Still just catching up

by Richard on June 7, 2010

Spent a couple of hours in Casualty (that’s ER, US friends) yesterday after church. Nothing life-threatening, but I was slightly alarmed by mysterious swelling of my jaw and cheek. Doc seemed unconcerned. “Probably a viral infection”, which is I think what they say when they don’t know. Preaching went ahead as normal last night, but I’ll be keeping an eye on myself.

Not much time for proper blogging, but my eye was drawn to a Newsweek story about a South Carolina state senator’s comments about a gubernatorial candidate

A lawmaker on Thursday called a Republican gubernatorial candidate of Indian descent a “raghead,” saying we have one in the White House, we don’t need one in the governor’s mansion.

For background, Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts was referring to Nikki Haley, a Tea Party–backed candidate for governor who was born to Sikh parents and later converted to Methodism. Obvious, unveiled racism like this is appalling, but individual comments like this aren’t particularly interesting—it’s the banality of racism, if you will.

The article concludes, “Despite the widespread condemnation his comments on Haley have drawn, and will draw, Knotts is living proof that for some people, it’s still OK to be racist—as long as your targets are carefully chosen.”

I’m not sure we should find this surprising. Post 9-11, a good deal of effort has gone in to demonizing Islam and that effort has paid off. (I know. Nikki Haley’s parents weren’t Muslim. But the skin colour is about right, and that’s all that matters). Islam is, in fact, the new Enemy. Last night I caught a bit of Chuck Missler on GodTV. He demonstrated from the Bible the prophesies that Islam would be the Enemy. So it must be true. (No matter that I’m old enough to remember when the Bible clearly prophesied that Communism was the Enemy. We all make mistakes) Further, this morning’s news carried the results of a YouGov survey showing the extent to which negative stereotypes of Islam have become embedded in Britain.

It’s all very troubling.

On a lighter note, Kim has been at the clerihews again.

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }


Kim 06.07.10 at 3:07 pm

Swelling of the jaw and cheek - sounds like incipient swelling of the head. (Did I say “incipient?”) ;)

As for the comments of Knotts and his ilk, I wish we could just say “Christ, what morons, what assholes,” and leave it at that. But because these are morons and assholes with power, we can’t. Still, it’s a good start.


dh 06.07.10 at 3:07 pm

Richard, it isn’t a mistake. Just look at China and what it will become and its Communit or Venezuela. While at the moment Communism is not a much the enemy it is still an enemy nonetheless.

BTW, post 9/11 were there that many Muslims who demonized the attack of 9/11? It seemed to me those who attempted to condemn the attacks would say things after a “but” that seem to imply an excuse. I know many many Muslims who despised the attacks but it seemed to me even among them there were always some equivicating.

If extremism grows within Islam, Islam has the potential to become influenced by those extremes. Remember the guy on GodTV isn’t saying that Islam is the enemy now or at this moment only that it has the potential in the future unless more and more Muslims condemn without any equivication and without statements demanding the elimination or diminishment of Israel and/or a major revival takes place where many Muslims come to the knowledge of Christ.


dh 06.07.10 at 3:10 pm

Maybe Muslims in the majority do condemn without equivicating denouncing 9/11 and it is the presses fault for not making public those denouncements. It seems the number of those in public seem few and for that I’m sad whoevers fault that is.


dh 06.07.10 at 3:14 pm

I do condemn the racism of Knotts. The term he used should never be used in anyway.

We might need to clarify that Sikh and Islam are two totally different groups and unrelated in any way. It is easy to lump the two together but we shouldn’t. Just trying to help. :)


Kim 06.07.10 at 4:41 pm

Nikki Haley, a Tea Party–backed candidate for governor who was born to Sikh parents and later converted to Methodism.

It was Matthew 6:33 (AV) that did it. :)

No, DH. Missler said that the Bible prophesies that Islam will be the enemy. That is the force of Richard’s “would”. Of course Missler is wrong; it is quite clear from the prophets that Venezuala will be the enemy, and Chávez el Bestia.

Finally, DH, re. your insistence on unconditional condemnations, no “buts” - just remember that the church and the US have sequoia forests in their own eyes when it comes to the history of atrocities. I could go on to ask for some unconditional condemnations of Israel over, say, the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982, or the first Qana massacre of 1996, or the second in 2006, or the unconscienable overkill in Gaza in 2008-09, but I’d be wasting my breath, wouldn’t I?


dh 06.07.10 at 5:21 pm

Well, the answer to all of these things is simple. People must reject 100% and unequivical Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quada, Iranian regime, Chavez regime, etc.

Also, do people know that innocent people surrounded known terrorists with weapons in all of those specific cases you mentioned? That isn’t a “but” but a known fact.

