1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

JFP Wrote: 14 hours ago (12:07 AM)
Read Exodus 20:3-6 and tell me why you think that passage is talking about things like art and music.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

JFP Wrote: 20 hours ago (6:09 PM)
There is nothing in Exodus 20:3-6 that suggests the First Commandment is concerned with money or art. It is actual other gods that are being talked about, the ones that were believed in by the tribes living near the Israelites. You can, of course, read something more into it, but that is like the way that leftists want to read all sorts of things into the Constitution that no one other than leftists would find in it.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

JFP Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 9:53 AM
I don't know of anyone who worships art as a god, and the examples given don't persuade me that the people involved were doing that. Ditto for education and love. If you think of a god as in some sense a person, then almost certainly the Nazis didn't think of beautiful classical music as a person. Nor did they think of it (as far as I know) as, say, some kind of supernatural force. I'm at a loss to know why Prager wants to think of using music or education in odious ways counts as worshipping a false god.
In response to:

Still More Politicized Pseudo-Science?

JFP Wrote: Dec 13, 2014 11:40 AM
But they wouldn't know. If nothing has yet been published, that means no studies on it have yet undergone peer review, so by the standard these people are always imposing on us, they could not have known it. Who knows what flaws peer review might find?
This is just stupid. By now everyone who is against gay marriage should know how to respond to this sort of harassment. You bring up Muslims. The student should have said, "What do you say to those Muslims who want to execute gays?"
In response to:

Giving Thanks For The Counter-Jihad Network

JFP Wrote: Nov 22, 2014 8:41 AM
I'm hoping this is a joke, but if it isn't, I invite you to explain to me how (as the other commenter here pointed out) supporting gays and supporting people who want to execute gays is going to work out. Gays have bought into your anti-violence mentality, while the Muslims haven't. Isn't a likely outcome that gays will be forced back into the closet?
In response to:

Giving Thanks For The Counter-Jihad Network

JFP Wrote: Nov 21, 2014 8:18 PM
I can't believe how much time I have wasted during the last decade and a half trying to get liberals and leftists to see this basic truth. Supporting both groups is indeed crazy, and it is simple enough to see this, yet they refuse to do so.
In response to:

ISIS: The Case for Skepticism

JFP Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 9:57 AM
The second point about the borders is absolutely right, but the first point is wrong. Not many Christians turn the other cheek, and not many Jews follow the elaborate rules of Leviticus. If they can ignore rules in their holy books, so can Muslims. In fact, Muslims (except in Saudi Arabia) were becoming quite moderate and Westernized until suddenly they went into reverse about thirty or forty years ago. Here are three possible reasons why: 1. The loss to Israel in the 1967 war led many people in the Middle East to turn away from secular rulers toward Muslim rulers. 2. The increase in oil money in Saudi Arabia's coffers meant they had money to give away to the Muslim extremists they favored in other countries. 3. The change in rhetoric here in the West as the New Left took over Western culture meant that extremists who had been marginalized were suddenly seen as more authentically part of the culture. Previously, our message to the Muslim world had been that we were better than they were and if they wanted to catch up, they had to modernize and Westernize. Subsequently, it became, "There is nothing wrong with you, but we are terrible. We are imperialists, we are racists, etc." The rise of ISIS can be seen as the obvious result of cultural relativism.
In response to:

A Foreign Legion For Losers

JFP Wrote: Sep 05, 2014 10:29 AM
Mr. Goldberg calls them losers because they are from the West but are losers at Western civilization. What about ISIS members who are from the Middle East? They are winners. Forty and fifty years ago, they were losers. At that time, secularists had a great deal of control. Whether they were aligned with the West or the communists, they were the winners. Egypt's Nasser, a secularist, executed Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed. Women in Egypt weren't forced to wear headscarves. Women in Afghanistan could wear miniskirts. Hamas and Hezbollah had yet to emerge, and Iran was ruled by the Shah, whom the Islamists hated. Today it is all different. People who are liberal or leftist in the Middle East are losers because they don't fit in with the very conservative religious agenda of the Islamists. Iran's communist party has its headquarters in London and not Tehran, and Iranian women have to worry about what they wear outside their homes. Turkey is becoming less secular and more Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood actually got one of their own to be president of Egypt, until enough people were unhappy that they were thrown out. (Time will tell if that's temporary or permanent.) All these Islamist groups are emerging, each worse than the previous one. The big change in the Middle East over the last forty years has been the decline of Western liberalism and leftism in that region. Yet, no liberal or leftist here in the West regards that as a tragedy. They seem to regard it as progress because the Islamists represent a more authentic voice in that region. The fact that it has meant a lot of beheadings, women being sold into slavery, and just a lot of fighting that wouldn't otherwise be happening may wake a few of them up.
In response to:

When Child Sex Abuse Isn't News

JFP Wrote: Sep 05, 2014 9:37 AM
At last someone at Townhall is talking about Rotherham. In addition to asking where were the police and where were the child-defending networks, we need to ask, Where were the feminists? They have talked constantly for forty years about rape and other kinds of sexual misconduct that, according to them, are designed to keep women down. Yet, the abuse at Rotherham went on for over a decade, and it involved so many girls that almost certainly rumors got out about what was happening and so must have been heard by some feminists. So where were they? Why did no feminists complain? What this suggests is a strategy the next time a feminist in this country talks about a war on women. Just mention Rotherham as the real war on women.
1 - 10 Next