Comments on: Inter-faith Dialogue, Anybody?

By: Rich Forer

Rich Forer — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:23:02 +0000

Good article. Let’s be really clear. Foxman is not defending Israel. He is too narcissistic to truly care about Israelis. What he cares about, what he is terrified of, is his own reflection. Whenever Israel is criticized it is as if a mirror is suddenly placed in front of him, asking him to look: to look at what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people in the name of the Jewish people, to look at what he (Foxman) is supporting, to look at the cold denial of the Palestinian people’s humanity and to acknowledge that in denying the humanity of the so-called other he denies his own humanity. Is it not interesting that the long-time leader of the largest Jewish civil rights organization in the world knows virtually nothing of substance about the history of Israel-Palestine? How could he be so ignorant? It is because he is afraid to look and where a man cannot look he cannot feel. Without both he will never understand. The only thing that Foxman allows himself to look at is an idealistic image of Israel that is unconsciously superimposed upon or projected onto the real Israel; the Israel as it has been and as it is today. Foxman is a model for all the deniers out there who refuse to look at, or study with impartiality, the actual history. They cannot come face to face with their own image and admit what they have been supporting and defending. If they had the integrity of blatant racists like the KKK, who make no bones about their hatred and bigotry, they could still, if they chose, support Israeli policy. At least then they would do so from a place of honesty about their true stance on the issue and their true stance as human beings.

By: David Holden

David Holden — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:08:39 +0000

since interfaith dialogue is proving difficult how about giving interfaith monologue a whirl? this would also be helpful as a way of bringing atheists in from the cold.

atheists deserve sympathy for several reasons, one of which is this: if atheism is true, then the statement ‘God exists’ is not meaningful. but as demonstrated in the Godel-Boole-Wittgenstein Theorem,the negation of a statement that is meaningless is necessarily also meaningless. hence atheists, who assert that God does not exist, if thinking logically, must admit that their ‘faith’ is based on a meaningless proposition. it is scant comfort that their despised theistic antagonists are in the same boat. like any self-respecting group atheists feel they should have a boat of their own. they are, as it were, a Chosen People with nobody to do the Choosing. which is about as useful as a skinless sausage after a close encounter with Ariadna’s bris..

if, on the other hand, God does exist, then the assertion that God does not exist, although false, is nevertheless meaningful and – voila – atheists can have their own boat. and in thirty years or so, with Mr Foxman’s goodwill, influence and negotiating skills, it need not be some shitty little fishing skiff fit only to be harassed and pissed on by IDF gunboats for recreational purposes. they could have a well-scrubbed-up reconditioned German-manufactured Israeli nuclear submarine. hey presto! everyone’s a winner! well, except maybe the Palestinians. but let’s be honest, just for a moment, who gives a flying f_ck about them! the rest of will be far too busy worshipping our G_ds, or cruising under the Polar icecaps listening to vintage Madonna and Michael Jackson on our octrophonic stereo systems whilst reading the collected short stories of Elie Wiesel.

By: Blake

Blake — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:57:57 +0000

It’s very hard reasoning with psychopaths and when it is a squatter camp full of them it’s impossible.

By: Ariadna Theokopoulos

Ariadna Theokopoulos — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:20:45 +0000

As always, Stuart Littlewood has it all wrong.
While it is easy to understand Abe Foxman’s frustration with the obtuseness of the Christian Church leaders, Mr Foxman, I am sure, does not intend to cause a permanent and definitive cessation of interfaith dialog, as SL petulantly and dangerously proposes.
To stop interfaith dialog would be nothing less than throwing baby Jesus out with the bris scalpel.
Interfaith dialog — a great achievement that flourished in the 20th century under the wise leadership of the elder brothers of the Judaic faith — has brought about (and is still working to accomplish more) important reforms in the major religions and in thinking.

Should interfaith dialog cease both Christianity and Islam would deprive themselves of priceless guidance:

http://mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/should-an-islamic-fundamentalist-change-your-catholic-prayer/

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=7110#.UHwFlI6hDFI