Pharyngula

Posted by: matt | June 2, 2009 1:32 PM

Ridiculous....

Posted by: me | June 2, 2009 1:35 PM

So much for the golden rule.

Posted by: Happy Tentacles | June 2, 2009 1:37 PM

What's he got against cattle?

Posted by: Wesley Voorhies | June 2, 2009 1:38 PM

It sounds good to me. Where can I send money to destroy their holy shrines?

Posted by: blf | June 2, 2009 1:38 PM

I thought it was enslave the children? (And, I assume, take the cattle—after all, you've now got a bunch of freshly-minted slaves to look after them.)

Posted by: littlejohn | June 2, 2009 1:39 PM

This is why violence in Palestine will never end. Does this asshat not realize he is giving a rationalization to Arabs to kill him and his family (and, if applicable, his cow)?

Posted by: Lorkas | June 2, 2009 1:42 PM

This is gonna take one epic facepalm...

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 2, 2009 1:44 PM

This is the guy who brought Bob Dylan back to Jewish observance.

In fairness, though, Friedman is Hasidic, a member of the ultra-Orthodox subculture - and even that world isn't monolthic. Read the responses from other rabbis, including Yitz Greenberg, a Modern Orthodox rabbi who has spent his career engaging in dialogue with members of other religions, especially Christianity: http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Ask_Rabbis.html

Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | June 2, 2009 1:45 PM

And the cattle, too? Is this some kind of joke?

In any case, the guy is certainly right about this:

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East.

Although he forgets that, thousands of years after the nuclear war, the Eskimos will eventually colonize the wastelands left over. And what's going to happen then? This kind of short-term thinking is highly problematic.

Posted by: Dancaban | June 2, 2009 1:48 PM

Total war. Rather ironic coming from a Jew.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 2, 2009 1:48 PM

Oh, and Glen - Klinghoffer is a first-class asshat. He's one of about six or eight conservative Jews who've thrown in their lot with the creationists. You all know about Ben Stein, of course. Michael Medved, the film critic, is another; he and Klinghoffer both work for the Discovery Institute. I have no idea as to why they do it; I think it must have something to do with buying into the Christian Right's siege mentality, as well as being a large fish in a small pond - in other words, I think they do it for self-aggrandizement.

Posted by: eddie | June 2, 2009 1:50 PM

Fortunately, other rabbis gave slightly different answers.

Then the other rabbis are hypocrites. As Alverant points out, at least this guy is true to his mostrous morality. Let's not let people pretend the reqality of religion is different from this evil little man.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 2, 2009 1:52 PM

Lee: It's a good start, but here we like bacon.

Lots of it.

So add that to your barbecue, and you're on, bud! :D

Posted by: blf | June 2, 2009 1:59 PM

Alverant@12, not if you castrate the slaves. No moral issue here, they're only sub-human animals.

And, if I recall, since Jewishness is passed through the mother, if you kill all the female slaves, and castrate all the male slaves, there's no risk of bloodline thining.

I've no idea if the OT calls for slave castration or not, but it certainly does call for enslaving “the heathens” forever:

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Charming.

Posted by: Lee | June 2, 2009 2:02 PM

Everything's better with bacon

Posted by: David Wiener | June 2, 2009 2:08 PM

Well, that's why I'm a humanistic (atheist) Jew myself. Religious Jews are just as nuts as Christians (all of whom, by definition, are religious).

Oh, and someone said only 6 or 7 Jews are creationists? Um, most orthodox are creationists. They are biblical literalists, who just don't believe in the Revenge of the Sith, or whatever the 2nd installment is called.

Posted by: natural cynic | June 2, 2009 2:14 PM

@eddie #23

Fortunately, other rabbis gave slightly different answers.

Then the other rabbis are hypocrites. As Alverant points out, at least this guy is true to his mostrous morality.

No, all the rabbis are hypocrites. They all have scripture to back them up and they all have scripture that contradicts those same actions.

And, being ultraconservative, Rabbi Friedman won't have to put his ass on the line and actually fight.

Read the rest of the quotation, it's at the end of the link for some really amusing statements like

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

Uh, yeah, dream on. Everybody is just going to roll over for you and vendetta will stop. Like it always has.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 2, 2009 2:16 PM

I am sorry SC, as soon as I hear; "Women has been around almost as long as men..." I had to click back here. I could not take a hour of that.

Posted by: Sastra | June 2, 2009 2:19 PM

I enjoyed this rabbi's entire response, especially the part where he explains why he wants to destroy the Muslim's holy sites:

... with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: ... no false sense of righteousness.

