The Most Unforgettable Books I Ever Met

Two comments have disappeared. Unable to post comments.

testing

testing unable to post

testing

I'm unable to view comments on SJ's thread: Don't Know Much About Theology, Don't Know Much Philosophy...

I'm reposting here what I posted earlier on that thread in case that thread has shut down.

From the Wikipedia, definition of "useful idiot" for political Islamists -

"The term is attributed to Vladimir Lenin, sometimes in the form "useful idiots of the West", to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West."

"In the United States, the term is sometimes used as a pejorative against political liberals, radicals, and others among left-wing politics. The tone implies that the speaker thinks the "useful idiot" is ignorant of the facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support."

"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has also been used by some commentators to describe individuals said to take a softer line against Islamism and terrorism.

For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:

“ Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots. ”

Similarly, Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno wrote:

“ Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam."

To Anonymous of June 28, 2008 4:57 PM who asked

Why the ancient anthropocentric vision of reality that actually lost all validity 500 years ago? The Sons of Abraham have yet to answer

The answer lies in your own first paragraph -- Religion is very big business

Autonomous,

"Primitives are reasonable out of necessity, where modern folks have the luxury of bathing in primitive delusions."

Excellent! I only would put "reasonable" in quotation marks.

I just read that in a poll 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. Could it be that some of these 18% post a lot on these threads?

Here a summary of JJ's post ---

Neo-pagans (Wiccans etc) have no Holy Scripture, hence they have no business to debate with believers of religions that do.

Neo-pagan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender have no business to post on a blog like The Washington Post - Newsweek, pushing their case for same sex marriage or other ideas of LGBT.

Neo-pagans must seek out websites hosted by other neo-pagans and share their ideas there.

**********************************

JJ, LGBT neo-pagans are just as human as you are and have as much right as you to post here.

Jack Chick - another born-again fundamentalist author that channels God and makes a damn good living writing books about it in the process......what's unusual about this? The world is full of rich born-again Christian con-artists and their self-deluded followers. Religion is very big business.

Here's the unvarnished truth - Christianity was reasonable several hundred years ago when it appeared that our planet was the center of the universe - geocentrically speaking. Since then, we know otherwise - and beyond that reality, we have a universe so vast that in all probability the cosmos is home to teeming hords of lifeforms, and some likely to be far advanced beyond our own relatively recent human civilization.

This is not a plea on behalf of extra-terrestrials or more UFO nonsense, just a view of the cosmic probabilities that the late, lamented astronomer, author and cosmologist Carl Sagan, among others, considered to be not only viable but likely.

Given these reasonable speculations, hypotheses, and deductions, what is the basis for the persistant and continuing belief that humans and human civilization are a primary interest of an equally speculative and elusive Creator of All Things?? That Creator has much to keep track of besides us - in other words, it would seem that religion persists in essentially unchanged, ancient and traditional forms, in spite of much recent knowledge that flies in the face of those primitive beliefs. Reality, as it turns, out is not so simple.

How are Christians then different from the formerly cannibalistic Yanomamo tribesmen that live deep in the jungle along side the Amazon river? More than likely, there are Christian missionaries on the way even now, hoping to straighten these folks out - but why bother? Why change what ain't broke? The same has been tried with the aborigines of Australia, and with equally little success....their mythical vision of reality works at least as well as the Christian vision, and they have no science to speak of as a counterweight.

Primitives are reasonable out of necessity, where modern folks have the luxury of bathing in primitive delusions.

Why the ancient anthropocentric vision of reality that actually lost all validity 500 years ago? The Sons of Abraham have yet to answer .

Could be the basis of another book or two...

Hmmm...Jihadist is now Bookworm. Interesting. Sometimes her writing is grammatical. Sometimes it isn't. She and Bookworm have the same style and like she says you can always tell. Seems she's a couple of Anons too. Maybe they'll come by later. Much later.

Jewish Bloggers:

Go to Jack Chick's site and read for yourselves. Keep an open mind and read. Millions of Christians all over the world have read Chick. Jews need to know before it's too late. Please just visit the site.

http://www.chick.com/information/authors/chick.asp

Gene

GENE, get your head examined by a mental health professional. You seem to be living a bit out of touch with reality, no matter what your hidden agenda on this thread.

Jews:

Listen to me. Who started all this racism about you? Who said you killed Christ? Who says you control everything? Duh!

Who ran the Inquisition? What was Hitler's religion? Wake up before they kill another six million! Wake up!

You think Jacoby is an atheist? What does she blasphemously quote? The New Testament. Hello!

Read Chick. Read about the Catholic-Muslim oil cartel. Why are gas prices so high and who are they going to blame?

Why do they focus on Israel so much? Notice all the dead Jews in Israel? They have more in store for you.

Read what "God's people" have done to you and then I'll tell you what theyre going to do. They are ROMANIZERS.

Read Brewer. Get the story from INSIDE, way inside.

Jewish Bloggers:

Forget Anonymous and Jesuitical poohbahs. Chick tells it like it is. If you want to know how the Holocaust was engineered read Chick. Go to Amazon.com.

Bartholomew Brewer was a priest as I mentioned. Go to Amazon and get his book.

You can also read about them on the web. Millions of Christians read them and it's high time the word got out to Jews.

Jesuitical poohbahs don't want the heathens (you) to know about them. Remember that.

There is a blogger named Holy Cow who spewed anti-Catholic hatred on every thread he/she blogged in. Jose Rizal, the Philipino, was quoted to support anti-Catholicism.

The blogger Gene seems like a Seventh-Day-Adventist missionary. His/her call to the Jews is confusing.

Indeed if blogger Gene was a Catholic bashing German advising Jews to spread the word about the dangers of the Catholic Church, it would be the height of irony. Romanish is not an English usage. In English it would be simply Roman. The German usage would be Romisch.

If blogger Gene was a Catholic bashing German, now that would be ironical.

Whoops! Forgot Bart Brewer, Ph.D.

A true hero. Not only did he escape the Romanizers, but he helped nuns and priests get out too. Jesuitical poohbahs haven't gotten far silencing him.

Ditto Gene: Jack T. Chick

Should be required reading in every high school.
Doesn't get better. Opened my eyes and changed my life.

Books that changed my life. Jesuitical Poohbahs never stopped Brewer and the Romanish persecutors never stopped Chick. They were condemned and everything possible was done to silence Chick, but he persists. I admire them because they spoke the truth to Christians. Jews, if you want to know the truth about some things, start reading. Read Chick, and read him carefully. Spread the word.

Bartholomew F. Brewer, Pilgrimage from Rome*

Bart Brewer was a discalced friar and Catholic priest, who made it out of the Romanish labyrinth.
http://mtc.org/ex-priest.html

Jack T. Chick:

Sabotage
The Sissy
Four Horsemen
The Greatest Story Ever Told: The Birth of Jesus
The Sissy
Smokescreens

But the question remains, did the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist read "The Satanic Verses" or Hirsi Ali's "Infidel"?

And of course there are those lingering flaws and errors of Islam that the Jihadist refuses to deal with.

By the way, I see that many of our favourite atheists posters are still very busy in Claire Hoffman's blog and thread on "George Carlin's Aferlife".

Can't say they don't have the passion and commitment to bring the "truth" as they see it to the rest of us.:)

While the over one billion atheists in Asia are "free" from the delusions of belief, hundreds of millions are not free from authoritarian governance. Perhaps we should really seriously start thinking of freeing atheists from repressive regimes too.

And what is E Favorite's, Mr. Mark's, SC Cromett's, Gerry's, Chris Everett et al favourite books that changed their life? An obvious question with an obvious answer of authors and books? Or not?

Cheers and out of here.

