they have force the world to do, is more thatn fair. It is much more than fair to call the Romans the ancestors of the Christians. More than fair because they were.

The Christians have taught us all well.

And make no mistake about it. Islam is not fond of Christianity anymore than the latter is fond of Islam. There are endless Christian anti-Islam websites as you probably know.

NOne of this has anything to do with the racist hater Arun Gandhi and why he is still on this site.

He is a hater, of Jews, Dalit, the Lord knows what. Why is he still on this blog?

WahibiCorridor:

I can see that you write, bur reading is another matter. I suggest that you look at the pope's text for yourself. It was offensive. As for Christianity, Catholocism, etc. beginning as early as the first crusade the Christians began exporting anti-semitc garbage to Muslim lands taking the time to spread their garbage in between killing Jews and Muslims. Christians continued to do this up until the internet, when it became unnecessary. Now, Christian antisemitism has been Islamicized.

You would like to paint Muslims the same, while viewing the Christians as the Universal. You would like to say that while some Christians may have exported antisemitism, others may not.

You need a course in logic.

For you Islam is ideology, but Chrisitanity is theology. Yet Christians like to say things like "The [sic] Jews killed Christ." Priests, Archbishops, reverends" teach this sort of essentialism with abandon. Christians would like to say that Islam is violence. Read the "New" Testament. The Cateschism, the church fathers, etc.

Essentialism is essentialism. Christianity is essentialist. Hence, playing by its rules, which they have force the world to do, is more thatn fair. It is much more than fair to call the Romans the ancestors of the Christians. More than fair because they were.

The Christians have taught us all well.

And make no mistake about it. Islam is not fond of Christianity anymore than the latter is fond of Islam. There are endless Christian anti-Islam websites as you probably know.

NOne of this has anything to do with the racist hater Arun Gandhi and why he is still on this site.

He is a hater, of Jews, Dalit, the Lord knows what. Why is he still on this blog?

Ghostbuster

Wow! A slippery slope of sewerage.

That doesn't sound too good, if you ask me.

Yes! That is the organization. I learned about the FIRE when they were defending students against a draconian (but well meaning) speech code at a local college. From their website I eventually tracked down the book.

That is cool that you have it autographed.

Ghostbuster:

"Again, I suggest you all read "The Shadow University". It opened my eyes to a lot of this stuff."

Oh, this is too funny. Not only do I have that book, it's autographed by the authors. I'd forgotten the name. I checked it out on Amazon and that's what triggered the memory.

You might be interested in the organization they helped start.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, aka FIRE.

http://www.thefire.org/

Hi Ghostbuster

"Rather than dealing with the sewage, you are blowing up the house. Try exposing and cleaning up the sewage instead. You do that with the truth."

I'm not blowing up the house and the sewage was supposedly 'dealt with' after this moron's last foray into moral vacuity.

I will look into "The Shadow University", tho. Thanks for the tip.

wahabicorridor sez to J:

"When we disagree with someone who brings sewage into the house, we just ask him to go live somewhere else."

Aye there is the rub. You don't ask, you tell, or would if you could.

Rather than dealing with the sewage, you are blowing up the house. Try exposing and cleaning up the sewage instead. You do that with the truth.

If you ban ideas, they will either find another way in or fester just beneath the surface. It's better to deal with ignorance in the open.

Besides, in some cases "sewage" is subjective. It can be a slippery slope. Like "J" said, some folks would have anyone they disagree with “banned”.

Again, I suggest you all read "The Shadow University". It opened my eyes to a lot of this stuff.

regards

Anonymous:

"Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by the ancestors of the Christians, the Romans."

You teach Judaism? Good Lord.

Jihadist:

"Well, if people are demanding Arun Gandhi be off On Faith, perhaps I should demand Cal Thomas to be off too, for his remarks about Islam and Muslims, and Susan Jacoby for her remarks on all believers.

This is silly to talk about the vaunted American freedom of expression, the right of anyone to say anything, and then to demand those we disagree with, whom we deem racists and bigots, to be off and keep the presssure up. This would seem like double standards."

Here's your problem sweetcakes. Arguments against ideology are not incitements to behead the infidel. When we disagree with someone who brings sewage into the house, we just ask him to go live somewhere else. Islam puts the onus on all it's believers to kill him. Muslims are perfectly free to kill anyone they disagree with. Now THAT'S some freedom of expressions.

Did Arun Ghandi incite violence? No. What he did do was accuse the Jews of using violence as a mode of achieving tribal identity. That goes beyond the ironic to the grotesque. The Holocaust didn't happen because the Jews were violent. What is happening in Israel is because the Jews learned something - no one will defend us except us.

The violence that Arun Ghandi pretends to abhor is organic within Islam and directed at the Jews in no small part.

But I digress.

"when others made remarks we deem offensive about Islam and Muslims, including by the Pope. The Pope never really apologised too. He only said he regretted our reactions, but not on what he said."

Including the Pope? The Pope was addressing the different roles of reason in the Catholic Church versus Islam.

And he intends to continue the dialogue. The fact that Muslims took offense - which is the default mode, apparently - does not make it incumbent on the rest of us to not hold Muslims to account for the evil perpretrated upon the world in the name of their faith.

Johnny,

I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but it is not from someone who knows anything about Judaism, which I happen to teach.

When you refer to the "orthodox or traditionalists," you show your ignorance. Judaism is not what gentiles interpret it to be. There is traditional and modern orthodoxy. They are not the same. Then there is also Chasidism, which I won't go into now. There is no always in Judaism anymore than there is in Christianity. For example, there is no specific mention of the Vatican or presbyters,etc., in the so-called "New" Testament. The Catholic church and the various denominations of Protestantism evolved over time. So has Judaism. Reformed Judaism developed in the nineteenth century, Reconstructionism in the twentieth. At this point many Reformed congregations are indistinguishable from Conservative. Some Conservative are intistinguishable from MOdern, not Tradtional, Orthoxy.

Then there are Conservative and Conservative Egalitarian. Conservative egalitarian, Reformed Judaism, and REconstructionism have no problem with homosexuality.

For the moment, I'm not going to address the NOrth African, Mizrahi, Sfardim, Ethiopian communities, since there is neither space nor time. I will say that the Srardim and Mizrahi are very,very close to the Askenazim.

I will also say that most, if not all Cnoservatives and Reformed Jews do not prohibit sex for purposes other than procreation. Neither does Reconstructionism, needless to say. Orthodox Judaism, traditional and modern does permit abortion under cirtain circumstances, other than saving the mother's life. If you want to learn more, take my course or someone else's.

Victoria, when you speak of Jesus being a Zionist, you need to be specific. There is no single Zionism. There are Zionism(s).

If a historical Jesus did exist, then I would assume he would have had problems with what are now three million Middle Eastern Jews who have been forced to leave their homelands in which they dwelled for centuries.

I would think, too, that he would have had problems with the Ethiopian Jews, many of whom are still in the hell of Ethopia, as Israelis continue to try to get them out. Of course, you know that Israel has been airlifting them out of Ethiopia for twehty-eight years, out of Ethiopia, where they are kept illiterate, in danger every minute. Many of them have walked, yes walked from Ethiopia to Israel. They are still walking Victoia. I haven't seen you post on this.

On the way, many have become Prisoners of Zion, persons tortured in the Diaspora because they are Jews. They were held, some of them are still being held, in Sudan. Meanwhile, the Sudanese have been fleeing, ending up in Egypt, which turns them back. Israel was taking the Sudanese in, until the Ethopians protested, and protested, and protested. They didn't want their former torturers among them.

Guess who else the Israelis are taking in? Palestinian Christians. I don't think Jesus would have had a problem with that. On the other hand, Jesus might have objected to one out of every three Palestinian Muslim murders being an Honor KIlling, the killing of a woman often by her brother, for the crime of having been raped.

I think, too, that he might have looked askance with Palestinians agreeing to the Clinton plan and then starting an intfada. I think he would have had problems with all the burned boys at Hebrew University, whom I have seen, burned because of the care they took in trying to defend themselves.

If you are concerned about occupations, then why not concern yourself with the plight of Native Americans, who are among the poorest of the developing nations, who like the Jews were dispossed of their land. In the U.S., they average 5,500 a year. A year. They are dying like flies from U.S. perpetrated genocide. The U.S. stole Texas, New Mexico and much of the Southwest from these people. Look into it.

Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by the ancestors of the Christians, the Romans. Many of them remained in what is now Israel. Then came Turkish Muslims, then the Christians, descendants of the Romans, who killed Jesus. Christian and Muslim nations have a long history of imperialism. They don't like it when the dispossessed repossess.