Yes, indeed. The false sense of righteousness which comes from thinking God (or even G-d) is on your side, can be a very dangerous thing. Unless, apparently, God really is on your side. Then it's a transcendently correct sense of righteousness.

And, as everyone knows, nothing demoralizes and discourages a fanatical group of violent religious extremists like bombing and razing their holy sites. They all just stand around looking puzzled, shrug, and then wander sheepishly back home. Must have been worshiping the wrong God after all. Oops. My bad.

Posted by: Medievalist Jon | June 2, 2009 2:22 PM

Just sad and aggravating. Friedman's words are about as disgusting as those of Gingi Edmonds. They're happy before the killing and happy after it.

I'm reminded of a silly sentence I recently read in William Dembski's pre-released intro. to his new book. He says that the main reason that people reject God is that "they cannot believe that God is good."

No. For myself, I reject religion and dogma because I believe they continue as ever to show themselves as vehicles of the most awful behavior and outlooks. I don't "reject" God because I don't believe there is a God to reject.

I bring this up in frustration at constantly being labeled by theists as a "rebel against God" or a "self-worshiping hedonist" while the supposedly moral faithful keep finding ways to justify and promote death for everyone else.

Posted by: RJ Branconnier | June 2, 2009 2:24 PM

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word frequently translated as “neighbor” is rea. It has a variety of meanings. However, the legal definition in the Old Testament refers to any member of the covenant with God i.e. fellow Israelites.

Therefore, the term “Arab Neighbor” is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Seamyst | June 2, 2009 2:26 PM

Huh, dude needs to read up on his medieval Christian history some more. Most of what he calls "western morality" only applied to other Christians. The Church had no problems with people (mainly Crusaders, but others as well) inflicting those practices upon Muslims.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 2, 2009 2:27 PM

... local (he's in my backyard of St Paul!) ...

No problem, then: he's in cyberpistol range.

Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 2:35 PM

... with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: ... no false sense of righteousness.

Yes, indeed. The false sense of righteousness which comes from thinking God (or even G-d) is on your side, can be a very dangerous thing. Unless, apparently, God really is on your side. Then it's a transcendently correct sense of righteousness.

Whoever was interviewing him should have asked if someone destroyed all the Jewish Holy Sites, would that have proven that G-d was not on their side?

Journalists these days are just lazy.

Posted by: blf | June 2, 2009 2:40 PM

Glen Davidson @46, is there any significant war that hasn't been fought, by both/all sides, in a manner disturbingly close to this nutter's prescription?

Posted by: Ragutis | June 2, 2009 2:48 PM

I hear lots of Jews say we must remember the lessons of the Holocaust, but I don't think this is what they mean.

Lemme guess... he's "pro-life"?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 2, 2009 2:56 PM

Are we quite sure Rabbi Friedman didn't answer this way on a bet?

Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 3:00 PM

The Biblical "out" is that indeed god was not on their side when, say, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple. They had sinned, or some such thing, and need to repent for what ever imaginary offense the ruling religionists found most offensive.

Indeed. I just had never seen a Rabbi admit that God was currently not on their side, it's always a historical matter. We can contrast this to evangelical Christians, whose bread and butter is ranting about how god is not on their side because of all the sin going on.

No point, really, the thought just amused me.

Posted by: Daniel | June 2, 2009 3:02 PM

Whoever was interviewing him should have asked if someone destroyed all the Jewish Holy Sites, would that have proven that G-d was not on their side?

Been there, done that... It didn't work very well - ended up contributing to the rise of a wildly successful zombie cult.

Posted by: MScott | June 2, 2009 3:08 PM

I can't help but picture this guy as Sean Connery from the "Untouchables":

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Jewish* way!

Posted by: Michael W Simpson | June 2, 2009 3:11 PM

From David Wiener (someplace above)

Oh, and someone said only 6 or 7 Jews are creationists? Um, most orthodox are creationists. They are biblical literalists, who just don't believe in the Revenge of the Sith, or whatever the 2nd installment is called.

I believe you are incorrect. Generally, Orthodox Rabbis, are not creationists. I forget the exact quote (and I'm too damn lazy to find it somewhere in my writings), but they believe there is no conflict between their religion and science. They state that a multi-billion year old earth supports a literal interpretation of the bible. But don't let "literal" confuse the argument. Literal to a rabbi means that the interpretation of the Torah is dependent on a lot of things, including the meaning of the author. It's quite different than Christian Fundamentalist literalism which is based on, well, nothing intellectual.

