Man, grow some sack and just apologize. Sorry I can't be more eloquent about it, but the fact is, she gave you an opportunity to say sorry, you didn't take it. She's a writer, so she WROTE and article. You may think it was just a joke, just a comment, that doesn't matter. The manly, mature thing to do is to say you're sorry and move on.

No, Jesse, the problem is very specifically that she did NOT provide such an opportunity. She tossed in a one-line quip, which was received in the same spirit of ascerbic, open discussion as any comment would be on this and related sites, and then she withdrew to begin her "research."
Of course no apology was offered. No offense had been offered. No one even knew any had been taken. If you take a look, there's a lot of spirited discussion about all manner of material in here. If she wanted a conversation about it, she could have had one. Far be it from this crowd to shrink from a debate ... a good, civilized, intellectual debate. Very little flame-throwing in here, Jesse, your scrotal reference notwithstanding.

Its kind of ironic how much angst you are suffering from Ms. Ingber's comments. The one thing that seems to be missing is any consideration of the angst that your own comments cause other people. You're all up in arms about how Ms. Ingber has offended your sensibilities and called you things you say you're not.

If it waddles, quacks, has an orange beek, and webbed feet, its a duck. Don't fault her for calling you out on your appearance - 'tis you who put that image forth in the first place. Even if you're not an anti-semite, you're still, at best, a myopic, rude, insensitive jerk who lacks the common-sense or the sensitivity one would hope someone with as big a mouth might have.

-ADL

Yeah, but Hanna's article did not say that Eric Furst was a myopic, rude, insensitive jerk who lacks the common-sense or the sensitivity one would hope someone with as big a mouth might have. In fact, if it said that I'm willing to be that Furst would find it kind of amusing. We don't really get enough flat out "he's a jerk!" articles written these days, and such a treatise dedicated to him specifically would be a welcome change of pace from the otherwise boring news cycle.

The article's charge was more serious. It's conclusions were wrong. It effects his family and his community more than it effects him. She either failed to think about that or wrote it anyway, knowing that. Disappointing either way.

No she didn't. She actually talked about her FEELINGS. How alien a concept that must be to Furst and the rest of the cruel and insensitive crew that runs this blog. Whats the matter, all out of wedgies and books to dump so now you've all found a way to get your jollies by abusing others publicly with a computer and the internet.

Too bad you all can't see outside your own little microcosm of fantasy self-indulgence. I find it deliciously ironic that you feel pity for the effects that HI's article may have on Furst's family, even as you take offense at how people can feel that Furst's words (and the other myopic and insensitive comments of people responding to them, be they serious or merely poor attempts at humor) hurt HI and HER family.

You seem to think that its OK for Furst to be worried about having happen to him and his family, that which he (and you and the other idiots who run this stupid blog) have apparently visited upon more than one of your classmates, peers, and readers of this website.

You and your peers may be high school or even college graduates but you still have a lot to learn about being adults and being accountable for your own actions in the real world. In the real world, when people screw up, it has consequences for THEM.

So if Furst's family is suffering, my response is "Oh boo hoo." Tell them to suck it up and walk it off - the same advice he tried to pass off on the Ingbers until support for her feelings became too overwhelming for him to ignore.

-ADL

ADL, I've always been amused by people who preach about being adults and accountability and the real world -- and then proceed to identify themselves with initials and fake email addresses. I guess you're so proud of your opinion that you're ashamed to label it as your own? I don't know how else to interpret that.

Anyway, I'm kind of disappointed that it took all day for us to get to the point where someone finally disparaged our fantastic, self-indulgent microcosm. I mean defending the reputations of our friends, families and hometown as they're brought into question is only fun for so long, eventually we've got to defend ourselves as well. In the spirit and tradition of the fake organization that I preside over, I will respond to your points one by one, hopefully belittling you in the process.

"No she didn't. She actually talked about her FEELINGS. How alien a concept that must be to Furst and the rest of the cruel and insensitive crew that runs this blog. Whats the matter, all out of wedgies and books to dump so now you've all found a way to get your jollies by abusing others publicly with a computer and the internet."

Talking about your feelings can be therapeutic. For others, writing about them often provides the occasionally necesary soul search and/or re-evaluation needed to grow as an individual. The issue here, is that Hanna's "feelings" and the way she wrote about them directly implicate totally innocent people in something they're not at all part of. Something that they are, in fact, disgusted by. So, you know, a weblog or a personal diary actually would have been a better venue. And yes, they have the internet on computers now.

"Too bad you all can't see outside your own little microcosm of fantasy self-indulgence. I find it deliciously ironic that you feel pity for the effects that HI's article may have on Furst's family, even as you take offense at how people can feel that Furst's words (and the other myopic and insensitive comments of people responding to them, be they serious or merely poor attempts at humor) hurt HI and HER family."

I don't know about feeling "pity" for them. Perhaps anger towards the THR, perhaps betrayal by Hanna, felt on their behalf. Nor do I take offense at how people interpret things. They're free to interpret them however they want, and I encourage everyone to go back and read the initial exchange with Hanna. If you read that and believe that anything in the entire thread is anything but sarcastic, I think that you need a remedial reading comprehension course and perhaps an intro to humor/sarcasm class -- but I'm not offended by your thinking.

"You seem to think that its OK for Furst to be worried about having happen to him and his family, that which he (and you and the other idiots who run this stupid blog) have apparently visited upon more than one of your classmates, peers, and readers of this website."

First off, having WHAT happen? Secondly, I encourage anyone who has ever been wronged in any way whatsoever by anyone else to step forward and air their grievances. I have an email address, a web site and a cell phone. If I've mistreated you, please tell me and I'll apologize or tell you that you're making things up.

"You and your peers may be high school or even college graduates but you still have a lot to learn about being adults and being accountable for your own actions in the real world. In the real world, when people screw up, it has consequences for THEM."

I can send you a copy of my SAT scores and my college GPA if that's what you're looking for, but what's the point here? In the fake world do people's actions have consequences for people other than them? Or are you questioning the entire law of causality school of thought? I can tell you that's an unpleasant road to travel down, because then not only do we have to talk about whether it's ok to talk about someone's religion, we actually have to talk about whether or not someone's religion is historically correct or completely fabricated. It becomes a big faith/belief vs. reason/logic contest. People start yelling. Seriously, if you think the discussion of the last day or so is intense, you should see us discussing things we actually WANT and choose to discuss when we're not being slandered.

"So if Furst's family is suffering, my response is "Oh boo hoo." Tell them to suck it up and walk it off - the same advice he tried to pass off on the Ingbers until support for her feelings became too overwhelming for him to ignore."

It's been repeated all day, but none of us had ANY indication whatsoever that Hanna's feelings were hurt until yesterday -- when she wrote an article that more or less called our families spreaders of hatred. Ultimately, no one has actually been physically hurt here. The only changes in my world are that I think less of Hanna Ingber as a journalist and an honest person, and I think less of the Times Herald Record as a newspaper.

If you want me to respond again, please identify yourself.

Sadly, you just don't get that what you say has implications. You fault Hanna for the implications and the consequences of publishing her article when, in fact, it is you and Furst and the rest of your fellow big whoopers, who seem to have no concept of the consequences of what you've said and done on this blog.

You have no idea what its like to be Jewish in America - even where you might think there is a Jewish "presence." If you did, you would understand that what you and the others said was the traumatic and proximate cause of what Hanna did - that her response was actually measured and reasonable - and that the reckless and irresponsible manner in which YOU all presented your comments on this blog is what started this ball rolling.

It speaks less of you that you now whine about the embarassment or ill will Furst and your families might suffer as the result the THR publishing Hannahs article. in fact, it was not of Hannah's article, but rather of your own failure to foresee that consequence of your own narrowminded and cruel musings that may bring that embarassment home to you. You can quote SAT scores and GPAs til you're blue, but you'll never convince me that you've not still got a lot of growing up to do and a lot to learn about being a responsible adult and respecting other people.

As for who I am - my name is meaningless but suffice it to say that I am an Orange County Jew who grew in the 1970s in a south eastern Long Island neighborhood that was 1% Jewish (I know, Long Island? Surprising isn't it? But true). I missed school dances, parades, picnics, and parties, all because they were held on my sabbath or other Jewish holidays, while sitting home and twiddling my thumbs on Christmas (just another day to me).

