Odd that in one thread, the author mentions the problems of 'anti-semetism' and in the next attacks a man for being muslims. The rabid religious hate towards muslims seems to be growing on the right, and it is unfortunate to see it here.

I must wonder,Mr Constantine, you do know that by definition, arabic and iranian peoples are 'semetic'? Anti Semetism is evil no matter who it is aimed against. By the same hand you condemn Muslims for the few fanatics who have terrorized others, you should honestly condemn your fellow christians for the terror they have committed against their own in this country (catholics, native amcericans, blacks) and others. "Treat others as you would want to be treated." If you hate others who are different, do not be shocked when they hate you, thus continuing the cycle of hate.

Just a few words of wisdom from an agnostic libertarian.

"you should honestly condemn your fellow christians for the terror they have committed against their own in this country (catholics, native amcericans, blacks) and others..."

To ih,

I am not sure what "terrorism" you are referring to committed by Christians in this country-at least in modern times. True, we have things in our history we are not proud of, such as slavery and taking lands forcibly from native Americans. Please remember that these acts happened long ago and have been acknowledged as being wrong (condemned to use your word). I would also note that the perpetrators (such as slave owners) committed these wrongs for their own purposes and not in connection with whatever religion they may or may not have practiced. They are a blot on our history, not Christianity. If you want to go back centuries and talk about the Inquisition, go ahead, but it doesn't have much relevance today to any sensible person.

The problem today is that there is one religion, some of whose adherents are carrying out acts of murder and mayhem in the name of the religion itself. It seems to me that decent Muslims themselves need to rise up against this plague. Those that do so have our support and admiration.

Gary Fouse: "I am not sure what "terrorism" you are referring to committed by Christians in this country-at least in modern times. "

Well, I suppose the definition of 'modern times' would be the question at hand. Some argue that anything not within the last 20 years is 'not modern'. In the context of the rest of the world, and its views on topics, I would say anything in the last 200 years is 'modern' (or at least since the industrial age). It does have an effect on our view of the world now, because its effects still reverberate within our society today. "those who dont learn from history..."- and all that.

Not even half a century ago, hundreds/thousands (depending on what records you rely on) working in the name of 'white christian capitolism' lynched, bombed, and murdered hundreds of people in the south, white and black, for no other reason than blacks wanting equality. Since then, only a handful have even been brought to justice, and fewer still convicted and sentenced.

Taking lands from the native americans is one thing, but murdering them to take it is another. To quote president Rutherford B Hayes

"What a prodigious growth this English race, especially the American branch of it, is having! How soon will it subdue and occupy all the wild parts of this continent and of the islands adjacent. No prophecy, however seemingly extravagant, as to future achievements in this way [is] likely to equal the reality."

Or John Adams

"The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union"

That sounds akin to 'living space' under 1930s Germany. And that is not even mentioning the genocides committed during the American Occupation of the Phillipines, in which the famous 'Kill every man over the age of 10" line was given by generals.

Muslims are like any other group of people. You ask that they rise up and stand against their members who commit terrorism, but do you (or most americans) rise up and stand against christians in this country who do and have, say, murder others for the color of their skin, or because they practice the jewish faith? How many christian (conservatives) stood up against the occupation once it was clear that Iraq never had WMD's, and had nothing to do with Al Queda (Whom was enemies with Saddam)? If anything, many continue to argue for the occupation for no other reason than the fact that Iraq is a country on the other side of the world with people of a different skin tone who worship a (seemingly) different god.

"Judge not least ye be judged." (Just to re-iterate, I am not christian myself, but agnostic. I am a great believer and supporter in the teachings of Jesus, among others.)

Ih,

You still insist on using old examples from our imperfect US history that had little or nothing to do with religion. I am much more concerned with what Osama bin Laden says than Rutherford B Hayes.

As for white Christians lynching blacks in the South, I would argue that they were not true Christians since their actions were against everything that Christ preached. I would wager that most of them had no thought of religion as they were committing their wrongs.

Face it, you are just looking for reasons to bash America.

Gary: You still insist on using old examples from our imperfect US history that had little or nothing to do with religion. I am much more concerned with what Osama bin Laden says than Rutherford B Hayes.

Youre willingness to put aside any wrongs our (I said, OUR) nation has committed out of convenience to dodge responsibility is part of the reason people like bin laden hate us. You are aware that bin laden got his start in afghanistan working against the soviets, and guess what nation was working with him to do so?