I would like to see the Native Americans repossess. Why don't you concentrate on having this dispicable country honor one of its treaty obligations? Do something about teams like the "Redskins"? Do a bit of reading by Native American activists. Even belletristic writers like Leslie Marmon Silko, Sherman Alexie, or Louise Erdrich, particularly Silko should prove illuminating. Jesus would surely be pleased.

This man Gandhi wrote an anti-semtic diatribe. He then went on to refer to the Dalit as "Untouchables" in his last post, and he jeered at the desperate conversion of some Dalit to Christianity some sixty odd years ago. Yes, he's correct. The Dalit listened to Christian missionaries, hoping to improve their desperate lot. Mr. Gandhi is a Brahmin, a member of the highest caste on the Hindu totem pole. He believes we should all remain with our "mother" religion. No wonder. He and his ilk benefit from the 250 million Dalit living as bonded labor in his native land. They are slaves, Victoria. SEe Human Rights Watch. Visit the U.N. web site. Then read Mr. Gandhi's last essay. Why do you not speak out on behalf of the Dalit? They are among the wretched of the earth, pace Franz Fanon.

NOthing will stop people from hating you as a Jew, Victoria. You can identify with whomever you'd like, but you are a victim, and your "protective" stance towards others is viewed as patronizing. It reinscribes a specious privilege for which those others rightly despise you. Jews are required to fight against injustice. That includes injustice committed against us. You can identify with whomever you wish to, but you are a Jew. You are Other, and you will always be. Until you stop hiding behind their suffering and standing up for your own, they will justifiably loathe you.

Think of Hillel: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am for myself alone, what am I?

Both you and I spoke out against Deb Chatterjee's calling for the banning of the Koran in the U.S. Do you see any Muslims speaking out for us?

I have seen Christians, including Catholics, speaking out against this man Gandhi. I have seen Hindus do the same. But Muslims, no. I just got off the phone with my closest friend, a Pakistani academic, who lives in Islamabad. Her computer is infected, hence my call. I read her Gandhi's anti-semitic post, and she was horrified.

I'd like to see a bit more Muslim horror on our behalf.

I cannot believe this is the prose of the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.

A nonsensical few paragraphs, which show neither logic, nor education.

Here's a question to pose to Mr. Arun Gandhi:

Would Jesus be a Zionist? Only a fool would answer that with certainty, but an even greater fool would say no.

Thank you Johnny. I think you may have stumbled onto something. The problem with religion is that it is dominated by people who are screw-up over sex.

Anonymous,

your right, abortion is only acceptable in a life threatening situation only. There are no other exceptions apart from this.

You can't speak for Buddhism? neither can I, but the Dalia Lama's stance on abortion is well known.

Sex for reasons other than procreation has always been unacceptable in Judiasm...its not something that the "orthodox" or "traditionalists" invented. this has always been the law. Any Jew however is free to chose b/w following Halacha or not. However, those who chose the latter cannot than go off and claim that Halacha accepts their stance.

"Muslims are asked to by others to accept in stride and to react soberly instead of excitedly when others..."

Jihadist,

In response to the Pope's remarks ( I believe he actually quoted a 13th century emperor and was not attacking Islam) one nun was killed in Somalia and churches and buildings were fire bombed accross africa, Pakistan, and the middle east.

Don't you think the sentence "reacting soberly rather than excitedly" is abit of an understatement?

How many people were killed or hurt in response to Arun Ghandi's article or to general criticsm of Jews and Israel?

And how many people were killed and hurt during the Danish cartoon crisis? I also believe there were at least two editors (one of a student newspaper) who were fired in the UK alone for trying to publish these cartoons. Newspaper around the world were too scared to publish these cartoons not just because of concerns for the saftey but out of the fear that they would lose their jobs. And who can forget Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie.

You call that "reacting excitedly??"

Well, if people are demanding Arun Gandhi be off On Faith, perhaps I should demand Cal Thomas to be off too, for his remarks about Islam and Muslims, and Susan Jacoby for her remarks on all believers.

This is silly to talk about the vaunted American freedom of expression, the right of anyone to say anything, and then to demand those we disagree with, whom we deem racists and bigots, to be off and keep the presssure up. This would seem like double standards.

Do we have to act in a way that may give grist to the conspiracy theorists in the Muslim world that the US media is controlled by Jews? Thank God very few Muslims outside the US actually read On Faith.

Mr. Arun Gandhi made a regretable remark that is offensive to Jews. Muslims are asked to by others to accept in stride and to react soberly instead of excitedly when others made remarks we deem offensive about Islam and Muslims, including by the Pope. The Pope never really apologised too. He only said he regretted our reactions, but not on what he said.

Should the Pope be removed? Not our decision of course, and nor within our power to do so for he, after all, stated or represent a certain worldview. Same here for Mr. Arun Gandhi. It is WaPo who selected Mr. Arun Gandhi as an On Faith panelist. It is WaPo who can drop him.

And a good weekend to all.

"J"

Wahabicorridor:

Click onto Deepak Chopra. Another Anonymous has raised the subject of Arun Gandhi, in connection with Jesus as president, of course. (It is important that we stay on topic.)

Anonymous' post is toward the end.

observer12
"And see his subsequent statements on Hindu web sites defending the content of his canards."

If any of those web sites are in English, could you please post links?

Johnny
"I wonder what would happen if someone wrote a similair article on muslims. What would the reaction be and how would the Washington Post react to it? Would it even publish the piece in the first place?"

Well, we all know the 'freedom of speech' warriors at WaPo and NewsWEAK manifested their balls when they published the Danish cartoons.

Oh. Wait.

Nevermind.

The Washington Post, under Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham, published the Pentagon Papers.
(Hi Sally!). Katherine Graham had more balls and more spine than anyone responsible for this debacle.

In the end, this isn't about one anti-Semite leveraging the bogus family myth for personal aggrandizement.

It's about the Washington Post and Newsweek self-destructing.

I'll go make the popcorn.

Johnny:

I can't speak for Hinduism and Buddism, but as for Jusaism, it is radically different from Christianity most respects.

First of all, there is no normative Jewish stance on abortion, except that if the mother's life is endangered by either the pregnancy or the deliver, AN ABORTION IS MANDATORY. Not an option.
This is the case regardless of whether one is Askenasi, Misrahi, North African, etc., whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed,Chasidic or Reconstructionist. END OF DISCUSSION.

Judaism places enormous value on the living. As for having abortions for other reasons, they must be very serious reasons, but except for some extremists, they are permissible.

Spilling one seed, i.e., having sex for reasons other than procreation is unacceptable in both Modern and Traditional Orthodoxy, but generally acceptable outside of them.

That said, Why is this antisemite still posting on this site?

On that note, I guess this tolerant and compassionate lover of Jews will also conisder his own Hindus as well as Buddhists and their Dalia Lama (who concidentally is very much against abortion) to lack compassion and tolerance.

Speaking of 'liberal' tolerance and compassion, in relation to Ghandi's previous article, I wonder what would happen if someone wrote a similair article on muslims. What would the reaction be and how would the Washington Post react to it? Would it even publish the piece in the first place?

Gaby said "Since Jesus was a Jew and since Jews do not consider unborn children as persons, that commandment does not apply. Therefore, Jesus would not legislate on abortion."

According to Jewish halacha (law), if one purposly spills his seed in vain, he is regarded as a murderer (See Shulhan Aruch - code of Jewish law). According to Jewish mysticism, a child's entire body comes from the father's seed.

This concept isn't only confined to Jews and christians...Buddhists and Hindus also prohibit wasting semen in vain.

If they consider the waisting of semen, murder -- how much more so would they consider abortion murder?

I find it so very interesting that when a shock jock makes a joke about a women's basketball team he gets fired. I find it so very interesting that when Bill Maher says something about the 9/11 attack that is offensive, he gets fired. I find it so very interesting that when someone says something about an African American golfer, he gets fired.

Since we don't want to exclude anyone, why not have a KKK member on the OnFaith panel? How about a Hindu anti-Muslim organization spokesperson? Or a Christian ant-Muslin organization spokesperson? There are plenty with sites on the web, and I will be posting the links shortly.

Here is the "topic": The exceptionalism that some folks have visited upon Jews, and, I would add, the Dalit, Mr. Gandhi's "Untouchables." Guess what? Those days are over.

The topic: Why has Mr. Gandhi been invited to post his high school level racist cant, without interruption, after revealing himself for the racist that he is? And see his last "essay." And see his subsequent statements on Hindu web sites defending the content of his canards.

The topic: Hate writers to not belong on a blog dedicated to matters of faith.
The question: When will we hear back from Mr. Gandhi on what he has learned following his racist diatribe, per Ms. Quinn's promise? Judging from his recent interviews, he has not learned much.