Although I never expected people to accomodate me and just wanted to live my life in private as I saw fit, they didn't leave me alone. I was constantly being reminded by everyone around me that I was different. The first insult was always "kike" or "jew bastard" in every schoolyard fight. My parent's house and cars were painted repeatedly with swastikas, sometimes on Yom Kippur or other holidays. Everything from a rock with antisemitic comments painted on it to an automoblie starter motor were thrown through our windows at various times. One of my parents was repeatedly denied work and told to her face by more than one prospective employer that it was because she was Jewish (and this in the 1980s, not the 1950s).

While I didn't look for trouble, and generally minded my own business, I'm also no shrinking violet, and yes, after being put face first into the fire enough times I became increasingly sensitive and increasingly determined not to put up with that kind of crap anymore. You would've too under those circumstances. The most frustrating thing though was, in high school, whenever I'd confront a classmate who'd made an anti-semitic statement in school, he'd invariably say he was "joking" or I was "too sensitive." In fact, I'm betting that that's exactly what you're thinking yourself right this moment. But it wasn't true - in fact, the pepetrator was too embarassed to admit that he'd been caught expressing his true thoughts and feelings and everybody else was afraid to call him/her on it.

You and your fellow bloggers are no different from these same cowards I grew up with. The type of denigrating, rude, and belittling commentary proffered by you under the misnomer of sarcasm IS indeed bigotry (albeit maybe not as focused as anti-semitism) and its the worst kind - the kind that doesn't know why it exists and lacks even the courage to stand up for itself when called out in public - the kind that retreats and then turns into a masquerade of hurt, falsely accusing its victims of the very thing that the bigot has himself/herself done in a desperate and vain attempt to deflect attention away from the poor judgment it has just displayed.

I'm not alone in feeling this way - and its not just Jews who do - its anyone who is from a minority or unique background. You think its any different here today? Were you aware that the airplane in Crane Park in Monroe was swastikaed two years ago or that a synagogue on North Main Street was painted with anti-semitic epithets on the eve of Yom Kippur last year? A cross was burned on an African American family's front lawn in Westchester County in 2003. Monroe-Woodbury Middle School was painted with anti-semitic slurs by kids seeking to avoid final exams last year. A White Supremacist group has been trying to make inroads in Middletown and Pine Bush and is handing out hate mail at the malls. Just look at all the hatred being generated because of non-religion based political and/or geographical disagreements between Kiryas Joel and the surrounding areas.

My wife and I are raising two pre-teenage children in this environment (and don't you dare suggest that I should move - this is my Orange County too - I will never run away). You can't even begin to understand the raw nerves that your cruel and insensitive comments on this blog have irritated and why people have reacted so strongly to what you said.

You all can say what you want anytime - its a free country. But so can I, and, when your words are thrust into the public domain, they have public impact, and you're going to be held publicly accountable for them by the people they've hurt. So stop acting like such a bunch of spoiled babies.

No need for you to respond further and giving you my identity wouldn't make a difference in our discourse. Perhaps I've opened up some new windows of thought for you. If not, we can just agree to disagree from here forward.

ADL

When you get cut off in traffic, does your blood boil at the injustice? If the guy bagging your groceries is rude to you, is it because you're a jew and he's a bigot? Some people stay in Goshen their entire lives. Some people experience a small subset of humanity and refuse to leave that protective cocoon until they die. I'm not one of those people. That's not bad, I happen to like Goshen as much as any of the 5 other places I've lived. But if you take away Thanksgiving and Christmas, I haven't spent more than a week in Goshen in the last 6 years. When you're 23, 6 years is a big percentage. And you know what? I've met a lot of people, many of whom I wish I hadn't. Some of them hate blacks because they're black. Many are intolerant of homosexuals, hell, it's almost socially acceptable to hate gays, as terrible as that is. I've met people who want Muslims to be deported, think mexicans should be sent back to Mexico and think that Hindu's all own 7-11s. This is bigotry, this is racism, this is hatred. But Jews? I can't think of 3 people who gave a flying f*** if someone was jewish.

I'm sorry that you feel so persecuted, but I know that you consider me to be a persecutor. As a result, I don't trust your judgment. I'm sorry you're insulted, I really am. I am particularly sorry that you have to live in the world that you created for yourself, one where every sidelong glance is racism, where every snide grin is bigotry and where every out of context comment is a crime against humanity. To an enormous extent, the world which we as humans live in is the world which we choose to perceive.

ADL, that was a very moving and touching post. thank you for sharing.

unfortunately, it does not sound like E1st was able to hear it at all. he just doesn't get it.

ADL, I know exactly what it's "like" to be Jewish in America. I'm Jewish in America every day, and I like it. I like being able to speak freely and I'm not going to be silenced by H**** I***** (I won't redact her name on my own site as a matter of conscience) and other people who irresponsibly and cavalierly throw the charge of "anti-semitism" around. She told us of her idyllic upbringing in Goshen and now she wants to go in and suffer retroactively because of nefarious meaning she has imposed on mine and others' comments in conversations we held among ourselves in the public sphere. No one assaulted her or her family or her culture or her religion. I've had to concede that what is acceptable farce among this familar collective of goodwilled people might have been seen as suspicious by someone from outside the group. She had every right to express her dismay. She failed to do so. That is on her.

H**** I***** led a charmed existence because people like you and I did not, could not, and we had to put up with abuse after insult after assault, and we resisted and fought back, and I'm damn happy and proud to have done so and to be able to live and communicate now in a milieu where distinctions can be acknowledged and addressed with intelligence and honor. She failed to conduct herself in that same manner.

By her own admission, activist young H**** missed out on all the suffering, and so she's gone out and tried to gather some up to add to her impressive resume. Because it wasn't good enough for her to just be a good egg. She wanted to add "genuine victim" to her resume. I didn't think so at first, and I think that's clear in the progression of my posts on my own blog and my comments herein. But she's made that obvious with her conduct since publishing her smears.

She's a disingenuous poser and she insults me and others who've really had some hate to endure. I think Hanna ought to get her privileged tushi over to Israel and see what it is to fight for your identity and existence. Kiryas Joel? I was in Kiryat Shemona after the ketuschas hit. I was physically assaulted in Jerusalem. I was egged and chased and called "dirty Jew" in San Jose and in Oakland. I missed school events and activities, too. And I've been to AIPAC and NACJRAC and I've busted my ass as a Jew living in America, and so I've been instrumental in making America better for my kids and your kids and H**** I****. We kept at it by going after the PROBLEMS, and fixing PROBLEMS, not by sucking everyone's energy with the whine-fests of people who regard suffering as a recreational sport not to be missed. I'm disgusted by this. Disgusted.

She's a privileged child who admitted she had it good and now wants to be the poster child for anti-semitism. Get the hell off the stage.

ADL, as AE points out, REAL, legitimate anti-semitism (or any form of irrational dislike for that matter) is, I believe, not only wrong, but harmful in our society. As someone who falls into very few persecuted demographics, it's obvious, statistically at least, that I've been a hate crimes victim fewer times than people who are - including yourself, AE, the Ingbers, black people, latin people, disabled people, the elderly, women, christians, muslims, native americans, asians, the french, goths, pagans, canadians, mormons, and so on. I judge and interact with people in these groups as individuals, and choose to call them friends or not based on their beliefs and ideas, not because of some larger group they belong to. When I disagree with someone in one of those groups, it's because I disagree with the content of their minds, not their genetic ancestry.

We are all aware that saying things causes other things to happen and people to react to what was said. The point is:
-What was said on the web was and is humorous and sarcastic
-Based on her knowledge of the people saying it, and the reaction to her initial response, Hanna Ingber knew this and still knows this
-She wrote an article about it anyway, bringing our families and the community into it, and has not yet apologized
-That's not responsible as a person or a journalist

Furst and Jankowski, your posts continue to only further make my point. Who are you to define what constitutes "real legitimate anti-semitism?" You know nothing about it and have consistently posted an attitude of ridicule and dismissiveness about it that reflects your own complete ignorance. How dare you presume to have even the most simple basic idea of what it is?

Anti-semitism isn't defined by the offender, its defined by the OFFENDEE. If its about Jews, and enough Jewish people find it denigrating and offensive, its anti-semitic. Anti-semitism born of ignorance and/or insensitivity (like yours) is even worse, because it is that very insensitivity and stubborn ignorance that is so receptive to the intolerant ideas of other and which inflames and encourages the spread of deepening hatred and bigotry.

