1. Comment #63508 by Karellen on August 14, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Our "godless constitution" has endured longer than any comparable document in history.

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

And that's off the top of my head from my country. Any other non-USians care to post comparable links?

Other Comments by Karellen

2. Comment #63511 by DV82XL on August 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm

The argument here is parallel to one recently made by a blogger (I don't remember who) that he thought that the best thing for science in the U.S. would be to have the government declare a war on it. He argued that given the fact that the 'War on Poverty', the 'War on Drugs', and the 'War on Terrorism' had in fact seemed to make those pestulance even stronger, a 'War on Science' would have the same effect on that field.

It cannot be forgotten that religion is wrong because it is simply false, and that it took the slaughter of millions to break the Churches hold on Europe.

Other Comments by DV82XL

3. Comment #63526 by Jack Rawlinson on August 14, 2007 at 5:17 pm

So Dershowitz the noted Zionist nutcase defends separation of church and state because... it's good for the church.

Pretty typical. I can't stand this guy and this crappy little piece reminds me why.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

4. Comment #63527 by monkey2 on August 14, 2007 at 5:18 pm

It is no coincidence, in my view, that organized religion is thriving in America and dying in much of Europe. The separation of church and state is good for religion.

Others have the view that an absence of a Welfare State is good for religion.

Other Comments by monkey2

5. Comment #63530 by DV82XL on August 14, 2007 at 5:36 pm

monkey2 - I utterly agree. I wonder why this line of thought has not been pursued further?

Other Comments by DV82XL

6. Comment #63536 by OkiMike on August 14, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I actually thought it was a good little piece, especially considering who wrote it. Hopefully he'll come under fire for his "controversial" remarks and this issue will get a wide notice.

Other Comments by OkiMike

7. Comment #63542 by Eric Blair on August 14, 2007 at 6:20 pm

It's worth noting that one often-unnoticed result of the US constitutional separation of church and state is that the state doesn't control the church either, as, say, the state at one time did in England. Not sure how many founding fathers were mindful of this but it is true after all that America was greatly influenced by religious "out-groups" fleeing persecution, beginning of course with the Puritans, and continuing with Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Monnites, even Catholics on occasion.

How the nation that's praised for formally separating church and state in this way ended up being one of the most religious and home to the most fundamentalist believers is a fascinating question.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

8. Comment #63548 by Cairnarvon on August 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm

It's worth noting that one often-unnoticed result of the US constitutional separation of church and state is that the state doesn't control the church either, as, say, the state at one time did in England.

That's why most people went along with it in the first place, and almost certainly what most of the Founding Fathers had in mind. The church influencing the state didn't bother them nearly as much as the state influencing the church.
That's still what most religious people think separation of church and state means, I'm pretty sure.

How the nation that's praised for formally separating church and state in this way ended up being one of the most religious and home to the most fundamentalist believers is a fascinating question.

To be honest, most of the praising has always come from Americans themselves. Most of Europe, on the other hand, just took care of their own separation without patting themselves on the back too much.
It's an interesting question, but I think it's been answered in this very thread already.

Other Comments by Cairnarvon

9. Comment #63558 by Diana on August 14, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Cairnarvon said:

The church influencing the state didn't bother them nearly as much as the state influencing the church.
That's still what most religious people think separation of church and state means, I'm pretty sure.

Cogently put. Thank you, Cairnarvon.

I think there's quite a bit of competition here for believers on the part of churches. I wonder what the implications of church influence on the state here in the States have on the development of a Theocracy. Any suggestions for good reads out there to this end?

Other Comments by Diana

10. Comment #63561 by Russell Blackford on August 14, 2007 at 8:42 pm

I recommend Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

11. Comment #63562 by OhioAtheist on August 14, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Hm. I usually like Dershowitz, but I'm put off for obvious reasons by his suggestion that separation of church and state is good because it is good for the church. Mightn't this be the best argument for antidisestablishmentarianism ever devised?

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

12. Comment #63564 by Diana on August 14, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Thanks, RB! I'll be sure to check it out.