"J"

Hello Farnaz,

You are right about reactions on Salman Rushdies' "Midnight's Children" and "The Satanic Verses" in the Muslim world. Everyone is entitled to his opinions and preferences on reading materials. I was in UK just in my first year of study when the flap over "The Satanic Verses" happened. I remember too well the ugliness of reactions in the streets and the media by both sides of the disagreements on that book.

You do know I have a higher regard for Arundhati Roy's fiction and non-fiction if only because I recognise her "truth" better in most of what she wrote on and of the region she still lives in and perceptions and views on the larger world expressed from the inside looking out. And I still have a high regard for VS Naipaul than Rushdie as a writer of fiction. Still love his "A House for Mr. Biswas" very much.

VS Naipaul's "Among the Believers" has a lot of "truth" in them about Muslims and Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia which I recognize even today. It is a valuable piece to me, capturing what is happening then in both countries that resonated till today in both countries.

VS Naipaul actually travelled to the Muslim countries he wrote about, even if only for seven months. It is what he recorded as being said by people and their concerns that is the most telling. That is why I am beginning to appreciate non-fiction and travel writings too, including and especially of decades and centuries past.

One can question some of what Marco Polo and Ibn Batuttah wrote, and Ibn Batuttah a more honest relater of his adventures, but they are invaluable insights on places and people and the authors themself.

I don't think most Americans are familiar with Isabella Bird as much as Frances Trollope, but Bird's "A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains" is a most fascinating read on the American west in the second half of the 19th century. Likewise her earlier "The Englishwoman in America".

Travel recounteurs/writers from Ibn Batuttah to Marco to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu to Alexander Kingslake to Freya Stark to Paul Theroux to Jan Morris to Colin Thumbron to Bruce Chatwin, they have put out "truth" too as they see, feel, and think it from the outside looking in. These travel writings are invaluable historical documents too.

I have to go. It's Saturday morning here. Time with family and friends.

Best regards

"J"

"acoby : "Since so few of you comment under your own names, you are not in the best position to defend the validity of your own opinions. Anonymous poohbahs are even less credible than publicly identifable poohbahs in religion, government, media, and education."

Just on this, I really think a consistent screen name is enough. My publicly-identifiable name won't mean anything to anybody that isn't up to no good,' anyway, and one could as easily fake a mundane-sounding one as anything, anyway. :)

(Have to admit I find this one's a little bland, and keep thinking of changing it, but in the interests of consistent dialogue...) :)

There is an area of study variously called White Studies, Whiteness Studies.

No doubt, Jacoby is familiar with the entire body and will be pronouncing momentarily in a sentence.
Awaiting said pronouncement, I like to point it out to Whites of all colors, races, and religions.

But, of course, it's easier for whites to be White. Unfortunately, chromosomally, Jacoby is half Jewish. J blood is coursing through her veins. So she is a White half Jew, not entirely white.

This brings me to the subject of Pam, whom my Askenazic brethren would rightly call a menstch. She honestly wants to know what a Jew is. Me, too. So far, we're alone. That is, until Jacoby tells us.

Jihadist: Thought non-fiction writers are more questioned on their substance

Farnaz: Yes. And here is a reporter who presents as facts false assertions about "Defender of the Faith," "Midnight's Children" and "Satanic Verses." And never forget. She is also an expert on the Church and black people. I swear to the atheist God.

I'm forgetting the hypocrisy at her whining about bloggers using abusive language and then using it. I'm forgetting, but just for the moment.

People read her books, give her credibility. She makes money. She has or has had a formula that worked for her.

Jacoby : "I also think that "The Satanic Verses," along with Rushdie's earlier "Midnight's Children," are great books. Indeed, they offended many Muslims for the same reason that Roth's work has offended many Jews: they challenge the way that (some) people within a group like to think of themselves and be thought about by the "outside" world."

- I do pay attention why some thought some books are offensive. It will lead to a deeper understanding of the differences within the group, both intellectual and social the simmering and underlying intellectual and social differences.

Jacoby : "Once again, a writer has no obligation to anyone or anything but his or her own truth."

- That is a given. But writers write for the public and their “truth” will be, of course, questioned by the public, be it critics or lay readers in form and content.

Jacoby : Who is forcing any of you to read writers who offend your sensibilities and self-images?

- None of course. Only some are insistent that one should read this and that or if one don’t read or if one do read and don’t like the book for any reason, one is deemed misunderstood the writer, or one don’t see the truth and validity of what the writer wrote, one is an ignorant cretin, one is a denialist and what have you.

Fiction is fiction. A fiction writer does his or her best to capture the truth as he or she sees it in ways that makes sense to the reader that enchanted the reader that makes the reader think, that makes the reader recognise the truth in what the writer is saying. Or not at all.

Jacoby : “And why are you so angry that other people don't share your views?”

- Don’t all writers, fiction and non-fiction, wish readers to understand what they are saying and driving at? It can be frustrating for a writer not to get his work published.

One is reminded of John Kennedy Toole and his “A Confederacy of Dunces”. It did affect him in not getting his work published in his lifetime. We all do want people to agree with us sometimes and to share our views, or to regard for our books - an indication of sharing of views by volume of sales, reprints etc.

I am not talking about those writing for Harlequin and Mills and Boon’s readers.

Cheers
“J”

One wonders how such a self-appointed elitist e.g. The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist with this enormous treasure of book readings and commentaries, cannot bring her/him self to say to everyone, "I believe in pretty wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies".

And "I believe that Gabriel did talk to Mo-man in that hot cave".

And "I believe that Sunnis are the great salvation to humankind and that Shiites are
low-lifes who don't deserve to live".

And "I believe in all the warmongering, anti-female, death to the infidel passages in the koran".

Indeed one wonders about the true character and intentions of The Jihadist

Jacoby : "I understand perfectly well what various bloggers are saying about minority and multicultural sensitivities; I simply don't agree with you."

- Just points of views or opinions Ms. Jacoby. The “truth” as espoused by posters as they see them, just like professional writers, both fiction and non-fiction. Thought non-fiction writers are more questioned on their substance than fiction writers who has artistic licence and creative freedom to present the “truth” in any way they chose in form and content, including satires and transgressive fiction or art.

Jacoby : "I don't expect anyone on this thread to apologize for opinions with which I disagree (or for language I might find offensive), and I have no intention of discussing this subject any further."

- Of course. But we do draw the line on opinions touching the personal that are slander.

Jacoby : "Since so few of you comment under your own names, you are not in the best position to defend the validity of your own opinions. Anonymous poohbahs are even less credible than publicly identifable poohbahs in religion, government, media, and education."

- Perhaps. But fiction writers also don’t use their real names sometimes when writing fiction. Giving our real names and addresses (including e-mail address, phone numbers, fax numbers) really does not mean we are going to start writing to one another. This is a discussion blog, not a pen-pal blog. We have Facebook for that.

Some quotes from Rebecca West:

- International relationships are preordained to be clumsy gestures based on imperfect knowledge.

- There is no such thing as conversation. It is an illusion. There are intersecting monologues, that is all.

- Writing has nothing to do with communication between person and person, only with communication between different parts of a person's mind.

Cheers

“J”

Hello Farnaz,

You : "I've read Birmingham's books and relegated them to the trash bin where they belonged. No offense!!"

None taken. So, there is the possibility that you someday write about the Rest of the Rest to fill in the gaps, in fiction or non-fiction as your own "truth" as a writer.

As for me using the handle "Bookworm" as "Anononymous" thinks, it was not worth responding to I thought. One handle is enough. If I am to chose another handle, it would be, as I stated in another post, perhaps be Moroniac or Deludiod etc.

Besides, the one using "Bookworm" has no typos, not spelling mistakes, no missing words, not grammatical errors as my posts are prone to as I never bothered to look over and edit. And I don't quite know how to use Pooh Bah in a sentence as yet.

Using "Bookworm" sounds too erudite.

Cheers
"J"

Jacoby's problem is hubris. She rants and raves when bloggers use offensive language and uses offensive language. Then she doesn't apologize.
Losing book sales helps with hubris.