Chabad and Lubavitcher cults are creationists, pure and simple. But they are a small minority of Orthodox Jews.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 3:20 PM

blf@49,

The majority of wars in the last millennium were fought between elites for the right to exploit the peasants. You couldn't do that if they were dead. Of course, there was usually a lot of "collateral damage", as well as considerable rape and looting by the troops, but extermination? No.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 2, 2009 3:26 PM

You have to give credit to religious intolerance and justification of genocide, because it's present in all extremists. For all those who feel that Judaism is a superior religion because it tends to lack the type of evangelical overexposure in the US, open your blind eyes. All religion is bullshit, because even those who consider themselves moderates will not accept the fact that there is a gradient to their thinking that eventually leads to such intolerance. It's all a concept of magnitudes. Perhaps one sees themselves as moderate when compared to genocidal maniacs like this fucking rabbi, but their own expression of faith is a step in the direction of such thinking. It's only empirical thinking and logical reasoning that can move us beyond blind faith. Faith without evidence has no limit to how far it can go. One may restrain themselves from overexpressing it, but they are still basing some of their beliefs on non-empirical imaginary concepts.

Posted by: blf | June 2, 2009 3:47 PM

Knockgoats@63, I have no idea why most wars were started, be it in the last one thousand years or some other timeframe. However, restricting the scope to Europe and the last millennium, I agree what you postulate sounds plausible. But I don't quite buy it.

My understanding is peasants and serfs were generally considered by the ruling elite to belong to the land, that is, whilst not slaves per se and not property, to be part of the property. The rulers were different, often very obviously so in not being from the area.

As such, destroying the ruler's property wasn't, as you say, the goal. The goal was to capture the ruler's property, and maybe also destroy the ruler. That isn't as extreme as what this nutcase is suggesting, but it's not all that different either, provided the only thing you consider “people” is the ruler and his/her court et al. The peasants and serfs generally are not included in those people.

I don't think we are that far apart. I think it's just a matter of the scope of what it is which is being exterminated.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 2, 2009 4:04 PM

Yet more proof religion is nothing more than a powerful force to satisfy tribalist superiority fantasies. If a Muslim said this, it'd be on the front page of most major newspapers as proof of Islamic tendencies. But since it's a Jewish person saying it, well, they're entitled since Hitler killed so many of them, so can we blame them if they have the odd genocidal fantasy every now and then?

And yet, people continue to make the case that "we need religion." Do away with it all and watch how much better humanity becomes.

Posted by: Denis Alexander | June 2, 2009 4:20 PM

There is a Rabbi in St. Paul?!?!

Posted by: Sarcastro | June 2, 2009 4:30 PM

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

This from the People who have been kvetching for TWO THOUSAND YEARS about how some dudes from Italy destroyed their holy sites and killed their men, women and cattle!

Moral. Immoral. I'm the Ash Empire with the gun legions.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 2, 2009 4:34 PM

... with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: ... no false sense of righteousness.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed twice. Friedman apparently doesn't do Jewish history too well.

Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 2, 2009 4:37 PM

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 1670

Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 2, 2009 4:43 PM

@David Wiener,

What you say comes out somewhat self-righteous. Just because you trace your cultural roots 5000 years to a pedestrian region of the Middle East with various clans of goat herders should not take the rights of other people who can similarly claim such roots all over the world. You'll find many Palestinians arguing the same thing, and in fact, a greater proportion of Palestinians can trace their Y and Mitochondrial chromosomes haplogroups to the very region they currently try to survive in. Their cultural roots may not extend directly, but genetically, their ancestry is composed of greater Mediterranean/Middle Eastern stock than your average Jew. What you can say, they can say, and therefore, this is self-righteous thinking. All people would like to avoid a genocide, and never again should hold for all of humanity, not just one group who can trace their cultural roots to an insignificant corner of the world.

Posted by: David Wiener | June 2, 2009 5:03 PM

Helioprogenus@79,

You are reading information into my post that I did not put there. All I said was that I liked much of my people's traditions and admired some of their history. I also like to study the history of China, India, Egypt, etc. Because I like who I am, and want to protect my children, does not lessen my admiration for the accomplishments of the rest of humanity (hey - I think the Romans did some great things).

So, kindly stop reading my mind, ok? Because your mind reading ability sucks.

Does this mean that everyone who attends a highland's festival hates the rest of the world? (I'm part Scottish as well).

In fact, your mind reading ability seems to not have picked up the fact that I'm also Dutch, English, Norman, and Irish, and my kids have pleanty of German and Sicilian.