Ohio Atheist:

...I'm put off for obvious reasons by his suggestion that separation of church and state is good because it is good for the church.

the Dershowitz article states:

It is no coincidence, in my view, that organized religion is thriving in America and dying in much of Europe. The separation of church and state is good for religion.

So, I believe Dershowitz is saying that in regards to the sentence before it, to buttress the idea of why organized religion is thriving in America, that's all. Please correct me if I am in error.

Other Comments by Diana

13. Comment #63566 by monkey2 on August 14, 2007 at 9:24 pm

You could argue that if a secular government controls the church through establishment it will be able control fundamentalism.

However it's a double edged sword.

In practice the secular government has to pay for that control with a tacit approval of all things religious.

Other Comments by monkey2

14. Comment #63567 by corduroy11 on August 14, 2007 at 9:42 pm

The book Blasphemy by Dershowitz is great... just like all his other books.

Other Comments by corduroy11

15. Comment #63573 by windweaver on August 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Dershowitz is a despicable human being. Check this article out to see why:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12619

Other Comments by windweaver

16. Comment #63575 by GBile on August 14, 2007 at 11:50 pm

What about 'separation of church from people' ? In Europe we have lots of that already.

Other Comments by GBile

17. Comment #63581 by hungarianelephant on August 15, 2007 at 1:06 am

It is no coincidence, in my view, that organized religion is thriving in America and dying in much of Europe. The separation of church and state is good for religion.

Really? France has rigid separation of church and state, but the church has little more influence than in England, where the C of E is established. The church in Wales has been in decline since its disestablishment. Could it not be a little more complex than the legal separation of church and state?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

18. Comment #63593 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 3:11 am

Windweaver:

I don't care for Dershowitz as a person, but Finkelstein is really nasty and despicable. Check out these to see why:

http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Bartov00a/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021204232909/http://www.goldhagen.com/nda0.html

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

19. Comment #63599 by windweaver on August 15, 2007 at 3:47 am

howtoplayalone:
the three people you put forward, namely Dershowitz, Bartov and Goldhagen, are all noted apologists for the Israeli Lobby. I am highly skeptical of any criticism these three express about Finkelstein. The world's foremost authority on the history of the holocaust, Raul Hilberg had this to say about him:
Finkelstein displays "academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him... I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost."

Other Comments by windweaver

20. Comment #63606 by DNAtheist on August 15, 2007 at 4:25 am

Religion, if it remains independent of the state, can serve as a useful check and balance on excesses of government. For example, during the 1920s, eugenics became the rage among scientists, academics, and intellectuals. Thirty states enacted forcible sterilization laws, which resulted in fifty thousand people being surgically sterilized. In 1927 the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, an atheist, who wrote: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." The only dissenting opinion came from a religious Catholic. Churches fought hard against sterilization laws. In this instance, religion was right; government and science were wrong.

This is a rather biased presentation and interpretation. The case at issue here is Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200, 1927). Dershowitz presents this as a conflict between secularism and religion, with religion occupying the high moral ground, but the reality is not so favorable to religion.

Dershowitz makes a point of identifying Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr as an atheist, and the sole dissenter, Pierce Butler, as a "religious Catholic." Since the atheist Holmes supported forced sterilization in this case and the very religious Butler opposed it, obviously the root cause of their disagreement was theological and in this case "religion was right." Case closed.

But what about the other seven judges who are ignored by Dershowitz? All seven, including the Chief Justice, joined with Holmes in the majority opinion. All seven of them concurred with his statement that

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

Were these judges also atheists? Why, no they weren't.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft - Unitarian
James Clark McReynolds - Disciples of Christ
Louis Brandeis - Jewish
Willis Van Devanter - Episcopalian
George Sutherland - Episcopalian
Edward Terry Sanford - Episcopalian
Harlan Fiske Stone - Episcopalian

(As a side-note, I am not aware that Holmes ever identified himself as an atheist, although I wouldn't be too surprised if he was.)