Farnaz:

RE: Jacoby, syllabus, etc.

I read Jacoby's post and she's not big enough. She's not big enough for me anyway. Please forget what I said about a syllabus. Don't send it to Quinn or anyone else. They just might follow it which could cause you to throw up and give up hope altogether. Tnen they'll "know" you see.

This is Lilliput. America is Lilliput. I don't know how old you are, but maybe when the little white people are outnumbered the moral landscape will change. In the meantime, mental health requires me to voyage home. Suggest you do the same. When you get there maybe you could use this thread in something you write. Normal size people, if there are any, will realize there's a lot of work to be done.

Gene

Another Anon:

Re: Jacoby's post

So much for "big enough." Does it matter, I wonder. Is this a microcosm? Are we in Lilliput?
Or is the world Lilliput?

Farnaz

Ms. Jacoby:

You have not discussed the matter at all so that "further" is redundant.

I give up. You win, or lose, depending on how you look at it. I will send you a syllabus, or bibliography with my "real name."
Do with them what you will.

I surrender. When I was growing up, I thought racism would end in my lifetime. I look at my baby niece, Hagar, and hope that she will have a lifetime.

Farnaz

I understand perfectly well what various bloggers are saying about minority and multicultural sensitivities; I simply don't agree with you. I don't expect anyone on this thread to apologize for opinions with which I disagree (or for language I might find offensive), and I have no intention of discussing this subject any further. Since so few of you comment under your own names, you are not in the best position to defend the validity of your own opinions. Anonymous poohbahs are even less credible than publicly identifable poohbahs in religion, government, media, and education.

Farnaz:

RE: Rabbinical poohbas, goyim, etc.

Set aside Jacoby's cultural insensitivity, etc.
She owes you personally and everyone else who understands her offensive language an apology.
Either she's big enough to offer it or she isn't.

If you find a syllabus, I think you should send it to Quinn and ask her to post it. A lot of people could benefit from it.

Jihadist,

I've read Birmingham's books and relegated them to the trash bin where they belonged. No offense!!

It tells nothing of the vast majority of Askenzic Jews who came to this country, and leaves out some of the most important facts on the rest.

Not all Sfardim were grandees. Ditto the German Jews. The "rest of us"--Jeez.
---------------------------
As for Ms. Jacoby, the point extends beyond Jews, well beyond. How anyone in 2008 could ascribe the reaction to "Satanic Verses" as in the least bit similar to or even related to the reaction to "Defender of the Faith" is hard for me to understand. MY closest friend on the Planet Earth, my sister, is a Pakistani Muslim who lives in Islamabad and spends the summers at Yale. She's very famous, and you might well know her name if I gave it to you.

She cannot bear to read Satanic Verses. End of discussion. She gets it. She understands it. She's an observant Muslim, who doesn't believe in an afterlife. A complex person. Her reasons have absolutely nothing to do with nonMuslims knowing things they shouldn't about Muslims, the reason Jacoby ascribes to the Jewish response to "Defender."

Further, Jacoby's language is offensive. She used the word "rabbinical" not because much of the reaction came from rabbis as she claimed when challenged. I found one comment by a rabbi. Tim found none. I bothered to look, only to give her the benefit of a doubt I didn't have. I should add, and let me emphasize this: I have studied Roth in a professional capacity. I know the critical and popular reception to Goodbye Columbus and his other work.

She was using "rabbinical poohbahs" to refer pejoratively to Roth's critics.

Jacoby
But since you do seem to have read the critical commentary on this subject, you know that the objections raised to Roth's early work by rabinnical poohbahs essentially boiled down to: "He's telling the goyim what we don't want them to hear." June 26, 10:41

Next, look at her June 26, 5:48 post. She tries to get out of it, but unsuccessfully.

Jews are sui generis, and many goyim, like Jacoby have a sort of proprietary stance toward us. I disrupted that stance. But make no mistake. Hers is not only a Jewish problem. It is a black problem, and as you should now see, a Muslim problem.

Farnaz

The story is set in 1945. What upset many people was Roth's insensitivity to what Jewish servicement had undergone in the American military--this during the Holocaust. His naivete, etc. As well, they were sick and tired of being psychologically molested.

PS. Are you Bookworm, as Anon says?

Hmmm, again the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist claims to have read every book under "allah's" sun but still cannot come to grips with the obvious flaws and errors of Islam.

One wonders how such a self-appointed elitist with this enormous treasure of book readings, cannot bring her/him self to say to everyone, "I believe in pretty wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies".

And "I believe that Gabriel did talk to Mo-man in that hot cave".

And "I believe that Sunnis are the great salvation to humankind and that Shiites are
low-lifes who don't deserve to live".

And "I believe in all the warmongering, anti-female, death to the infidel passages in the koran".

Indeed one wonders about the true character and intentions of The Jihadist.

Hello Farnaz,

I don't think Ms. Jacoby is really getting where you are coming from.

Stephen Birmingham wrote a series of books on the Jewish community, or communities, in the US - "Our Crowd" (on Ashkenazi Germans Jews), "The Grandees" (on the Sephadic Jews), and "The Rest of Us" (on Ashkenazi Eastern European Jews).

You know these books. Someday you are going to write a book on "The Rest of the Rest of Us - Asian and African Jews." ?

Have you seen "Arranged"? A different kind of chick flick.

Regards
"J"

Ms. Jacoby:

Sometime next week, I'm going to look around for a basic introduction to pluralism, multiculturalism. I've never used such a book in my classes, always used primary sources and it's been years since I taught a course on pluralism. If I can't find a decent textbook, I'll try to locate a colleague who's currently teaching it or otherwise locate a decent syllabus and send it to you.

You can follow it or toss it. If you read it, you will at least understand something of what I and a couple of others have been trying to tell you on this thread and the last.

Farnaz

Susan Jacoby:

MIdnight's Children did not offend many people "indeed" or otherwise. INdians from Pakistan and India were amused as hell (quite understandably from their perspective, and this is the point: THERE are perspectives) but recognized that something extraordinary was going on.
---------
IMHO, best to check with the minorities in question before pronouncing on them; in this way, one does less minoritizing. Consider this critique-er, an "atheistical poohbah."

Jacoby:
I also think that "The Satanic Verses," along with Rushdie's earlier "Midnight's Children," are great books. Indeed, they offended many Muslims for the same reason that Roth's work has offended many Jews: they challenge the way that(some) people within a group like to think of themselves and be thought about by the "outside" world.
-----------------
No, he didn't. He didn't offend them for the same reasons, not at all. To borrow an expression from a different religious group,
JESUS CHRIST!!

Good God. We are not sub specie Susan Jacoby, or 1957 America.

I also think that "The Satanic Verses," along with Rushdie's earlier "Midnight's Children," are great books. Indeed, they offended many Muslims for the same reason that Roth's work has offended many Jews: they challenge the way that(some) people within a group like to think of themselves and be thought about by the "outside" world.

Once again, a writer has no obligation to anyone or anything but his or her own truth. Who is forcing any of you to read writers who offend your sensibilities and self-images? And why are you so angry that other people don't share your views?

Jihadist now as Bookworm?

Farnaz,

PS. Re: "Rabinnical poohbahs" (sic). Would Rushdie's critics be "Muftical poohbahs"? Roy's critics be "Keralitish poohbahs" "Brahminical poohbahs"? (I'd think the latter have more to pooh and bah, but who am I to say. Maybe, Susan Jacoby can tell us.)

Farnaz,

The Nobel for Rushdie? Hard to contemplate when his translators get killed and stabbed, no?

Ozick: No navel-gazing angst like Roth. Doesn't say she's "not a Jewish writer," like Bellow. Doesn't situate all evil in imaginary ghettos like Singer did because that was the only world he knew. She knows other worlds.