Gee - looks like I'm not a one dimensional stick figure stuck in a stereotype of your own making.

Posted by: Ryogam | June 2, 2009 5:08 PM

If he meant "Biblical" (Torahnical?) way to wage war, then, yeah, it's pretty much how I read Leviticus, Numbers and all the rest. But, "Moral?" Hmmm, yeah, just another reason to divorce the "Holy books" from our morality.

Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | June 2, 2009 5:16 PM

Genghis Khan put it in terms the good rabbi would no doubt agree with: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

At least Genghis Khan wasn't pretending to be a moral authority, though.

Posted by: pelican's-point | June 2, 2009 5:26 PM

In the context of his statement, he was not referring to "neighbors" as you characterize it. He was certainly referring to enemies in war. If the purpose of a war is to defend your people from attack and death, i.e. a defensive war - then the most effective methods for defending your people are debatable. Much depends on the nature of the enemy who attacks you - and especially from which holy book he justifies his campaign.

Posted by: pelican's-point | June 2, 2009 5:33 PM

In the context of his statement, he was not referring to "neighbors" as you characterize it. He was certainly referring to enemies in war. If the purpose of a war is to defend your people from attack and death, i.e. a defensive war - then the most effective methods for defending your people are debatable. Much depends on the nature of the enemy who attacks you - and especially from which holy book he justifies his campaign.

Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | June 2, 2009 5:43 PM

Knockgoats @88,

Thanks for that quote; I remember reading it somewhere before, but I didn't recall the source.

So even Gehghis Khan could be dissuaded from mass murder, if he could be shown the advantage in staying his hand (But then he didn't have a nasty needy little two-bit tribal war god telling him to exterminate people who worshipped different deities). The Mongol Empire was kind of like the Roman Empire in that respect, they really didn't give a shit what you believed in as long as you submitted to authority and paid your taxes. Tengri was a more moral god than Yahweh, in that respect.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 2, 2009 5:44 PM

@David Wiener,

Fair enough, but be forewarned that equally so, I never claimed I had you pegged one dimensionally either. I happened to bring up a point upon which perhaps I misunderstood your intent when I read it, but nevertheless, it wasn't a personalized type of attack that you imagine. Honestly, from my perspective, we're all Africans, 80,000 years removed (give or take a few millenia). Most of our changes happen to be cultural variation, and some of us do hold strongly to those things. Yet, it's possible to hold to certain cultural edifices, while allowing other useless ones like religion to fall aside. In a continually global world, perhaps one day, instead of extremists causing further intolerance, it'll just people arguing over rational ideas.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 2, 2009 6:12 PM

@ David Weiner #61:

Generally, Orthodox Rabbis, are not creationists. I forget the exact quote (and I'm too damn lazy to find it somewhere in my writings), but they believe there is no conflict between their religion and science. They state that a multi-billion year old earth supports a literal interpretation of the bible...

Chabad and Lubavitcher cults are creationists, pure and simple. But they are a small minority of Orthodox Jews.

David, you're describing the Modern Orthodox. Unfortunately, they're the minority now within the Orthodox world. The Hareidim have outnumbered them.

Posted by: David Wiener | June 2, 2009 6:19 PM

Helioprogenus@93

Point taken (re: one dimensional) - You didn't say that and I inferred it.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 2, 2009 6:30 PM

They're all nuts - some more than others.

Yeah, I hear that!

Posted by: David Waldock | June 2, 2009 6:56 PM

Isn't "killing their cattle" pretty much what Egypt has done to the coptic christians in response to swine flu?

Yes, Egypt's killing of all the pigs in the country mean that the only people who kept the pigs - the coptics - have no food, income or livelihood. What could go wrong?!

(What's that you say? Religious genocide operating under the guise of legitimacy? Pffft, surely not!)

D

Posted by: arachnophilia | June 2, 2009 7:46 PM

as others have pointed out, that's the most biblically accurate view.

it's not nice. it's not rational. it's not moral. but that's (frequently) the bible for ya.

Posted by: ckitching | June 2, 2009 7:51 PM

Sadly, because of people like him, the only way this dispute may end up being resolved is the genocide he endorses.

Once again, religion shows its ugly, murderous side. What should have been a simple, resolvable territory dispute is turned into self-righteous crusades where no one will compromise because of ancient man-made fables that are constantly given more credit than they are due.

This centuries old blood feud has to end someday. I just hope it doesn't end in mushroom clouds...