You either missed or ignored the point I made bringing that up. You cannot play the 'high moral "we hate terrorist, they are evil and do evil things" card without first admitting you are part of a country which has done the same (read up on the US funding terror acts against 'socialist' democratically elected officials, and assisting brutal dictators, or supporting racial aparthied in south africa and rhodesia). If you live west of the mississippi, you are there because of manifest destiny. That land you live on, was owned by a different people, whom our government systematically exterminated. Its the truth.

About southerners, their justifications were actively admitted to being directly tied to being protestant christians. That is why they burned crosses. Do a bit of research (old newspapers, news reels). The denouncations of de-segregation, Integration, Civil rights, all were deemed by conservatives at the time (including a good number of political figures who are or have been recently active, dem and repub) as anti-christian and anti-communist. That wasnt a hundred years ago, that 'ended' just 40-35 years ago. Its effects are still clearly seen today. This is why you cannot ignore history or claim it is irrelevant.

'Bash america'? Thats a pretty low blow. I say you cant spew hate towards muslims as a group, and judging them is wrong because your religion has done the same things they have in its very recent past. Its not 'bashing america', its taking responsibility for the past. That seems to be the bain of the conservative movement right now. Youll yell your heads off when you deem others to commit wrongs (muslims, blacks, mexicans, liberals, greens, and occasionally libertarians), but when someone calls you to the table for the wrongs your side has purported and supported, you play the 'Let the past stay in the past' game. You cannot have it both ways. That is why the majority of the public is not supporting you. You keep telling youself that anyone that disagrees with you 'hates' or is 'bashing' America. In fact, they are doing the patriotic thing by 1- Admitting when their nation (or its leaders) is wrong, and B- Standing up for change.

Take with that what you will, but there is a reason the public is increasingly not on your side. And it is not due to them being 'inferior' or 'easily manipulated', as many conservatives tell themselves. It is because you guys have been wrong. And your not admitting it makes it all the more obvious and disreputable.

Ih,

First of all, I am not bashing Muslims as a group. There are some 1 billion Muslims in the world, and they are not all terrorists. But I will bash the terrorists and their supporters and sympathizers all day long and not apologize for it. When the msu drags in anti-Semitic and anti-American speakers to UCI, I will let them have their say and then I will report on it letting everybody know what these folks are saying on our campus. It is hateful and inciteful speech.

Want examples? How about Malik Ali calling suicide bombers heroes and martyrs and defending Hamas and Hezbollah (who are terrorists)? How about Mohammed Al-Asi saying that Jews are low-life ghetto dwellers and "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew". He said that at UCI.

You Sir, have seemingly memorized a whole litany of all the terrible things the USA has done throughout its history. In fact, you sound like a college student who has been thoroughly brain-washed by leftist professors who have infested our universities. Now you are spewing it back out like a robot.

Secondly, I don't give a rip why Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida hate us. All I care about is seeing them dead, get it? And I don't apologize for my country because I love it. Warts and all, it is the greatest country in the world, and without our country and particularly our military, no nation in the world would be living in freedom today.

Gary Fouse:You Sir, have seemingly memorized a whole litany of all the terrible things the USA has done throughout its history. In fact, you sound like a college student who has been thoroughly brain-washed by leftist professors who have infested our universities. Now you are spewing it back out like a robot.

No, I am simply a man who knows history, and is (as an african american born and raised in south texas) effected by it.

Brainwashed by leftist? I attended a moderately conservative community college, transferred to a half and half undergrad and currently attend a somewhat conservative law school.

I am not 'spewing it back out', I am talking about history. It sounds like you are either trying to ignore history or do not know it. That being the case, this comes down to what I mentioned earlier "judge not lest ye be judged".

Yes, there are bad muslims. There are also (despite all the excuses and ingoring in the world) bad christians. Right now, in this very country, statistically the two of us face more of a direct threat from a christian at any moment than a muslims person. The odds that I will be attacked by a christian at any moment in this country is statistically far greater than that I would be attacked by a muslim person.

You ask am I aware of bad people that are muslim? Of course. There are horrible people in every religion. My thought is, it is hypocritical to direct your anger and hatred specifically at muslims while in this very nation christians do the same things.

From your 'brainwashed' comment, I can tell you did not read my last paragraph. I will re-post it and leave you alone about this. In the end, we all have freedom to say what we want (for the most part), and it will be up to you to find objectivity in your views. Good luck.

"Its not 'bashing america', its taking responsibility for the past. That seems to be the bain of the conservative movement right now. Youll yell your heads off when you deem others to commit wrongs (muslims, blacks, mexicans, liberals, greens, and occasionally libertarians), but when someone calls you to the table for the wrongs your side has purported and supported, you play the 'Let the past stay in the past' game. You cannot have it both ways. That is why the majority of the public is not supporting you. You keep telling youself that anyone that disagrees with you 'hates' or is 'bashing' America. In fact, they are doing the patriotic thing by 1- Admitting when their nation (or its leaders) is wrong, and B- Standing up for change.