So the real story is that seven theists and one (probable) atheist voted for forced sterilization and one theist voted against it. This is hardly the clear victory for religion that Dershowitz presented. It is made even less convincing when you consider that Butler's dissent was not accompanied by an explanation. Dershowitz simply assumed that, because he was Catholic, his opposition was based on religious convictions rather than legal grounds. Dershowitz seems to have given no consideration to the possibility that those voting for sterilization could also have been religiously motivated, and by focusing exclusively on the single non-believer among the majority, he made it less likely that his readers would consider the possibility.

Throughout this paragraph, Dershowitz engages in another rhetorical sleight-of-hand by conflating atheism, science, and the eugenics movement. Most of the judges involved were theists, and none of them had degrees in science. It is difficult to see this as a battle between science and religion.

And what of the laws which prompted this case? Dershowitz blames "scientists, academics, and intellectuals" for these policies, but presents no evidence that the majority of these people were atheists. Even if they were, surely the vast majority of citizens in those 30 states were "people of faith." Dershowitz is quick to attribute Butler's vote against forced sterilization to religious values, but somehow dismisses religious motivations when considering the tens of millions of religious citizens whose votes enabled the creation of those laws.

Dershowitz wanted to come up with a clear example where religion provided a bulwark against the excesses of government. Unable to find such an example, he had to create one by cherry-picking facts and summarily assuming religious motivations for all admirable actions and secular motivations for all reprehensible one - the same tactics that always get used to justify religion.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

21. Comment #63608 by scooternyc on August 15, 2007 at 4:29 am

I liked the article. I don't know the author, I don't need to; I have no shares in the totality of who he is.

Is it not important in the public forum of debate and discussion that we hear from all sides?

That perhaps an individual with whom we would not engage on any other level, still may have something worthwhile to say which advances our own argument for future debate?

It seems disingenuous to constantly harangue on the "person" and not debate the "statement(s)".

I despise Rosie O'Donnell, but frankly, her statement about radical christianity in correlation with radical islam, suits my position just fine.

While I understood that christianity itself, from its inherent doctrine(albeit many stories wracked with violence) does proclaim itself to be of peace, while islam clearly is subjugate, convert or die, the statement was not lost on me when posting on other religious right websites and making the point about these fanatics in the U.S. attempting to "theocratize" our nation.

Is this not how we formulate opinions, arguments and stances on issues?

Have any of you who denigrated the author even listened to Hithcens "Free Speech" position? It's quite compelling.

Other Comments by scooternyc

22. Comment #63620 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 am

Windweaver -

I'm highly skeptical of anyone who drags Israel into a conversation about the separation of church and state, capitalizes the Israeli "Lobby" for extra spooky-ness, and trusts Finkelstein, who said these gems:

"Elie Wiesel is such a ridiculous character… The expression 'There's no business like Shoah-business' is literally coined for him…He's turned it into a business, where he casts himself as a person who's doing all this from anguish and pain and personal sacrifice, while he has made a fortune out of it."

"All opinion-leader, from the left to the right, are Jews…The Silence around my book in the US – if this is not a conspiracy, then what is one?"

Maybe no one read his book because it got reviews, in addition to the one by Bartov, the Zionist Apologist, like this, from hardly Israel-friendly Salon, which is however apparently Apologizing for the Zionist Lobby as well:

Finkelstein insists on seeing "elites" everywhere, notably those of the Jewish persuasion, "marching in lockstep with American power." These elites, the hidden hand of "organized American Jewry" behind the Holocaust industry, have one goal: not the teaching of history but the furthering of "Jewish aggrandizement."

Also a movie critic, and exposer of Jews run wild in Hollywood:

"Give me a better reason!…Who profits [Schindler's LIst]? Basically, there are two beneficiaries from the dogmas [of Schindler's List]: American Jews and the American administration…"

"The name of the character is Ari Ben Canaan [Paul Newman in Exodus] because Ari is the diminutive for Aryan. It is the whole admiration for this blond haired, blue eyed type."

"In 1978, NBC produced the series Holocaust. Do you believe, it was a coincidence, 1978? Just at this time, when peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt took place in Camp David?"

He's an astute spotter of poseurs (who are in it for the dough, of course):

"I am not exaggerating when I say that one out of three Jews you stop in the street in New York will claim to be a survivor."