The question: Why is he still here?

I find it so very interesting that when a shock jock makes a joke about a women's basketball team he gets fired. I find it so very interesting that when Bill Maher says something about the 9/11 attack that is offensive, he gets fired. I find it so very interesting that when someone says something about an African American golfer, he gets fired.

Since we don't want to exclude anyone, why not have a KKK member on the OnFaith panel? How about a Hindu anti-Muslim organization spokesperson? Or a Christian ant-Muslin organization spokesperson? There are plenty with sites on the web, and I will be posting the links shortly.

Here is the "topic": The exceptionalism that some folks have visited upon Jews, and, I would add, the Dalit, Mr. Gandhi's "Untouchables." Guess what? Those days are over.

The topic: Why has Mr. Gandhi been invited to post his high school level racist cant, without interruption, after revealing himself for the racist that he is? And see his last "essay." And see his subsequent statements on Hindu web sites defending the content of his canards.

The topic: Hate writers to not belong on a blog dedicated to matters of faith.
The question: When will we hear back from Mr. Gandhi on what he has learned following his racist diatribe, per Ms. Quinn's promise? Judging from his recent interviews, he has not learned much.

The question: Why is he still here?

Still accusing Mr. Arun Ghandi of bigotry and racism? Even after he apologised, never how unsatisfactory for some/many?

And so many reminded Muslims about freedom of expresssion, the right to say anything about Islam and Muslim and to defend to the death their right to say it even if some Muslims do think they are bigots or racists.

Well, racism and bigotry is not the monopoly of anyone.

Once upon a time, in 2006, Mr. Naftali Tamir, an Israeli Ambassador, no less, to Australia, made a rather undiplomatic remark in an Israeli newspaper. He somewhat characterised the Australia and Israel while being in "Asia", are not Asians as Isrealis and Australians don't have "yellow skins" and "slanted eyes", the Asia is basically the "yellow people", and Australia and Israel are basically the "white" race or people.

There was a small flap in Australia. It was reported in some East Asian newspapers. No one made a fuss in Asia. He was recalled by the Israeli government.

Well, and so it goes. Even whom we think as suave and sophisticated and worldly and wise diplomats representing their countries can lapse into racism and bigotry. I have no idea what non-"white" Israelis make of his remarks. There are Israelis from Africa and Asia.

Well, colour us now. Colourise our skins and views.

Thanks and regards.

"J"

Ghostbuster wrote:
"But, don’t deny his right to speak. If the view is nonsence, it will be exposed as such."

Who exactly is denying his right to speak? He can say anything he wants - he can think anything he wants.

The issue is the venue and the prestige and credibility it grants.

If I understand you correctly, WaPo might just as well invite the Arayan Nation to write here, telling us all about race relations.

Thanks anyway. If I want to swim in sewage, I'll go find a sewer.

Dear Gaby

On abortion:

A few months ago, I was watching "Larry King" and his guest was Billy Graham's daughter, from North Caroline. She was a very thin, very intense middle-aged woman, with a very harshly "nasalized" Southern accent, which was most unpleasant to listen to, especially when she got all wound up.

Then she got on the topic of abortion. And in her harshest nasal whine, she explained that the embryos are little tiny people, she repeated in her drawl, "...little tann'a people" as she held her thumb and index finger, sqeezing the air, as though to pinch something invisible to make it even smaller; she repeated over and over and ovre, "tann'a, tann'a people..."

And then I just looked at the spectacle, aghast, and said, "Okay! I'm out!"

Free Palistine!

"I am not obsessed by anything, but it seemed to me that a little history lesson was in order. Seems a lot of people would like to reinvent history to coincite with their distorted perosnal views on what should have happened."

It seems you are so angry that you can't even spell correctly. All these Joooos getting you riled up? Your "history lesson" was a weird attempt at shifting the responsibility from Hitler to his enemies. Are you posting from the world center of Holocaust denial, Iran?

"ghandi"?

Can someone send me some new spellchecking software? oh well :)

I've seen a lot of "ban Ghandi" remarks.

Though I agree that the piece he wrote in January was Anti-Semitic and ignorant and that his apology was a laughable joke, I do not agree with banning his comments from this website.

"Banning" is a slippery slope. I remember several posters who vocally supported Ghandi’s nonsense when he made those remarks. Why not ban them too?

I think it is far better in the long run to openly debate ideas, even the worse ideas, in the public marketplace rather than to deny folks access to participate in them. If an opinion is Anti-Semitic, but not actively inciting people to violence, ignore it as ignorant or take the gloves off and let’s let him have it! But, don’t deny his right to speak. If the view is nonsence, it will be exposed as such.

An excellent book on this subject is "The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses". *Note* To any kids reading this blog who snuck on to mommy and daddy's computer to post nonsense, I'm sorry, but this book has no pictures. Sorry.

GB

Jesus is back and he's a blogger.

Mahatma Gandhi is said to have said, "He who does not see God in the next person he meets, need look no further." And to that I add, keep looking, Mr. Arun, keep looking.

And kudos to the washington post for the vocality permitted to commentators, it's quite refreshing, nonetheless, I find Mr. Arun Gandhi to be a poor choice as panelist

namaste, Adam

LUNA:

"And your presumption that Jesus would not legistate on abortion... please sir -- I believe he considers that one covered under --- Thou shall not kill."

Since Jesus was a Jew and since Jews do not consider unborn children as persons, that commandment does not apply. Therefore, Jesus would not legislate on abortion.

I suppose I could waste my time replying to this ludicrously off-base post, but instead I'm going to ask a question...

Why in the world is Arun Gandhi still writing for this weblog after his deeply offensive anti-Semitic post?

POLI:

"I don't understand your point, why are you writing about Israel and Middle-Eastern politics over a blog that deals with Christianity?"

From the responses I have read prior to my post, I have seen hardly anything about Christianity. Just a bunch of hate mail to Mr. Gandhi by a bunch of holier-than-thou, ranting, raving persons.

"Are you so obsessed as to turn an unrelated topic into a diatribe of your political views?
You don't believe Mr. Gandhi is an anti-semite, that is fine, but why bloat this statement with your trite take on world's events?"

I am not obsessed by anything, but it seemed to me that a little history lesson was in order. Seems a lot of people would like to reinvent history to coincite with their distorted perosnal views on what should have happened.

"Note that other posters who expressed their dissatisfaction with the Washingon-Post's decision to keep Mr. Gandhi on staff, stayed on topic."

Stayed on topic??? Hahahahhahahah!!!!! You call those ranting, raving accusations staying on topic???? Give me a break!!!

Please. You named four attributes which you erroneously assign as liberal attributes. How dare you insinuate that a conservative doesn't embody love, respect, compassion and understanding.

You forget or are ignorant of the fact that while Jesus did forgive and love the sinners (as all good Christians and conservatives do their human best to imitate) he kept all the Ten Commandments and admonished sinners --- to go and sin no more. ---

When was the last time you heard a liberal tell somebody not to sin? When have you heard a liberal support an abstinence program?

And your presumption that Jesus would not legistate on abortion... please sir -- I believe he considers that one covered under --- Thou shall not kill. ---

how can someone with antisemitic views claim to think he knows what a semite (Jesus) might think; does anyone else find that ironic?

it is amazing that Gandhi is still allowed to write in this forum after his anti-semitic outburst. It is disgraceful that Newsweek and the Washington Post still keep him.

Adam Jew Cohen wrote:

"The hate filled anti-semite is back! shame on the wapost!"

In fact, the hate-filled antisemite never left. If you click onto the panel and then onto Arun Gandhi, you will see that he has been responding to the moderators questions all along, that is following his antisemitic essay.

WahabiCorridor wrote:

"Oh, Arun, about that "non-violence" mantra you and your family have milked for generations and Jesus?"

Hate speech is violence. Remember?

The question is when are the Washington Post and Newsweek going to apologize to their readers for the continuing presence of this bigot on the OnFaith blog and remove him from that location.

The hate filled anti-semite is back! shame on the wapost!

J wrote:

"Mahatma Gandhi was a man of his time - an era when countries in Africa and Asia were fighting against colonial rule for their independence. It was, as now, seen as an act by the British to resolve an European "problem" that now become a Middle Eastern one. Admittedly the peception and perspective are different - then and now on the creation of the modern state of Israel. "

It's certainly true that Arabs joined with the Nazis under the motto Allah in heaven and Hitler on Earth. The Palestinian leader and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem not only raised SS divisions for Hitler, but also drew up plans for a death camp in Palestine. Fortuneately the British defeated Rommel so the Palestinians didn't get to have as much fun as the Ukrainans did.

