Jesus was a twin!?

Who knew?

No telling what Jesus may have done in the Temple if he had more than his hands, to Walmarteers in his midst.

Look unto current governance irrespective the claim of God’s good word, and see upon it the face of Rome.

Same as it ever was.

When two sets of idealists are arguing a clear either/or, right/wrong issue, such as the justification of slavery, a pragmatist is the one who invents a 3/5ths compromise to perpetuate the problem for generations, sully the good name of the law with compromised morals, and facilitate the suborning of ‘principle’ to ’self-interest’.

I think you both ought to.

It wasn’t just Bunny’s tree that went. “I have taken my Christmas wreath off my house. I have taken all the lights down,” she said. “This is supposed to be a nation under God, and it isn’t. They absolutely have ruined Christmas.”

You can see C-SPAN host Peter Slen, no doubt trained to deal with the occasional eccentric caller, cock his head ever so slightly as Bunny breaks the news.

“So you took down your Christmas tree because of the Senate health care bill?” he asks, with a hint of incredulity.

“I certainly did. And I would like to see every light in the nation go out, especially in the White House,” Bunny replies.

She also explains that members of Congress are sullying “God’s holiday for the birth of his son” and that she opposes the bill so fiercely because its death panel provisions will unleash a “genocide” on seniors.

DONT UNDERESTIMATE THESE PEOPLE!

Once again, Cliff Lyon seems all too willing to forgo even the most basic understand of Christianity and replace it with a broad bigoted whitewashing of Christians as nothing more than hypocrites that fail to live up to the tenants of their own faith. In essence, Cliff Lyon by republishing this anti-Christian diatribe seems to believe that the vast majority of Christians are gun totting, NASCAR watching hicks that fail to have even a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ. Of course as usual, in doing so he exposes his own inability to understand Christ’s teachings.

“The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. Republican Jesus believes that such handouts merely encourage the poor to be lazy, and that Christian charity is better practiced through massive tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, who could then be expected to let the money “tinkle down” to the poor in the form of honest, if low-paying, jobs at upright Republican institutions like Wal-Mart.”- Cliff Lyon

This statement is a perfect example used by many who regularly attack Christianity. It implies that a faithful Christian should be more than happy to hand over his/her earnings to the government to help the poor. It simultaneously implies that Christians see the poor as undeserving of compassion and charity. Both of the assumptions on the part of Mr. Lyon are completely false.

In reality, the far majority of Christians are very giving when it comes to the poor. In fact the far majority of non-profit efforts to feed and cloth the poor in this country come from Christian efforts. Even when Mr. Lyon criticizes the LDS Church; saying, “If the LDS Church gave away even 10% of its annual income to feed the poor, I would be surprised. It seems to me a really, really true church would give away 100% and its flock would demand it” he fails to recognize that following Katrina, it was primarily Christian organizations and faiths, with the LDS Church chief among them, that were first on the scene providing for the most basic needs of the victims. (This is not to say that non-Christian organizations also helped) In fact the LDS response to the catastrophe ultimately led to FEMA consulting with the LDS Church on ways to better improve the distribution of supplies during such a tragedy.

Ultimately, Cliff Lyon is making the same mistake that so many that have come before him have made when attempting to describe “true” Christian beliefs as supporting “Socialism.”

“Jesus WAS a socialist and his teachings ARE socialism, therefore, if Jesus’ teachings are sacrosanct for you, then you accept, however distasteful, the sacrifices and the generosity required to live his teachings.” – Cliff Lyon

Just as when Obama tried and failed to express biblical teachings when he declared, “I am my brother’s keeper,” Mr. Lyon has failed to understand that there is a major difference between calling on people to be charitable out of their own heart and using the long arm of the government to take from the rich to give to the poor. He has missed the fact that if we as Christians enact laws designed to take an uneven amount from the Rich in taxes for programs that we might benefit from or so that we might not have to give as much, we are essentially stealing money from that person and in violation of God’s commandment and theft. The reality is that Socialism and its eventual result, Communism is fueled by greed and a covetous hearts. It uses slogans of class warfare to convince people that those with wealth are undeserving of it and therefore are deserving of having it taken from them by force if necessary. Does anything about this idea sound Christian at all?

The irony is that the true Hypocrite here is Cliff Lyon. I have in the past and will again ask him to put his money where his mouth is and donate ALL of his wealth to the government so that it may provide for the poor. If he truly believes that it is our duty to provide for the poor through the government because, “The cycle of poverty in this country is chronic,” then why is he waiting for everyone else to be forced to do so first? As a Christian, I am asked by God to be charitable and provide as I may for my fellow man as part of my spiritual life. I am told to give unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God. As such I will continue to give to God what is his, including my charity.

How strange that a man, Cliff Lyon, who regularly speaks out against those who would even consider crossing the line between church and state would now be advocating that religious tithing and charity be turned over to the government as a “true” expression of faith.

“I’m interested in decapitating people who think their religious opinions belong in government.”- Cliff Lyon

If anyone would like a better understanding of the relationship between Socialism, Communism and Christianity, you can read my essay, “Was Jesus a Communist?” from 2006.

I think that a lot of the problem is that Christians’ motives may be pure but they’re not perceiving the way that their pure motives are facilitating greed and evil. Maybe God intends our motives to be informed by an awareness of consequences. I think so. “Thou shalt not kill,” to use an extreme example, is hardly a commandment to follow if it means permitting the slaughter of innocents. Likewise, maybe allowing a rich man an untempered amount of freedom (especially in the light of the many freedoms which can be purchased if you’ve got the cash) is likely to result in a greater loss of freedom by many other individuals.

I.e. good decisions, motives, and ideas which are formed without a sufficiently complex awareness of the influence of circumstance and the actions of others may, in fact, be bad ones.