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 7:59 PM

And what he's saying is an eye for an eye,

No.

what he's saying is what was most effective in war when you are living in a tribal society:

eliminate your enemy entirely, so nobody even remembers who they were except the victors. Leave no temptation to even resurrect your enemies way of life - eliminate their means of productivity and any examples of creativity (destroy agriculture, livestock, buildings, art, etc)

In short, wipe your enemy off the face of the map, so you'll never have to deal with them ever again.

It's NOT "an eye for an eye", it's:

You took my eye, now we take everything you are, everything you were, and everything you ever will be.

I rather think an eye for an eye is actually a step up from that.

Posted by: Michael in Oz | June 2, 2009 8:03 PM

Mohamed ( and many of his current day followers ) would be at least as bloodthirsty AND justify starting wars as a neccessary way of spreading the one true religion.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 8:08 PM

How does one say "ghetto" in Arabic?

Gaza?

Posted by: Michael in Oz | June 2, 2009 8:13 PM

The problem here is that so many of thier neighbours want them all dead ... no compromise no discussion no common humanity. They simply want " the descendants of apes and pigs" dead.

Mohamed made it clear that you cannot trust or befriend non muslims and that the whole world is either " land of Islam" or land of War"

So I think there may be some sense in this approach bloodthirsty as it may sound at first.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 8:20 PM

bloodthirsty as it may sound at first.

at first??

*shakes head sadly*

yes, let's regress 3000 years and assume we can settle scores in the biblical way.

Just for you, I would suggest you actually study the history of the modern Islamic revolution, what the causes of it actually WERE, and who the major players were, and still are.

I'm hardly Islamic (duh, atheist here), but this is NOT about religion, it's entirely about politics and who controls the region.

Don't get muddled in the blusterings of religious zealots whose job it is to incite the mobs.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 8:56 PM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/snmhkfgbey/rss2/

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

The US has demanded that Israel halt all construction in the settlements. Netanyahu says some building must continue to accommodate what he calls "natural growth".

A meeting participant says Netanyahu testified that Israel cannot "freeze life" in existing settlements. He said "there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests".

Meanwhile, mobs of Jewish settlers went on a rampage in the West Bank yesterday, attacking Palestinian labourers and setting fire to agricultural land to protest against an Israeli government crackdown on unauthorised outposts in the territory.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 9:18 PM

Meanwhile, mobs of Jewish settlers went on a rampage in the West Bank yesterday, attacking Palestinian labourers and setting fire to agricultural land to protest against an Israeli government crackdown on unauthorised outposts in the territory.

so, Jewish settlers attack Palestinians to protest the Israeli government's decision to crackdown on illegal building?

*sigh*

fucking idjuts.

Moreover, as a side note(?) evidently there at least has been some attempt by the Israeli government to halt illegal settlements.

Posted by: MadScientist | June 2, 2009 9:50 PM

Unfortunately the Manis Friedman types seem to have control in Israel despite the fact that I often hear "most people" don't support the injustices heaped upon the arabs in the region. One Jewish friend who was born and raised in Israel told me: "We are very racist. The arabs (palestinians) are less than dogs." She didn't have that attitude though and there are certainly many people in Israel who are like her, but the Manis Friedmans prevail. I guess it's like our country being controlled by the religious loons.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 10:10 PM

Moreover, as a side note(?) evidently there at least has been some attempt by the Israeli government to halt illegal settlements.

Under Ehud Olmert, yes, and if my memory does not deceive me, Ariel Sharon, shocking though that sounds.

Benjamin Netanyahu has never known anything but war. I do not know if he can think on other terms.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060126.html

Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he would not be bound by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's commitments to evacuate West Bank settlements and withdraw from the territories.

"I will not keep Olmert's commitments to withdraw and I won't evacuate settlements. Those understandings are invalid and unimportant," Netanyahu said.

Together with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Olmert arrived at these understandings in final status talks with the Palestinians, which included settlement evacuation, dividing Jerusalem and returning to 1967 borders.

It wasn't an awful plan. Now it's gone to Gehenna.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 10:15 PM

I don't know what government crackdown the new reports are referring to. It may be coming from near Netanyahu, but that seems to contradict everything he says. It may be bureaucratic remnants of the previous government, still acting under directives that have not been changed. Or it may be some new sign of hope; I really just don't know.

Posted by: mas528 | June 2, 2009 11:02 PM

@helioprogenus:
Abraham demonstrates that he implicitly trusts the tribes around him, whereas he himseff cannot be trusted.

He knowingly sent his wife to fuck other men so that he could take advantage of their decency and embarrasment to get 'apology' money from them.