"Congratulation" to the Washington Post for quietly reinstating this anti Semite back.

I don't understand the thought process that proclaims that love, compassion, respect and understanding are justification for killing the innocent through abortion.

But then there are a lot of things that are proclaimed by these "intellectuals" that I don't understand.

Isn't Jesus part of the greatest threat to man kind - i.e. Da Joos? is it possible to be part of a war mongering nation of people (who aslo happen to be the greatest threat to humanity) and be a liberal at the same time?

Being compassionate, tolerant, understanding and open minded I wonder if he shared Ghandi's compassionate and tolerant "liberal" view on dem war-mongering Joos...

Phoney baloney.

I wonder if Washington Post would publish a similair piece on muslims and then unashamdely have the same writer come back to harrass its readership with more of his tripe.

Well, I supose from a 'liberal' perspective its much easier, safer and far more convienant to pick on a group of people who won't murder, issue death threats or go on rampaging riots as a consequence of critcising them or a certain aspect of their religion.

Shame, washington post, shame.

Isn't Jesus part of the greatest threat to man kind - i.e. Da Joos? is it possible to be part of a war mongering nation of people (who aslo happen to be the greatest threat to humanity) and be a liberal at the same time?

Being compassionate, tolerant, understanding and open minded I wonder if he shared Ghandi's compassionate and tolerant "liberal" view on dem war-mongering Joos...

Phoney baloney.

I wonder if Washington Post would publish a similair piece on muslims and then unashamdely have the same writer come back to harrass its readership with more of his tripe.

Well, I supose from a 'liberal' perspective its much easier, safer and far more convienant to pick on a group of people who won't murder, issue death threats or go on rampaging riots as a consequence of critcising them or a certain aspect of their religion.

Shame, washington post, shame.

You are holding my comments for approval by the blog owner. Interesting.... But will that really solve the problem that Mr. Gandhi's continuing presence on OnFaith represents?

Would you ask the blog owner that question, please.

Thank you.

Oh, Arun, about that "non-violence" mantra you and your family have milked for generations and Jesus?

Jesus wasn't a pacifist. He didn't get the money changers thrown out of the Temple by passing around a petition or doing the 'martyr-fast' thing. He went in there and kicked their asses out.

Quite violently, too.

Jesus famously said, "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and onto God the things that are God's." Most Christians are aware that Pontius Pilate falsely accused Christ of subverting Rome by interfering w/the collection of taxes - an accusation that the totalitarian Pilate (Liberal?) manipulated into a death sentence for his nemesis, Jesus.

Of course, Christ didn't do any such thing (he paid his taxes even while, as a Jew, not receiving any benefit). Jesus in no way promoted over-taxing - praising John the Baptist for advising tax collectors to collect "only what was owed".

Jesus' stance on moderate taxation alone offers ample evidence that He was not a tax and spend Liberal. This fact alone ought to thoroughly remove him from the scurrilous accusation that he ever was a Liberal!

If you need more proof, just look to the fact that part of the Liberal creed is to dismiss God as a superstition. They have a decided tendency to make up their own religions, i.e. Environmentalism, Marxism etc. Clearly, Jesus had no problem w/His belief in God. So stop this nonsense immediately, if not sooner.

Anonymous wrote:
---------------------
I don't quite understand. Could you say more about this? I have read some things that suggest that this antisemite's grandfather didn't quite get it with respect to the Holocaust. I have always thought there may have been a true moral failure on the grandfather's part, but have not found the evidence you suggest exists.
------------------

Delighted. Here you go.

----------------------

As it happens, this sort of advice to the Jews is an integral part of the Gandhi family album. At the beginning of that annoying Holocaust, Mahatma himself advised the Jews of Europe to offer themselves up to the Fuhrer without any resistance.

If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.” If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a “rich heritage to mankind.” …Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn’t they? They might as well have died significantly. (From Richard Grenier’s essay, “The Gandhi Nobody Knows,” in “Commentary,” March 1983).
------------
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2008/01/21/the_post_newsweek_and_the_jews.php

Jihadist: "Well, yes, we Muslims are learning from our Jewish cousins, fellow People of the Book, to get really upset and vent against people whom we perceive to make remarks insulting or offensive to us. The offended Jews hurl "anti-Semiticism" and the offended Muslims hurl "Islamophobic".

And then you cut their heads off, or stab them to death on the street for daring to "insult" your "prophet"

After this writer's recent distateful, vile, anti Semetic comments, it is surprising you continue to publish his rubbish.

The issue here concerning Arun Gandhi is quite simple.

TTypically, journalisths, essayists, "shock-jocks," et al, who speak or write racist cant are fired from their jobs.

Arun Gandhi should be no acception. Read the reponse of Judeah Perl, Daniel Perl's father, to Mr. Gandhi's hateful rant.

I've read more sophisticated articles in high school newspapers.

Why is someone with such poor writing skills being paid to produce such drivel?

Are we supposed to care about this dopes opinions because his name is Gandhi?

It's not working.

Dear Jihadist:

"Moi : Really? No matter what the topic is, we just can't keep off Jews and Muslims can we?"

Unfortunately, that is precisely the case; the reality is that both groups are heavily targeted (at least on the net, where people can hide behind a screen-name and unleash the most vitriolic and deranged
anti-Arab/Islam/Muslim/Jewish tirades).

I also agree with your comments about the people that chose to "drag" Islam into the discussion (I have not noticed it, and thus mis-wrote).

Take care

Jesse : To claim a political belief for Jesus shows that Mr. Gandhi does not have any understanding of Christianity..... If a non believer like me can understand this, why can't Mr. Gandhi? Perhaps, the hatred is blinding."

Jesse, for a non-Hindu, Hinduism may be hard to grasp and thus, easy to lapse into generalities on that rich and complex belief. Likewise on Christianity, for non-Christians who live in non-Christian majority countries as Mr. Arun Gandhi do.

American agnostics and athiests would know more on Christianity that those who are neither Christians nor Americans/westerners.

I really don't think Mr. Arun Gandhi is blinded by hatred. What he is saying, as a non-Christian, non-American, non-westerner, is not what is used to by Americans and which are based on the experiences, knowledge and information he absorbed from his culture, country, and well, sources of information. Whether selectively or objectively? Well, that is subjective.

Ignorance and mistakes knows no boundary, race, creed or gender.

Got to go.

Thanks and regards

"J"

I find it just amazing how liberals insist on allying with anti-semites. And then they want to preach to the rest of us about racism.

Abortion can't be legislated, because it's too complex. Capital punishment, however, is not so complex.

It's really just this simple: kill the innocent, spare the guilty. We should let babies die, in order to show compassion to their mothers. We should let murdering rapists live, in order to teach their victims about compassion.

A typically irrational liberal fantasizing that Jesus would think - who'da guessed it? - just like him.

Arun,

You might have the Gandhi last-name, but I met Bapu as young man growing up in India. And sir you are no Gandhi.

Rather a smear(klank) on the Gandhi name with your hate for Jews(fellow humans) and the love for the Wahhabis.

How you get to write again in Post after your disgrace is because you share the same paymaster- Wahhabis.

Wahhbis are the most hateful and virulent group since the Nazis, and a threat to world order.

And you are their friend. I know Bapu would be ashamed of you.

You've got to be kidding me. Is this guy just a blogger or does he have an actual column in the paper? He's not insightful and he hardly seems intelligent or analytical. I know guys named Bubba who, when discussing politics and philosophy, sound more intelligent and less cliche than this person.

Note to the post: Just because he descends from the Mahatma doesn't necessarily mean he has anything intelligent or worthwhile to say.

It's not that hard of a question anyway.

What a believer would say. Jesus would be:

A FREAKING MAN-GOD! He's the human manifestation of God! He has the knowledge of the devine, for pete's sake. He would have no need to be a liberal or a conservative or a facist or a socialist or a theocrat or an autocrat! He knows everything! He would of course be above such classifications, even to the degree that we don't even have a word for what he would be.

Conclusion? We don't know.

What the non-believers would say. Jesus would be:

A really smart con man who convinced people he was more significant than he really was and somehow managed to fool people into thinking he cared about them - enough so to create a fanatical, frenzied following among the less educated.

Conclusion? Democrat

Arun,

You might have the Gandhi last-name, but I met Bapu as young man growing up in India. And sir you are no Gandhi.

Rather a smear(klank) on the Gandhi name with your hate for Jews(fellow humans) and the love for the Wahhabis.

How you get to write again in Post after your disgrace is because you share the same paymaster- Wahhabis.

Wahhbis are the most hateful and virulent group since the Nazis, and a threat to world order.