Now, I usually try to live by the principle that you let the other guy commit the sin rather than commit it yourself; that there’s no such thing as the lesser of two evils; that you are never forced to do something wrong. But sometimes letting the other guy commit the sin is evil, while stopping him is the Christlike thing. In protecting yourself, maybe not. But in protecting the greater good, the greater society, and the many individuals within it who may be subject to the dictates of someone who will wring every cent he can get away with from harm, wellll. . .think of it like stopping an abusive father from beating his children. Is using the power of government to protect his children the Christlike thing? Or do you honor free will by allowing the nightly alcohol-consecrated rampage to keep going? I would argue that, for many of our underprivileged brothers and sisters, the abuse they suffer relative to the benefit of their abuser is comparable to an abusive father-child relationship. So just think of taxing the rich to pay for social programs for the poor as a kind of child support.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Apparently, Mr. Lyon is using his authority as the proprietor of OneUtah to edit his own responses. His posting that originally appeared in my email box was as follows…

(Notice that this version of the post differs from his revised version that currently appears on this site.)

“Okelferry,

You quote my point and STILL, you still don’t get it.

Is it possible for you to understand the difference between criticizing Christianity vs people who use it in political advocacy?

At worse, I am criticizing Christian followers (not the religion) who attempt to apply religious interpretation to government policy and politics.

Next subject: I understand Christianity at levels available only to the secular, academic reader.

For example, you can’t really understand Christianity unless you understand Judaism and Mythracism, and Greek and Roman history.

I’m guessing your appreciation of Christianity is through the context of Sunday school, Bible class and at best, your general knowledge of current ecumenical conversation.

Do you want to know what Jesus said about abortion and homosexuality? I have to leave right now, but I’ll answer your questions tonight when I return.

Just list them here.

It is important for the reader here to understand what might motivate this posting by Cliff Lyon.

First, he says,

“I understand Christianity at levels available only to the secular, academic reader… For example, I think you can’t really understand Christianity unless you understand Judaism and Mythracism, and Greek and Roman history.”

Essentially, Cliff is telling everyone that he has the ability to see Christianity for what it truly is because as an atheist, his judgment on the issue is not clouded by faith and therefore superior to that of a faithful Christian. Ironically, many Christians believe the exact opposite; teaching instead that wisdom is a gift from God granted through faith. As such a Christian might argue that to truly understand the Word, one must first stop denying the gift of faith. While he is correct that it is important for religious scholars to understand the historical setting for Biblical texts, he then goes on to brag,

“I studied Judaism in Israel and read parts of ‘his word’ in the original Hebrew.”

It is obvious here that Mr. Lyon is trying to set himself up as a religious scholar of sorts. If this truly is the case; then how could he be so completely wrong when he stated that, “Jesus WAS a socialist and his teachings ARE socialism?” More than likely Mr. Lyon falls into the class of an atheist zealot.

You see there are those atheists that simply don’t believe in a higher power and there are those who actively try to prove the negative by launching regular attacks against religion. The atheist zealot spends much of their time studying various faiths, not merely to understand them, but in search of flaws that the atheist zealot wrongfully believes will ultimately support their own faith in nothingness. In reality, the atheist zealot is truly no different than any other zealot of any other faith as they become almost obsessed with promoting their own beliefs at the expense of others. It is not difficult to see how such zealotry easily lends it’s self to the use of broad generalizations about particular faiths and ultimately leads to religious bigotries.

A perfect example of this zealotry is presented by Mr. Lyon’s reference to “Myracism.” I can only assume he was referring to Mithraic Mysteries, also known as Mithraism, a short lived Roman cult that little is actually know about. Atheist zealots likely, Mr. Lyon will often gravitate to promoting the theory that certain Christian rituals and beliefs might have come from the rituals performed by this cult. Of course there is only the weakest evidence to support what is seen by most historians as mere conspiracy.

This is a classical mistake made by some; who when they see similarities between various religions or cultures, wrongfully make the assumption that they are connected or that one begat the other without any formal evidence to support the hypothesis. Note that few who support this claim have even considered that if there were an influential effect between the two beliefs that Christianity might have been the one that influenced this cult and not the other way around. Additionally, it should be noted that there are very few written accounts about the teachings and beliefs of those who followed Mithraism. What we do know about this cult comes primarily from those that were not directly involved in the religion. These accounts tell us that Mithraism underwent a major transformation, long after Christianity was well established which most likely accounts for the similarity.

It should also be noted that Christianity has a long tradition of placing its various traditions and celebrations over the top of past pagan celebrations and traditions in an attempt to discourage converts in various lands from continuing to participate in long held pagan traditions. Christmas, Halloween and even Easter are all prime examples of this as they all fall conveniently over major pagan holidays or festivals.

Ultimately, it takes a huge leap in this case to believe that Christianity is nothing but a fusion of Judaism and Mithraism; illustrating how heavily even zealot atheists like Cliff Lyon must rely on faith to support their own beliefs.

If Cliff Lyon truly is a religious scholar that understands Christianity, he should have known how inaccurate his support for this republished essay is and his statement about Jesus being a Socialist are. As such, every reader should ask himself, why Mr. Lyon would make such a statement and condone such a diatribe. Truly there can only be two possible reasons; Mr. Lyon simply doesn’t understand Christian tenants or he was willfully attempting to deceive the readers here about the true nature and common beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

“At worse, I am criticizing Christian followers (not the religion) who attempt to apply religious interpretation to government policy and politics.” – Cliff Lyon

If this is true, then I would be interested to hear which Christian faiths and or leaders, Mr. Lyon feels best represents Christianity and which components of the faith he finds admirable. Ultimately, Christianity is very diverse with believers holding to a broad range of beliefs, rather than choosing radical numerators and stereotypes by which to classify Christians, such as homophobia, he might do better to focus on the common denominators which serve as the core guiding principles for the majority of Christians.

