Forgive me if I sound ungrateful, but I was expecting, you know, a lesson about the meaning of life—not to be scolded for failing to bring you “a bagel with a schmear.”
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I thought Morrie was dead?
He is. But I promised I’d carry on our dialogues in my head.
Where there’s lots of beanbag chairs.
And what the hell is with those ears, Dumbo?
Is that anything like a Pap schmear?
TW: maybe29
oh yeah!? well you start dying and tell me how you feel when some punk comes to pester you about Life and forgets to bring what may be the last bagel you ever get to have.
and N. O’Brain, please, lets not go there.
okay – this is off topic, but I just read this book today and I was wondering if anyone else here has read it – I thought it was hysterical and fascinating at the same time…
okay I have no idea how to posts links since that didn’t work obviously.
It’s called “A Match Made in Heaven” by Zev Chafets.
I’ve always taken the Jewish-Evangelical nexus to be more of a media angle than anything that was actually going to ever change the price of peanut butter. Israel is an ally. Allies is allies. Simple as that. I’ve read all the maunderings about neocon agendas, but apart from that, am I missing something? Touring Pat Roberts’ University seems like what you do when you need filler for a pretty thin thesis.
Cause, days are, “hysterical and fascinating” takes what? Couple mouse clicks?
Shhh! You’ll give away my plot to convert Jeff to the First Church of the Full Tilt Boogy! I can tell that his spirit is willing, but the flesh is so weak..
Well, for instance, this guy worked under Menachem Begin, and I found the insights really interesting. I’m not old enough to remember that particular prime minister and the events during his time, so it was educational in that respect….
and there’s the rabbi I’ve never heard of (Yechiel Eckstein) who’s collected billions of dollars from evangelicals and used the money for charities in Israel. So it’s not just a book about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell…some of the later chapters involving jihad are very interesting too.
I guess I came away from it really entertained, but it’s also shocking how the leftwing jewish community in the U.S. seems more devoted to leftist ideology itself rather then Israel. All in all I thought it was a great book. I guess no one here has read it?
Swen,
I dunno. Jeff seemed pretty buffed up last “Citizen Journalist Report” film he was on. Maybe it’s that spirit thingie instead?
PLUS, Zev Chafets was promoting his book on the Colbert Report, and it was so funny that of course I had to run out and buy it.
PC – Did Chafets say anything about whether he’s signed with anyone since leaving NY Daily News?
Damn you! I was just about to start my campaign to convert him to the Holy Rolling Hoseheads of North America, Midwest Chapter.
Ah well. First come, first served, and my eyes aren’t even glazing over yet.
normally I am loath to speak for Evangelicals but IMHO …
The vast majority of Evangelicals support Israel as a biblical and spiritual imperative. Conversion is not as important a consideration as those who believe in the “end of days” also believe that the Jews will be converted when Jesus returns. Certainly the fact that most Evangelicals are conservative plays a part, there being a strong imperative to support our foreign policy. Members of the reformed faith also have a historical sensitivity to the sufferings of Jews under church policy and societal norms. It’s not so much that they are making amends as they are proclaiming a shared origin and history.
I think I’ll pick that book up. And Jeff, next time bring a good Nova Scotia lox to your head meetings and you’ll avoid many unpleasantries…
Morrie Amsterdam is DEAD??!
When did this happen? Why wasn’t there an announcement? Can I have his notebooks?…
The idea then would be that Evangelical support of Israel manifests somehow over and above the support Israel has that is derivative of its merely being a relatively liberal, capitalist democracy in a sea of tyranny, socialism and terrorism. And a strong ally. Evangelicals might articulate their support in some goshawfully earnest and theologically flavored way, but, as you nod to above, it would be kind of bizarre if Evangelicals were to take a lefty, cynical stance towards Israel. My cynical self suspects that the media lens of the Jewish-Evangelical nexus allows framing of support for Israel in terms that can be portrayed as suspect and theological and that this framing suppresses an articulation of the first-order principles of an alliance that is quintessentially one of shared values and parallel strategic interests.
There has to be a simpler way to say that though.
Chafets covers a lot of this in the book.
There IS a theological and spiritual reasoning behind the evangelicals love for the jews – and it doesn’t hinge on converting them.
And as Chafets points out: what difference does it make is the evangelicals believe Jesus is returning on a cloud of glory? If they are wrong, then it doesn’t matter. And if they are right, well…
So the point is that evangelicals are not trying to “force” God’s hand – they are content to let it play out on its own, and they are only obeying a scriptural commandment to love the jews. So this support for the Israeli state coincides with conservative and political arguments – but it’s not the first and foremost reason.