Ozick: An American Jewish writer in every sense. Also, a woman. Not good.

I take it you've read "Dictation." What did you think?

Hmmm, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist claims to have read every book under "allah's" sun but still cannot come to grips with the obvious flaws and errors of Islam.

One wonders how such a self-appointed elitist with this enormous treasure of book readings, cannot bring her/him self to say to everyone, "I believe in pretty wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies".

And "I believe that Gabriel did talk to Mo-man in that hot cave".

And "I believe that Sunnis are the great salvation to humankind and that Shiites are
low-lifes who don't deserve to live".

And "I believe in all the warmongering, anti-female, death to the infidel passages in the koran".

Indeed one wonders about the true character and intentions of The Jihadist.

Anon,

Last thoughts literary for this evening. Let us move from Rushdie to another writer for a moment, Cyhthia Ozick, the obsession of numerous scholars Jewish and nonJewish, as she should be. She is not as prolific as Roth but none of her works concern her navel and the hairs around it. Brilliant is an understatement.

Where I wonder are her prizes and awards? (I know what she's won, and I'm not impressed.) A lot of us wonder at the lack of recognition, snd not just us J people. J-ness, however, is thought to be a factor by J and non-J people alike.

Anon,

I didn't say he hadn't been successful. Sad to say, but I think he could have gone much, much further, possibly to the Nobel. Maybe, he still will. When I first read him, I occasionally found I had stopped breathing.

That doesn't happen to me often, so when it does I know I'm onto something!

Farnaz

Farnaz, Salman Rushdie is now SIR Sulman Rushdie. He is also the only author who won the Booker Prize twice. As a non-white Brit born overseas, no one could ask for more success than that!

Another Anonymous,

Thanks, and I read your earlier post. If you like Rushdie, try to find a short story called "The Hair of the Prophet." It concerns idolatry, one of the most important themes in Judaism. When I teach this story, I usually pair it with something by Peretz or, if I'm teaching an honors section, with "Rosa and the Shawl" by Cynthia Ozick. "Rosa" is a novella, and "The Shawl" a short story.

The Ozick fictions deal with idolatry but in a less obvious way. But deal with it they do and big, big time. It's one of her great themes. I should tell you though, both works are agonizing, at times, almost unbearable.

I need a break from this thread for awhile, but will return. Thanks so much for understanding.

Farnaz

Farnaz:

I hope you don't leave this thread for good. I posted 11:25 yesterday. I've followed the thread, but didn't trust myself to post again because I was too damned angry. I still am.

Bottom line: The majority is still the majority. Most of them never understand minorities unless they have to. They don't think they have to understand Jews. The pathetic thing is the vast cultural knowledge Jacoby thinks she has, especially about Jews and blacks. Pitiable.

A lot of the people on this thread are smart in a conventional way. Not too many, maybe one or two in your way. Maybe the friend you mention to Arminius is right. Maybe this is 1957.

"Satanic Verses" is breathtaking. A Muslim friend made me read it. Someone should tell Jacoby. You probably don't need to know that Muslims have read it and think it amazing.

Arminius,

You're not alone, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'm giving up too.

There was an argument with a blogger who took Jihadist to task for some things and then me. It came to him/her dragging out a post of Jihadist's from another thread, announcing how much Jihadist had learned, and wishing that she could be a "model" for Muslims. This was by way of making peace. I was shocked.

I was also accused by this person of being a Pakistani, married to a Pakistani, etc. Very, very strange--that chat.

As for the current issue, someone posted about a favorite book called "Smokescreens" which I looked up, by one Chick. You can google it. "Rabinnical poohbahs." Fine. Then would Chick's critics be "Popish poohbahs"? Would Jean Toomer's critics have been "ministerial poohbas"?

I'm giving up. I gave up after I posted at the beginning of this thread, since past experience old me that Jews cannot be read. (Nor can any number of other groups, but we especially.) Jacoby replied, unfortunately for her, at least in my view, and certainly for me.

I've written a number of posts, as has she, Tim, a couple of Anonymi. If you want to get the gist of this, maybe you could read them. I didn't want this to go on for so long. I've never liked spitting in the wind, and I fear Ms. Jacoby simply refuses to get it.

Best,
Farnaz

PS. Have you read Satanic Verses? It is a brilliant, brilliant book, about migration, alienation, displacement, loss of identity, etc. It figures in the article I'm writing about "minority knowing." Rushdie assumed a common language, a common religio/secular understanding that did not exist. That critical insight btw. does not originate with me.

On a couple of other threads, people named this novel as a favorite, people who aren't racists. Only one or two people dared. It's not PC, you see. We Jews are not among the PC elect.

Where Rushdie might have gone with his magnificent talent had not all the horror followed "Verses" is difficult to say. IMHO, he started out with more than Roth, but then, he did not begin so injured.

A friend of mine, African American, sometimes says this is really 1957. Maybe so.

Farnaz,

The arguments here are impossible for me to follow, and I suspect I am not alone. Not pointing fingers, no, just giving up.

Arminius,

The exchange btw. the blogger Tim refers to and me followed the scenario I described. He or she did what I wrote choosing Jihadist as a model for Muslims to follow.

I found this disturbing. See Tim's post. I think maybe you aren't following the "thread" here.

Farnaz

Hello Farnaz,

"Eli the Fanatic" is part of the collection of short stories contained in "Goodbye, Columbus" if I can recall correctly.

I will have to find that book to reread "Eli the Fanatic" then, this weekend.

Yes, I agree the issue is majority/minority understanding, subjectivity and perception too.

Got to go,

Cheers
"J"

Farnaz,

What the HELL are you driving at? You asked a question, and I thought I gave a reasonable answer. This is not like you.

Arminius,

Okay. NOw are you going to start chastising someone who posts here and then drag out what you see as an exempary post of said other blogger, and tell everyone he or she should be a model you wish other, let's say, Catholics should follow?

'Cause I sure hope not, and I don't think you would.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

'Model Christians'?

Jimmy Carter.

Martin Luther King.

Jihadist:

Also, I think Wiglaf did post. Pseudo comes and goes (goes more than comes, alas), but hasn't been part of any ethnic discussions I can recall. There seem to be several JOshes.

Merry Anon is the only blogger I think we're on the same page with.

Farnaz

Jihadist:

Btw. it is not the collection that was questioned. Indeed I suggested "Eli the Fanatic."
Maybe you could read my posts and Susan Jacoby's when you have time. The issue is majority/minority understanding, subjectivity.

My own question, that of Tim, I think, and of a couple of Anonymi was with "Defender of the Faith."

I don't want to be repetitive, so maybe you can read the relevant posts when you have time.

Farnaz

Jihadist:

Yes, resentment of the the insenstive, the comfortable, the uncomprehending, the indifferent, the selfish, the blase and the sanguine rich

I guess I have a problem with folks nominating other folks to be "credits to their races."
That's why I requested "examples" of model Christians/Catholics/Jews/Bahai, etc.

Alas, I got none.

Farnaz

....ah well.

Wiglaf or Merry Anonymous or Non-German Anonymous or Pseudo or Josh is still not here yet for their views on Susan Jacoby's choice of liking Philip Roth's "Goodbye Columbus" collection of short stories. It would be most interesting to hear their views.

Later then. Much later perhaps they will come by.

Farnaz : Please don't take any offense, but much as I respect Jihadist, you did see that there was a larger principle at work. I only ask because somehow that seems to be getting lost here.

Yes, resentment of the the insenstive, the comfortable, the uncomprehending, the indifferent, the selfish, the blase and the sanguine rich who has not suffered enough to really, really change the mind to deconcretizedthe mind, no? :)

Cheers
"J"

Farnaz:

Re: "Examples" for Muslims

Yeah, I got it, and no offense taken. You repeated the main point endlessly and it was NOT "gotten."