Every time you put up one of your snide little asides or obnoxious little posts, you make it just a little easier for people to hate, to segregate, to distinguish, and to divide your neighbors on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other palpable difference du jour.

Even if you didn't intend your comments to be affirmatively anti-semitic (and after reading the rest of Furst's right wing personal site and the various posts you've put up here, I'm by no means convinced that he didn't), they nevertheless still ARE anti-semitic.

And AE - I'd like to know a little more about you. For a person who claims to have been persecuted in her youth, and who says she was "there" at significant events in Israel and/or the US, your comments have the air of self-hatred. To tell the truth, I have my doubts about whether you are what you say are and wonder if, perhaps, you are instead merely masquerading as something you're not for the benefit of your own big whoop. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that you have an off-line personal relationship with the progenitors of this blog.

Finally, I don't know what 6 places you've lived Furstie, but vacations don't count and Goshen+five apartments at Bucknell do NOT constitute a "well traveled" residential history. Perhaps YOU should go live in Israel for a year and wonder if the guy behind you is a suicide bomber every time you stop at a cafe for a latte. Then, maybe we could talk on a more level plane.

-ADL

ADL, I'm dismissing the comments as not representing anti-semitism because they're not anti-semitic. Interpretation to the contrary is incorrect, not subjectively different. Our snide asides and general merriment make it easier for people to learn, love and live - not to hate. Stupidity and rejection of rational introspection make it easy for people to hate. We can't do that for anyone, they do it all on their own.

You're opinions and doubts about AE are completely worthless until you at least identify yourself. She's using her real name, her real personal history, and her real profession (and she's never had sexual relations with any of us, unless you count that thing that one time with all the leather and whipped cream). You're using initials and a fake email address. That being said, I suspect that you're connected to the New York State Unified Court System.

ADL-- I welcome any direct inquiries you may want to make. My email address is authentic and you are welcome to use it.

The irony of your suspicion is that I have NO offline relationship with the other whoopsters. I have never laid eyes on them (virtual leather doesn't count, Matt.) I have never been to Goshen. You can track my entire relationship with these people starting sometime in the middle of a hurricane last summer to the present. Most of it is on these sites.

I don't take offense at your suspicion, and since you are a Jew with a vested interest in the conversation, I'm happy to have it with you, even privately. I invite you to email me.

But I will disagree with your assertion that anti-semitism is defined by the offendee. That would be a problem in any court, for any offense. There are standards, mindset counts, context counts.

I look forward to hearing from you.

AE

You know what is problematic? Matt, we need to think about this. Any new person that comes, interested to learn the truth, will be faced with roughly 200 pages of text. I don't want to read all of it, I find it hard to believe they would either. So, they'll just not read anything and be left exactly where they are now.

I think the letter to the editor with the new http://.bigwhoop.org address full of links to the applicable posts regarding this controversy is a good idea. With a generic subdomain name, only people who care enough to see both sides of the story will see the identities of Joe and Mary. It protects the families somewhat, yet allows for those who are genuinely interested to read about it through what has been presented here to see our reality.

It might even be interesting to give Ms Strauss, Rebecca or Hanna a chance to post a statement to the front page of the new subdomain.

ADL, if we count apartments, then I've lived in 9 different places since High School. I've lived in a city, in the west, in the middle of nowhere, and now in the vast suburban sprawl of Maryland, which is much like the vast suburban sprawl of Orange County, only there are technology jobs here. I am, after all, only 23. I'm not trying to diversity chess with Hanna, she'd king my castle before I knew what hit me. There is a fundamental difference between her life and mine. One of her life goals to spur social change. As a result, living in Myanmar was a good step towards that goal. My goal in life is CONQUEST OF THE HUMAN RACE. I can do that from Maryland.

I would just like to say that there are many reasons why I had not yet contributed to this blog discussion over the past few days. However, you have yet to identified them. So I will:
This is painful!
I've put up with a lot of ridicule in the past for my animal rights activism, for advocating for condom distribution in high school, etc. And yes, that was not easy. That was painful, too.
But dealing with this, well, it hurts.
I wrote that column not because I thought it would change the minds of Eric, Bess, AE, or any others who I referrenced. I wrote it because I believe that the best way to combat bigotry is through discussion. Therefore, I am glad there has been discussion on this blog and in Orange County. As for further comments of my own, well, I wrote what I thought. You read what I thought. I could not explain myself any better than I did.
I am very grateful to my mother Barbara, my sister Rebecca, my pseudo-sister Mare, and my wonderful wonderful friends and complete strangers who understand where I was coming from and had the courage to write to this blog. They are incredibly articulate, and they said it all better than I could have. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their support.
Eric, thank you for asking, but I do not mind if you use my name - Hanna Ingber. I am proud of what I have written. It may be painful to read this blog and even more painful to receive numerous phone calls and emails from other people telling me about their own experiences with anti-Semitism in Goshen. However, I am glad that I brought the issue to the table.

One more thing, ADL ... I have made the prudent choice to be closeted about some parts of my life and my past, but I NEVER hide that I am Jewish.

My license plate is DO MTZVT. I am a very proud and happy Yid, and I am pretty aggressive about PRODUCTIVELY confronting anti-semitism. So are my children.

I have four. My oldest daughter lives in Tahoe, where she teaches Hebrew school. My twin daughters live here in Naples with me, where they attend Chabad Sunday school, of which I am a supporter with both my dollars and my hours. My son goes to school in San Jose and lives in Morgan Hill. He is a skinhead. A WHAT?? Yes, it was quite a kick in the kishkes until I did a little research and apparently, there is a great vast skinhead subculture that is about ska music and mods and minicars and scooters, and it is nothing to do with racism and so it has to aggressively reject racism, because of that OTHER vast skinhead subculture. They do bleed into each other, sometimes literally. You can imagine the shyte my son has to put up with, being a very OUT Jew in the mixed skinhead world. But he is very well grounded in his Yid identity, and he knows the difference between anti-semitism and a gleeful and ironic celebration of differences. You can google Jews and skinheads and you'll probably find him taking the piss out of some ignorant racist on one of their wierd little skin-ska-vespa boards. In fact, here is a link
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:f62ItanyNZMJ:www.skinheads.net/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D58834+skinhead+hodge+1mod4u&hl=en&client=firefox-a
to a cached page where you can see him doing that.

I don't think much of some of his terminology, but his Daddy is a foul-mouthed Glaswegian and he's comfortable with that vernacular. But he doesn't back down. Right is right, and I taught him a good solid love of himself and his heritage, so he stands up for it.

And I'll just add that if you want to write me and have a private conversation about any of this, we can keep it in the mishpacha. ;-)

Whoa! Look who's here.

Good to see you, Hanna. You could be a lot prouder if you apologized to the innocent parents you maligned.

I disagree that they could say it better than you. You are very competent with the language. It's your motivation and your methods I now question. I want to know if you're going to apologize for the hurt you caused the innocent, uninvolved families.

Please tell us what you think about that.

Thanks.

"Even if you didn't intend your comments to be affirmatively anti-semitic (and after reading the rest of Furst's right wing personal site and the various posts you've put up here, I'm by no means convinced that he didn't), they nevertheless still ARE anti-semitic."

ADL, you're basically implying here that all right-wing people are naturally anti-semitic. Even if that's not what you meant -- or what you think -- that's how it came across, so any given person reading this could go write a letter to the editor now about how it's possible (I wonder? Purely rhetorically, that is? Definitely not pointing any fingers or anything...) that lots of right-wing people in the tri-state area are anti-semitic, using your comment IN context, with NO hint of sarcasm or humor. By your own and Hanna's logic, that is.

I wonder how all the right-wing readers of the THR would react to that?

Hanna, I believe that the best way to combat bigotry is through discussion, too! There has ALWAYS been discussion on this blog, about A LOT of things! And there would have been a discussion about your feelings about our comments if you'd simply STARTED one! Right here! On the site! You don't even need a login or a password or anything, I swear!

It would be fantastic if your article did generate some productive "discussion" in Goshen -- and perhaps it did, I honestly don't know since I don't live there anymore and can't see for myself (not to mention the fact that any reactions I have been privy to are biased, since they're coming from my family, whose identities the article slanders) -- but I have an inkling that most people who read the article are just second-guessing their perfectly good-intentioned neighbors now, and putting up higher electric fences around their properties.