If the U.S. suddenly decided to abandon Israel (for whatever reason) the evangelicals would not follow suit.
Somehow though I don’t think people would be proffering exegeses of Evangelical support of Israel were the insinuation not so prevalent on the left that Bush is a blinkard godbag puppet of malevolent neocon (jewish) puppetmasters. Inasmuch as – and here we agree – Evangelical support of Israel has a broad basis, it’s hard not to suspect that offering a counterargument demonstrating the nuanced theological underpinnings of that support does little but validate the specious innuendo of the left.
I’m supportive of private schooling, and I think conservatives generally are as well, but it’s not accidental that expression of this support generally takes oblique forms that never manifest in tension with the first principle of the value of universal education, and in fact, are always designed as an extension of that ideal. Demonstrating the theological persuasiveness of Evangelical support for Israel marginalizes the ideal of an alliance based on shared values and strategic interests.
Does Chafets convincingly and unambiguously demonstrate the falsity of the sentiments of the above?
Uh….
well, if you’re saying that evangelicals only support Israel because they want to “stick it” to the left, there isn’t much evidence for that.
If you’re saying the reality is that evangelicals’ feelings toward jews are more practical in nature and less theologically-driven, that depends on who you ask.
The mainstream protestants (like episcopalians, methodists) lean left in their politics, and so also lean against Israel. But this is mostly because these particular denominations do not take the Bible literally – they take it more as “suggestions for living”. So they have no problem letting their political and social ideologies intermingle with their theology.
Chafets discusses the differences between the evangelicals and the mainline denominations as well – like i said originally, it’s an interesting book!
Oh – and there is another major difference among evangelicals that Chafets DOESN’T clearly dilineate –
pentecostals are much different from baptists. Pentecostals are much more prone to prophsey and other hoopla, and are always getting stirred up about the signs of the apacolypse – they tend to see it in every event.
On the other hand, Baptists tend to be much more cautious and level-headed as far as that goes. You don’t see snake-handling or Baptist pastors getting on the TV to tell the world that they just heard directly from Jesus.
So there are some BIG differences that are not clearly shown in Chafets book – that would be my only crticism I think.
Pat robertson is a pentecostal.
Jerry Falwell (i think) is a southern baptist. So there are exceptions to every rule.
I just think Zev offers a way-too-nuanced counter to the leftist propaganda exemplified by Kevin Philips above. I’m basing my view on this, having not read the book. Zev is obviously of good heart and I don’t have any explicit quarrel with any of his views, but seeing them laid out in the LA Times, my gut feeling is that while you and I can read a piece like that and find it persuasive, those that are left-leaning (the overwhelming majority of the LAT’s readership) will find plenty there to validate their jaundiced worldview, and fairly easily discount Chafets’ arguments. In other words, Chafets attempts to counter the left on their ground – by positing a rampant theological fanaticism and then demonstrating why that is a fundamental misreading of Evangelical theology, when that “misreading” is nothing but a willfully constructed narrative, not a misreading born of an uninformed interpretation of the place Israel holds in Evangelical theology.
Oh i see what you mean.
Well, I don’t think Zev avoids the theology of the evangelicals; nor does he whitewash it.
I think the argument is more that, hey – if everybody in the world is against Israel except the evangelicals, why slap away that offer of friendship? Because jews should be terrified that the evangelicals have an ulterior motive (like converting them)?
i think his book shows that the evangelicals have no dirty motives in this particular issue, and as far as their theology goes – who cares?
It’s an issue of practicality first and foremost. But I see what you’re saying.
and in one of your earlier posts you mentioned the left’s view that Bush is a puppet of the jews – when in reality most American jews or leftists. The book even dicusses how something like 80% of the democratic party’s donations come from jews – so I don’t get that particular conspiracy theory from the left…
I’m out of cigarettes so I’ve lost about 50% of my already-challenged ability to articulate – but I definitely am persuaded that Zev’s book would be an interesting read.
The search engine tells me that this is Kevin Phillips’ first appearance on PW, btw, which, given his heavy rotation on NPR and at the LA Times, is kind of surprising.
Also you totally hijacked this thread
, but, myself, I have absolutely nothing to contribute to anyone’s understanding of the symbology of the bagel. Or the schmear.
sorry for the hijacking – i just read the book yesterday and I can’t stop thinking about it.
I have nothing to add about bagels, sorry.