He's also loved by world's foremost authority on Holocaust Denial (to use your dubious phrase) Ernst Zundel, who said this about Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry:

"I feel like a kid in a candy store. I can barely keep up with the glorious news. Imagine all these politically incorrect things being said by these Jews in their angst…Nonetheless, this Finkelstein fellow is gutsy!... [The book is] exceedingly useful to us and to the Revisionist cause. He is making three-fourths or our argument, and making it effectively. Never fret the rest of the argument is being made by us, and will topple the lie without our lifetime. We would not be making vast inroads in Europe with our outreach program, were it not for his courageous little booklet, he Holocaust Industry."

So, as much as Dershowitz bugs me, you better believe I'll trust him over a man who's made a conspiratorial career out of discredited attacks on other people's writing, who are all Jews who don't hate Israel, and sometimes defend it. Call them Zionist apologists if you want.

"Highly skeptical" of Finkelstein is an understaement. I think it was the New York Times (part of the Zionist conspiracy no doubt) that said he should crawl back under his rock.

Dershowitz has just published Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence.

I think his argument that the separation of church and state is good for religion is a rehtorical move to get the churches to realize that it might nto be in their interest to try to tear it down. He's an atheist who's blurb appeared on End of Faith. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, what he does, or who he is, but I'm perfectly willing to read this essay with an open mind.

I wouldn't say the same about anything Finkelstein has written.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

23. Comment #63626 by pewkatchoo on August 15, 2007 at 6:10 am

Karelan, there is one major discrepancy in the UK and that is that the head of state, the Queen, is also the Defender of the Faith (the protestant church). In addition, the fact that Bishops sit in the House of Lords, and can therefore help to pass or prevent laws, for no reason other than that they are Bishops is a national disgrace.

The profusion of state backed faith schools is also an anomaly that should be fixed. Then ther is the tax free status conferred on churches. So it is still a problem in the UK.

So I don't think that we have reason to be too smug.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

24. Comment #63646 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 7:38 am

Re-reading the comments, it looks like most people haven't read the entire article - only two paragraphs are posted, click the link to read all of it.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

25. Comment #63654 by AWACS77 on August 15, 2007 at 8:21 am

I really like his 10 commandments for Politicians.

[quote]1. Do not claim God as a member of your party or that God is on your side of an issue.

2. Do not publicly proclaim your religious devotion, affiliation, and practices, or attack those of your opponents.

3. Do not denounce those who differ with you about the proper role of religion in public life as anti-religious or intolerant of religion.

4. Do not surround your political campaign with religious trappings or symbols.

5. Honor and respect the diversity of this country, recalling that many Americans came to these shores to escape the tyranny of enforced religious uniformity and, more recently, enforced antireligious uniformity.

6. Do not seek the support of religious leaders who impose religious obligations on members of their faith to support or oppose particular candidates.

7. Do not accuse those who reject formal religion of immorality. Recall that some of our nation's greatest leaders did not accept formal or even informal religion.

8. Do not equate morality and religion. Although some great moral teachers were religious, some great moral sinners also acted in the name of religion.

9. When there are political as well as religious dimensions to an issue, focus on the political ones during the campaign.

10. Remember that every belief is in a minority somewhere, and act as if your belief were the least popular.[/quote]

Definitely good words to live by they should be sent to all "religious right" politicians.

Other Comments by AWACS77

26. Comment #63668 by Steven Mading on August 15, 2007 at 9:20 am

AWACS77, that last point is, in general, an important principle about upholding human rights in a democracy, and not specific to just religion: When you are in the majority and thus in a position craft laws, always be sure to craft those laws in such a way that you wouldn't mind those laws being used by your opposition if your side ends up in the minority later on.

Not only is it practical in a self-serving way (because you are likely to be in the minority at some point since opinions tend to swing), but it checks that you aren't being unfair against whomever is currently in the minority. It's an excellent principle, akin to the notion that when slicing a pie, the one doing the cutting gets the last pick.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

27. Comment #63687 by Johnny O on August 15, 2007 at 11:19 am

*cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

Good post though...