And I'm sorry, could you please refresh my memory: what exactly IS the issue you've brought to the table? The fact that if we google ourselves hard enough, we can all cast doubt upon our seemingly picture-perfect childhoods, by way of accusing a couple people -- who mistakenly thought we could pick up on sarcasm -- of hate crimes?

Bess, two big differences between the slander of which you accuse Hanna and what provoked her to write it in the first place. She never would have known about what you folks here were saying if YOU HAD NOT USED HER NAME!!!! She, however, had the respect of using pseudonyms. That's the big glaring difference. If you want to write about somebody, use their names for everyone to see, you may get into trouble. That's a choice you make, whether it's a joke or not. But once you make that choice, what the fuck are you doing acting like a helpless victim??
And another thing, while I keep myself away from these spreadsheets I should be filling out: Anna Elise--how good of you to reveal that you are not nor ever have been from Goshen. I would kindly recommend that you shut the fuck up with your cruel attacks at Hanna's character and your self-righteous demands that she apologize since you have very little emotional investment in this situation, aside from what you may feel through proxy.

Stabbing oneself with a spork hurts. So stop stabbing yourself with the spork and start using it to eat.

It does soup AND salad.

Things we now know:
1) AnneElena, despite being the Queen of the Jews, your opinion doesn't matter because you haven't been on the mean streets of Goshen. And Goshen is a Special Place.

2) Hanna, you wrote with your heart, full of bitterness, vitriol, and lacking fact. That's fine, your spork wounds were fresh. Just remember, the press is a tool, not a toy. Blogs are toys. Get a blog.

3) Tempers seem to be flaring. I think we should all sit back and realize how rarely one can get this many intelligent people into the same discussion at the same time. Seriously, how would this discussion have went if people were like, "Hating Jews is not kool, your skewed!" It would be a lot more annoying, though much more concise. Really, the filter of selected e-mailings and knowledge of google has left us with only the creme de la creme. Good work.

Jesse, I respectfully submit that there are enough contextual clues in Hanna's article (especially for a small community like Goshen), that it would have actually been BETTER if she had used their names outright. At least at that point, two positive things could have happened:
-People could have more easily located the source of her alleged hurt (these websites), and judged for themselves
-False assumptions would not be made. As it stands, there are families in Goshen that weren't even the target of her false accusations that are being assumed to have been the targets. I won't name the names here because I don't want to add to whatever effort they're already spending defending themselves. At least with a real name, only the correct wrongly accused family needs to point out the error, not the entire community of possible wrongly accused families.

Point B, is that Hanna's name appears in a -completely- innocent context where she found it. I still maintain that there's no case to be made for the rest of the material, but even if there was, there's certainly no case to be made for documenting an actual historical event (he said he attended her bat mitzvah) as being somehow hurtful or offensive. In fact, what the hell was an anti-semite doing at a bat mitzvah in the first place?. Who can explain that one? I doubt his jew-hating parents would have allowed that to go down amidst all the hate-filled dinner conversations that were going on in that house!

Hanna, can you at least acknowledge that while, technically, the press is part of a large ongoing "discussion" that never really starts or stops, you writing that article is more akin to an announcement or proclamation than it is to a discussion. If you'd wanted a discussion, there was a very obvious forum available to you, and you evaded your responsbility to pursue the matter in that forum. I really want to extend you the benefit of the doubt here and believe that your purposes were noble - partially because you always seemed intelligent even if I didn't agree with you, and partially because I'd heard through the grapevine about your Burma adventures and I admire people who choose paths like that - but surely you see how it's easy to look at what you did and view it as malicious or opportunistic, right?

At this point the damage is done, but you could restore part of your reputation, at least in my eyes, by commenting on that aspect of all of this. Much like Furst apologized for the unintended hurt that he might have caused that he doesn't believe was actually hurtful - you could apologize for the same thing, even if you don't see how it was hurtful and even if the hurt was unintended.

Also please understand that no one is mad at you for "bringing the anti-semitism issue to the table". If it's a problem in the community, it's certainly worthy of discussion, and if that was your true intention, I'm proud of you for having the courage to do it. I just think you could have picked a more professional way to do it, and I think you must know that.

You know what, I don't need an apology. But Matt, you're right. The entire premise of this entire discussion is that hurt, even if unintentional, is wrong.

Hanna, I'm e-mailing you my mother's phone number. You can call her and apologize for that hurt. I don't have feelings, you don't need to apologize to me.

I question the journalistic integrity of any twentysomething woman who still relies on Mommy as a fact-checker.

Jesse, honey, get real. I was giving you props for being a man and growing "a sack," but perhaps I was a little premature.

FACT: People with nothing to hide don't have to use pseudonyms.

FACT: Hanna and her mother cited MY comments --made as a JEW, about other JEWS -- as evidence of my friends anti-semitism.

FACT: My attacks on Hanna's character arise as a defense to her attacks on mine and others, and I'll point out that I did not initially respond to those attacks in kind, but rather, with kindness, and an explanation, and outreach, none of which was ever responded to. And they continued to not ignored even as you and others continued to heap vitriol on my companeros and myself, and even as Hanna refused to appear or apologize for her -- call it what you wish, poor judgment, irresponsibility or premeditated character assassination -- while others were led by her conduct to conclude most unfairly that my people are a bunch of whiney egocentric crybabies, only then did I conclude that Hanna was up to no good. If you want to know what I thought initially, I suggest you start at the beginning. If you want a condensed version go first to my comments here:
http://furst.bigwhoop.org/archives/002824.html
and then to my initial posts here: http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002827.html

FACT: Since I have invested a lot of my adult life to my Yiddishkeit and confronting anti-semitism and since I am a responsible journalist and interest in keeping journalism responsible, and since my words were used to attack my friends and their innocent families, I submit that I am religiously, culturally, professionally and personally invested, which, in an emotional ENFP like myself, amounts to a LOT of emotional investment. Clarify for me YOUR particular emotional investment, other than blindly defending your pal without any consideration of other perspectives.

FACT: As far as you are concerned, the fact that any discussion is held on a blog which is accessible by the general public makes it open season and fair game for the whole world. So how is it that my input and opinion on the matter should be less relevant because I am in Florida.

FACT: My name is not Anne Elise.

And I'm just gonna say, because I've been wanting to use this term: how about if YOU shut your pie hole and go back to your spread sheets? Okay, that said, I don't really care if you do your spread sheets or not. You can keep popping off as much as you like. I think you're kinda funny. But not very.

sorry about the name mistake, Anna Elena.

Hanna did such a fine job at keeping Joe & Mary anonymous, that although I’ve never met anyone involved in this mess, nor had I ever been to this website before yesterday, I was able to find out the real identities within a matter of minutes. I came in search for the simple reasons that A. the article was a horrible way to begin my Sunday, it was whiney at best, hateful at worst, and poorly written all around B. living down Rout 207 from Goshen, I like reassuring myself that there’s no vast conspiracy of hate working its way east, which could ultimately upset my property values C. Hanna provided all the resources I needed to find all the central players here. Having grown up in Monroe and now living in New Windsor I can see that the pain of the families must be great, as rumors in these little Orange county towns tend to spread rapidly.

Oh, Argie, thank you for that. Very concise, as I rarely am anymore.

There's just no protection afforded by spurious anonymity. That's why it's libelous, people. I nearly lost my job over that once http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002832.html.

Argie, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to send a letter to the paper? I keep trying to make the point that anyone who wanted to be offended here had to come looking for it, whereas Hanna Ingber's calumnies were delivered under imprimatur of the newspaper and nobody saw it coming, least of all the people who were smeared.

As to my name, that's okay, Jesse. That's still wrong, but you should have seen me trying to get "Shane Bussmann" correct when I was staring right att itt. Too many consonants. I have too many vowels.

I’ve already written a letter to the editor of the THR, although I sincerely doubt that it will ever make it to print. While I am very sorry for the families of Eric and Bess who were unduly slandered, the real issue with me is why does my daily paper not see the potential hazards associated with giving a fairly large spotlight to just about anyone, regardless of how accusatory their writings may be? I do not know Hanna, but from the little bit I’ve gathered over the last two days I would have thought she would use her 15 minutes more productively than bringing up old high school wounds that were recently dug up by her mother. I refuse to take seriously the thought of Hanna as a writer, and the severity of the anti-Semitic plague that has swept over the county seat.
I’m still very curious about how hard Hanna/mommy had to push for her to get that column in the first place. Maybe she stuck Jesse on them.