Also, this prior statement holds its own level of ironic contradiction since he appears to be condemning Christians that might infuse their religious views with politics while apparently declaring in his earlier statement that good Christians should embrace Socialism as an economic and governance model if they truly want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

Another recent quote by Mr. Lyon from another posting probably gives us the best look at Mr. Lyon’s motivations behind this posting.

“Brew, Not only didn’t Jesus write that, if he even existed, he wouldn’t have said it.” – Cliff Lyon

Nothing illustrates Mr. Lyon’s radical view of Christianity then his statement about Jesus, “if he even existed.” While Jesus’ divinity may be an article of faith, few historians and religious scholars (Christian and non-Christian) around the world would even consider questioning whether Jesus actually walked this earth.

It is true that there are many Christians who have warped and distorted Christianity over the years. Jim Jones and David Koresh are prime examples. Even broad corruption and distortions of the Gospel has existed within various Christian sects that have led to untold abuses and even the deaths of thousands of people across the world. So in a sense, Mr. Lyon is correct that it is individual people and not the religion of Christianity that is to blame. Unfortunately, this admission was not present in Mr. Lyon’s primary attempt with this posting to label Republican values and Christianity as incompatible. If he truly believed that some distortions in Christianity are the product of only a few, then why paint with a brush so wide as to encompass an entire political party.

It seems that Mr. Lyon is attempting to form a specific argument through the use of broad generalizations and stereotypes. It appears to me that Mr. Lyon was trying to say by this posting that if you want to be a good Christian you should avoid the Republican Party because the Republican Party is responsible for distorting the image of Jesus and the Holy Gospel. Of course it doesn’t take much to realize that distortions of Christianity are not restricted to any particular political party or movement.

Ironically, this post seems to be far more distorting of Christian principals than any political party as it uses wild stereotypes about a large group of people along with inaccurate assumptions about such ridiculous notions as homophobia, Walmart and those who watch NASCAR. In essence, everything about this post seems designed to deceive and distort.

Also, we should all give strong consideration for why Mr. Lyon chose to revise his original post. He even changed his regular reference to me as “Okelferry” (originally Okelfairy in earlier discussions) to RO, which does seem more reasonable. For this change, I must commend him.

“Owing to the cult’s secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas.”2
Because of the lack of textual evidence for early Mithraism, there is no way to positively assert that the ideas that seem to correspond to Christianity were ever taught prior to the second century A.D. after all of the Christian texts that make up the New Testament had been in wide-spread circulation. In fact, most scholars take a dim view of that idea. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi dismisses this hypothesis in stating “Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76).”3
In fact, Mithraism seems to change drastically from its Persian roots when it becomes a Roman cult. Romans adapted the military cult into something much more comfortable and understandable for their form of worship. Scholars Beard, North and Price agree stating, “The form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. It is found first in the west, has no significant resemblance to its supposed Persian ‘origins’, and seems largely to be a western construct.” 4 – Did Christianity Steal From Mithraism?

URL: http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp070.asp

Ultimately, those that support the idea that Christianity was heavily influenced my Mithraism fail to recognize as stated above that the later Roman version of Mithraism bears little resemblance to it’s origins in Persia. Because Christian writings and teachings were well known prior to the reformation of Mithraism, it is obvious that the foundations of Roman Mithraism were likely influenced by Christianity and not the other way around.

While critics and haters of Christianity like to point to the approximation of certain Christian Church Calendar events to those observed by Roman Mithraism such as keeping the Sabbath on Sunday or the observance of Christ’s mass as evidence of collusion, they simply fail to recognize as I’ve stated before that early Church leaders purposely covered these competing holidays with their own as a way of discouraging continued participation in pagan worship. The idea is simple; you cannot be tempted to participate in a holiday in recognition of Mithra if you are too busy participation in your own Christian observance.

It should also be noted that a large portion of modern Christians broke away during the Protestant Reformation from the Roman Church because they felt that the Roman Church had distorted Christianity significantly. Most significant among these; the re-establishment of the “priesthood” and the establishment of the Church as a barrier between God and man to salvation, which Protestants believe was done away with when the temple “veil” or curtain was torn in two at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross.

It is obvious by Cliff Lyon’s continued attacks on not just individual Christians but on the core principals of the Christian faith that his earlier statement, “At worse, I am criticizing Christian followers (not the religion),” is plainly false. Mr. Cliff Lyon IS a bigoted zealot atheist bent on the constant criticism, distortion and unjustified hatred of Christianity. Notice that he does not launch similar attacks against Muslims, Hindus, Taoist or any other religion. (Though he did in the past support the publishing here at OneUtah of an anti-Semitic list of Jews that held dual Israeli citizenship within the U.S. government under Bush by Richard Warnick.) Like a laser beam, this man seems entirely focused on attacking Christianity at every turn.

I ask the readers and authors of OneUtah to seriously consider why Mr. Lyon has such a vendetta against Christianity. In asking yourself this question, consider the nature of this man:

Cliff Lyon was not only dishonest when he edited his own postings, but has gone so far as to edit a post that exposed this dishonesty. (This is something that is unheard of in blogging and raises several legal questions and questions about the integrity of OneUtah as a public forum for discussion.)

It should also be considered that even this site may have been started in violation of the Federal Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act. When Cliff Lyon began OneUtah, he registered it under the non-profit foundation, Rhythms of Life. When asked about this web site’s association to this foundation Mike Liston, the foundation’s director issued the written statement, “I was not even aware that Rhythms of Life was listed as an organization involved with registering the URL.”