Other Comments by Johnny O

28. Comment #63693 by jeepyjay on August 15, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Contrary to AWACS77 I don't like Dershowitz's "Commendments".

They seem to me to be a plea to religious believers to be dishonest hypocrites.

My Commendment would be: Be honest with the electorate. If you believe God is on your side say so, so that we can judge how barmy you are. And do not confuse morality with religion.

There is no "proper role" for religion in public life. Respect diversity by all means, but not diversity of opinion if that means treating lies as equal to truth.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

29. Comment #63696 by Phaeonix on August 15, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Jeepyjay,

I agree with you, but keep in mind that in America, the normal voter does not see anything Barmy about claims from politician on whose side God is on... in fact, they mostly vote in accord.

Other Comments by Phaeonix

30. Comment #63713 by Karellen on August 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

Interesting. Reading the wikipedia article, it seems to be unclear as to whether any of its declarations or provisions have been in continuous effect since it was signed; i.e. whether it has endured, as opposed to being merely historical and/or inspirational. Do you have any further links/sources on this?

Other Comments by Karellen

31. Comment #63737 by alnitak on August 15, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Dershowitz is wrong again here. Religion in America persists and grows because Americans face uncertain futures. They can lose their health or employment at any time, and run the risk of becoming impoverished overnight. That uncertainty fuels religion, which both comforts them in times of stress and recruits a social group to provide support. There is an inverse correlation between the health care status of countries and their religiosity. All the open market in religion does is produce proliferation of sub-cults which compete furiously for their share of the $100 billion (tax free) profits of the religion industry.

Other Comments by alnitak

32. Comment #63789 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 11:24 pm

http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm

If Dershowitz's sources are reliable in the above article, he totally owned Chomsky, Finkelstein, et al.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

33. Comment #63816 by windweaver on August 16, 2007 at 1:58 am

Mr Empirical:
You need to know the history between Dershowitz and Chomsky. The idea that Dershowitz owns him in any regard has no basis in fact. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue:

Barsamian: Over the years you've been subjected to a number of personal attacks. I don't want you to go into a detailed response because you have done that elsewhere. But I'm curious about your perception and understanding of the nature and character of these attacks. What motivates them? Why do they persist? I'll just give you two examples. On March 16, 1991 you spoke for KPFA and the Middle East Children's Alliance in Berkeley. This prompted a letter from seventeen UC Berkeley academics who condemned you and called you "A defender of the PLO, even when it was carrying out murder missions against Jewish children. You also have the current case of a national bestseller, Alan Dershowitz's Chutzpah. In various passages, he calls you an "anti-Zionist zealot, anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Western." Did he leave anything out?

Chomsky: I didn't read it so I can't tell.

Barsamian: But what about these attacks? How do you respond? How can you respond?

Chomsky: You really can't. There's no way to respond. Slinging mud always works. Again, it's partly institutional, but in this case partly personal, too. In the case of the Berkeley professors, the letter came out about six weeks after I was there, and it was a letter, remember, to bookstores, saying that they should not allow this stuff to be heard. I've also been told, although I'm not certain, that there was an attempt to get them to withdraw my books from the stores. I think that's very understandable and I appreciate it. These are people who know perfectly well that they don't like what I say. They know that they don't have either the competence or the knowledge to respond, so the only thing to do is to shut it up, prevent it from being heard because you can't respond to it. Therefore you say I supported the PLO, etc. Most of them probably don't know what I said about anything. But the author of the letter, Robert Alter, knows perfectly well that I condemned the PLO for those atrocities, probably more harshly, certainly more knowledgeably than he did. But that doesn't matter. Facts are irrelevant.

Turning to Dershowitz, there's partly the same story. Again, he knows that he can't respond to what I say. He doesn't have the knowledge or the competence to deal with the issues. Therefore, the idea is to try to shut it up by throwing as much slime as you can. There's a famous story attributed to Sam Ervin, a conservative Senator, who once said that as a young lawyer he had learned that if the law is against you, concentrate on the facts. If the facts are against you, concentrate on the law. And if both the facts and the law are against you, denounce your opposing counsel. Dershowitz is not very bright, but he understands that much. If you can't answer on the facts and if you can't answer on the principles, you better throw dirt. In his case there happens to also be a personal reason.