Of course, Abraham never really existed so it is meaningless; Except to three of the major evils in the world.
.
On another topic:
I know that it is a difference that makes no difference, but I hope that everyone knows that the hasidim are *not* jewish.

A ban of excommunication (sort of like a fatwa) was set upon them in the 18th century and the ban has never been lifted.

They know that they are not jewish. They take every opportunity to make jews look stupid.

From the tay sachs marriage database, to the ban on eating strawberries(because of aphids), to the immorality that PZ quoted.

Most jews don't even know this fact.

It is a lot of fun to bring it up to the hasids when (in nyc) they come around in their Moshiach Mobile.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 1:56 AM

Concern troll @ 122 being concerned :

What I find sad in all of this is the original post. Take some really outrageous comments by a rabbi (a priest, imam, cleric, take your pick) and plaster them on the web so that you get attention for blog and so that you provoke (as you surely will and did) equally inane and outrageous comments from readers. This is what passes for enlightened discourse?

Concern duly noted.

What I find sad is that people find it sad that we/PZ display those,as you said,"really outrageous comments",and put them out there for all to see,and to form their own opinion about these lunatics.

Posted by: Shelama | June 3, 2009 2:28 AM

Israel, sadly, is guaranteed to be nuked someday. Within our lifetime. Manis is irrelevant, although his nonsense doesn't help. Their only hope is if god comes to the rescue. Good luck.

In fact, Israel should give settlers a deadline to leave Palestinian land by a certain date. And then give their lives and welfare over to god. But even that won't change the inevitable outcome.

Posted by: Shelama | June 3, 2009 2:40 AM

Realistic more so than fatalistic. Open your eyes.

I don't live in Israel. Religious triumphalism is the scourge of the 21st Century just as it was in many previous centuries. And although Judaism is less triumphalistic as a religion than either Christianity or Islam, it will pay the price. Eventually ALL religious triumphalism will pay the price. Of massive disappointment and failure.

The fact remains: it is impossible for Israel to prevent an eventual nuclear attack, even if they take out Iran and the US takes out NK. Same goes for the USA: it too will be nuked.. It's just life. It's the bed we made. Perhaps secular humanism will someday prevail, but the interim will not be pretty.

Hawks or doves in Israel, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steven Carr | June 3, 2009 2:44 AM

The irony meter really went wild over this one :-

'Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side.'

This was written by a rabbi who is convinced that God is on his side, but who thinks the solution is for people to stop believing that God is on their side.

Posted by: Shelama | June 3, 2009 2:51 AM

It's a strange and twisted world, with a strange and twisted history. And future.

Much of it due to religion and religious triumphalism.

Don't take my word for it: watch and wait.

Posted by: Dr. P | June 3, 2009 3:14 AM

@ 122,

Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2009 9:51 PM

What I find sad in all of this is the original post. Take some really outrageous comments by a rabbi (a priest, imam, cleric, take your pick) and plaster them on the web so that you get attention for blog and so that you provoke (as you surely will and did) equally inane and outrageous comments from readers. This is what passes for enlightened discourse?
and the substance added by your comment was?....@ 24, this type of thinking is demonstrated to fail nowhere so famously as the middle east ,where neither side finds further conflict unthinkable ever and each evil justifies another.If this concept worked there would have been peace long ago based on the atroities of the past.

Posted by: uncle frogy | June 3, 2009 3:25 AM

Isa He don't get a pass here !

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 3:32 AM

But this man gets a pass -- how come!?

You have read the original post and comments? Right? Are you confused?

Posted by: John Morales | June 3, 2009 3:33 AM

Shelama,

Don't take my word for it: watch and wait.

Posted by: vogonpoet | June 3, 2009 3:57 AM

uncle froggy #138: you know I find it kind of odd to read that kind of war crap coming from someone who shares a history like that. I mean how is it that a Jew who knows his own peoples history could think that if you do all of that stuff and drive them out of their homeland they would just give up and vanish?

Nah, he's just being true to the Old Testament. Actually I've long wondered how most Rabbis manage to be such humane, sensible people given the text they have to work with. This guy is just trying not to be a hypocrite. I would congratulate him if the results weren't so barbaric. Best to stick with hypocrisy when the alternative is murderous barbarism.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 4:56 AM

If a man hears a voice today telling him to kill his son, he is diagnosed, medicated and locked up.

Unless he hears voices telling him to kill an Ob/Gyn performing abortions,then he's encouraged,or at least not discouraged.

Posted by: natural cynic | June 3, 2009 5:09 AM

But this man gets a pass -- how come!?