As long as people don’t realize that Israel is a minority and that Arab leadership in the majority are not happy until the elimination of Israel as a nation will these issues continue to be problems.

The fact remains that there is no rationale for 9/11. America didn’t house terrorists with innocent people around them. America did desire the elimination of Arab nations, etc. Why then is it necessary for Arabs to equivicate? Name me an Arab or even a Palastinian who says Israel has a right to be a nation. The fact is many many of these people are not happy until Israel is not a nation.


dh 06.07.10 at 5:23 pm

“America did NOT desire the elimination of Arab nations, etc.”

Sorry for the terrible typo. Please forgive me. :( :)


Tim Chesterton 06.07.10 at 6:26 pm

I can name you a Palestinian who says that Israel has a right to be a nation, while continuing to oppose the injustices they have committed against his people. His name is Suheil Dawani and he is the Episcopal Bishop of Jerusalem. He is currently a guest at the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and you can read a report of his speech at the Synod at

Like most of the tiny Christian minority in the Holy Land, he is a Palestinian.


Beth 06.07.10 at 6:27 pm


I’m not sure what the politics of this blog is, as I’ve not had time to explore it fully - but it seems to contradict your position.



dh 06.07.10 at 6:45 pm

Well Beth, I’m sure we can find some specific limited number of groups who support Israel as a nation. I never said they weren’t out there but why is it one has to do much extra work to find those as opposed to how easy it is to find those who are against Israel as a nation? I guess we can fault the press for promoting their “anti-Israel” bias for not bringing to light Arab and/or Palastinian groups who support Israel being a nation. They don’t seem to give equal time to pro-Israeli Palastinians or Arabs. It is outside of the press’s paradigm and over-generalization belief. Even the conclusions of certain incidents is based on a limited amount of information. When one looks deeper one finds that the it takes an over-simplistic view to conclude that Israel commited atrocities when one must look deeper at how weapons and known terrorist groups are surrounded by innocent people.

For me the only injustice in Israel is for Hamas and Hezbollah to have known terrorist groups being surrounded by innocent life.


Tim Chesterton 06.07.10 at 9:48 pm

Perhaps you should ask Bishop Dawani if that is the only injustice in Israel, DH.


dh 06.07.10 at 10:07 pm

Well I would say the his statements of rebuke are misplaced. Extremism doesn’t arise out of frustration with the peace process but a frustration that Israel is a nation. If Palastinians wouldn’t have voted to have Hamas as their leaders then Israel wouldn’t have to be forced to be in this position. Let alone Hezbollah, the bribes and Syrian support and infiltration going on. Even Iran is supporting Hezbollah. Their support in the majority of Hamas and Hezbollah indicate as a group their desire to not recognize Israel as a nation. While not everybody who is Palastinian supprt Hamas or Hezbollah the people need to vote and support as a majority Fatah particularly the non-violent wing of Fatah.


dh 06.07.10 at 10:12 pm

“For me the only injustice in Israel is for Hamas and Hezbollah to have known terrorist groups being surrounded by innocent life.”

Why is this and many other injustices toward Israel are hardly ever acknowledged but people continue to nitpick Israel when the people on boats supposedly giving aid have weapons?


dh 06.07.10 at 10:16 pm

“Archbishop Hiltz witnessed the toll that Israeli “checkpoints, humiliation, war and poverty” have exacted on ordinary people, he said.”

These are solely due to Hamas and Hezbollah being supported and protected. The ordinary people and the Palastinian people as a whole need to rise up and rebuke Hamas and rebuke Hezbollah and reject their bribes and their continued use of innocent people as human shields even in hospitals.


Joel 06.07.10 at 10:52 pm


With many in the Israeli leadership of recents years, the attitude toward the Palestinians is always “if only.” The truth is that much of the Israeli leadership doesn’t support Palestinian statehood with anything other than hollow words. The recent tends in Israel has been to raise the bar every time the Palestinians meet a condition.

That is not to say that the Palestinian leadership has been sterling. Arafat as well as Barak scuttled, in 2001, a year 2000 Palestinian statehood proposal brokered by the Clinton administration. Arafat in particular seemed to think he could get a better deal out of the Bush administration — naive thinking from my viewpoint. I also think Arafat instinctively knew that his power sat atop little more than opposition to Israel, and that an independent Palestinian state would likely soon seek a leader who was “for” something. “For” economic growth, “for” political freedom, “for” international cooperation.


TonyBuglass 06.07.10 at 11:29 pm

DH:”Their support in the majority of Hamas and Hezbollah indicate as a group their desire to not recognize Israel as a nation. ”

Now, I understood that Hamas had offered to enter into negotiations with Israel, but Israel is not interested. It is in their interest to keep Hamas as the guilty party.