Finally, consider that once again, Cliff Lyon has turned to outright personal attacks in lieu of civilized discussion as is evidenced by his revamped use of the name “Okelfairy” as a reference to me. This is an obvious school yard attempt to use a homosexual reference as a derogatory term.

Please Note:

Mr. Lyon’s references to Glenn Beck, refers back to criticisms I made in response to Cliff Lyon’s statement, “One of the Greatest American Traitors is a Mormon. This pitiful scum sucking pig needs to be hung by the neck.” My past criticisms had to do with both Mr. Lyon’s unnecessary reference to Glenn Beck’s religion as well as his call for physical violence against the man. Additionally, his reference to a court date is likely referring to my past assertion that I felt Cliff Lyon as well as other authors at OneUtah had orchestrated a purposeful attempt at libeling me. As of now; any such suit in this case is pending the establishment of who is the legitimate owner of OneUtah, Cliff Lyon or the non-profit foundation Rhythms of life.

For those interested in combating online hate and bigotry, please visit the Anti-Defamation League web site, “Responding to Extremist Speech Online.”

URL: http://www.adl.org/issue_combating_hate/10faq_extremist_online.asp

I am truly not surprised to read the following statement by Mr. Lyon:

“I am the owner of record of OneUtah.”

While it may be true that Cliff Lyon has recently updated the Whois information regarding OneUtah’s URL, the original registration clearly shows that Rhythms of Life was the original registrar. Strange that they knew nothing about OneUtah. The legal question is; has Clifford Lyon ALWAYS been the legal owner of OneUtah.

” Domain ID:D99695952-LROR
Domain Name:ROLUSA.ORG
Created On:26-Aug-2003 18:25:17 UTC
Last Updated On:27-Aug-2007 23:29:52 UTC
Expiration Date:26-Aug-2009 18:25:17 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Wild West Domains, Inc. (R120-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-03865916
Registrant Name:clifford lyon
Registrant Organization:Rhythms of Life
Registrant Street1:PO Box 520444
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Salt Lake City
Registrant State/Province:Utah
Registrant Postal Code:84152
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8019730304
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:clyon@rhythmsoflife.org
Admin ID:GODA-23865916
Admin Name:clifford lyon
Admin Organization:Rhythms of Life
Admin Street1:PO Box 520444
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Salt Lake City
Admin State/Province:Utah
Admin Postal Code:84152
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.8019730304
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:clyon@rhythmsoflife.org
Tech ID:GODA-13865916
Tech Name:clifford lyon”

Happy New Year everyone!

Since you asked so nice…

Cliff did it!

Mr. Warnick,

” 1. Cliff had nothing to do with that list! I included it in a comment responding to a remark by R.O. that attributed “our allegiance and support for Israel” (even in the case of Gaza war crimes) to “the fact that a very large number of Israeli citizens are also U.S. citizens.” I was actually expressing agreement with R.O. He was right on that point!” – Richard Warnick

I don’t believe that it is fair to say that we were in “agreement.” In my prior post I wrote,

“As for our allegiance and support for Israel, we cannot be ignorant of the fact that a very large number of Israeli citizens are also U.S. citizens. In fact, those with dual citizenship can fulfill their military obligation in Israel by serving in the U.S. military. Because our ties with Israel run so deep it is not realistic to suspect that we would simply cut off aid with Israel. Disarming Israel in this conflict would only invite more bloodshed as many of their neighbors have long called for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Note that Israel has never called for the destruction of Islam.” –Richard Okelberry

It is obvious that I was expressing support for the rights of dual Israeli/American citizens to lobby their government and express their concerns as any other citizen may. In addition I was expressing that we need to consider that when Israel is attacked, many of the citizens being killed are U.S. citizens. The fact that they are also citizens of Israel should not diminish this consideration.

In response you posted a link to a detailed list that essentially questions the loyalty of many Jewish Americans in the U.S. government. Contained within this LIST is the regular accusation that the individual is “suspected” of dual citizenship, illustrating that the main purpose of the “LIST” was to call into question the loyalties of those with a Jewish Heritage.
You continue to defend your use of this “LIST” as not being Anti-Semitic, even after I published a letter from Professor Steve Siporin, one of the top Historian in the world on Jewish history and folklore. As I’m sure you know Professor Siporin completely supporting my assertion that this “LIST” was a prime example of Anti-Semitism.

You and others here at OneUtah may re-read this letter at: http://utahfreepress.com/?p=543

Here is an Addendum to my essay that reads as follows:

” The detailed “LIST” referred to by Mr. Warnick can be found at: Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?

Here is one example from this “LIST” that Mr. Warnick claims is in no way Anti-Semitic:

“Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.”

Attached to this essay is a sub-link to another essay from the same site, titled: Who runs Hollywood and the main stream media?

“Do the Zionist Jews own Hollywood and the media? Are they using the media to mold and shape American opinion by constantly injecting Zionist propaganda and bias into news programs, movies, television shows, even children’s cartoons and entertainment?
The answer is so blatantly “Yes!” that you wouldn’t think these questions are even worth pursuing. But recently, the untoward comments of a patriot talk show host made me stop and rethink it. Are there people out there-even in the Patriot Movement-who really are that much in the dark, who deny Jewish influence in the media?” – Texe Marrs

Maybe it’s finally time for you to retract your support for this “LIST” and recognize how offensive such a list might be to the Jewish community. If you are still convinced that there is nothing Anti-Semitic about this “LIST”, I would encourage you to take a copy of it down to your local Synagogue and read it aloud. (Be sure to shoot some video and post it here. I would love to see the reaction.)