Take with that what you will, but there is a reason the public is increasingly not on your side. And it is not due to them being 'inferior' or 'easily manipulated', as many conservatives tell themselves. It is because you guys have been wrong. And your not admitting it makes it all the more obvious and disreputable."
Repost-

IH:

ANTI_SEMITISM is a very specific word. It was coined in the late nineteenth century by a German racial purist to refer to the hatred of the Jewish people. The fact that Arabs and Persians are Semitic is irrelevant; just think of anti-Semitism as being a synonym for Jew-hatred, because that's what it means. (Look it up if you don't believe me.)

Irrational hatred of Arabs or Persians would fall under the modern parlance heading of Islamophobia, I believe.

The proper use of these terms is important to maintain meaningful discourse. Remember that.

IH:

A few other linguistic notes:

It is spelled bane, not bain.

You used "effect" wrong. "Effect" is a noun, as in "the side effects of the drug..." You meant to use affect, the verb, as in "this drug may affect...."

Sorry. I'm a grammar man.

More on "anti-Semitism:" The same could be said of the term "Anglo." If I say I am an Anglophile, that means I love England. Even though Wales is also an Anglo-Saxon country, if I say I am an Anglophile because I love Wales, that is an incorrect use of the term and wouldn't make sense to anyone. The point is that words have denotations that are separate from their pure etymology. A grasshopper is a specific kind of insect that may or may not actually live in grass, et cetera.

When it comes to the word anti-Semitism, there is an effort made generally by people critical of Israel and Jews to redefine what it means by using etymology (a word's roots.) It is an underhanded attempt to erase the significant rising trend toward anti-Jewish violence and thought in the world today. If you can redefine a word, you take away its gravitas. Anti-Semitism does not mean antagonistic attitudes toward Semites (a group including including Arabs, Jews, Persians, Assyrians, Circassians, Druze, Bedouins, etc etc etc), it means hatred and physical destruction of Jews, period.

I am not trying to imply you are a proponent of this effort. I am just trying to caution you against using a technique designed to minimize the suffering of a specific people.

It would be similar to me saying, I am an African American so I have a right to comment on the issues of anti-Afro-American discrimination and reparations to descendants of slaves, if I were an Egyptian immigrant to America. Technically, I would be an African American, but the misuse of the term leads to a minimization of the legitimate focus of that term.

Hope you will take this to heart. I'm not here to fight.

-BPL

Brian Levin and BPL-

Before stating anything, I just want to make clear that I am in NO way advocating or proposing to change the definition of 'anti-semetism' or in any way undermining what it is, and its seriousness, wrongfulness and rampantness in this and other societies. Please be assured, as I mentioned earlier, Anti-Semetism is a vile and terrible thing that should be confronted and addressed, as should all forms of prejudice (hence the main point of my commentary on this thread).

First, I apologize for the spelling. I type very fast, and when on message boards do not bother paying too close of attention to spelling or typos. With the exception of correcting my grammar and definition, I assuming you agree with everything else I mentioned (the rest of the posts), since you guys did not mention anything else of the posts I made. I am just wondering, it seems like you may be searching for any small point to argue due to lack of a retort to the larger point. I am not at all claiming that of you, of course, but I am getting that sense.

Conserning anti-semetism: here is my post

"I must wonder,Mr Constantine, you do know that by definition, arabic and iranian peoples are 'semetic'? Anti Semetism is evil no matter who it is aimed at"

Now I am having trouble understanding what about that post you are debating? Are you debating that Arabic and Iranian people arent semetic? If that is the case:

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Semitic

"Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races."

I did not imply an alternative definition of anti-semetism, only that when you take the literal and original definition of 'anti-semetism' it meant an antithesis position to any 'semetic people', jewish, arabic, iranian, palestinian, druze etc.To be prejudice against ANY semetic people is in a sense (literal phonetic definition opposed to mainstream usage definition). Ala 'anti' and 'semetic'.

Now, if that was not the cause for dispute, are you guys claiming to disagree with the second sentence in the contested statement: "Anti Semetism is evil no matter who it is aimed at"

I do not think you are, but I am having trouble understanding what exactly is the basis for the debate of my statement on semetic peoples? My main point was prejudice is wrong against any group, muslims/arabs included. It is just as evil to judge and villify them as it is for them or anyone else to judge and villify us.