I have been a friend of Israel for over 40 years, but I am finding it very difficult to support Israel’s attitudes and policies. Israel lost the Promised Land twice in her history because they didn’t listen to the prophets, and forgot about God’s concern for justice. I fear if they continue as they are, they might move it again.


Tim Chesterton 06.07.10 at 11:37 pm

You think Israeli injustices against Palestine started with the election of Hamas, DH?

Perhaps you should ask those Palestinians who had lived in their homes for generations and were evicted in 1946 and told they could never go back. If that was you, how would you feel about the people who displaced you?


S.Pam 06.07.10 at 11:51 pm

Hope you are okay now Richard. Blogging can have OH & S issues. :)


Tim Chesterton 06.08.10 at 3:04 am

There was more from Bishop Dawani at General Synod today:

‘A radical moderate’. I like this guy a lot.


dh 06.08.10 at 6:30 pm

That doesn’t give the Palastinians the right or give an excuse for the Palastinians to support terrorist organizations. How about the Jewish people who had been displaced as well? We could go back and forth going farther back in time and never get any where. Also, I’m sure there are missing details in the 1946 reference that don’t show some of the conclusons.

Joel, Israel doesn’t keep raising the bar. Everytime the negotiations get close Palastinians sidetrack by electing and/or supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Even Arafat supported Hamas and was housed. One shouldn’t try to “glorify” or appear to glorify Arafat. The fact remains the Palastinians are unable to govern themselves without known terrorists in leadership.

Fact is Hamas and Hezbollah ARE the guilty parties. Also negotiations fail because they want Jersualem divided or take too much land in the West Bank. If one researched it fully no one in the negotiations desire Israel to be a nation. They may say it but with an ultimate goal of the Israel as a nation. Why should Israel be interested in negotiating with known terrorist as Hamasand Hezbollah? It is simple denounce those two and support the non-violent wing of Fatah like it was so close a few years until the people voted Hamas in the majority and things would be better.

PS The deal didn’t break down because of a “better deal under Bush”. It broke down because Clinton wasn’t going to agree to a divided Jerusalem which should NEVER happen. Arafat demanded too much of Clinton and Clinton got to a point but didn’t fully close it. “Waiting for a better deal under Bush by Arafat?” please the facts are just not there to support that.


fat prophet 06.08.10 at 6:31 pm

Am I dreaming? Is it really good old dh back to making comments - I am pleased to see he is back and as on form as ever. I don’t always agree with him but had wondered if he was ok as it has been a long time.
I am looking forward to some interesting debates now.


dh 06.08.10 at 6:36 pm

FP, I’m okay and doing great. A while back I had a good discussion but administration prevented me from posting for some reason which I do not know. I prayed about all of my previous posts and even reread them and they didn’t seem “harsh or attacking”. Maybe it was an IT issue. Now it seems administration is allowing me or the IT issue is resolved to discuss.

FP, thanks for the support and care. It is great to be appreciated even though many of you don’t agree with me or myself to other here all of the time. :)


dh 06.08.10 at 6:40 pm

“God’s concern for justice” Is that one to allow people to support known terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah let alone all of the Arab nations like Syria, Iran, etc.? I don’t think so.


Jen 06.09.10 at 5:51 pm

Adam had swelling in his lips and tongue not so long ago, I resisted the urge to stab him with adrenaline and he went to his Dr who said it was a viral infection… didn’t think it was bad enough anaphalysis for adrenaline but gave him some anti histermines and anti-b’s.


Earl 06.10.10 at 3:08 pm

Israel has every right to their land. Those who use the Palestinian refugees as political pawns are at fault. Israel is not at fault. It is not the obligation of Israel to provide land to the Palestinian refugees. If the Palestinian refugees are to have a homeland it can easily be provided by the surrounding nations. Ideally this homeland would be located in an area not contiguous to Israel. That way Israel would be insulated from any possible problems with the Palestinian refugees by a buffer state… say Jordan, etc. If the surrounding hostile nations continue to use the Palestinian refugees as quasi-soldiers to strike at Israel, no one can legitimately hold Israel responsible for defending itself from such aggression. There is no lack of food, etc. in Gaza. Building materials are appropriately restricted as such items critical to constructing infrastructure to support terrorist operations, i.e., tunnels, firing positions, etc. Building materials are permitted to be delivered to legitimate receivers such as organizations associated with the UN. To permit such materials to be delivered to organizations of questionable neutrality or to groups that are openly hostile to Israel would not not be in the best interest of either the Palestinian refugees or Israel. If terrorist and provocateurs seek to bring in materials of use to enemies of Israel, Israel has ever right to stop those effort in the exact same way that contraband was embargoed by England when shipped to Germany on neutral ships in the era of WWI .

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>