He's been on a personal jihad for the last twenty years, ever since I exposed him for lying outright in a vicious personal attack on a leading Israeli civil libertarian. Despite pretenses, he's strongly opposed to civil liberties. Using his position as a Harvard law professor, he referred to what the Israeli courts had determined. But he was just lying flat outright. This was in the Boston Globe (April 29, 1973). I wrote a short letter refuting it (May 17). He then came back (on May 25,) accusing everybody of lying and challenging me to quote from the court records. He never believed I had them, but of course I did. I quoted the court records in response (June 5). He then tried to brazen it out again. It finally ended up with my sending the transcript of the court records to the Globe ombudsman, who didn't know what to do any more with people just taking opposite positions. I translated them for him, and suggested that he pick his own expert to check the translations. The ombudsman finally told Dershowitz they wouldn't publish any more letters of his because he had been caught flat out lying about it.

Ever since then he's been trying to get even, so there's just one hysterical outburst after another. That's not surprising, either. He's basically a clown. In that case there's a personal issue overlaying the political issue, which is much more interesting. This personal stuff is not interesting. But if you look at the Anti-Defamation League or the Berkeley professors, and there are plenty of others, it's the Sam Ervin story. You know you can't deal with the material. Either you ignore it, or if you can't ignore it, then defame the speaker. That's the only way you can deal with it if you don't have the brains or the knowledge or you just know your position can't be defended. I think that's understandable, and in a sense you can appreciate it. That's just the hallmark of the commissar.

Other Comments by windweaver

34. Comment #63827 by howtoplayalone on August 16, 2007 at 10:31 am

Windweaver:

I'm sure you could find a better quote or interview to help people "understand the history between Dershowitz and Chomsky," than the one you gave. It does nothing to contradict anything in the article that Mr. Empirical posted in comment 32.

You could also say why you trust Finkelstein, taking into the considerations the quotes from my comment 22, more than the "noted Israeli Lobby apologist."

(Or, if you read it, why this pro-separation of church and state essay is something we should be "highly skeptical" of.)

For anyone who's interested in the history of their feud, here is a link to a chapter of Dershowitz's book "The Case for Peace" in PDF, which continues and expands on the points from Mr. Empirical's link.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Chapter_16.pdf

Dershowitz bugs me in many ways, but he's nowhere near as mortifying as Finkelstein.

Finkelstein (If you want to look into the eyes of a madman, watch Dershowitz and Finkelstein debate in video on Democracy Now. Finkelstein looks and speaks like a robot, a zombie.) even accused Dershowitz of not having written his book, the nudge-nudge was that it was written by the ever-sneaky Mossad.

Then Dershowitz produced his handwritten manuscript. Opps.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

35. Comment #63943 by MrEmpirical on August 16, 2007 at 11:42 pm

windweaver,

The point is, Dershowitz laid out a number of coherent arguments, supported by numerous citations. If - that's if - these citations are accurate, and Dershowitz's sources are reliable, then Chomsky et al. got owned BIG TIME.

A crappy interview between Chomsky and Barsamian, containing almost no references or citations, will not undo the ownage.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

36. Comment #63947 by logical on August 17, 2007 at 12:12 am

One half of contributors is busy to hand Dershowitz the links he did not provide (and I am not willing, let him boast about his endangered constitution, his "argument" as to being good for churches is pitiful enough), and the rest engages in promoting his articles.
If you have time to waste on this bigmouth, please see for yourself:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205&mode=thread&tid=38
and Part 2:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=109
The first is slow (as realplayer always is), but both are functional of today.
To check the quality of Dersh´s "arguments" on abortion:
http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=1120
This link does not function on one of the two networks I have access to, Dershowitz does not care (or perhaps he is glad that not so many people can find out how weak he came off against frothing born-again Christian Nat Hentoff!)