But he does get a pass in most of the evangelical/fundamentalist community. That's the problem. These Christians have a lot of eschatological reasons.

The fact remains: it is impossible for Israel to prevent an eventual nuclear attack, even if they take out Iran and the US takes out NK.

With anywhere between 100 and 300 nukes, Israel is more likely to do the shooting first. What will the world do about that? I doubt that most countries will look on this with pleasure. Israel will suffer.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

If you look at the casualty figures on both sides in the most recent Gaza fighting, this kind of lopsided outcome has already happened on a small scale.

Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage | June 3, 2009 8:21 AM

#151:

With anywhere between 100 and 300 nukes, Israel is more likely to do the shooting first. What will the world do about that? I doubt that most countries will look on this with pleasure. Israel will suffer.

It's likely that Israel has the ability to nuke all of the major cities in all of the Islamic countries in the world. As they view them as their ideological enemy, they probably have the nukes pointed at them already. However, I don't think they would simply destroy them on a whim. If they did, they would loose all international support. In that scenario, they might be able to get rid of their neighbours, but they would be completely isolated from the rest of the world. Of course, such isolation wouldn't last forever, and it might just take the abdication of the leaders, or the suicide of the leaders (or the 'suicide' of the perceived leaders) to end their isolation.

More likely would be the staging of a false-flag event (e.g. sacrificing a small town with a small A-bomb). If it was made to look like the begining of a concerted attack by Islamic countries, I think the international community would understand if Israel launched an all-out counter-attack. After the smoke had cleared, and it became apparent that only one Israeli town had been attacked, they could claim that their counter-attack had worked.

The U.N. would then move in to clear up the mess.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 3, 2009 9:25 AM

An interesting idea I once read in an article on Biblical archeology was that the genocide against the Canaanites never really happened. Apparently, it may well have been a myth to confer legitimacy on the state.

The general consensus now among archaeologists and historians is that the Hebrews were an underclass of Canaanite society that eventually rose to become dominant. The Exodus most likely never happened, or didn't happen in the way depicted.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 3, 2009 10:17 AM

The general consensus now among archaeologists and historians is that the Hebrews were an underclass of Canaanite society that eventually rose to become dominant. The Exodus most likely never happened, or didn't happen in the way depicted.

have you ever read Hector Avalos':

How Archeology Killed Biblical History

If not, you can get the quick version by listening to this two part lecture he gave to the Minnesota Atheists a couple years back:

part 1:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514

part2:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260956154287964220

the archeological evidence supporting Solomon or David at this point is sketchy at best, and many think entirely non-existent, and agrees that there isn't any evidence supporting Exodus.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen | June 3, 2009 11:38 AM

I kept wondering "why the cattle" then it hit me - they must figure that their enemies fucked their livestock. Why else would you kill off a food source in the desert except if you thought it was contaminated?

Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | June 3, 2009 12:04 PM

Rabbi Friedman said in his "apology" or "clarification" or whatever it was:

The question my statement addresses is: how should we act in time of war, when our neighbors attack us, using their women, children and religious holy places as shields. I attempted to briefly address some of the ethical issues related to forcing the military to withhold fire from certain people and places, at the unbearable cost of widespread bloodshed (on both sides!)—when one’s own family and nation is mercilessly targeted from those very people and places! (I look forward to further clarifying my brief words, too, in a future issue.)

Hmmm, I wonder if he thinks the "merciless" targeting of Israeli border towns by Hamas's crude home-made rockets justified the recent "tough" response by the Israeli army. Thousand-to-one casualty ratio, utter devastation of Gaza, disease and malnutrition for the survivors. Is that what he had in mind? Or did he think that was an example of "withholding fire" and he would have liked a firmer response?

Posted by: Bruce Kodish | June 3, 2009 8:04 PM

Some scientific blog you have—where you give references to Wikipedia (very 'reliable', oh yeah!) and draw conclusions from quotations from articles that quote articles that take the original statements like Rabbi Friedman's out of context. Agree or disagree with what he actually said, to the question he actually was responding to. You are simply misrepresenting him and his views. In doing so, you have provided a nice forum for the numerous antisemites expressing themselves here to crawl out from under their rocks. Thanks, alot. Your rabid atheism has nothing to do with a true scientific attitude.