And you are their friend. I know Bapu would be ashamed of you.

Fresh from spewing hatred against Jews, Mr. Gandhi has set his next target of abuse: Christians. I am an agnostic and do not believe in Christianity, but do not mock Christians sincere in their faith, which is what this article does. To claim a political belief for Jesus shows that Mr. Gandhi does not have any understanding of Christianity. Jesus was neither liberal, nor conservative. He was apolitical and the only belief espoused by Jesus was Christianity PERIOD. Christians may hold liberal, or conservative views but the one thing that unites all true Christians is their faith which is intended to encompass all; sinner, saint, liberal, conservative and everything else. If a non believer like me can understand this, why can't Mr. Gandhi? Perhaps, the hatred is blinding.

Paganplace writes:

"I mean, it does take a certain amount of imagination to picture a guy being nailed to a cross , and not coming up with the obvious answer, if he were asked, "Now how would you feel about torture, capital punishment, and freedom for small religions?"

In Jesus' case, the answer would be, "oh, it's not bad at all. There's some pain involved and you die, of course, but a scant 39 hours later you get resurrected, ascend to heaven and rule eternally with omnipotent power. Plus, you get to return and crush your non-believing enemies. You even get to watch them burn for eternity in hell. Pretty sweet deal!

"Everything considered, the return on investment is quite spectacular. I recommend it to everyone..er, sorry...forgot that I'm the only son-of-god around here. Capital punishment for mere mortals? Hmm. I can't really relate. Never mind."

You are an Idiot who is bilking his grandpa's memory and shared last name to the hilt. Shame on you.
Regards,
Hindu Guy

Poli : "Note that other posters who expressed their dissatisfaction with the Washingon-Post's decision to keep Mr. Gandhi on staff, stayed on topic."

Moi : Really? No matter what the topic is, we just can't keep off Jews and Muslims can we?

Observer12 : "Racist propaganda has no place in discussions of faith."

Moi : Yes, and that would depend on whom one is talking about.

Racist propoganda is one that is directed at one's group.

Facts and truth is one that we direct against another group.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Many who have posted here express "surprise to see [Mr. Gandhi] back." He never left!

Click on to his blog. Despite the fact that Rochester fired him, he has been writing for OnFaith, without interruption, since his January 7, 2008 antisemitic rant. A couple of readers have posted on whatever junk he wrote, suggesting he resign, as the bigot and racist that he is, but that's about it.

Quinn said she was waiting to hear what Mr. Gandhi "had learned" in the aftermath of his racist rant. What he has learned is to give interviews to Hindu zines defending "the content" of his hate speech. Mr. Gandhi is seventy-four years old. He has had a long time to learn how not to be a racist. He had had the last two months to dedicate himself exclusively to that project.

Enough of this: Where do those of us who oppose racism go from here?

Emails to the WP Ombudsman (Deborah Howell) have done no good. Google CAMERA. They are an organization that specifically monitors antisemitic trash in the media. They have been successful in the past in getting the Washington Post and Newsweek to act on racism in their pages and cites.

The more CAMERA hears from us, the more hope we have of getting this hater off the OnFaith panel.

I am also drafting a letter to the major news networks, which declined to pick up on this controversy, although it has been discussed on the net. If anyone would like me to post a copy of the letter, let me know. If anyone has any other ideas about how we can rid at least this small part of cyberspace of this bigot, please let us all know.

Finally, you should also know that in one of his interviews, Mr. Gandhi is quoted as saying that "the Jews of Rochester" were responsible for his getting fired from there. The only way we are going to be effective is if we pull together as we are now.

Racist propaganda has no place in discussions of faith.

GABY:

I don't understand your point, why are you writing about Israel and Middle-Eastern politics over a blog that deals with Christianity?

Are you so obsessed as to turn an unrelated topic into a diatribe of your political views?
You don't believe Mr. Gandhi is an anti-semite, that is fine, but why bloat this statement with your trite take on world's events?

Note that other posters who expressed their dissatisfaction with the Washingon-Post's decision to keep Mr. Gandhi on staff, stayed on topic.

Anonymous : "I have read some things that suggest that this antisemite's grandfather didn't quite get it with respect to the Holocaust. I have always thought there may have been a true moral failure on the grandfather's part, but have not found the evidence you suggest exists."

It would have to be looked in the context and emotion and passion of the first half of the 20th century.

Mahatma Gandhi was fighting for India's independence and employing passive resistance against the British. He sees the British as colonisers. Just as the British and other colonial powers were in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Other countries take a violent approach, including Algeria, Indonesia, Vietnam to expel the colonial rulers.

Mahatma Gandhi was a man of his time - an era when countries in Africa and Asia were fighting against colonial rule for their independence. It was, as now, seen as an act by the British to resolve an European "problem" that now become a Middle Eastern one. Admittedly the peception and perspective are different - then and now on the creation of the modern state of Israel.

Our history books in Asia and Africa have different versions of history from the west with regard to colonial history in our own countries and regions.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Many who have posted here express "surprise to see [Mr. Gandhi] back." He never left!

Click on to his blog. Despite the fact that Rochester fired him, he has been writing for OnFaith, without interruption, since his January 7, 2008 antisemitic rant. A couple of readers have posted on whatever junk he wrote, suggesting he resign, as the bigot and racist that he is, but that's about it.

Quinn said she was waiting to hear what Mr. Gandhi "had learned" in the aftermath of his racist rant. What he has learned is to give interviews to Hindu zines defending "the content" of his hate speech. Mr. Gandhi is seventy-four years old. He has had a long time to learn how not to be a racist. He had had the last two months to dedicate himself exclusively to that project.

Enough of this: Where do those of us who oppose racism go from here?

Emails to the WP Ombudsman (Deborah Howell) have done no good. Google CAMERA. They are an organization that specifically monitors antisemitic trash in the media. They have been successful in the past in getting the Washington Post and Newsweek to act on racism in their pages and cites.

The more CAMERA hears from us, the more hope we have of getting this hater off the OnFaith panel.

I am also drafting a letter to the major news networks, which declined to pick up on this controversy, although it has been discussed on the net. If anyone would like me to post a copy of the letter, let me know. If anyone has any other ideas about how we can rid at least this small part of cyberspace of this bigot, please let us all know.

Finally, you should also know that in one of his interviews, Mr. Gandhi is quoted as saying that "the Jews of Rochester" were responsible for his getting fired from there. The only way we are going to be effective is if we pull together as we are now.

Racist propaganda has no place in discussions of faith.

Question: If the Washington Post died and then came back to life, would it be in the guise of Der Strummer?

Answer: You have your answer. It continues to employ a man who the University of Rochester wants no part of because of his antisemitism.

"Arun Gandhi has now resigned as president of the board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence. He was not a member of our faculty or of our staff."

From President Joel Seligman's statement regarding Arun Gandhi’s resignation
January 25, 2008.

But I guess antisemitism is no problem for the owners of the Washington Post.

Ster : "If anyone at Newsweek said anything about Muslims that Mr. Gandhi has said about Jews, they'd be banned for life."

Moi : Nahhh....You can say anything, anywhere about Muslims. Follow the examples of Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, the Pope et al. Sometimes we do get upset and vent and make a fuss. But they are never banned from speaking again. And again.

Darwin Akhbar : "Indeed, if, in his earlier piece, Arun Ghandi had substituted the words “Muslims” and “the Crusades” for the words “Jews” and “the Holocaust,” he’d still be in hiding now, running for his life."

Moi : Well, yes, we Muslims are learning from our Jewish cousins, fellow People of the Book, to get really upset and vent against people whom we perceive to make remarks insulting or offensive to us. The offended Jews hurl "anti-Semiticism" and the offended Muslims hurl "Islamophobic".

David : "Given Mr. Gandhi's past writings on the topic of Jewish identity, it's difficult to understand why he would hold himself out as qualified to offer opinions on behalf of a Jew like Jesus."

Moi : Well, Mr. Gandhi is no different from western and non-Christian writers who wrote about Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc as "opinions" as many non-Hindus and non-Indians are having opinions on him now on his opinion. It is opinions. Counter his opinions then. Not to call him this and that.

Preston Calvert : "This man denies the ongoing significance of the Jewish Holocaust, and denies the reality of the violent world of the Islamic Middle East that would "terminate" Israel if it only could."

Moi : It is regretable that the Holocaust is, for those outside Europe and North America, not that a constant reminder or a primary historical-sociological-religious obsession. Countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia have their own genocides, of violence against their own people, of people of different religious and ethnic groups, of people of different political affiliations or ideologies.

The ongoing reality of violence in the Islamic Middle East? Well it is violence wracked. I wonder why that is?