Okleberry–

Please carry on your vendetta elsewhere. If you are busy in litigation regarding a libel charge, I would recommend you not spend time posting inflammatory personal comments, especially those regarding a supposedly pending legal dispute, on the website in question. They could prove a legal hazard for you.

In any case, WE DON’T CARE!

To me, all you’re doing is providing ongoing threats that you will attempt to shut-down or otherwise disrupt a forum which I and many others enjoy participating in. So shut up or I’m going to move into the house next to yours and engage in a property-line dispute to keep you busy with the same kind of clap-trap you’re engaging in here.

But as long as you’re whining about libel:

here are just two statements made by Cliff Lyon of the hate organization One Utah. [emphasis mine]

Source: You.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

I pity the dual-passport citizen whose other p.p is Yemeni or Afghani.

Larry,

Yes it is true that I abdicated my authorship rights at KVNU’s For the People. As you may, or may not know, Paul Mero abdicated his authorship rights here at OneUtah after I pointed out the high level of religious intolerance and bigotry here. I argued that by authoring here he was inadvertently giving credibility to those that are more inclined to use hate speech rather than partake in genuine civil dialog. He instantly agreed.

As such, when KVNU extended authorship rights to Tim Carter who I had caught plagiarizing another author’s work. The day before, Mr. Carter, during an online debate copied a paragraph from an article at an online encyclopedia, moved the last sentence to the beginning of the paragraph to disguise it as his own and published it without referencing its source.

I simply could not continue to publish at KVNU without being a hypocrite. Plagiarists are quite simply thieves and liars. As such I refused to give him credibly by working in association with him at KVNU.

Ultimately my disagreement was with the management of KVNU FTP who at least for now seems more inclined to broaden its opinion base and readership at any cost to integrity; much like OneUtah.

I should also note that I believe that Tyler’s call for authors at KVNU is still open to all if anyone at OneUtah is interested.

“Want to blog for KVNU’s For the People? We’re hiring.”

So yes Larry, I took my ball and went home, but I do still have high hopes for KVNU, FTP.

You continue to amaze me Mr. Warnick!

Given the opportunity to simply retract your use of this Anti-Semitic list as a lapse in judgment accompanied by an admission that you failed to recognize how offensive this List might be to the Jewish community, you continue to defend it. Perhaps it would be more revealing to see who else finds this list so interesting and how they are using it to support their causes.

If you perform a simple search using only the title of this List, “Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?” you will get a rather impressive list of Anti-Semitic writings from authors who like you find this list very compelling and perfectly suited to supporting their arguments. While most of these are relegated to discussion groups, what’s left is a long list of anti-Semitic web sites including “White Pride World Wide” and “Real Zionist News.” You certainly are in good company Mr. Warnick.

While the list is far too long to post here without being tagged by the spam filter for too many links, here are a few choice hits of authors who have.

Here’s one from “White Pride World Wide.”

“Subversive Israel firsters have penetrated many, many, influential positions in the American government. That there are people in high places in our government, both elected and appointed, that have dual loyalties to both the US and Israel, is absolutely outrageous. Actually, if these subversives ever had allegiance to America, which I seriously doubt, they have given up any pretense of it a long time ago as we witness our government’s subservience to Israel’s whims today. For all jews, it’s always been Israel first, last, and always.” – Dicarlo, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=658211

Here’s another great quote from another site:

“Now we have yet another massive Zionist problem here in the United States that is causing serious chasms between what was once a government of the United States and what has now become the “new” government of the Zionist State of the United States of America.” – Kim Kirwin, http://www.rense.com/general86/knowing.htm

Oh, and you really must read this essay from “Real Zionist News:”

“America’s memory is a Christian heritage which Jews despise. A North American Union, (by which the US, Mexico, and Canada, will unite as a sovereign unit), will eradicate America’s Christian memory. This will make the Jews very happy. And the Jew Michael Chertoff is the leading instigator of the Anti-Christian North American Union.” – Nathanael Kapner, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7sAF499jFRAJ:www.realzionistnews.com/%3Fp%3D106+Dual+Citizenship+–+Loyal+to+Whom%3F&cd=31&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And lets not miss:

“There are millions of dual citizen Israeli-Americans living in the USA today that have absolutely no allegiance to the United States! Their first love is the criminal Zionist state of Israel, and they work diligently behind the scenes doing everything in their power for the support of Israel first! These people are nothing more than TRAITORS to the US and should be in prison, rather than walking the streets of America today.” – Northern Truth Seeker, http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2009/11/understanding-zionism-dual-citizenship.html

Of course the largest number of references to you List seem to become from 9/11 “Truthers” who like Cliff Lyon seem to believe that the attacks of 9/11 where not carried out by Al Qaida, but where a part of a larger conspiracy. Typical!

As I said, you certainly do keep good company, Richard Warnick. Keep up the great work here at OneUtah!

Richard Warnick,

“In fact, I have questions about the Bush family’s relationship with the Saudis.” – Richard Warnick

Of course you do!

BTW: Don’t worry about taking your list down to your local synagogue with a video camera. I think that I will do that for you.

I have to say, it’s rather entertaining to hear one side target the other and vice versa, back and forth. You know, if we were to take all of the quotations from each of the two blogs which have been either recently posted or brought up in this thread, we would have quite a little tussle. And few would be able to tell which side was which.

Okleberry, let’s make this simple: Cliff can be a real pain in the butt. He’s offensive, he’s mean, he’s frequently immature. But, like the neighbor kid who swears while he mows his parents’ lawn, he can be ignored and avoided, or even effectively reprimanded.