I find it interesting how frustrated Furstie and Jankowski are over my anonymity. Why do you need to know who I am? Eric has obviously been doing some electronic skiptracing (though my trail of breadcrumbs has led him astray) in an effort to ascertain my true identity. Is it so you can skewer me personally, like you have everyone else, instead of discussing the issues at the forefront here?

Oh and, BTW, Anne Elena, real Jews do not call each other "Yids" or "fat Jews" - I've only heard goyim do that. I also see that you have a close enough association with the bloggers to have your own web-page on their site. Even if you were born Jewish, your self-hatred is palpably evident in your posts on this blog. You haven't once addressed the issue of your own self-hatred, choosing to instead "prove" your Jewish roots with a photo anyone could have clipped from the web.

I also disagree with whoever (Jankowski?) said that anti-semitism is not defined by the offendee. I don't know where you went to law school but your understanding of applicable law is way off on the issue of libel and slander. Yes, the lack of intent or malice is certainly a mitigating factor, but it doesn't excuse, justify or exculpate you and your fellow bloggers for the callous and hurtful comments you have repeatedly published in total disregard of people's feelings on your blog.

Furstie, I've read virtually all of your "unofficial website" and much of the posts on your blog by this point and if you think the tripe and drivel that you post on this blog has fostered any kind of meaningful, intelligent or cultured debate, on ANY topic before Hannah's article, you're insane. For a person who professes to be so deeply religious in his values, you don't show a whole lot of respect for your fellow man.

I'll admit that your blog IS occasionally funny, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you're providing a forum for debate. Your blog isn't that noble. Instead, its just one more web-sourced dark place where narrowminded people (like you) seek out other narrowminded people to engage in the vicious bashing of anything different from them, anything they fear, and anything they don't understand. That's not debate, its just cruel and selfish torture for the momentary amusement of it all. The fact you still don't see how that has brought about all of what you now whine about ad nauseum on this blog only further makes the points I have been repeatedly posting here.

I'm not going to keep going round and round with you as I suspect neither of us will change each other's minds substantially at this point.

So I'll just sign off and say: "Hannah - you GO girl" Don't you DARE apologize Hannah - you're square on target with this bunch and your column so eloquently and maturely described what those of us who've had to put up with these kind of people have felt for a long long time. That they may never get it takes NOTHING away from the validity of your perceptions and your opinions - don't let 'em drag you down into the dirt.

-ADL

ADL,

I'm not frustrated by your anonymity, I just don't extend much credibility to anyone who is embarrassed of putting their identity on their ideas.

Are you serious with the AE stole the picture from the web thing? That's actually funny. I'm starting to like you.

I was not and am not talking about the legal definition of anti-semitism. I was saying that the comments are not (by MY definition) anti-semitic and that the people in question are not (by MY definition) anti-semites. I'm not a lawyer, and I won't even claim to play one on TV.

Furst's blog may not be a tool for social change, but where's yours? It looks like it hasn't been updated since the election - http://www.adl.org.mx/

Much like we have no idea who you are or what kind of person you are, you have no idea what "kind of people" anyone here is. I would argue that we're a ragtag gang of former acrobats and rock stars, but I've been here for a while.

Okay, ADL, I tried to be pleasant and extend a little menschlikeit and you have responded by calling me a liar. But let's review:

FACT: If you do a google on the words Yid and Yidden, I think you'll find that you are sadly mistaken about that terminology, and it is YOU who is a little ignorant about what Jews do and don't call each other, but perhaps you'll recognize it as evidence of the vast diversity among Jews, since you don't know much about Jews beyond your own personal experience.

FACT: The point of calling my brother a fat Jew was the same as the point of calling my papa an old Jew and my brother-in-law a tall Jew. I believe the lead is: "Just because someone questioned my Yid credentials, I felt like posting a picture of some of my Yidden. Doesn't prove anything, but it's a good excuse to kvell a little about my Yidden, who all by themselves show the great diversity among the Jews." Also, yes, I clipped it off the web and then engineered getting a bunch of chix in my family to go to that same synagogue with me to take another picture so that it could look like I have some association with the fellas in the first shot. That's just bizarre, dude.

FACT: My brother is, in fact, fat. Don't you think he's a cute fat Jew, though?

FACT: You're just mean, and I'm tired of mean people. Thank you, drive through.

Yes, I have your IP address, it comes automatically with your comment. I haven't even thought to look at it. I could care less, you're obnoxious, you're not harmful. In that sense we're quite similiar. Perhaps we should exchange addresses and send each other Memorial Day cards.

You've read my entire website?! That would take days, weeks, months! Are you talking about the anglefire one? I regret to inform you that I haven't touched that in nearly 3 years. As a matter of fact, I have no idea HOW to change it if I wanted to.

ADL, enjoy the rest of your day.

Side note - before anyone goes crazy with that link, that's NOT ACTUALLY the blog of ADL (I'm assuming). I just googled "ADL blog" and picked the first link.

Hey jankowski,

I don't know who exactly you're referring to with the "former acrobats and rock stars" comment, but personally I was a rock SUPER-star before coming to bigwhoop.

No my "blog" is www.adl.org Feel free to check it out.

ADL

That's the site for the Anti-Defamation League, and it's certainly worth reading.

Look, ADL, what is it that you want? I offered to discuss the matter with you. I offered to keep it in the mishpochah, to keep it cordial. I'm interested in what another Jew has to say about it, and in spite of your hostility, any time you want to start over, I'm game. But I'm not interested in being character assassinated and I'm not interested in any more flamethrowing. If Hanna found it painful to watch all the worthless acrimony she started, she should try being one of the Jews actually suiting up and showing up.

A perfectly good opportunity for some productive discussion was squandered by Hanna's irresponsible choice to hit and run, but to their credit, the kids apologized anyway. And as long as Hanna got her ounce of flesh, I suppose it was worthwhile for her. She finally got to punish Eric. She's going to justify herself until hell freezes over, her mother is, and so are you. I think it's pretty interesting y'all keep going after the soft targets. It's just bullying. And someone hurt your feelings, so you've come to kick the dog. None of you were looking for discussion. You were looking for a horse whipping, a lynching.

You've all just created a no-win situation for the goyim and you won't engage with the Jew. So what is it that you're all actually after here?
It's been a waste all around. You've created a divide where there was none, and deepened what already existed. If you think you're getting some heartbreaking email, you should see what we're getting. Way to teach tolerance, yidden. Way to be a light unto the nations.

So what is it that you want now?

ADL, that site is hardly a blog.

I won't ever understand...person A demands that person B apologize for saying something hurtful. Person A then demands that person C never apologize for saying something hurtful. Person A, (ADL), you're a lunatic.

[editors note: this is the same person as the fake ae below, they are a cablevision customer in the NYC metro area]

"How dare you say that about our families. They never told anti-semitic jokes around the table and the apple pie and the mashed potatoes. They left all that to us."

[editors note: this is someone posing as ae, it may have taken them 9 minutes to type this]

You know, I've been thinking, and after visiting the ADL website I've realized most of what I had to say was total crap and would never hold up in a court of law, the corner drug store or at a pig roast. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for all of us. Really. This isn't sarcasm. I really, really understand now what a pigheaded dork I am. And I've been considering the self-hate comments and realize you're probably right. Does anyone know of a good shrink in Florida?

[editors note: the saga continues]

hey, nicely done furstie. how'd you manage that? no, really, I want to know!

I'm afraid I can't take credit for that 9 minute to write this joke. I think it's hilarious though.

I don’t suppose you could see if the ISP address of the fake is similar to that of either Jesse or Hanna?

And of course, no matter what “Common Ground” is about this Sunday, I’m gonna come here and bitch about it.

I meant Argie, Not Arige

I'm responsible for both the location speculation and editors notes above. For the record:
-The imposter guy is on cablevision in NYC metro.
-ADL is most likely at the NYS Unified Court System part of the day, and near Warwick, NY part of the day.
-Hanna and Jesse are both in NYC metro, and neither are posting as anyone other than themselves.

My apologies go out to both Jesse and Hanna for my wrongful speculation

Does that mean I have to read the Record again? Believe it or not, I'm extremely apathetic.

Matt, have you checked to see if the imposter is Seamus? Actually, Timmy's pretty liberal too. I think this is an inside job.

Hanna has clarified that she didn't come up with the article title. That being said, I'm pretty disappointed with the Record's title creation department. Between the irony of "Common Ground" and the arduous title for Hanna's article, I'd say it's time for new staff.