That's why I'm out of here for awhile. I've enjoyed reading your posts. You really are something.

Tim

Tim,

ONe last thing--You mentioned my "chat" with a blogger who felt Jihadist should be an "example" for Muslims.

Please don't take any offense, but much as I respect Jihadist, you did see that there was a larger principle at work. I only ask because somehow that seems to be getting lost here.

Hello Arminius,

I was making a joke in that post on "reading about" something instead of reading it, and hearing about something instead of actually seeing, reading and hearing it firsthand. I guess I should use fictitious names in that post.

Yes, Dorothy Parker and Katherine Hepburn. I believe some do regard Katherin Hepburn as one of the greatest American actresses. But Dorothy Parker, even if one don't agree with her, is really witty.

I came back from looking at market monitors to see what's happening in their weird thread.

There a bunch of posters here whom I really think are one and the same person using multiple handles.

I do agree with Mary Cunningham that one can never hide one's thumbprints in one's style of writing in form and content, and especially words used.

I have no idea why some would do that. For fun I guess to have a reinforcing stance or views by posting a number of "supporting" posts from "other posters" in making points. Or just to have a sort of "play" to get to the matter discussed to its core.

Cheers
"J"

Farnaz,

That's just it - I mean that you're grateful. Why the hell should you be grateful in the year 2008? In the USA? Grateful that somebody knows that we're not all the same, that not everyone is exactly like MOI?

Anyway, sorry if I sound pissed. I'm not pissed at you, of course, but I'm out of here. At least for the time being, I'm going to post on the main thread.

This is getting to me. I've enjoyed reading your posts and some of the others too.

Tim

Tim,

Truthfully, I didn't have much in the way of doubt. I've been working on Jewish American writers for the last couple of years and will be introducing a course in September. Let me put it this way: I know my Roth.

This is not to say I'm an expert by any means, but I have presented on him at conferences, and he figures heavily in an article I'm finishing up.
Among the problems with "Defender" is the year in which it is set, Roth's ignorance of what had been witnessed during the War, the antisemitism that Jewish servicemen dealt with then and that they are dealing with now.

Why he didn't know, what it means "to know" within a minority group is one of the themes of this piece. What he does know now, what he has known for years, the agony of his knowing about his Jewish identity sheds light on "Defender," but this isn't the time to go into it.

We live in a multicultural world. If a writer is to limit her respect for minority groups to those that are PC as you put it, then she has no respect for them or for anyone else that does not have her transcendant self-identity. I'm reminded of a post by DC, a black person, who basically said in reply to Jacoby's complacent pronouncement about black churches that "whites" will never get it.

In this, I don't agree. Some whites get it. Also not all Whites are white.

Anyway, you do get it, and for that my brown Jewish self is very grateful.

Farnaz

Tim,

Truthfully, I didn't have much in the way of doubt. I've been working on Jewish American writers for the last couple of years and will be introducing a course in September. Let me put it this way: I know my Roth.

This is not to say I'm an expert by any means, but I have presented on him at conferences, and he figures heavily in an article I'm finishing up.
Among the problems with "Defender" is the year in which it is set, Roth's ignorance of what had been witnessed during the War, the antisemitism that Jewish servicemen dealt with then and that they are dealing with now.

Why he didn't know, what it means "to know" within a minority group is one of the themes of this piece. What he does know now, what he has known for years, the agony of his knowing about his Jewish identity sheds light on "Defender," but this isn't the time to go into it.

We live in a multicultural world. If a writer is to limit her respect for minority groups to those that are PC as you put it, then she has no respect for them or for anyone else that does not have her transcendant self-identity. I'm reminded of a post by DC, a black person, who basically said in reply to Jacoby's complacent pronouncement about black churches that "whites" will never get it.

In this, I don't agree. Some whites get it. Also not all Whites are white.

Anyway, you do get it, and for that my brown Jewish self is very grateful.

Farnaz

Tim, Farnaz, Susan,

What the hell is going on here about this endless and bitter search for rabbinical poobahs? I don't know whether to wait for the blood and guts or to flee in terror....

Farnaz,

Yeah. Author, key word, you name it. Nada. I'm assuming you searched for the same reasons I did, to give Jacoby the benefit of the doubt that didn't exist.

Tim,

You mentioned library data bases. Did you do a keyword search? I ask because I did, and found what I expected--next to nada.

Farnaz

Susan Jacoby:

My previous post, along with some others, is meant for you.

Not to question Farnaz, who doesn't speak of things she knows nothing about, I've searched several data bases including both scholarly and popular literature, looking for anything by rabbis on Roth's early work.

This I did because, when questioned as to the identity of your "rabbinical poohbahs," you responded with this:

Much of the criticism of Roth's early work came from rabbis who felt it was a bad idea for any Jewish writer to present Jewish characters in a bad light (or what those particular rabbis saw as a bad light) to the Gentile world.

While this was a minor improvement over your previous post, it seemed to be a transparent attempt to cover the bigoted tracks you'd left with "rabinnical poohbahs."

Still, having access to research library data bases, I used them. Your 10:41 post was offensive. Farnaz's 3:10 reply was apt. You cannot make what is wrong right by chiding, misquoting, bullying, attributing malicious motives, etc.

You know what the offical PC groups are, and Jews aren't among them. What a surprise, then, all this reaction must have been to you, not only on this thread but on the last. I've been following your essays and threads for awhile. MOstly, I just read. Last time with the "examples," I was moved to post. Btw. did you read Farnaz's chat on this thread with a blogger who thought Jihadist should be an "example" to Muslims?

Farnaz is so far ahead of you it's scary, and she's not alone. You need to apologize and rethink a few things.

As for me, I'm out of here. I'm disappointed, even disgusted, sorry to say.

Hi, Jihadist,

You did not hear that Dorothy Parker saying from me. But here it is:

She ran the whole gamut of emotions from A to B.
- - - Dorothy Parker (about Katherine Hepburn)

Well, IMHO, Parker was full of it. Hepburn is my favorite actress of all time. Anyone who doubts should see her star as Hecuba in the incredible but little known movie of Euripides' immortal "Trojan Women". That play - the movie was perfect - is the ultimate tear-jerking anti-war statement. It will shred your soul.

The only time anybody equaled Greek plays was around 1600, in England. A guy called Shakespeare.

agoyuntohimself:

I read your reply and I read Farnaz's question. I don't know what you're talking about either. Not a bit of it.

Explain, please.

Tim

E Favorite: "Hello all - to me, this conversation was weird from the beginning and is getting weirder."

Don't leave. What is happening here is just communication or otherwise from different experiences, from what we read and know, and from what we understand.

As for myself, I only actually read four of Philip Roth's books. Once and never going back again to reread. They are "Goodbye Columbus" (with the controversial "Defender of the Faith), Portnoy's Complain, The Plot Against America and Everyman.

I love Everyman the best. A slim book on getting on, getting old, a life wasted and a death as expected. The last paragraph is priceless. I like least Portnoy's Complain, never mind what Roth is alluding to in the larger context. As for "Defender of the Faith" in Goodbye Columbus, I see that as fellows exploiting someone else due to race/religion as a minority group and shared feelings of bigotry and closing of ranks and protecting one another.

Brings us to the question on whether we are talking about and defining Philip Roth as a "Jewish" writer - one who writes about the Jewish experience in his work, and all the expectations from his group that comes with it. No...that does not mean John Updike is a "terrorist" writer just because he only wrote one book on that subject.

If we are talking about Jewish writers, if the general non-Jewish public is allowed to criticise or welcome a book on a specific community for projecting something about the community, and that the community may feel that what is written is a distortion, generalisation or stereotyping of them that enhances or validated the perceptions of the wider community, they should be allowed to.