And "terminate Israel" if only they (Muslims) could? Please! We Muslims do really have a good sense of humour and irony after all. Those of us in the Middle East bought overpriced and outdated arms, planes, boats, security defence system from the US and sustain the US military-industrial complex, and enable the US to give the latest and most advanced weapons to Israel at discouted prices or for free.

So, Middle East Muslim states are, in a way, subsidising Israel defence capability too. And to undertake offence against the restive and territorially trapped Palestinians in Gaza etc. In a perverse way, Muslims are helping Israel kill Palestinians, who are trying to fight for their rights and self-determination. Do anyone here really think the Palestinians can "terminate Israel"?

Terminate Israel? Muslims in the wider world really have better things apart from venting in this and that way on innocent Palestinians unjustly sanctioned or killed, like taking our on our own governments for incompetence and corrruption. Fretting about economic uncertainties. If anyone must, focus on Muslim terrorists groups that kill innocents.

The fact is, Israel is one of over 192 countries in the world. Peoples in other parts of the world have their own versions of Holocaust. In talking about the Jewish Holocaust, yes, it is the ultimate chilling reminder of no matter how advanced a society's civilisation is, how cultured we deem a people is, we are all still capable of perpetrating horrific acts against fellow humans due to race, religion and even political ideology.

Mr. Arun Gandhi is not a threat. We should worry if the Prime Minister or President of India say so. As we worry when the President of Iran denied the Holocaust. I am not saying it is now all right to go bomb Iran because of that or because we think they have nuclear capability and is, gasp! building an "Islamic bomb". Many Iranians don't agree with him.

There are many hotheads. Don't we think we need cooler hotheads or cooler heads to prevail? And besides, has not Mr. Arun Gandhi apologise for his piece that irate so many?

If I turn many posters here against me for what I said, that's the point. To cut Mr. Arun Gandhi some slack. I am sometimes quite irate with what Mr. Charles Colson and Mr. Cal Thomas wrote too, but I never call for them to be banned or excluded from being On Faith panelists, only to argue with what they wrote, sometimes unfairly.

And of course, anyone here can continue to say Islam and Muslims are violent and will cause the end of civilisation as we know it.

Thanks and regards

"J"

The historic Jesus would have a very hard time running for any political office since any opponent would simply note the following about about him:

"My opponent, Jesus of the maybe spirit state of heaven is illiterate with only a basic background in peasantry and carpentry. He apparently suffers from "visions" and hallucinations of devils aka the demons of the demented. Some have characterized him as the "holy roller" from Nazareth, PA to a mythical character from Nazareth, Wherever, to a mamzer from Nazareth, PA. Analyses of Jesus’ background by many contemporary political scholars have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' commentaries are authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles made-up by his political speech writers to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% that is "authentic Jesus" was plagiarized and/or borrowed from speeches of other politicians.

His supporters like the followers of Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al also suffer from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

wahabicorridor writes:

"Illustrious" grandfather? Would that be the same grandfather who suggested the Jews just die with dignity in order to promote the moral reformation of the Nazis who were herding them into cattle cars before they shoveled them into the ovens?"

I don't quite understand. Could you say more about this? I have read some things that suggest that this antisemite's grandfather didn't quite get it with respect to the Holocaust. I have always thought there may have been a true moral failure on the grandfather's part, but have not found the evidence you suggest exists.

I would be grateful for any details, any sources you could provide.

Thank you very, very much for your post.

GABY:
FOAD. Look it up.

Oh, please you people, give it a rest.

Mr. Gandhi is not an anti-semite and you all know it. His previous post had nothing to do with anti-semitism. He was chastising the Israeli government, and rightfully so. They Israelis are just as responsible for the middle east unrest as are the Muslim countries.

The creation of Israel in that part of the world was one of the worst political blunders ever and the only reason it was approved was because of the holocaust.

And, as a side bar, Hitler was not the only one responsible for the holocaust. All the signs were there early on and just exactly which other country came to the rescue??? Britain, the US, Russia???? Not a single one gave a hoot about the Jewish plight.

As a matter of fact, the US had no qualms in heavily investing in German industries and had fairly good ties to Nazi Germany until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler and Japan forged an alliance.

The US declared war on Japan on Dec 8 1941, three days later Germany and Italy declared war on the USA. The first US attacks on the Axis in Europe didn't come until late August of 1942.

So trust me, the concern for the Jews from the global community was simply not there. It was only after Germany's defeat and the resulting media coverage of the extermination camps that the world took notice and tried to pay restitution to the Jewish community. Which is the only reason why Israel became a reality.

So all this hate mail to Mr. Gandhi is way overblown and misdirected.

"...I think that Jesus, as a person full of love and understanding, would choose..."
"...because I think Jesus was against..."

Should we be impressed about what this man "thinks" only because he happens to be Mahatma Gandhi's fifth grandson?

This guy is a Jesus hater! Of course Jesus would do something about abortion.He said he was the savior of the "Seen and the unseen".To me that means the unborn and all those who have passed before us.Each abortion kills a child.There are no differences between each case.that's absurd and this Hindu knows this.But he is a phony Hindu.because Hindus are against abortion.No wonder this guy teaches at a Secular-atheist school.

With all due respect, Mr. Gandhi’s opinion is poorly formulated and lacks cohesiveness. How does the opinion concerning Jesus’ inability to gain employment with a university have to do with whether or not he would be affiliated to a political party? Are all members of political parties devoid of those qualities of "love, compassion, respect and understanding" Mr. Gandhi attributes to Jesus or just those members of either political party who are not liberals? it appears that in Mr. Gandhi's opinion Jesus would be a Pro-choice liberal who accepts the killing of unborn children as a matter of choice but rejects capital punishment because he is "full of love, compassion, respect and understanding" and "was against revenge."
Mr. Gandhi should stick to what he knows and avoid those areas where he is blatantly ingnorant - like who Jesus is.

I don't pretend to speak for Jesus, but I believe he would say, "when I come back, I come not to take sides, but to take over."

What a wonderful day when we will be ruled by the love of Christ in our hearts and not by the laws of fallen man.

Believers: remember that laws are largely reflections of culture. Let's repent of our pride, allow Christ to fill us and love others through us. As our hearts are changed, others will be changed, and culture will be changed. If we allow the church to be identified as primarily a political movement, we have compromised our witness. While we need godly men and women in politics, it is often just a cheap shortcut to real change. Let's restore the pursuit of intimacy with Jesus and the proclamation of the gospel to the forefront.

This guy, like most liberals, is pathetic!
How can the Washington Post allow someone who is an anti-semite continue to write drivel for them?
This is just another nail in the coffin that is the lamestream media...I won't be missing you, at all.
American's, stand up and be counted...we cannot afford to silently permit the degredation of our country to continue.

"Co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence."

Well yes thats true. But "disgraced Co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence who was forced to resign for being an antisemite" would be more accurate.

Thats funny coming from someone who recently called Jews the most evil people on the planet and those responsible for all the violence in the world today.

I would like to apply for a job with any major Indian newspaper. I am American and Jewish, so I would like to contribute to your paper's Religion and Politics sections. I believe I have much insight to share.

So a guy who's not a Christian and doesn't appear to know much about Christianity feels perfectly comfortable lecturing us on what Jesus would be if he was an American voter.

Nice one, WP.

Mr. Gandhi:

Jesus was a Jew and a Jew is commanded to live by law of his or her Creator. That law is embodied in the Torah. The Torah provides for capital punishment out of a recognition that life is precious and that those who willfully destroy life forfeit their own. The Torah rejects the notion of unthinking, indiscriminate "compassion". Compassion is not to be shown to the cruel and the evil. Indeed, the Torah famously teaches that those who are merciful to the cruel, in the end are cruel to the merciful. As for abortion, the Torah rejects it in all but the most extreme circumstances, e.g., where there is a threat to the life of the mother.

Thus, if Jesus lived in accordance with his traditions (and many, if not most, scholars believe he did), your thesis is completely unsupportable.

As an atheist, I'm used to silly people assuming they have direct and unfettered access to the mind of God, or Jesus, or Allah, or whomever, and using their divine connection to promote their own view of the world and condemn others.

But it's still really irritating.

Jesus is prfoundly unique and no human label has captured the entirety of who he was and is. Every word or ideology we try to pin on him only works to the extent that we choose to ignore the fullness of his being or project ourselves into our image of him. And the truth is that whether a Hindu or a televangelist try to capture his essence in one word, they will always fail.

Jesus would be a conservative. He would have understood that God did not give us free and advocate a government that subjugated it like socialism. Jesus would understand that we were not given free will so that it may taken by a man made government.