Other Comments by logical

37. Comment #63950 by logical on August 17, 2007 at 1:43 am

By the way:
1. I nearly overlooked comment 31.
alnitak, you are right.
Insecurity and helplessness are what draw people to religion.
2. We all know that Dershowitz claims to be an Atheist, I am not astonished that he scribbled again something on notepaper and left the rest to his typists (that he can use a pencil was not disputed, howtoplayalone!), even if he never will beat the record of the late Barbara Cartland (another promoter of a very specious worldview and 723 books), he seems to try.
Atheists are not anti-war or pacifists of necessity, but should we not prefer the one who discusses his views to the one to stifle each critizism, be it toward himself or his holy state?
Norman Finkelstein is a fellow Atheist, a very consistent one, in this interview http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=17
he upholds "That´s a personal choice" to a question about abortion (not his topic!!!) at the very time he was hired at DePaul, the Catholic university which denied him tenure because of Dershowitz´ interventions in June 07.
Why should Atheists prefer a creeper who meddles into another university´s tenure process (and has another professor, a woman, denied tenure in the process) to this consistent principled man?

Other Comments by logical

38. Comment #63979 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 6:10 am

logical -

So is Dershowitz only "claiming" to be an atheist?

As he pretended to write his book?

The blurb from the so-called atheist on Sam Harris' book was probably just another machination from the Zionist Apologist! He's just pretending he's an atheist... who knows what he has planned! Hide your daughters, disbelievers!

The link you put in is the same link I suggested people watch: the debate about Dershowitz' book from Democracy now. After dropping the idea that he didn't write it (you seem to still think someone else did, if not Mossad then his 'typists' - some proof would be great) Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagarism, which consisted of saying Dershowitz cited sources in Peters' book without noting that he got the numbers from Peters' book. That might be plagarism, I don't know, although Harvard and everyone else who is not openly out to discredit any book that defends Israel (and sold a lot) laughed at the charges.

Nobody is accusing him of falsifing facts (the one that Finkelstein shrieks about is a statistic whose error hurts Dershowitz's point - clearly if he were making up facts he'd make up facts that support his point) and nobody is accusing him of copying the prose stylings of Joan Peters. Big Deal. (And worse has been said about Chomsky and Finkelstein anyway, but again, who cares; I'd be more interested in their facts and interpretations than wether or not they mis-cited something or even plagarized).

Who cares if he writes a lot of books? (People attack Dershowitz for writing a lot, and praise Chomsky for writing a lot. It's bizarre.)

Make some arguments about the book itself (which you surely didn't read), or something in this essay (which you seem to have read only the first two paragraphs of).

Finkelstein was not denied tenure because of Dershowitz. Read about why he was denied tenure.

Finally, this Atheist (is that a word, along with Israel Lobby, we capitalize now as well?) would prefer a man who meddles in a (nasty, holocaust survivor mocking, witchhunting, conspiracy spouting, lousy scholaring) person's tenure process to your "consistent, princlpled" Finkelstein who said the filth in comment 22. (Have a go at even acknowledging those comments.)

I'm not very interested in what either of them think about abortion. Just for the hell of it, I'll take your word for it: Dershowitz's opinions on abortions are bad, very bad (although I doubt it, and that stand ain't enough to make me distrust Hitchens), and Finkelstein took a Principled Stand when he told the Catholic University that he thought abortion was a matter of choice. Whoa, move over Rosa Parks.

The points for me are are 1. is this essay on separation of church and state worthy of consideration even though it was written by (gasp) a defender of Israel, and 2. wether it makes any sense to encourage "high skepticism" of Dershowitz by reference to Finkelstein.

I'd encourage everyone to read all the links, and watch the video. Anyone who's not already prone to be shrilly skeptical of anyone who defends Israel (moderately, read the book too, not only the attackers) in print will, I have confidence, think Finkelstein is as much of a lunatic as his quotes in comment 22 make him out to be, and will think that this essay is perhaps worthy of ten minutes despite the fact that it has the Zionist Apologist Dershowitz's name on it.

If I neglected to respond to anything in your posts, "logical," it's because, although you seem to have points to make, your prose, frankly, borders on incomprehensible. That's just my interpretation though.