With all the Jewish conspiracy theory floating around till today due to bigotry and enforcing bigotry, those who were upset that "Defender of the Faith" may perpetuate that may have a point after all. It does not take much for a bigot to say, "See, even Philip Roth said it, and he's Jewish!". This even if Philip Roth is just telling a story of manipulation and exploitation of a shared kinship of being a minority group in the midst of possibly a non-comprehending, non-sympathetic, non-emphatic and possibly hostile or indifferent majority group.

From the posts by the “goys” here on books, it is apparent most they don't read Philip Roth much and preferred other authors. As for me, if we are to compare Philip Roth to other known "Jewish" writers, I really do prefer Saul Bellow over him, The Adventures of Augie March is the only book I’ve read by Bellow as highly recommended by a friend. Not fair, but there it is.

We lay readers can't be expected to read every book on earth, to know every author and to read every of their books ever written. What I am down to now, is to go to bookshops and read the blurbs, flick through and read the first sentence (if fiction) and introductory chapter if non-fiction. I would always get the books by authors I already like.

All the same, while I love Jane Austen, of the only six comparatively slim books she has written, I have yet to read Northanger Abbey, instead going back to reread Pride and Prejudice mostly or Emma sometimes.

We read not only to learn, but to entertain ourselves. An author that gives one immense pleasure, no matter what the critics said, is one not to dismissed as a "companion" who tells us a mystery (Agatha Christie),a humorous story (P.G. Wodehouse) a satire (Evelyn Waugh) or a spy yarn (Tom Clancy) we enjoy hearing/reading.

I would not even dismiss what Lepidoteryx affectionately and cheerfully calls the "bodice-rippers" yarns. Who are we to dismiss those whose preference are and find pleasure in tales of heaving bosoms and flaring nostrils and living happily ever after once all that inter-personal tensions and dangers from pirates and brigands and forced marriages are overcome? They are fun yarns to read on a beach during a vacation.

Cheers and out of here.

“J”

Jacoby : "The best way to make up your mind about a book is to read it, not to repeat received opinion you have half-absorbed from half-read book reviews and the sort of literary gossip that often has nothing to do with books themselves."

Readers here generally already have developed tastes and preferences in books as gleaned from the list of books they, we gave the ones we like. Once we like an author, we usually get more of his or her previous or subsequent books.

In this day and age of too many choices and too little time, on books, movies, plays and music, people rely on the first hand opinions of professional critics on what to read, see and listen to. Then on the second hand opinions of people of have actually read, seen or heard of the books, movies. And, of course, the third hand opinions of people who repeated or related the opinions of people who actually do so or heard the opinions of others.

Dorothy Parker : “She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.”

Concy : “Jihhy, you must not see it. I read that Dorothy Parker says that Bette Davis runs the range of feelings from D to G. Read and see only what I recommends you to.”

Jihhy : "I don’t know. I heard from Arminius that it was Katherine Ross, or was it Katherine Hepburn? who has no depth of views from P to X not Bette Davis. But, anyway, I prefer Joan Crawford who can wring out a range of emotions from just A in so many shades and variations of semi-minor, demi-minor, minor, semi-major, demi- major and major keys.”

Jacoby : “ I repeat: if you haven't read the books, you're not entitled to an opinion.”

AGoyUntoHimself:

I don't mean to intrude, but speaking both as a Jew and one with some expertise in Jewish American literature, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Could you clarify?

Thanks for the response Tim - while I agree that racial and ethnic stereotyping is a widely pervasive, deeply ingrained and even largely unconscious phenomenon, I don't see how an 'outsider' can be expert in the self-identity and ethnic self-loathing issues that are being alluded to here.

Increased awareness in any sphere is a worthy goal, but many posters were left in the lurch on this thread simply because they didn't recognize that a previously well exercised but rather subtle topic had re-surfaced here - Jewish self-identity issues and non-Jewish attributions.

And this time around cloaked in the alleged detection of a seemingly impoverished selection of Jewish authors - namely Phillip Roth, who while writing some pretty damn good novels steeped in Jewish culture, was somehow (if unconsciously) guilty of possibly pandering to gentile readers (gentile culture?) with his self-deprecating Jewish references in the story line.

Good authors are often both darkly ironic and pessimistic as we know, and for better or worse. Roth has popularized modern big city American Jewish culture and perhaps he has not fairly portrayed it in the large sense. I suspect Roth is a self-absorbed existentialist from first to last - that's a limitation...but it doesn't detract from his talent for telling a story.

In a peculiar way, he is the Jewish equivilant of Protestant Yankee John Updike - maybe I'm wrong here, although I don't think so.

I admit he is no Saul Bellow ... an unlimited author with a universal palate. It's been many years, but I've read more Bellow.

Let's face it Tim - we don't know what Jewish is.

a goy unto himself:

I'm not Jewish. My mother is a practicing Catholic, my father an indifferent Protestant. I'm an atheist.

Why does this issue disturb me? I'm not a bigot. I live in the world. I know there's more than my white christian ass.

Susan Jacoby:

Below I've pasted a quotation offered by Steven. On the last thread and this, several of us have tried to convey this message in simpler terms:

"...we need to find a place to sit, literally or metaphorically, some distance back from what we were previously immersed in, and reflect on it. Psychologist Robert Kegan has written extensively about the price we pay when we are unable to do this. Whatever we remain embedded in, such as our
needs or our viewpoints, will limit us. When we see the world only through the lens of our own needs, we will be trapped and blind to the perspectives of other people. Only when we are able to take these lenses themselves as the object of our thoughts can we escape being subject to them." "...Once I've been able to look at the lenses through which I've been seeing the world, I can evaluate my worldview. I can assess its usefulness, question its validity, recognize its strengths and limitations, modify it in light of new information, and compare it with other views."

I hopes this helps clarify some part or parts of this mysteriously contentious issue.

Jeez Tim, if you're not Jewish you're kind of a pain in the arse, aren't you? Of course if you are Jewish, then I suppose you have every right to be indignant - but why, exactly?

Goy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Goyim)
Jump to: navigation, search

Goy (Hebrew: גוי, regular plural goyim גויים in Western languages) is a transliterated Hebrew word which translates as "nation" or "people". Historically and up to modern times it is a synonym for Gentile or non-Jew.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Etymology
• 2 In Rabbinic Judaism
• 3 Modern usage
• 4 References
• 5 External links

[edit] Etymology


A page from Elia Levita's Yiddish-Hebrew-Latin-German dictionary (16th century) contains a list of nations, including word "גוי", translated to Latin as "Ethnicus"

In the Torah/Hebrew Bible, goy and its variants appear over 550 times in reference to Israelites and to Gentile nations. The first recorded usage of goy occurs in Genesis 10:5 and applies innocuously to non-Israelite nations. The first mention in relation to the Israelites comes in Genesis 12:2, when God promises Abraham that his descendants will form a goy gadol ("great nation"). While the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible often use goy to describe the Israelites, the later ones tend to apply the term to other nations.

Some Bible translations leave the word Goyim untranslated and treat it as the proper name of a country in Genesis 14:1. Bible commentaries suggest that the term may refer to Gutium.[1] The "King of Goyim" was Tidal.
[edit] In Rabbinic Judaism

One of the more poetic descriptions of the chosen people in the Old Testament, and popular among Jewish scholarship, as the highest description of themselves: when God proclaims in the holy writ, 'Goy Ehad B'Aretz', or 'a unique nation upon the earth!'.

The Rabbinic literature conceives of the nations (goyim) of the world as numbering seventy, each with a discrete language.

On the verse, “He [God] set the borders of peoples according to the number of the Children of Israel,”[2] Rashi explains: “Because of the number of the Children of Israel who were destined to come forth from the children of Shem, and to the number of the seventy souls of the Children of Israel who went down to Egypt, He set the ‘borders of peoples’ [to be characterized by] seventy languages.”