And, like the other obnoxious neighbor kid, you seem intent on tattle-telling about it. Listing private e-mails in an effort to defame is wrong and not very credible. Making all-too-typical accusations of anti-Semitism and hate is also wrong. The sad thing is, I suppose you found little wrong with the ridiculous racism coming out of some of the teabaggers in regards to Obama, yet now a political list about conflicts-of-interest between two governmental and national entities is anti-Semitic just because one of those entities and its policies happen to be run by Jews.

Cliff’s accusation about your Scott P. Roeder shrine is obviously satire. Ridiculous and insulting, yes. Libel–no. His responses to your essay are also appropriately equivocative; he specifies which kinds of religious people he doesn’t like and assumes you are in that category. Sort of like your “hate organization” and “anti-Semite” accusations, dontcha think?

Anyway, I’m done with your comments. I’ll read what you have to say, but I have little desire to continue any more with your silly game. I refer you to my prior comments, Cliff’s continuing argument, and a little self-analysis. Thanks for the fun.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Cav–Does “prescience” mean anything to you?

I’m just for cutting RO loose at almost any cost, even though grappling with those threats brings out the resister in me.

I’d entertain a gun thread that has to do with how the sales of ammo is almost singlehandedly keeping the economy afloat.

I vote for Dwight for poster of the year. I look forward to reading his contributions.

Did I just get banned?

…or was the plug inadvertantly pulled?

Ya know, I didn’t think it possible, but RO actually has me pining for the good ole Hoefer dayz. Who’da thunk?

Okelberry:

The Goldstone report!
The Goldstone report!

Becky,

Your kind words are certainly always welcomed.

Okleberry:

Having read your statements, I have to conclude that YOU haven’t read the list of which you speak. In case you didn’t notice, it begins with a question from a reader:

Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?

From its outset, the article is clearly about nationality, not religion. As you may have noticed in one of my previous posts, I already acknowledged the challenge of assessing issues regarding Jews:

The correlation between religion, race, and politics is a responsibility that those Israelis with dual-citizenship take upon themselves. Opposition to U.S. involvement and support of Israel doesn’t make one “anti-semitic,” nor does opposition to dual citizenship.

Many people have been accused of “anti-Semitism” because they attacked the Israeli state and the politics of the region. If you notice, the vast majority of the list discusses self-named “Jewish” groups, the “Jewish Community” (a term with which that group describes itself), and the Israeli lobbies and state. It even acknowledges early-on that

Today’s conflicts are centered in the Middle East.

The “Jew List” is a list of dual Israeli-American citizens, and the conflict of interests created when one of those nations is supporting the other’s ongoing war.

Contrary to what you imply, the “Jew List” actually DOES bring up multiple non-Jew examples of what it’s talking about. It clearly specifies that the article is about dual-citizenship conflicts of interests based on circumstance when it cites the potential conflicts of dual Japanese citizens in WWII or Soviet citizens in the Cold War.

Clearly, this is a political, not a religious argument, and the fact that “Jew” may or may not be a religious, political, and racial tag has little to do with the context of the argument being made. I am opposed to the U.S.’ approach to Israel politically, as you should have clearly seen. So please eschew your convenient use of the term “Jew,” because you aren’t using the same word that we are when you say it. Also, note that when I said that “anti-Semitic” was a “buzz-word,” I provided some context which you conveniently ignored; I said it was “a buzz-word in your use of it.” I.e. you’re using it because it has powerful cultural significance, not because there’s genuine proof that Richard hates Jews. To paraphrase your own language, the fact that you may be ignorant of its modern buzzword usage, simply is no excuse for its use.

In that vein, let me conclude by acknowledging that I was aware of the meaning of “teabagger.” It isn’t just us who used the term or phrases which implied its use. As I’m sure you know, there are a lot of slang words which have dual meanings, many of which are appropriate within a certain context. Inasmuch as tea party protesters have used the term themselves, it has a secondary etymology which I don’t consider to be derogatory. Wanna read more about it? Fun stuff.

Now, I’m not contending that the list is correct. Richard may have chosen a poor source. But I am contending the “anti-Semitic” claim and the absolute lack of distinction you place on religious Jews, racial Jews, and Israeli citizens. In this respect, I think YOU need a history lesson, as the form of anti-semitism which has had the most pronounced effect on our modern perception of that particular bias (Nazism) was primarily and most persistently ethnic, not religious. So you may think Richard hates Judaism, but even if you’re right about him being an anti-Semite, it’s more likely that he’s a racist. Please be more careful before you cast accusations of bigotry or we might find a few of them to cast at you–and perhaps more accurately.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

It’s a breath of fresh air to read Mr. Adam’s and Mr. Warnick’s last posts on the subject of the “Jew List.” While each are still heavily focused on the politics surrounding the use of this list, after reading each statement I have hope that each, especially Mr. Warnick, are taking major steps towards denouncing this “List” and continuing their arguments about the political issues without it.

First, I want to address the concept of bigotry and why I find it so offensive. First, we need to understand that we as humans can be intensely tribalistic. This tribalism, while it may be a good thing and has served us well anthropologically, is primarily on fear. Fear also can be good, unless it is allowed to run amuck and control our lives as it does when deep seated bigotry takes hold. On occasions, this bigotry is not deep seated but only plays a cursory part in our lives. Still, it is likely one of the very most dangerous elements of the human condition.

The irony about this debate is that both Mr. Warnick and Mr. Adams seem to be strong opponents of the various wars throughout the Middle East that the U.S. and Israel have been involved in. While Mr. Warnick and Mr. Adams may both oppose the wars in the Middle East, the irony is that they may be inadvertently supporting it.

No, I’m not going to try to make some strange “Butterfly Effect” argument and call them each murderers as Mr. Lyon recently did to me in a top post (more on that another day.)

