I think you misunderstand Lieberman, (0.00 / 0)

if you expect him to break with Hagee over these perhaps-not-so-revelatory revelations.

You don't tell Lieberman what's moral and immoral. Lieberman tells you.

That's the definition of Lieberman. He might--extremely rarely--be incorrect, but he's never wrong. Blumenthal's last paragraph gets the matter precisely backwards.

The question isn't, Why won't Lieberman, who is married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors, end his relationship with Hagee?

The question is, Why won't all the critics, knowing that Lieberman, who is married to the daughter of Holocaust survivors, continues his relationship with Hagee, realize that they are wrong?

And 'Christian Zionist' always makes me laugh. Reminds of those guys in college who were loudly feminist for the express purpose of getting in a woman's pants.

---

by: Joel @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM CDT

I Think You Misunderstand Me (4.00 / 1)

I want to drive Joe Lieberman into permanent exile in Antartica, because no one on earth will have anything to do with him.

I don't give a rat's ass if he still thinks he's right.

Others involved in this effort to shine light on this dangerous liaison may have different goals in mind.

But that's mine.

Poor penguins!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point is, he is (4.00 / 2)

completely without shame. One cannot shame Joe Lieberman, he will simply shake his head with a wise, sad, piety at the attempt, at the sad misunderstanding that you feel you can actually instruct (much less correct) Joe Lieberman in matters of morality!

That's like a candle illuminating the sun.

That said, I'll sign the petition, of course. But I think that's the common bond between Bush and Lieberman. The constitutional inability to feel shame.

---

by: Joel @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exile (4.00 / 3)

If we want to drive Lieberman into political exile (a laudatory goal), perhaps we should be signing petitions encouraging him not to back down from keynoting Hagee's summit.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  

---

by: gunnar @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 13:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What, so Lieberman is going to listen to us? (0.00 / 0)

Don't you think he knows we hate his guts?  Don't you think he has a file full of our letters and emails calling him seven kinds of an asshole?  Don't you think he has a list, that he just checks off our names?  "Yeah, that one still hates me."  I wish we could drive him into Antarctica too, but I really seriously doubt that signing a petition addressed to him is going to do anything in that direction.  Not to mention, in a way it validates his authority that you would even consider him legitimate enough to petition.  I think that's granting him too much dignity, frankly.  

Lieberman's a jerk, you're totally right about that.  The idea of petitioning him is weak, though.

---

by: Querent @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:44:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Christian Zionism is no laughing matter (0.00 / 0)

From Wikipedia:

"Christian Zionism or Restorationism, is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Some Christian Zionists also believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with Christian Dispensationalism, mainly in English-speaking countries outside Europe. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christian, as a means fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation. The term Christian Zionism was popularized in the mid-twentieth century. Prior to that time the common term was Restorationism."

The term makes me think of a conversation I had with a jewish friend and a christian fundamentalist a few years ago.  The christian zionist expressed disbelief that my friend could be so upset at his contention that the fundamentalist christians were true supporters of Israel and the jewish faith, after all, they wanted the jews to rebuild the second and third temples, because only then would christ return to Earth and fulfill the prophecies of the judgement day.  When I pointed out that this basically meant that the fundamentalists were more about USING the jews, rather than SUPPORTING judiasm as a religion, the fundamentalist became indignant.  He pointed out that he supported the jews doing just what they claimed they wanted to do - rebuild their holiest places, how could I be such an ass as to say that was "using" them?  My jewish friend ended the conversation when he asked, "So, after we build our Temples, and jesus returns, then what happens to the jews?"  Answer: "Well, if they haven't accepted jesus christ as their savior, they'll be judged accordingly."

Now, I don't believe all that biblical mumbo jumbo, but the truth of his belief was starkly apparent, and it fits perfectly with the Wikipedia definition.  I have many responses to this, but laughter is not one of them.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 13:44:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jewish (0.00 / 0)

humor?

---

by: Joel @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 13:58:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pretty dark humor (0.00 / 0)

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments.  I got the impression that you were writing off the whole concept as a joke that had no relevance to politics in the US.

These fundamentalists don't want to "get in Israel's pants" (to follow your analogy), they want to damn the non-christians to hell for all eternity.  Now, maybe a devote jew like Lieberman figures he'll have the last laugh because jesus ain't gonna "come back" anyway. Personally, I think all the monotheists are a bit whacky, anyway, but I did spend some time studying the bible when I was a good catholic boy, considering the priesthood as a vocation.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:22:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, no: (4.00 / 1)

Sadly, the whole thing is all too relevant. It's the logic that amuses me (darkly). Kinda like David Duke working to build houses for African-Americans on a flood plain. And then, of course, praying for rain.

One of the worst things, for me, is that people like Lieberman--and obviously Hagee--are utterly, as we say, bad for the Jews. Yet there's this pretense that he's helping. Like Bush and the military.  

---

by: Joel @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:37:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Logic based on biblical prophesy is pretty much always amusing (0.00 / 0)

in that sense. Its similar to "creation science", or "intelligent design".  I might chuckle at the completely ridiculous notion of trying to explain creationism on the basis of science, but its not a joke.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:48:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hagee (4.00 / 1)

There is nothing special about Hagee's comments.  They are perfectly in line with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  When we hear about the horns sounding and the "walls come tumbling down" we learn in Sunday School that this is a wondrous miracle, not the sound of doom before the entire city-state of Jericho is slaughtered down to every man, woman and child.