The Ohr Hachayim[3] maintains that this is the symbolism behind the Menorah: “The seven candles of the Menorah [in the Holy Temple] correspond to the world's nations, which number seventy. Each [candle] alludes to ten [nations]. This alludes to the fact that they all shine opposite the western [candle], which corresponds to the Jewish people.”
[edit] Modern usage

As noted, in the above-quoted Rabbinical literature the meaning of the word "goy" shifted the Biblical meaning of "a people" which could be applied to the Hebrews/Jews as to others into meaning "a people other than the Jews". In later generations, a further shift left the word as meaning an individual person who belongs to such a non-Jewish people.

In modern Hebrew and Yiddish the word goy is the standard term for a gentile.

In English the use of the word goy can be controversial. Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews.[4][5][6] To avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the English terms "Gentile" or "non-Jew".
In Yiddish it is the only proper term for Gentile, and many bilingual English and Yiddish speakers do use it dispassionately.

A stereotype of a goy, as expressed in Jewish humor, bears derogatory elements, e.g., as Hillel Halkin writes: "A stereotypical goy acts blindly; a stereotypical Jew thinks before acting," [7] when commenting on skit of Jack Benny: when a mugger comes upon him: "your money or your life", and prods him with the gun, he protests "I'm thinking it over!"

The term shabbos goy refers to a non-Jew who performs duties that Jewish law forbids a Jew from performing on the Sabbath; typically, lighting a fire to warm a house.

In Israel, secularists rarely use the term, preferring to either refer to foreign countries and nations by their specific names or use such terms as "Ha-Olam Ha-Lo Yehudi" (העולם הלא-יהודי), "The Non-Jewish World".

Susan Jacoby:

Below I've pasted a quotation offered by Steven. On the last thread and this, several of us have tried to convey this message in simpler terms:

"...we need to find a place to sit, literally or metaphorically, some distance back from what we were previously immersed in, and reflect on it. Psychologist Robert Kegan has written extensively about the price we pay when we are unable to do this. Whatever we remain embedded in, such as our
needs or our viewpoints, will limit us. When we see the world only through the lens of our own needs, we will be trapped and blind to the perspectives of other people. Only when we are able to take these lenses themselves as the object of our thoughts can we escape being subject to them." "...Once I've been able to look at the lenses through which I've been seeing the world, I can evaluate my worldview. I can assess its usefulness, question its validity, recognize its strengths and limitations, modify it in light of new information, and compare it with other views."

Okay!
At risk of interrupting, I'd add two more books that, despite being fiction and epic, have made my life better:

1) Tai-Pan
2) Noble House, both by James Clavell. Excellent stories about the beginnings, adventure, and intrigue concerning Hong Kong.

But currently, another suggestion, looking good:

Blind Spots, by Madeleine L. Van Hecke. And here's a quote from her book that's helpful to me sometimes as I read through these "On Faith" contributions:

"...we need to find a place to sit, literally or metaphorically, some distance back from what we were previously immersed in, and reflect on it. Psychologist Robert Kegan has written extensively about the price we pay when we are unable to do this. Whatever we remain embedded in, such as our needs or our viewpoints, will limit us. When we see the world only through the lens of our own needs, we will be trapped and blind to the perspectives of other people. Only when we are able to take these lenses themselves as the object of our thoughts can we escape being subject to them." "...Once I've been able to look at the lenses through which I've been seeing the world, I can evaluate my worldview. I can assess its usefulness, question its validity, recognize its strengths and limitations, modify it in light of new information, and compare it with other views."

Amen!

Susan,

Your language was offensive. That's the beginning and end of it, except maybe that it was arrogant.

Susan,

Good explanation. Case closed, IMHO.

E Fav is right, this is a seriously weird thread for such an innocuous question.

Susan Jacoby:

Here are two words that we all must say on occasion: I'm sorry.

More words for you: My language was offensive.

Susan Jacoby:

You continue to astonish. Speechless doesn't begin to say it. I've read Roth. What of Roth have you read?

Susan Jacoby:

This is fascinating. I've read Roth quite thoroughly, have presented on him, and will soon publish an article that includes some of his work.
I would certainly like to know the names of all these rabbis, since I haven't come across many. I noted one, who didn't seem a "poohbah" to me.

But I am always ready to learn and am interested in knowing who the "rabbinicals" were.

The word "goyim" is Hebrew. It occurs in the Tanakh and means "nations."

Hello all - to me, this conversation was weird from the beginning and is getting weirder.

Just letting you know that I won't be contributing any more to this particular thread. I find it too confusing. In my opinion, it lacks the healthy debate that there has been here in the past.

A Pooh Bah (after a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta "The Mikado," is a pompous, self-important person who holds several different positions, which thereby increases his sense of self-importance. Quite often, it's lower-cased as poohbah today. "Rabbinical" omitting the second "b" was a typo. Much of the criticism of Roth's early work came from rabbis who felt it was a bad idea for any Jewish writer to present Jewish characters in a bad light (or what those particular rabbis saw as a bad light) to the Gentile world. Goyim is the Yiddish word for Gentiles in the plural. Goy is one of those Yiddish words so commonly used that it appears in all modern American dictionaries.I didn't define it because in most publications, it would be considered patronizing to assume that your readers didn't know what it meant.

I repeat: if you haven't read the books, you're not entitled to an opinion.

And yes, there are lots of poohbahs in the Vatican. And James Dobson is a right-wing Christian poohbah.

Tim,

I'll be damned if I know how to explain that to Farnaz. All I know that somewhere there are Rabbis that are Poobahs. Not unusual, since all religions and governments are festering with poobahs. I'm going to let Susan and Farnaz fight this one out.

Arminius,

I see. Then, please, would you answer Farnaz's questions re "rabinnical" (sic)? How does the rabbinate figure in this?

Are critics of "Smokescreens" Popish poohbahs? Etc.

See Farnaz's rebly to Jacoby.

Tim,

Well, ok. I knew what Susan meant by "rabinnical poohbah" instantly. I did not know, or particularly care, where it was aimed. Just thought I could help out some with a bit of explantion as to meaning.

Arminius,

The quote is from Susan Jacoby's 10:41 post, which appears to be a reply to Farnaz, who subsequently asked for clarification from Jacoby. See posts.

This "rabinnical poohbah" business is Jacoby's construction, hers to explain.

Poobah: from Gilbert and Sullivan's great operetta, 'The Mikado'. The Poo-Bah in the play is someone swelled up with his own self-importance.

E Favorite:

I'm not the same Tim who thinks the Bible is divinely inspired.

I'm the Tim who wants to know what a "rabinnical poohbah" is.

Tim - are you the same Tim who wrote the post about how the Bible is divinely inspired?

When you say "So sorry the flow of your discussion is being interrupted. You aren't coming off well" you sound like a different person to me.

Are you being sarcastic?

Susan Jacoby:

Farnaz writes to you:

And, for your readers, you might want to define "goyim." Could you also please explain for me and for the rest of those who post here what a "rabinnical poohbah" (sic) is? And how does the rabbinate bear on this discussion?
--------------

I, too, would be interested in your answers to these questions. In particular, I'd like to know what a "rabinnical poobah" (sic) is.

Daniel itld - When I read your post, I took your remarks about Roth as you intended them (as you explained them in your last post to Susan). Personally, I think Susan might have been reading too quickly and just misunderstood what you meant. Perhaps this episode will help her see that it’s not always ignorance that causes people to jump to conclusions based on limited information.

I read Portnoy’s Complaint and saw Goodbye Columbus a long time ago. I enjoyed Roth because he was so cynical and because he led me into a world that was all around me, but that I had never noticed. That’s the best thing about books, I think – taking you into another world.

Truly, I don’t think I’ve ever criticized a person for liking a book that I didn’t like. In such a situation, I think I’d want to get into a discussion about our different opinions. Might learn something that way.

Daniel,

So sorry the flow of your discussion is being interrupted.