Mr. Empirical: "That crappy interview will not undo the ownage" is a keeper.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

39. Comment #63989 by logical on August 17, 2007 at 6:53 am

My prose, to begin with, is that of a person who learnt English as a grownup. I do not pretend to be a native speaker.
The only book by Dershowitz which is not in any of the library systems I have access to is the one where he cries about his son having married a gentile - therefore Atheists (I like the capitalization because the faithheads demand it for themselves)need not hide their daughters.
And I hope women born into Atheist families have a better taste, but that´s up to individual self-determination (or should be, the faithheads fight this).
Everything else he scribbled (according to his own admission he cannot type)I did waste my time on - is that also Yoda-English, howtoplayalone?
Dershowitz is being asked about everything by some press, just like bishops, therefore his weak argumentation matters!
I am anti-war regardless which war, and which justification.
Enough for this week, my computer time ends now.

Other Comments by logical

40. Comment #63994 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 7:14 am

logical -

I apologize for saying that about your English; I wasn't aware it was not your native language.

Nevertheless, beyond your English, I don't think your attacks on Dershowitz or your defense of Finkelstein make sense, and if one makes such accusations and and defenses, they should be able to back them up.

Congratulations on being anti-war. So am I, depending on the justifications, and so was Dershowitz, if you're talking about Iraq.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

41. Comment #64004 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 8:52 am

And btw, what book was it in that Dershowitz cries when his son marries a gentile? If you have access to it, when you get back online, maybe you could transcribe that quote, in context.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

42. Comment #64107 by Russell Blackford on August 17, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Well, whatever the situation might be with Finkelstein (whom I have bad vibes about, but maybe I'm wrong) and Chomsky, this is a timely article by an important public intellectual, written in defence of the separation of church and state.

Do I agree with every aspect and emphasis? No. For example, I do not especially care about whether the US retains its economic pre-eminence. The article is very much written for an American audience. But Dershowitz is right on the main point: the separation of church and state is under attack from many sides, and is worth fighting for.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

43. Comment #64124 by tuibguy on August 17, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Do I agree with every aspect and emphasis? No. For example, I do not especially care about whether the US retains its economic pre-eminence. The article is very much written for an American audience. But Dershowitz is right on the main point: the separation of church and state is under attack from many sides, and is worth fighting for.

Hey, Russell, I would guess that this is self-evident. I am not even a fighting man, but the idea that liberty can co-exist with prescribed religion is self contradictory and ludicrous.



Other Comments by tuibguy

44. Comment #65424 by logical on August 24, 2007 at 6:19 am

Sorry for not being able to make it back earlier.

"nobody is accusing him of copying the prose stylings of Joan Peters" - thank you, howtoplayalone, the fact that both write many words on half of an idea which may or may not have any connection to earthly things, is such a nobrainer; it did not occur to me having to mention it.
Does anyone need proof of Dershowitz in original, without editor? http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=665

As for facts and quotes, I leave that to Dr. Finkelstein, each time I checked his facts, they proved correct (his quotes of Rosa Luxemburg and Simone de Beauvoir for example, I know these authors by heart) only on Kant I go further: There is no translation of Immanuel Kant´s works into English, Kant is intranslatable. Even in French or Russian, languages which allow one-and-a-half-pages long sentences the kind Kant writes in his original German, the connections of time and space Kant makes cannot be given. And Finkelstein is correct on the fact that the disputed excerpts in Yiddish come from Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason of 1788), and NOT from Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason of 1781).
(I must know, having to read Kant at school spoiled my style in each language, as you can see!)

I do acknowledge that you, howtoplayalone, can invent a lot of words one cannot find in a dictionary. The fact that this is also something Dershowitz likes to do makes me speculate...

Is it necessary to mention that no possible meaning of those words can ever apply to Dr. Finkelstein???
For now one little help to you to read precisely: I am anti-war.
Against Each War.
And war begins with the misallocation of the first cent to design and production of weapons. Anywhere on this little planet or its ecosphere. Did I make my position clear now?

Other Comments by logical