Mr. Arun Gandhi:
I would recommend that you should stop with your habit of "sticking your neck out" and talking about issues that you abviously have very little knowledge of.
Your comment about abortions, cannot even be credited with being an empty platitude, it is simply nonsensical.
Moral issues that concern procedures to be performed by a third party (a doctor) MUST have a legal backing, are you suggesting that those who attempt to legally tackle such a complex issue, are somehow devoid of love, compassion and understanding?
While I am personally not comfortable with capital punishment, I cannot substantiate this by drawing on the Bible, since the Old Testament is rife with examples of it.
I agree with you on your perception of Jesus's love, compassion and understanding; another admirable attribute of Jesus was his courage at affecting a reformation.
I don't know what his political views would be, however, I would dare to guess that he would not draw on other notable figures in order to justify his views, but rather would have the courage of his convictions.

Just in: AP, Reuters:

Newsweek still employees anti-semite Gandhi. Only far left sees nothing wrong.

Move on.

The idea that Jesus would be a Liberal is simply fatuous. While Jesus was a person of love and understanding, he was also a person who wanted people to follow God's rules.

For example, in John, chapter 8, the Pharisees brought a woman who committed adultery. The law required her to be stoned. Jesus said "he without sin, let him cast the first stone." Once all the Pharisees, convicted by their conscious, left, Jesus told the woman that he did not condemn her and she should "go and sin no more."

Jesus told the woman to sin no more. He didn't tell her that she could continue sinning. He wanted her to stop sinning.

Liberalism would allow people to continue sinning without consequences.

Hey Gandhi - how's your anti-semitism these days? I see that was no problem for this liberal dirt-rag called Washington Post. Make yourself useful and go preach your non-violence to the mohammedans. I'm sure they would give you an invite.

I'm surprised Mr. Gandhi didn't cite Jesus' example to convince Jews to stop insisting the "whole world must regret what happened to the Jews", as he calously said in the article that got him suspended.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2008/01/jewish_identity_in_the_past.html

Someone posted "Hitler would be a liberal."

Spot on. He actually was. Remember, Nazi stands for National Socialist.

Remember that, next time one of these "smarter-than-you, Jesus-was-a-Liberal" whackos calls you a nazi.

Let's coin a new term for the Left.
Global Socialists = Glazi

When some people tried to suck Jesus into politics, he said this: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Jesus was a Jew, and He was about His Father's business, not about politics.

I am disturbed that the Washington Post has allowed an avowed anti-semite (see the piece "Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence" referenced below) to continue to post in a section devoted to "faith". This man denies the ongoing significance of the Jewish Holocaust, and denies the reality of the violent world of the Islamic Middle East that would "terminate" Israel if it only could. He has no standing to speak on matters of faith to people of good conscience.
Preston Calvert

Well, clearly Mr. Gandhi has never actually read the words of Jesus. Mr. G. is happy to cherry-pick what agrees with his belief system.

So it is a shame the Post fronts him the opportunity to pontificate about Him.

Cowardly Post, Cowardly, Cowardly.

He's baaack!

I was surprised the Post had this Anti-Semite back, but I must admit I didn't realize Arun Ghandi can actually channel Jesus and tell us what he would have stood for, issue by issue.

That's powerful stuff and a real public service.

Nice work.

The fact that Arun Gandhi still writes for the Washington Post is an embarrassment for the entire news organization. And this is coming from a "liberal".

Well, clearly Mr. Gandhi has never actually read the words of Jesus.

So it is a shame the Post fronts him the opportunity to pontificate about Him.

Cowardly Post, Cowardly, Cowardly.

Please. Whether Jesus would have been a liberal or a conservative, we know that he actually was a Jew. Given Mr. Gandhi's past writings on the topic of Jewish identity, it's difficult to understand why he would hold himself out as qualified to offer opinions on behalf of a Jew like Jesus.

Sticking your neck out is the correct description.

When you mention, "Jesus would be...a liberal," you try to debase the Savior with human weakness.

Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and lived a perfect life, with no sin, weakness, or fault. He was the literal Son of God the Father, and thus, qualified to give His life for all mankind.

His goal is the immortality and eternal life of all mankind, not a flawed political ideology.

Lynn Christensen,
American Fork, Utah

It is so sad that the Washington Post continues to publish the words of Mr. Gandhi after he has proven himself to be so unrepentently bigoted. Just as the sins of the fathers shall not be passed onto the sons - the sainthood of the grandfathers are not be passed down onto the grandsons.

Before commenting on Christianity, Judaism, and American politics Mr. Gandhi needs to spend some time learning about these institutions. I would suggest the first lesson should be about the Jewish concept of tesuvah - repentance.

The Washington Post and Newsweek risk losing all credibility if they continue to publish the words of Mr. Gandhi.

Thank you, Mr. Anti-Semitic Bigot, for enlightening me about Jesus of Nazareth and his “progressive” politics. I never suspected that when Jesus told his followers to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” what he really meant was “I support confiscatory taxation and universal health care,” and that when Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he really meant “homosexual marriage and abortion must be imposed upon the population by judicial fiat.”

Indeed, if, in his earlier piece, Arun Ghandi had substituted the words “Muslims” and “the Crusades” for the words “Jews” and “the Holocaust,” he’d still be in hiding now, running for his life. Instead, to their eternal shame, the Washington Post and Newsweek continue to give him the opportunity to allow him to opine on the issues of faith. A pox upon you all.

Hitler would be a liberal.

If you think that statements like this:
"Each case of abortion is unique and only the mother can determine what she needs to do."
are reflective of what Jesus Christ would think, then you just show your ignorance in spades.

Or maybe you are not talking about Jesus Christ the savior, but perhaps some other Jesus?

It is pretty funny being lectured by an anti-Semite on love, morality, etc.

I love being lectured on Love by an anti-semite.

Your ignorance of Jesus is appalling.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

Jesus defended the weak and the needy. It is quite true that he didn't use government power to enforce laws, it is his kingdom that he worried with. However, he will judge all that support the murder of the innocents, just as happened at his birth.

I hope anyone reading this ridiculous post would take the time to read this:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2008/01/jewish_identity_in_the_past.html

Apparently Newsweek and the Washington Post believe in second chances for unrepentant bigots.

Welcom back Mr. Gandhi!

I look forward to your probing essays that demonstrate that magnificent mind of yours. Or maybe I just enjoy reading the self-aggrandizing ramblings of racist in non-violent clothing.

The author of this post clearly has a problem: a propensity for gross generalization. Having previously blamed "the Jews" for most of the world's ills, now he claims that Democrats and Republicans lack "love, compassion, respect and understanding". How can anyone take this guy seriously? How can the Washington Post and Newsweek continue to publish him? This forum risks becoming a complete laughingstock if they continue to publish this junk.

What the hell is that smell?

Oh, you again.

"Illustrious" grandfather? Would that be the same grandfather who suggested the Jews just die with dignity in order to promote the moral reformation of the Nazis who were herding them into cattle cars before they shoveled them into the ovens?

*spit*

Another load of rubbish from this idiot. The last time he was given this platform, he used it to broadcast his own brand of nasty anti-semitism.

Why is this moronic, opinionated bigot given a soapbox again?

Raun Gandhi has proven himself unqualified to hold such a privileged position commenting on moral principles- see his previous anti-semetic rant in this space. I can only conclude that those in power at the WaPo/newsweek to rehire him or let him continue in this position are as equally morally bankrupt as Mr. Gandhi.

First, liberals were smarter. Now, Jesus is with them. I am starting to think that liberals have a self esteem problem. Instead of making up lies, I would suggest to liberals the following exercise. Start every morning by looking in the mirror and repeating "I am a liberal and I AM HOT!"

Hesthe gets it only half right. In India a female
is cosiderd worthless,unless as a wife,and are even expected perform sati apon the death of the husband.Due to the narcicistic obcession for male sons in India,The rate of female infanticide in india is absolutly out of control with baby girls thrown out like garbage. Now with the introduction of the sonigram it has become nothing less than a holicast against woman.
Gahndi is not only a racist he is also a sexist.

Hesthe gets it only half right. In India a female
is cosiderd worthless,unless as a wife,and are even expected perform sati apon the death of the husband.Due to the narcicistic obcession for male sons in India,The rate of female infanticide in india is absolutly out of control with baby girls thrown out like garbage. Now with the introduction of the sonigram it has become nothing less than a holicast against woman.
Gahndi is not only a racist he is also a sexist.

Question: Would Jesus run for president in the first place? Also, it seems like his main rhetorical trick was to say something that made no sense, like "give to Caeser what is Caesers and to God what is God's". What the Hell is that supposed to mean?