I suggest "Air Your Laundry" and "You Can't Go Home Again" for the two titles. Now, Hanna and I have reached an understanding that she wasn't merely airing her dirty laundry in this case, but I think that's a good column idea for the Record to run anyway. The second title is ambiguous, "who can't go home again?" I certainly don't look forward to it...

Dear Schvantzenkepi-- Since we've already demonstrated I out-Jew any of you snivelers, I'll first suggest YOU read the ADL site, and while you're at it, check out Tolerance.org, and learn a little bit about effective education and outreach. And then consider this:

In a recent story carried by JTA, the global Jewish news service, though you wouldn't know that, since you haven't read a Jewish publication in Christ-knows-how-long, and reported by the Jewish Tribune, Canada’s national Jewish newspaper, French Jewish leaders expressed frustration that Jews there too quickly cried “anti-Semitism” at any misfortune to befall one of our people, only to find later that anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the problem at hand.

According to one, such responses “give our detractors, and the antisemites, an excuse to doubt us.”

And Moise Cohen, president of the Paris Consistoire — the country’s principal Jewish religious group — said, “Sixty years after the Shoah [that's the Hebrew term for the Holocaust, but as a Jewishly ignorant Jew, you probably don't know that, either], every antisemitic incident rightly goes to the community’s head. (But) when you cry wolf, you need to be very careful and ever vigilant. We are becoming less and less credible.”

Jews can’t afford that. We need to be credible when we claim anti-Semitism is afoot. We need people to take anti-Semitism seriously, so the term needs to be used with caution and accuracy, because there’s still real anti-Semitism in the world.

There just isn't any in the Big Whoop.

----------------------------

However, if you tune in to MY site http://ae.bigwhoop.org/ tomorrow, I will serve up some first class anti-semitism. This is going to be some juicy shit, people, so dontcha dare miss it!!

Hey AE

Shvantenzkepi? Call me all the names you want baby - you're NEVER gettin' my e-mail address now.

All that anti-semitic stuff on your page...What a shame. Think you're being funny, ironic, and sarcastic when, in fact, you're just destructively lost and pathetic - cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Every time you post you just prove that everything I've said from the beginning on this thread is correct.

AE...You're a disgrace. SHON-DA! Stop saying you can "out-jew" everyone. You are NOT an authority on Jewish views. I don't really care if you were born, converted, or faking your Judaism because it doesn't really matter.

What DOES matter, and what readers on this blog should note, is that AE's views are NOT mainstream and that she absolutely does NOT, under ANY circumstance, even remotely represent the feelings, views, and beliefs of ANY (not a majority, not even a plurality) of the Orange County (or any other) Jewish community. She should stop claiming that she does - she's nothing but a crazy, confused, mixed-up, person.

Finally, to all, I announce that this will truly be my last post. I think we understand where each of us stands, even if we disagree, and I hope that I've given you all some food for thought and motivation for positive change. Good luck to all.

-ADL

ADL, on the other hand, DOES represent the views of all Jews. If you disagree, please note that you are a "disgrace"..SHON-DA! to all of you, whatever that means.

Does it bother anyone else that we could have a week long discussion about Judaism without any of the Jews involved once mentioning the God of the Jews; YHWH, Elohim, Adonai? How did He avoid this conversation? I have a hard time visualizing David or Abraham, Moses or Isaiah having any discussion in the complete and utter absence of the Lord of their Universe. I'm amazed and impressed that you were able to do so with such ease. What perspective!

That's what I was just thinking. For a group of people who claim to believe in one god, they seem to keep him tucked away pretty nicely.

I'd like to go on the record as believing that judaism is wrong. Note that I'm not saying jewish people are in any way inferior because of this wrongness, just that they are - on a logical and factual level - incorrect in their beliefs.

From a statistics standpoint, Judaism is sort of like the Null Hypothesis to Christianity's Alternative Hypothesis. If nothing happened (ie, Jesus was a fraud/imaginary), don't reject Judaism, if something happened (ie, Jesus not fraud and real), reject Judaism in favor of Christianity.

Typically you want your null/alternative to span all possibilities. This test is based on the assumption that Judaism was, at one point in time, correct. What's my point? The point is, my statement has nothing to do with your claim.

I will say that I'd take Judaism over Islam. I mean, mohammed is such a weak freaking messiah next to Jesus. If you're not going to take JC, why not just keep holding out instead of forcing yourself into something?

I'd like to see a list of 10 people compiled by someone Jewish to the effect of "people that may have actually been THE messiah/prophet and we just missed it". I assume that mohammed and JC both make the cut, but who are the 8 others that round it out?

Sigh. I just love you retards. I've mentioned God several times, though I suppose you wouldn't have noticed it if you were looking for name-dropping. I guarantee you, you'll never see a Jew refer to God as Yahweh, so don't be looking for that. Ew. Also, remember that JEWS are not just a religious group. There's a whole cultural/ethnic side to it that makes us a little unusual as a group, unlike Christians, but also unlike, uh, Lithuanians, exactly. All the Yids in Israel are referred to as "the Jews," and there are some who've never been in a shul in their lives. They are very secular.

And isn't ADL cute with that, "you'll never get my email NOW," as though there was once some possibility that his withheld affections and authenticity might be attained through some appropriate course of ass-kissing...? Aww, shucks.

He's right that I don't represent mainstream American Jewry insofaras I'm much more educated about my people's culture and history than the average U.S. Jew --certainly more than ADL, whose own experience is so narrow and limited that he wouldn't know a Yid if it fell on him-- and I'm more religiously observant than any of the reform, but less than most of the orthodox, and if nothing else, more INTERESTED in my culture and religion than a lot of very assimilated Jews. Lack of interest is THE growing problem with U.S. Jewry, so yeah, I'm not representative.

But I'm a happy Jew, unlike ADL, who would feel a lot better if he'd make Shabbes at home once in a while with those kids. You can't be a Jew twice a year and think it's going to stick with the mishpocha, pal. And I'm okay being cuckoo for Coco Puffs. At least they've got a hechsher. How about you put down the shrimp cocktail and cheer up a little?

A list of "could have been" messiahs? Pfff. That's just silly. If the messiah had come, we WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS! Duh!

Ooh, you just said a dirty word in my household. "Retard" was an instant smack from mother growing up. Steve drops all sorts of cursing in the house now, but retard is still taboo. I like to use it as a verb whenever possible, just to throw the iron fist off balance.

Yep. Okay. I'm sorry. No offense intended. There again, I'm desensitized, but I don't mean to be insensitive. It won't happen again.

Actually, I should just stick with making up names, like "schvantzenkepi."

eric, i'm confused. why does it "bother" you that no jew mentioned god during a discussion on bigotry and ignorance? and what does "what perspective!" mean in this context?

i am not being sarcastic.

I'm just amazed that everyone has been able to divorce themselves from the central figure of the entire religion/culture. Without God there is no chosen people, according to the tradition which the entire belief system is based upon at least, and yet the perspective which we've been able to maintain in not letting Him muddy the waters is fantastic. I'm just impressed, and I mean that facetiously so as to not seem intentionally deceitful, that we've been able to have such an in depth discussion about eating without ever mentioning food. Table dressings get boring after a while.

i think, eric, that is because we were not discussing the religion, judaism, or the merits of it. we were not debating god's teachings. we were, instead, discussing what constitutes ignorance and bigotry. that is a completely separate discussion. i (obviously representing myself, not all jews)identify very strongly with judaism as my religion, my race, my culture, a huge part of my identity. yet i do not believe in god. so if i am discussing people making offensive slurs against my religion/race/culture/family/identity, it would not even occur to me to analyze god. though, i believe that if there is a god, he would not support offensive, hurtful slurs against any of his people.

You know, Eric, I thought it was very much an ethically Jewish issue, much more so than an ETHNICALLY Jewish issue. But then that's why I was initially taken with the whole "bearing false witness" problem.

But you gotta understand that many Jews really exist on the condiments of the culture, and that doesn't make them less Jewish. They do survive on that. Jeez, that food analogy is excellent.

still confused....eric, you think god is food, yet my family/culture/religion/race/identity is "table dressing?"

interesting.

I too, am confused. Are you implying that your "family/culture/religion/race/identity" is greater than God?

Your latest post seems eerily like your first one, which means I should take it to mean you are offended by eric's analogy. The only way I can see being offended by the analogy is if you think that you are greater than God. Is that true?