And after all, God has a plan and He works in mysterious ways.  He guides all, even Hitler, to the fulfillment of His plan.

This is a weird space.  At some level, I'm almost apologizing for Hagee.  At another level I'm attacking all of the three major religions of this planet.  

But are we clear in our minds what we are attacking Hagee for?  Because at a some level, all he did is say out loud the logical conclusion of the belief of billions.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 13:38:03 PM CDT

Three of the major religions of this planet (4.00 / 2)

There are more Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs in the world than there are Jews

---

by: Valatan @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:08:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which Reminds Me Of My High School Teacher Telling Me Buddhism Wasn't A Religion (4.00 / 1)

This was back in the 1960s, and she was being "sophisticated," I guess.

"It's a philosophy," she said.

And I looked at her funny.  "So why do they have temples?" I asked, as innocently as I could manage.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:21:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Religions (0.00 / 0)

My comparative religions teacher in college was a Hindu/Christian.  As he said at the time, a Christian can't also be a Hindu, but it is easy for a Hindu to also be a Christian.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:35:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sure. It's Easier For Saints To Be Incarnations Of Vishnu (0.00 / 0)

than the other way around.

From what I understand, until recently it wasn't all that unheard of for Hindus to include the Virgin Mary in their family shrines.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 16:17:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which, of course, is why Christianity and Judiasm were so threatening to Romans (4.00 / 1)

while the endless other religions they encountered weren't.  If the Romans moved into Egypt, all they had to do was put a statue of Zeus next to the temple of Ra, and the two gods could live in harmony in the same pantheon.  Foreign kings could be considered children of Jupiter just as much as anything else.  The fusion of state and religion could just include more deities in the religion.

But when the monotheistic tradition denied the divinity of the gods that underlay the Roman state, THAT was unacceptable.  Early Christianity was a deep expression of civil defiance.  Something that our modern team doesn't understand when they pretend to be as persecuted as the saints that got fed to the lions.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 17:06:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But, Of Course, Jeremiah Wright IS That Deep An Expression of Civil Defiance (0.00 / 0)

Nothing makes the hypocrites as angry as the genuine article.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 17:35:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Monotheism is rare (0.00 / 0)

Conversion to Christianity in Europe (and quite possibly elsewhere, though I wouldn't know) often involved a polytheistic phase. Accepting Jesus as a God alongside Thor wasn't difficult. It was getting them to agree not to worship Thor that was difficult.

In areas where the church was weak, it took centuries for this kind of thing to be stamped out. This tended to coincide with the emergence of strong secular and ecclesiastical power structures. Since whilst the early Christians were socially deviant, medieval Christianity was socially authoritarian. And Hagee and Parsley are in this respect their spiritual heirs.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 18:30:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point is, Buddhism as a religion is not Buddhism in its pure form. (0.00 / 0)

In its pure form, for instance in the Pali Cannon, Buddhism is just the eightfold way of the Buddah.  It has only the most tenuous connection to religion.  It's not really so much a philosophy, in its pure form, as it is a school of yoga. So your teacher was kind of right.  But mostly wrong.

---

by: Querent @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:11:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point (4.00 / 1)

I should (and almost did) say "monotheistic religions".

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:33:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nobody can deny that Judaism is a major world religion. (0.00 / 0)

Without Judaism, no Christianity.  Without Judaism, no Islam.
Judaism was a lot more than the historical precedent of these two. It was the cultural matrix in which they rooted.

---

by: Querent @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:55:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course! (0.00 / 0)

But there's a difference between calling the Abrahamic religions major world religions, and calling them the three major world religions

---

by: Valatan @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or... (0.00 / 0)

Or we could NOT sign the petition and simply let Lieberman permanently tie himself (and, by extension, McCain) to Hagee.

Just a thought.

---

by: Tom @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 15:01:12 PM CDT

" Ish Elochim"? (4.00 / 1)

This sounds pretty blasphemic to me. How does Lieberman manage to voice such scandalous crap, and still keep his constituency? Or are they all religious fanatics, believing that nutcases like Hagee are new prophets?
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 15:37:07 PM CDT

He gets more extreme by the day, is the thing (0.00 / 0)

I doubt he would be able to get reelected in 2012, but I betchya he's retiring.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 17:08:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope. Penguins Don't Want Him (0.00 / 0)

They're offended with my earlier remarks, and I've apologized profusely.

There's nowhere for him to retire to.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 17:37:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Duhh! (4.00 / 1)

Yes, they are all religious fanatics believing that nutcases like Hagee are new prophets.  I take it you are observing all of this from a non-religious context.  If not you would probably know that someone who commits blasphemy is commonly called blasphemous by those who take such things seriously, not blasphemic.  I hope you are really as oblivious of this stuff as you sound.  It's refreshing to think anybody could be.  These folks are serious, though, and their irrational twaddle can have serious consequences, if it's not opposed.

That's not to say you can ever make any headway in enlightening them.  We're doing pretty good just to keep them in check.

---

by: Querent @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:02:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]