Jesus would not be elected because he tells the truth.

he would tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

He wouldn't get elected to city council.

only good liars would make president. think about it. if ANY person said "Sorry, we have to change social security because it will not work as it is" (that is the truth), they'd lose in a landslide.

people vote in the person that will GIVE them something, or give them more. McCain likes tax-breaks. (When you do not live off the government, the only relief you have is that they take less of what you have.)

The demos promise more ("FREE") everything. More welfare, more healthcare, more this, more that... Since less wealthy people TAKE services, they want more and will vote for Demos that will take from other people and give to them.

Both are GREEDY and vote in self-interest.
I believe the Big "J" would be in the middle, probably a bit to the right.

He would tell the wealthy to help more, and also tell the poorer folks to get off their butts and help themselves first.

No?

OK, so this moron has a famous last name, but is obviously unqualified to be published. There's a difference between innocence and guilt, Arun. Look it up.

How would someone who hates people, an anti-semite know anything at all about Jesus.

Actually, I think he would be more conservative. He helped the poor, but did not expect the government to take care of everyone. Sounds like today's christian churches, some of the largest givers of charity.

He also expoused independence. Basically, not to rely on anyone. When someone falls, they must help themselves get up. Others will be there to help, but nobody should be forced to help.

That sounds pretty conservative to me, Gandhi.

Dear Anomymous;
"But when a person's sole claim to moral authority is an illustrious grandfather, then what we have is not a credentialism problem, but a credibility issue. When that same person writes an anti-Jewish racist essay (January 7, 2008), and then goes on to give interviews in which he defends his racism, when that person first refers to the Dalit as "Untouchables," and then jeers at the desperate conversion of some to Christianity sixty some odd years ago, well, then what we have is a moral dilemma. Should such a person be on a panel devoted to matters of faith?"

Excellent question. The answer is that only in a mindless upside-down world like the WaPo's would an Anti-Semitic racist loser like Arun Gandhi be taken seriously when he talks about Jesus (a Jew).

The irony here is beyond description, heh.

How would someone who hates people, an anti-semite know anything at all about Jesus.

Actually, I think he would be more conservative. He helped the poor, but did not expect the government to take care of everyone. Sounds like today's christian churches, some of the largest givers of charity.

He also expoused independence. Basically, not to rely on anyone. When someone falls, they must help themselves get up. Others will be there to help, but nobody should be forced to help.

That sounds pretty conservative to me, Gandhi.

Wow, nice to see that Newsweek has hired back the anti-Semite.

If anyone at Newsweek said anything about Muslims that Mr. Gandhi has said about Jews, they'd be banned for life.

Newsweek? Nah... you can say whatever you want about Jews, and this jerk back working for them is proof.

In full disclosure, I am agnostic, but grew up Christian.

Hey look, it's the Wapo's/Newsweek's favorite anti-semite, here to give us more of his dubious wisdom for the moonbats to lap up.

Jesus was an apocalyptic reactionary cult leader, at least in his own time to anyone who wasn't a follower of his. He wasn't liberal by any definition of the term, sorry. He wasn't a Democrat, he wasn't a Republican, he wasn't a Ron Paulbot, he wasn't filled with Obamamania. Sorry.

Why is this open anti-semite back on your website?

It takes a relationship with someone to really know them. Sir, you state that you do not have a relationship with Jesus. I do have a relationship with Jesus. You, sir, are totally wrong.

Love, compassion, respect and understanding have no place in modern Liberalism though. Just watch and listen to them. Its hard to find a more narrow minded, bitter, hateful group of people.

It's amazing how much everyone knows about Jesus and that his views about everything so closely resemble their own.

Yes, I'm sure that calling people out for the sins they're commiting and telling them to stop would go over REAL well with the liberal crowd...

If Vishnu were running for office, would he be a bigot and a racist?

There certainly is an excess of formal credentialism, i.e., degrees, certificates, etc., that prevent and have prevented many gifted people from making unique contributions to our culture.

But when a person's sole claim to moral authority is an illustrious grandfather, then what we have is not a credentialism problem, but a credibility issue. When that same person writes an anti-Jewish racist essay (January 7, 2008), and then goes on to give interviews in which he defends his racism, when that person first refers to the Dalit as "Untouchables," and then jeers at the desperate conversion of some to Christianity sixty some odd years ago, well, then what we have is a moral dilemma.

Should such a person be on a panel devoted to matters of faith?

The historic Jesus would have a very hard time running for any political office since any opponent would simply note the following about about him:

"My opponent, Jesus of the maybe spirit state of heaven is illiterate with only a basic background in peasantry and carpentry. He apparently suffers from "visions" and hallucinations of devils aka the demons of the demented. Some have characterized him as the "holy roller" from Nazareth, PA to a mythical character from Nazareth, Wherever, to a mamzer from Nazareth, PA. Analyses of Jesus’ background by many contemporary political scholars have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' commentaries are authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles made-up by his political speech writers to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% that is "authentic Jesus" was plagiarized and/or borrowed from speeches of other politicians.

His supporters like the followers of Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al also suffer from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

"Each case of abortion is unique and only the mother can determine what she needs to do."

How about "Each case of a binding contract is unique and only one of the parties to it can decide what he/she needs to do?"

The basic unfairness of this statement is that the mother's interests are often not the same as the unborn child's. If mothers of already-born children could do away with them with impunity, most would not harm them; but how many would, in their own interest, sacrifice the child?

If a competent woman knowingly, voluntarily chooses to engage in an act which may result in conception, she should in most circumstances (except, e.g., grave danger to the mother's health) be required to carry the baby to birth. The man without whom the baby would not be there should be required to accept his share of at least the financial responsibility. And the society imposing this standard should be willing to establish and fund adoption and foster programs to prevent the necessity of children having to be cared for by mothers who don't want them (of mothers having to care for unwanted children).

There certainly is an excess of formal credentialism, i.e., degrees, certificates, etc., that prevent and have prevented many gifted people from making unique contributions to our culture.

But when a person's sole claim to moral authority is an illustrious grandfather, then what we have is not a credentialism problem, but a credibility issue. When that same person writes an anti-Jewish racist essay (January 7, 2008), and then goes on to give interviews in which he defends his racism, when that person first refers to the Dalit as "Untouchables," and then jeers at the desperate conversion of some to Christianity sixty some odd years ago, well, then what we have is a moral dilemma.

Should such a person be on a panel devoted to matters of faith?

Who said anything about capital punishment being about revenge? Capital punishment is about justice. A balancing of the scales.

And I know that the Demos and the Repubs, for all their faults, do have love, compassion, respect and understanding . They would certainly never allow a caste like the untouchables to exist in such poverty and misery as many still do today in India desite laws and policies against caste discrimination as reported in the "Human Rights News:
"Government Fails to End Caste-Based Segregation and Attacks
(New York, February 13, 2007) – India has systematically failed to uphold its international legal obligations to ensure the fundamental human rights of Dalits, or so-called untouchables, despite laws and policies against caste discrimination, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. More than 165 million Dalits in India are condemned to a lifetime of abuse simply because of their caste."

Other reports say that many Dalits are converting to Christianity where they do find love, compassion, respect and understanding.

Jesus came as a reactionary seeking restoration.

Jesus had no trouble with the disciples having swords which meant that he also had no problem with the possibility that the disciples might have to kill some one in self defense.

according to the gospels he called himself "the way, the truth, and the life". If christians were called to be imitators of Christ, you Arun, would make a good one.

Jesus came as power under, not power over. I'll follow that for all I'm worth - which, it turns out, is less that a barrel of oil.

I mean, it does take a certain amount of imagination to picture a guy being nailed to a cross , and not coming up with the obvious answer, if he were asked, "Now how would you feel about torture, capital punishment, and freedom for small religions?"

But certain folks have just that kind of imagination over here.

This is just an excuse for some to draw false equivalencies between them and everyone else.

Ah, well, sir.

I suppose it might look all the same to you from over there, but I have to point out that when the Republicans fail to get people riding a wave of moralistic outrage, (or that backfires,) that's when you start hearing attempts at voter-suppression (or voter-depression, as I like to say,) with the, "Ah, they're all bums, anyway, the details and realities don't matter, they're all the same."

Kinda like some folks you may talk to when trying to get them to redress an injustice will say, "Well, compared to *Jesus,* you're as wrong as me, all facts aside, so there."

So, basically... so what.

The candidates aren't running for Savior, they're running for President.

Besides, talking like this doesn't get Christian conservatives thinking of changing their ways toward real peace and justice and compassion, it just gets them thinking how they can claim Jesus would invade Iraq and deregulate our environmental and labor protections.