No, I think your "family/culture/religion/race/identity" is a carefully planned, marvelously unique dining experience. I think that every human being has an innate craving to come to your table to eat under that Holy prescence. I'm saying the entire experience is a feast, and within that feast, God is the food. If you ignore the food, you still get the soothing music, the fine utensils, even the friendly family atmosphere. But you'll leave hungry. In this metaphor, Judaism is a microcosm for all of human experience. Atheists always leave hungry.

That's all I'm saying.

The man's a poet. That's all I'm saying.

You know, I didn't realize until a few years ago the number of people that still identify as Jewish but also call themselves atheists. I understand that Judaism has less cultural and genetic variance than other religions (ie, few people convert INTO judaism) - but I think that the "I don't believe in god but I'm still jewish" is a horrible instance of dropping historic context. The entire tradition of the jewish people, until the last century or so, is that they are god's chosen people, are on a journey, etc. It would be much clearer if we had separate words for "someone from a culturally jewish heritage" and "someone who believes in one god and is still waiting for his son or daughter to roll up". Maybe there are different words and I don't know what they are. When someone tells me that they're jewish, I want them to believe in Jewish philosophy, including the jewish god.

Maybe I'll start identifying myself as catholic again, just to screw around with people. Of course then Trent could just make all my decisions for me.

I enjoy the dinner analogy as it came out of this conversation, but it's also a bunch of crap. You eat food to satisfy an actual physical craving and to nourish yourself. I could just as easily say that atheists never got hungry in the first place, or that theists have convinced themseleves that they're full, but they're actually just imagining the food is there and they're really eating dirt, or whatever. Neither of those things make sense, because your analogy assumes the innate craving business. Perhaps atheists suffer from the lack of some hunger-inducing chemical and they sit off to the side at their own tiny table, staying away from a main course that they just don't have a taste for.

Well, yes, that was an assumption of the analogy (and was stated as such above). It turns out there's some limited scientific merit to the idea, as I'm sure you've read, that "humans hardwired to believe in the concept of god/divine" concept. I can recognize that the hardwired fact doesn't lead much further.

Seriously, it was the first analogy that popped into my head. It just so happens that it's also ubiquitous, so I can strangle some other connections out of it if I work at it. Let's not take my analogies too seriously, remember, I make them for every situation and at all times. "Analog" was the word of the week three weeks ago for crying out tears.

You should have went with the nutritional quality of the dinner, rather than a hungry thing. At least then you could argue that while everyone had enough food for themselves, your diet was superior.

Speaking of which, can you be a catholic vegetarian and still receive communion?

Really, I think that the "god/divine" part of "humans are hardwired to believe in the concept of god/divine" is rather a loose term and doesn't necessarily refer to Jesus or Allah or Muhammed or Zeus or any kind of set/organized religion, but just means that over time humans have evolved into beings who question their surroundings and still don't have all the answers. We've already had the discussion about why we consider certain things in nature beautiful (sunrises, rainbows) and I believe we somewhat agreed that it's because cavemen could get more work done in the daylight and that rainbows are rare. I read the article and see no basis for a god gene or whatever they're saying might exist. The fact that they're even trying to prove one exists is a bit of a witch hunt in my eyes. It's been a week, Furstie -- is your sword back from the weapon-polisher's?

I see some merit to the nutritional analogy. A LOT, really. You think about it, there are people in this very country who are obese and dying of malnutrition. There are people who've got God-talk spewing out their pores and they don't have a spiritual moment all the live-long day. Neither set is well-nourished, but both are overfed.

There was a study at Harvard about three years ago on those people who seem to be able to eat all they want and never get fat... the research showed that a) that's a faulty premise concocted in the collective conscious of people who can't eat whatever they want; and b) those people who seem to maintain a consistent weight all their lives have a couple things in common: very little interest in food as anything other than sustenance, and a structured habit of eating.

I think they're dietary athiests. They don't need food other than to run their engines and they sort of automatically don't look at it as pleasure or culture or succor or art or any of the other things food represents for us. And this remains so even if they're raised in an environment where the apotheosis of food is a regular feature of the familial or communal culture. They've got some protective effect on the GENES, because if everything around you is teaching you to eat more, eat happy, eat sad, and that just doesn't work as an answer for you, it's nature, not nurture. It doesn't mean they don't appreciate a good enchilada fest with the family, but the food itself is less than ancillary. It's insignificant.

And spiritual athiests don't need God. (I mean, until they do, because take as MY premise that there is a God and He sustains them whether they need Him or not and indeed, made some specifically to NOT need him.) But that doesn't take away their interest in and need for all the ancillary stuff that grew up around the original God-center in their family/culture/world.

Evolutionarily, there's an argument that could be made that a certain portion of us need to be atheists so that there's always some around who aren't at risk of abusing their spirituality in themselves or others, either by starving or overfeeding or otherwise MALnourishing themselves or others.

Yeah. God made athiests to protect the species from the abuses of believers. I think I'm down with that...

How could some be created to love and serve God and others not be? God created humans to need Him, that is part of being human, being totally satisfied by God alone. Either that, or none of us were.

Like I said, "until they do..." My theology tells me we all come to believe eventually, one way or the other.

I'm making this up as I go along, of course, so I'm not convinced of this idea necessarily, but I don't see why we would all be built the same in terms of faith, when He made us so many different ways with everything else.

It's the Jewish belief that God needs us right back, that there's symbiosis between the Creator and his creations. And I just figure that we haven't gotten very good at loving and serving God, and we've occasionally tried very hard to kill each other off in His name, so it occurs to me that He may make some of us with no natural yearning for Him, and he may have a reason for doing that.

I dunno. I look at Matt, and he doesn't seem to be wanting because of his godlessness. I don't for a minute think that Matt isn't serving God, whether or not HE thinks he is. But then I also see other godless people who clearly are suffering because of it. I mean, poignantly so ... people who make a god out of drugs or alcohol or sport or sex or money or a lover or a child...

So how do you and I, people of faith, explain the wellness and contentment of some nonbelievers, except to suppose that God somehow wants them that way for some reason of His own?

I realize I've built a fallacy in there, but humor me...

That gets back to the "I don't want that sort of god" thing that I talked about a while ago.

My feeling is that if you think about it and come up with a decision one way or the other, that's better than having lived in the nihilistic middle ground.

If it turns out that there is a god, and he says "matt jankowski, despite the fact that you made proper use of the most powerful tool I gave you and decided that I didn't exist, you still burn in hell, but I'm going to take the people that didn't really give it much thought in the first place and just kind of assumed I existed" -- then I think that's silly, and I'm uninterested in playing with that sort of god. It's entirely possible that there's some sort of bizzaro spiritual matt entity that manifests itself when I die and reveals some new perspective on the entire thing where, despite a lifetime of asking for evidence of things, I'm still all up in the good graces. Of course, if I believed that I might as well just buy into the whole thing in the first place.

You don't know when the bizarro spiritual Matt entity might manifest itself or what might trigger that... You might be like thousands of athiests that have some transformative moment and come to believe. There's a lot of those stories and I still think they're a much greater testament to the existence of the deity than my possibly DNA-based assumption.

How can you say "I'm uninterested in playing with that sort of god"? Remember Furst's example of teaching a class? What if you taught a class titled "Matt Jankowski" and some student started claiming that some of the material you are presenting on yourself is wrong, or even better, that you are GRADING unnjustly. It's preposterous; by definition it is correct since the class is about YOU.

Your statement is suspiciously akin to these atheistic manifestoes I occasionally read that end with "blah, blah, blah, and if I'm wrong then when I die I will look god in the eye and tell him what an idiot he is!" I can't even begin to understand the twisted thought process that goes into something like that. It's exactly like me saying "and if I'm offered incontrovertible proof that God does not exist then I will continue to believe He does out of spite!"

You cannot hold viewpoints like this and simultaneously claim to be using reason. Then there is no longer a point to having dialogue; it will lead nowhere.

Carl, what if somebody else was teaching a class on you, and some student started claiming that some of the material presented was wrong, or that the professor was grading unjustly. Would that be considered preposterous? Probably not, since it happens all the time. That's what classes are for.