First, let me be clear so that we can focus on the topic at hand. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss and even disagree politically with Israel and the support they receive from the U.S. Government. That in its self is not anti-Semitic. While I personally may agree with our support for Israel, disagreement with the policies of these governments is NOT in itself bigoted.

The reason I took such great offense to this “Jew List” was because it is representative of something that is wholly responsible for many of the problems in the world and society, Bigotry. I will maintain that this List, as evident by it’s failure to back up it’s assumptions about it’s membership and by it’s heavy focus on unfounded religious and ethnical affiliation of it’s members as being Jewish, indicates that it’s primary purpose is not to simply engage in legitimate discussion about the topic of dual citizenship but appears to be designed to promote distrust of Jews. Even if this author of this essay did not have this specific intention, the effect is real and undisputable. I believe that this is the primary reason why Hate groups like White Pride World Wide have also used this List when fashioning their own arguments in favor of their belief in a broad “Zionist” conspiracy.

Now let me explain why Bigotry above anything else, is ultimately at the core of this debate. Bigotry is born in fear. More than any other factor, fear is the prime force that divides us and ultimately leads to war. You can put all the major Middle East scholars and historians in one room to discuss the various reasons throughout history that have led to the current conflicts in the Middle East and after months of deliberation they still would be no closer to understanding the reasons for these conflicts unless they focused their attentions on fear, it’s causes and those who use it.

All of the conflicts in the Middle East ultimately are based on fear and its byproduct Bigotry which leads to mistrust of each other and ultimately war. If we remove the reason for fear in the region, we diminish the bigotry and ultimately there becomes no need for armed conflict.

Unfortunately, lists like this do the exact opposite and instead of defusing fear and mistrust they stimulate it. How much closer to peace are we in the Middle East if we continue to grab hold of such flimsy evidence of a broad Jewish conspiracy as is argued when this list is injected into the conversation? Ultimately, we need to be finding the common denominators that tie the people of the region rather than seeking out their dividing numerators. If we are going to interject religion or cultural heritage into the conversation then we should be focusing primarily on what ties us together than what pushes us apart. Ultimately, Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a common belief structure, heritage and religious foundation. Rather than painting each other as spies our religion or ethnicity, to promote a political agenda we should all be seeing each other as brothers in a true effort to promote peace. Suspicion, especially when baseless and unfounded, always leads to fear which is ultimately the root cause of armed conflict.

When people feel that their way of life or their ability to protect and feed their families is threatened they will likely always take a defensive position. Now if we add to that equation addition fear based on conspiratory accusations against a perceived enemy, that group will often take the offensive, even violently on occasion to protect it’s self. The most successful tyrannical leaders throughout history were masters at this form of deception and manipulation through fear. Hitler’s hatred for the Jews was not just symbolic but was divisively used for his own personal advancement and gain. It gave the people a common enemy around which to rally, vent their frustrations and eventually take their revenge.

We all need to ask our selves if this list does more to send us towards that type of society and outcome or does it help defuse tension and dispel stereotypes?

If we have problems with the idea of dual-citizenship then we can address that issue without bring race or religion into it. I personally do not have a problem with dual citizenship but do belief that it needs further clarification, such as the establishment of a primary then secondary citizenship system. Still, unless I have reason to suspect nefarious activities, I will continue to see U.S. citizens living in Israel under the same light as any other U.S. citizen living abroad; as U.S. citizens first all with the right lobby and influence the government to address their concerns. This right is conferred on all people regardless of their religious or ethnic status, as it should be. Also, as citizens living abroad anywhere in the world, they are deserving of having our government work towards their fare treatment and protection regardless of whether they are living in Mexico, Israel, China, etc…

As Mr. Warnick and Mr. Adams have recently shown by their previous post a willingness to at least consider how this list might be inappropriate for our discussions, I hope now that they will take that final step and at least acknowledge how there are those who might legitimately claim that this list represent a form of anti-Semitism.

To help them in their deliberation I want to close by describing a conversation I had with a close friend of mine many years ago.

This friend was an older gentleman who I used to regularly meet at the local coffee shop in Lincoln NE to play chess and debate the various political issues of the day. A life long Democrat, this friend regularly took the liberal point of view while I regularly held the more conservative position. Still, we both often were able to find common ground on many of the issues of the day and our regular discussions helped transform my positions on many issues. One day we were discussing the controversy surrounding the use a Native American names and reference for football teams. At the time the University of Illinois (The Illini) and the Washington Redskins were under particular pressure to change their names as each where seen by Native American groups as offensive. I took a position on this issue very similar to one expressed by Mr. Adams when he said earlier in this thread,

“As for Warnick’s “Anti-Semitic” list, the tendency of the Jewish community to be offended at such things doesn’t make them “Anti-Semitic,” – Dwight Sheldon Adams

Essentially, I argued that these Native American groups where simple being too sensitive and that they were only fermenting more negative feeling toward Native Americans. Then my liberal friend made a statement that would forever change the way I looked at not only this issue but many others.

He asked (and I’m paraphrasing) who are we to say whether these individuals have the right to be legitimately offended. We will never be able to stand completely in their shoes. Even empathy can have its limits. It is neither right nor justified to question their sincerity on this issue without explicit proof that they have alternative motives. Finally, he pointed out that we never come together and only push each other apart when we fail to recognize the legitimate concerns of others and simply brush it off as an over reaction to the issue. Instead of pushing each other apart we should all be trying instead to find common ground. Of course we will never find common ground if we continue to disrespect each other in this way.

Ultimately, the counter to the fear which leads to Bigotry is most often understanding and respect.