I am also not here to argue, but to voice and debate if necessary or allowed. Please let me know at any time if this forum is not welcome to dissenting opinions. I will not take it personally, and will kindly leave your forum.

Apologies once again

conserning = 'Concerning'

IH:

You completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I will say it again, with more emphasis: Anti-Semitism is a SPECIFIC word that refers to irrational hatred or fear of JEWS. If you take the dictionary definition of "Semitic" and apply it in this context it is both INCORRECT and MISLEADING, and MINIMIZES the SPECIFIC phenomenon of persecution of Jews as an ethnic group.

Your Webster's link even refers to anti-Semitism as referring especially to Jews, which is close but still incorrect. This is from Wikipedia:

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also rarely known as judeophobia) is the prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. ****While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.[1][2]****

Dictionary.com says simply:

discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

Some writings on the origins of the term:
Anti-Semitism - (also Antisemitism ) - Jew Hatred. The word antisemitisch was probably first used in 1860 by a Jew, Moritz Steinschneider, in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" ("antisemitischen Vorurteile") to criticize the racist ideas of Ernst Renan. "Semitic" is a term that describes a group of languages. The German polemicist Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in 1879 to give a scientific aura to his ideology of hatred of Jews. ****Since the term in proper usage does not refer to all "Semites"**** and there is no Semitic "race," the term "antisemitism" was suggested by Yehuda Bauer instead. The term Judeophobia, coined originally by Leon Pinsker, is also used to describe hatred of Jews. Arab Jew haters have tried to claim that they are not "anti-Semites" since they themselves are Semites, and some Arabs use the term in that way. In this page we use the term "anti-Semitism" only because it is the most popular accepted term and therefore it is most used when people search for this topic.

When you choose to use a new "literal phonetic" (in your words) definition instead of the actual definition as the term was contrived and used for 140 years, you are contributing to a degradation of that meaning. You began your last post by saying you are not trying to redefine the word; it seems to me you haven't done your research on the origins and application of this word. Referring to anti-Arab or anti-Iranian sentiment as being anti-Semitic takes away from the very specific meaning the word was invented to convey. I don't get what you don't understand about this.

Yes, all forms of hatred and bigotry are equally morally reprehensible and all need to be combatted. I don't think anti-Semitism is any better or worse than Islamophobia, I just take the time to make a distinction between two separate types of bigotry. Generally, people who use the term anti-Semitism to apply to other groups besides Jews are doing so to broaden the scope of the term and thereby minimize the notion of unique suffering. We have the terms homophobe and Islamophobe and mysogynist and white supremacist to denote specific kinds of hatred that are separate and unique and must be dealt with for what they are. How would you feel if I said that the term abolitionist no longer meant one who opposed American enslavement of black Africans, but now I've decided to take the term literally and use it for anyone who desires to abolish anything? Do you understand how it could be misleading and incorrect to call a fighter pilot an abolitionist because he was trying to "abolish" his enemies?

Words are more than their etymological roots or their dictionary definitions. Words have meaning and power and connotations. All I was trying to convey to you was that you are showing disregard for the meaning and usage of the word anti-Semitism by applying it to all Semitic people when that is not how the word was conceived nor how it has ever been used up until very recently. It is a tactic generally used to delegitimize Jewish suffering and promote the idea that bigotry against Jews and against Arabs/Persians is the same, which it most definitely is not. Neither is better or worse, they are just different.

As for the rest of your post, I don't care to comment on it. I don't agree with everything you said, but one has to decide what is most important to oneself. For me, you gross misuse of the term was more glaring to me than your critiques of US foreign policy. Your critiques have a basis in reality. Your misuse of the term does not.

As for the other grammar stuff, that was a poor attempt at humor. I wasn't trying to nitpick, I am just something of a stickler for grammar and I thought it would be a humorous way to introduce my critique of your use of the term.

And Brian P. Levin and BPL are the same person: me.

IH,

I think you and I have a different interpretation of Christian. To me, a true Christian is one who places the religion in a central part of his or her being-in other words-a committed Christian. If you want to use the term Evangelical, go ahead. I won't split hairs.

Just because an American has Christian ancestors or even parents, does not make them a committed Christian. The people you are talking about who would attack you I don't consider real Christians.

As for our previous exchanges regarding the sins of America in history; yes, we have dark chapters in our history. Yet, we acknowledge those chapters and teach our children about them so as not to repeat them. Germany has also done that (since the 60s) in regard to the 3rd Reich and the Holocaust.

And I certainly do know my history. I have lived it for the last 63 years and seen great changes in our country, some for the better, some for the worse.

Few societies could have made the changes we have made in the last couple of generations.