Posted by: Bruce Kodish | June 3, 2009 10:01 PM

PZL linked to an article which linked to this Moment article
http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Ask_Rabbis.html

This article in turn provides a link to a blog with a further statement by Rabbi Friedman where he tries to put his previously quoted remarks in context http://momentmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/a-statement-from-rabbi-friedman/

JTA.Org printed another brief article with a statement from the Chabad-Lubavitch organization http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/03/1005618/chabad-comes-out-against-rabbis-comments-on-jewish-war-policy

I think that Rabbi Friedman, whom I respect, spoke unwisely. But in no way do I consider him rabidly genocidal.

I reiterate that the abuse on this website of him and Chabad seems to me out of context, unwarranted, unreasonable and unscientific (with much of it grossly antisemitic).

Posted by: John Morales | June 3, 2009 10:55 PM

Kodish,

PZL linked to an article which linked to this Moment article [...] This article in turn provides a link to a blog with a further statement by Rabbi Friedman where he tries to put his previously quoted remarks in context

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 4, 2009 6:39 PM

"...I reiterate that the abuse on this website of him and Chabad seems to me out of context, unwarranted, unreasonable and unscientific (with much of it grossly antisemitic)."

Yawn. A concern troll. First of all, what does science have to do with one man's criticism of another's genocidal fantasies? Secondly, it's not out of context unless the Rabbi in question was playing devil's advocate, which he isn't. The reaction to his statement is entirely warranted, and you taking the typical he-spoke-poorly excuse would seem to imply that you are sympathetic to the idea of committing the mass murder of others for religiously biased reasons.

And lastly, CT, how is anything above even remotely antisemitic, let alone "grossly antisemitic"? Or are you one of those that looks for opportunities to cry wolf to make yourself feel big behind a keyboard? You apparently don't even know the definition of the term, and take simple and obvious criticism of someone who happens to be Jewish for antisemitism. Criticizing the positions of someone who happens to be Jewish is not antisemitic; it's called real life. And if you and the Rabbi consider such criticisms anti-semitic, well, too bad. We're not going to stop making them to satisfy your attempts at playing the victim card.

BTW, you'd also be doing the Jewish community a historically significant disservice by watering down the meaning of antisemitism to include legitimate criticism leveled at any Jewish individual. But good job on the critical thinking on that one...

Now either admit your gross mistake and move on, or leave.

Posted by: Baba | June 17, 2009 8:10 PM

This is not just one Rabbi's voice. This *IS* the Jewish Way. All you have to do is to crack open the Talmud and start reading. Us Christians had 2000 years to figure this out. This is the tradition of elders Jesus warned us about. So crack open the Talmud. Best place to start is Judiasm Discovered by Michael Hoffman (Jewish) and start catching up the utter contempt Jews have for non jews. (Goyim) The term Goyim actually means "Cattle" in yiddish...so you see the hidden message only jews would know.

Posted by: Shelama | June 18, 2009 3:32 AM

Baba, too bad Jesus is dead and not coming back. He never was coming back. Get over it. It's not the rabbi's fault.

Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 9:14 PM

Baba the Christian, your charity and generosity of heart (not to mention your mercy and forgiveness) is noted.

You well represent your kind.

Posted by: Baba | June 18, 2009 9:23 PM

& you are demonstrating the "Jewish Way", The Talmudic Way. Yes, and I am rebuking you, and Yes, I am a Christian. So get over it.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 18, 2009 9:46 PM

Drool:

:)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 18, 2009 9:58 PM

Baba, considering that Michael Hoffman (who is not a Jew) is a Holocaust "revisionist," I don't believe your recommended reading is impartial.

Hoffman wrote an article, The Psychology and Epistemology of 'Holocaust' Newspeak, for the Institute for Historical Review. This organization can be described as world's leading Holocaust denial organization. Hoffman claims that he's not a Holocaust denier, which may be technically true (he says that Hitler did have extermination of the Jews as a goal) but he's as close as one can come to Holocaust denial without quite crossing over that line.

Posted by: René | June 21, 2009 9:14 AM

ULTRA-orthodox Jews have come up with a way to operate their mobile phones on the Sabbath and religious holidays - by using their teeth.

Many of the ultra orthodox volunteers and workers at Israel's Magen David Adom emergency services work on the Sabbath and were confronted with the dilemma of how to activate their mobile phones without violating religious rules, IPU.com reported.

MDA asked the Scientific Technology Halacha Institute to come up with a solution. Rabbi Levy Yitzhak Halperin issued a new set of rules involving the use of a specially designed case that prevents phones from being shut down accidentally.

To confirm response to dispatch, workers are permitted to hold a small metal pin between their teeth and press the necessary buttons on the phones, the Web site said.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25621096-5012895,00.html