God isn't teaching a class about himself. People are. The world is. Everything you know about God is based on what you've picked up from human interaction, from the lessons taught by your surroundings. God acts through the tweed-sporting briefcased studmuffin at the podium, and His message might get a bit twisted along the way, but that's why students raise their hands & ask questions. Why would God have left it open for interpretation -- or even allowed a middle-man -- if his intention was for us all to be on the same page at all times?

Did everybody enjoy my capitalization here? It's all part of the new Eric/Bess Mutual Respect Alliance™.

Now, see, Bess, until you mentioned it, I failed to adequately appreciate your new sensitivity. Well done.

Carl, I think Bess is spot on with that, but I'm going to go this direction and see what you think of it, because Furst thinks I'm totally full of prunes with this idea...

What if God is, in fact, fallible? We know He can be argued with, therefore, we know He's changed His mind. I think that gives the lie to divine de facto perfection. If He takes a look at something he's done and says, "Well that isn't exactly what I had in mind, I don't think I'll go that route again," how can we then assume infallibility, or ASSIGN infallibility?

I mean really ... I don't think there's any doubt -- well, at least I don't have any -- that He loves us and means well for us, but I think like any parent he gets confounded by our conduct and occasionally responds sort of, uh, harshly.

And we call him a vengeful God, a loving God, a proud God, and we believe we are created in his image, with these and other attributes, so WHY should we believe he is without error?

As to the premise that Matt is the ultimate authority on himself, I think there's probably some truth in saying that he's got the biggest Matt knowledge base, but does that necessarily mean his assessments are always fair and balanced? He's not exactly objective...

Just wondering what you think of that...

Would anyone enroll in a class on me if I were to offer it? Would it be a history of me? A lesson in how to act like me? How would that be graded? It would be interesting to see how my interpretation of who made the best me (other than me) lined up with the judgements of other people who were allowed to observe my students and also knew the real me.

Just because God can be argued with does not mean that he is fallible. When I am tutoring I say things I know to be incorrect to see how my students react and then argue with them about it. I do it as a teaching aide. Why isn't God capable of doing something like this?

God judges a city and then a human successfully argues with him to spare it. How do you know God realized an error in his judgement? Maybe He too was using it as a teaching aide (afterall how many billions of people have, at some point, had the story of Abraham pleading for Sodom in their possession?).

People have kids KNOWING they will have to discipline them and KNOWING it will hurt, yet they do it anyway, and when the time comes too punish it STILL hurts them. Why shouldn't it pain God when he punishes man? Why shouldn't there be tinges of regret? After all we are made in His image; we are like Him.

Jeremiah 18:5-10

" Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

Obviously God is capable of that. Clearly he uses that mechanism.

But where's your argument against fallibility? I personally find the whole prospect so much more believable and humane that way. I can't see any evidence for infallibility, frankly. I think that part was just some decision that someone imposed. I could be wrong, but I'm just saying that I don't recall God ever asserting his infallibility.

You could read that claim into or impose it upon all sorts of things He said, but then you're right back to men teaching classes on God.

Why can't he be fallible? Why can't he be a confounded parent? Why is that an intolerable notion?

Carl, Eric, Lara, anyone? The only answer I think I ever got is that it's a ridiculous idea because God is the definition of perfect. I just don't remember Him saying that. You can school me if I'm forgetting something key here.

What do you need as proof of God's infallibility?

God does not lie:

Titus 1:1-2

"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time"

God does not lie or change:

Hebrews 6:13-18

" 13For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you." 15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. 17Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."

God's will is perfect and invariant:

James 1:17-18

"17Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie, so how can he be fallible? How can fallibility and ultimate truthfullness be reconciled? They can't. That is why I believe in the infallibility of God.

that's probably not enough for you AE, and admittedly I didn't put as much time into my last post as I wanted to. I'll have more time come friday.

Thanks, Carl. My problem with the NT is that it's all man-made, and VERRRRRY fallible. Very revered, certainly, but it's been abused to death, it's full of blatant inversions of the language and it's just not a source I trust. I realize that sounds absurd to a Christian, who regards it as The Truth, capital T's.

Even Nevi'im, The Prophets I wonder about. All I know for dead certain is that the first five books are divine COLLECTIVE revelation. It never happened before, it's never happened again since, no other faith even claims it.

Plus there's all the scientific investigation into its idiosyncrasies, which to me lend credence to its authenticity. It's too bad that DaVinci Code book came out. The original Bible Code was FASCINATING, but nobody makes any distinction now. Anyway, that's the only reliable source of God's word I know. The rest is just quotes of quotes. I say that fully respecting that you regard the New Testament as being full of God's word. I just have a hard time with it.

And I'm not trying to prove God is fallible, any more than I could prove He exists, but it seems to make more sense to me that way. Maybe because I'm a parent.

I've been trying to care about this post. In fact, I even promised myself I'd help Carl out with some OT sources. Really, it's all over the place, both testaments, that God is perfect by definition. Feel free to read the last couple chapters of Job, He'll be like, "what are you thinking, shut up".

But I wasn't able to do it. We've had this discussion before, and I'm on semi-website sabbatical. Maybe I'll jump in the next one.

I wish I had some more philosophical training because it is difficult for me to express my ideas, much less offer evidence or even proof.

I found this quote by Robert L. Dabney:

"God has an eternal and inalienable moral claim over His moral creatures, not arising out of any legislative act of His, but immediately out of the relation of creature to Creator, and possession to its absolute Owner."

I take it to be self-evident that the above quote is true. I'm guessing you don't, AE.

The best analogy I can think of is a computer programmer, say that kid in the 80's that made Marble Madness. He designed a virtual universe with its own rules. As a player you are bound by the rules because you (the marble) are of the universe. You can wail and kick as much as you want, but if you break the rules you suffer the consequences regardless of how fair you think it is. If you refuse to do what is "right" then you lose. You don't get to to see the beautiful ending. In my mind, what is "right" is what leads to the cool ending. It doesn't matter how 'unfair' the rules appear to be, because the rules are 'right' by definition because following them is the only way to see the ending. In this sense, the game designer can do no wrong. Whatever rules he decrees are always 'right'.

I think life is a lot like that, only less hokey.

AE, can you tell me WHY you think it is posssible for a Creator (big C in the sense that he made EVERYTHING) to be fallible without using Biblical examples (unless you can find something in there that explicity says He IS)?

http://www.kinetic-arts.co.uk/jamma/system1/marblemadness/level4.gif

Wow. Carl, I don't think I've ever heard a better analogy. That is SO good! BUT, there's still a few bugs in the system, maybe, eh?

I really can't tell you why I think that, Carl, because I'm not entirely committed to the concept, I just know that it hit me that way about four or five months ago and I've been a lot more comfortable in my relationship with God ever since. And here's hokey for you -- well, maybe not for a Christian who is used to a warmer, fuzzier God -- but I have felt more able to pray, to ask for help, to love God with more gratitude and less fear, and I have felt more loved BY God.

I'm not saying that I'm right, but suppose I am? Suppose this is His first universe and He's not entirely sure what he wants of us, or even what to expect of us? He made us in his image and imbued us with certain powers.

Way, way back in the day, there was a guy at Apple Computer who wrote a program called "Run Doctor." A guy who worked with Woz (actually, he used to live down the street from Bussmann) brought the thing home and all the kids were amazed. It was creepy as hell, back then, because we weren't savvy about such things, but it was like an interview with a shrink, and it started asking you certain questions and the follow-ups were based on keywords in your responses. If you played as expected, i.e., by the rules, you could have an entirely cogent, maybe even helpful, therapy session with the computer. That was the way the designer wrote it.

But if you broke "the rules" you could confound the program, which would respond with various bizarre answers, and sometimes just crash. Or maybe we crashed it by laughing koolaid out our noses onto the keyboard. Anyway, the point is that breaking the rules caused an undesireable result at both ends, and the designer had to go back at it again to figure out how to tighten it up so that a bunch of smart kids couldn't confound it.

I think that's what God does. He gave us the ability to confound him and piss him off, along with each other. And because of that gift of will, I see the parental paradigm as more apt than that of absolute owner.

AE, you're basically the Oracle from the Matrix movies. Carl is the Architect.

If Furst is willing to yell "my name is NEO!", then I'm willing to throw him (hard) against the walls in the subway station, and learn how to morph myself into other people's bodies.

I'd suggest we allow Seamus to be morpheus, but I have no real rationale for that choice, other than he reminds me of a young Lawrence Fishburn.

They are always like that.

That's creepy wierd. My son lives in Morgan Hill. He is not a spam-meister, however.