I hope that all the authors who have defended this list will ask themselves what they hope to gain by denying the objections to this list by one of the to top noted historians on Jewish history, Professor Steven Siporin, as nothing more than a simple over reacting. I want everyone to consider that Mr. Siporin has far more education on this issue and far more experience with anti-Semitism than all of us combined. Perhaps we should first consider the fact that he had such a strong reaction to this list before simply dismissing he concerns. It should also be note that Mr. Siporin has never been moved to issue such a public statement as the one he made with regard to this list.

In the words of my very wise liberal friend from the past, who are we to say whether or not he has the right to be offended by this list and what good does it do any of us to be disrespectful of his position?

I hope this final post on this issue will help bring us closer rather than push us apart. I also hope that we all, me included can learn to be much more respectful of each other.

I don’t have a problem with the list if it is accurate. The elephant in the room being ignored is if the list is accurate, are those people swaying our foreign policy? They seem to be at very high levels, so it would be a reasonable concern. Does Israel always have our best interests in mind? Debatable for sure:

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

Does asking questions, or linking to things I think might be a concern make me an anti-Semite? I guess.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php?articleid=13506

“Comverse Infosys provides wiretapping equipment to law enforcement throughout the United States and also has large contracts with the Israeli government, which reimburses up to 50 percent of the company’s research and development costs. Because equipment used to tap phones for law enforcement is integrated into the networks that phone companies operate, it cannot be detected. Phone calls are intercepted, recorded, stored, and transmitted to investigators by Comverse, which claims that it has to be “hands on” with its equipment to maintain the system. Many experts believe that it is relatively easy to create a so-called “back door” that permits the recording to be sent to a second party, unknown to the authorized law-enforcement recipient. And Comverse equipment has never been inspected by FBI or NSA experts to determine whether the information it collects can be leaked, reportedly because senior government managers block such inquiries.”

From here: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jun/02/00006/

We all need to ask our selves if this list does more to send us towards that type of society and outcome or does it help defuse tension and dispel stereotypes?

We all need to ask ourselves if the use of the pejorative name “Tiller the Baby Killer” does more to send us towards that type of society and outcome or does it help defuse tension and dispel stereotypes?

Apparently, Mr. Okleberry doesn’t recognize that he can’t deny some kind of complicity in Dr. Tiller’s death while simultaneously accusing the “Jew List” of promoting anti-Semitism. I hope that Mr. Okleberry will soon come to realize that he did much to encourage the environment that produced Scott P. Roeder and offer appropriate apologies.

Seriously, though, R.O.: you can be sure anti-Semitic groups have used this list to justify their beliefs and fears. But they’ve used the Bible, too. And genetics. And philosophy. And other religions. By golly, if we compile a list of all of the things which may be used to promote anti-Semitism in one way or another, then you may find that the only people who aren’t anti-Semites are Jews, themselves. For this reason, I consider your argument of potential misuse of the list to be specious.

As for your Native American story–I don’t think it quite applie. I agree completely with the response in that case, that the outrage of the group is superior to the elective use of their name by another. But that’s not really what we’re talking about. The list in question cites multiple organizations which self-define as Jewish by placing the word “JEWISH” in the title. There are a few instances where this is not the case, and I wouldn’t want to sit next to the author at a seminar, but I also wouldn’t get offended if someone called me a “Christian” because I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I AM one. And if we’re talking about Proposition 8 or another pertinent issue, my membership is part of the issue. There’s nothing inherently bigoted about it. Those people who wish to be a part of a group that identifies itself a certain way shouldn’t be offended when that group is identified in that certain way. Duh.

Now I am generally an opponent of conspiracy theories. That’s why I haven’t backed the list itself. I don’t believe that all of those people are members of some vast Jewish conspiracy to steer the U.S. towards intervention on Israel’s behalf. I looked up some of the accusees when I first read the list and was dissatisfied at the lack of evidence that they were, in fact, members of the groups listed. So, if it will make you feel better, R.O., then I will say it: I don’t believe the list is accurate enough to use in argument.

I will also say this: as you pointed out, this list is more than just a list; it’s an essay. In fact, it’s an essay about dual American-Israeli citizenship in the context of an ongoing Middle-East war. It points out the obvious potential for conflicts of interest. What we have to decide for ourselves is not whether the list is accurate, but whether the concepts preceding the list are accurate and significant. I don’t believe that it was right to imprison Japanese-American citizens strictly on the basis of race in WWII, nor do I believe it’s right to deny rights or privileges to dual Israeli-American citizens today.

But we must still be aware of what individuals may do for their nation. If we believe in the meritorious acts of patriots, we must believe that dual-citizens who are patriots will at one time or another choose such acts as a course of action. Such acts rarely favor both sides in a conflict of interests.

A final word on the term “Anti-Semitic.” Anti-Semitic isn’t merely a description of a predictable response, as in the word “offensive”; no, it implicates the subject of the description. While the use of Native American names in R.O.’s example may have been offensive, they were likely not “anti-Native American.” Inasmuch as Native Americans are entitled (as all people are) to self-definitions, it serves civility best for the rest of us to back off of terms which are identifying to them and superfluous to us. The misuse of a term by one to whom the term is irrelevant may rightfully, therefore, be considered “offensive” to those to whom the term is relevant, but requires more conditions before its use constitutes bigotry. The problem with “Anti-Semitic” is that it’s so unconditionally used.

In order to serve the conversation as well as R.O., let me for a second time apply his words to himself:

We all need to ask our selves if this [use of this term (anti-Semitic)] does more to send us towards that type of society and outcome or does it help defuse tension and dispel stereotypes?

In this case, the stereotype exists in the phantom of anti-Semitism; that any and all references to Judaism, Jews, or the use of the term “Jewish” is immediately and intentionally derogatory. This is not the case. As long as “Jewish” refers to a race, a religion, and occasionally a nation, its use is too broad to be so stereotypically categorized as “bigoted.”

Dwight Sheldon Adams