You aren't coming off well. Have you read what Farnaz wrote? Like Susan Jacoby, I also thought of you as a thoughful blogger. One never knows....

By all means, "flow" on.

DITLD,

First, I don't know who you mean when you refer to "my friends." Second, I did not say that Roth was a "self-hating Jew," neither here nor anywhere else, at least not without sustantive qualifications. HIs own views of his Jewishness warrant compassion, not contempt. Finally, when did I suggest you undertake research?

Self-hatred within any minority group represents what Anna Freud called "internalization of the aggressor." That is to say, the minority group victims internalize the prejudices of their majority group opressors. As a result one sees phenomena such as skin-bleaching, eye-brow straightening, nose jobs, etc.

Ethnic/racial self-hatred is the deformation of character, identity. It is a horrible, horrible thing. During the American Civil Rights Movement, African Americans insisted on the use of the word "black," instead of "Negro," in common parlance, since "blackness" had been associated with unattractiveness. Recall "Black is beautiful." Black people sought to undo centuries of damaging white hatred.

Within communities "of color," lighter skinned persons may be prejudiced against those with darker complexions. This phenomenon, generally called "colorism," is "internalization of the aggressor" writ large.

Personally, I don't feel like discussing this short story, any more than I would like the person who posted on "Smokescreens" to explain why s/he thinks of it as his/her favorite book. That is not the issue.

Tim,

My posting was not addressed only to FARNAZ. There were many other attacks posted early on. Many were so incomprehensible that later posters didn't even know where they were coming from. The attacks were personal, in some cases overtly racist. FARNAZ and some others seem to be objecting to her choices because they seem to perceive anti-semitism or some other moral failure in her choice of books. I was simply objecting to the ad hominem tone of the attacks. They seem to be more generated against her as an atheist than strictly with her choices.

At first, I thought that this was a more intelligent question than usual. But it has turned out to be mosly a bust.

On this particular thread, there is nothing much to say. except to trade some back and forth about good books we may have read.

I think that Farnaz is obstructing the flow of the discussion, because she is fixed on some point that she is unable to make known to others. My assumption is that the rest of us are just too dumb to "explain" things to; it would be too much trouble. And that is fine, but then why keep picking at it?

Susan

I am sorry.

I was being sarcastic and should have put "scoundrel" in quotes. Farnaz and her friends implied that Philip Roth is a "scoundrel" but have not said why, and even though I have done as she suggested, and tried to do some research on him, I still cannot exactly understand what they must be referring to. The worst thing that I have found out about him is the he is a "self-hating Jew," but I am not so sure what that is, nor why that is such a terrible thing to be.

I was trying to make a point to Farnaz, without being direct, because I was afraid of offending her. My point was, that she is angry with you because you like Roth; will she be angry at me for not knowing much about him, because I am ignorant, or will she be pleased with me for not knowing much about him since (she does seem to think that) he is not worth knowing much about.

For Farnaz, I wish you would just say, what it is about Philip Roth that you do not like, and just say it outright in plain English, even if it takes a few paragraphs. You are trying to get people to follow your thoughts, but you are not dropping us enough bread-crumbs; there is nothing to follow but cryptic remarks and innuendos. I mostly do not understand what you say.

Because of this little kerfluffle, I may actually read some of Roth's books, just to see what we are all mad at each other about, but I cannot really take Farnaz's advice and do an in-depth research project on him, because I do not think I am all that interested.

I am sorry I got mixed up in this argument, because this type of thing is not what I am interetsted in at all.

Even books on "heavy" theology have some gem observations by the authors.

To wit:

In Edward Schillebeeckx's, Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Hi DITLD,

As I reread the comments, I don't see any that suggest Roth is a "scoundrel." Unfortunately, this is not the place to present a critical assessment of his work, which, overall, is impressive. This is not to say he rivals Saul Bello, or even Cynthis Ozick, in my view, but that is another matter.

The issue here, at least for me, revolves around a single short story, "Defender of the Faith," its critical and popular reception, and I, daresay, Roth's own pronouncements on the consequences of his Jewish identity.

Susan Jacoby:

Re: Your 10:41 post

Do you read what you write before you post it? "[R]abbinnical poohbas?" (sic)? I noticed that someone posted on a text called "Smokescreens," which I subsequently looked up. Does the "critical commentary" of "Smokescreens" come from "Popish poohbahs"?

And did earlier critical commentary on Toomer come from "ministerial poohbas"?

What kind of Poohbah was Auden, who was quite outspoken about a number of his contemporaries?

You argue, "As I wrote, this particular short story deals with the claims of individual conscience versus group loyalty....."

Is that it? Odd, since so many scholars think there is much more to be said. But they must be "rabinnical poohbahs" (sic), not critics, as we, the benighted, had viewed them. You also proclaim, "[T]he objections raised to Roth's early work . . . essentially boiled down to: "'He's telling the goyim what we don't want them to hear.'" I don't know that they "essentially boiled down" to this, not at all. Further, I'm speaking of one short story, "Defender of the Faith," and in the year 2008, Ms. Jacoby. Roth Studies has progressed.

And, for your readers, you might want to define "goyim." Could you also please explain for me and for the rest of those who post here what a "rabinnical poohbah" (sic) is? And how does the rabbinate bear on this discussion?

Daniel In The Lion's Den:

I'm really surprised at you, because your comments are usually very thoughtful--whether I agree with them or not. Why should you call Philip Roth a "scoundrel" if you haven't read his books? All of these comments depress me deeply, because they demonstrate all too clearly the phenomenon I describe in "The Age of American Unreason"--the American propensity to rely on the half-digested opinions of others, often filtered through idiotic media "critics" who are incapable of a single creative thought. No one has any right to an opinion about an unread book or an unread author.

Interestingly, Nadezhda Mandelstam has a great deal to say about this phenomenon of second- and third-hand opinion as she saw it unfold in the Soviet Union. But then, I guess no one on this thread has an "opinion" about her, because her name and culture are so unfamiliar to most Americans.

What ignorance and arrogance is evident in many of these comments! When I said that the King James Bible was written by a committee, I meant the famous committee of translators, who deliberated over questions of style and English usage as much as (or more than) over questions of theology. When I said the King James version, I meant the King James version. If I'd read some of the modern translations of the Bible, which are terified of using old metaphors and words, I'd probably have put them down half-way through Genesis. Somehow, "the Lord is my guide; he gives me what I need," doesn't do it for me as a version of the 23rd psalm.

The only "vitriol" and bigotry I see is in Susan Jacoby's 10:41 post, where I also see inaccurate quoting, other inaccuarate attributions, and sweeping generalizations.

Sorry to say, and I mean that sincerely, but the post is offensive.

agathodemon:

What "vitriol" did Farnaz "spew"?

RE: Farnaz and others.

What is wrong with you?! This is ethnic/cultural PC run amok. How is this in any way different from the howling Islamist crowds condemning the West that you see so often protesting imagined offenses against their religion or Mohammad. I am so ---ing tired of self appointed arbitors of what is proper or correct. That you're offended is just too bad, get over it. She was asked for her book selection. No one needs to conform to your opinions. The ad hominem and offensive remarks were uncalled for. You may, of course, disagree with her choices, but they are hers, not yours. In any case, there was no basis for the vitriol that you were spewing.

So, why is it we are not supposed to like Philip Roth? Are those of us who are not really familiar with his work, better people for not knowing much about such a scoundrel, or are we merely ignorant?

Talking about committees:

The Christian doctrine was established for the first time during the Nicaean Council, a "committee" organized by the Emperor Constantine in 325, assembling a group of around 300 Bishops and another 1200 clergy. One of their main topics was the (originally majority) stance of Arianus of Alexandria that Jesus Christ was not fully of the substance of god and the idea of a trinity was wrong, while Athanasius maintained the contrary. The committee finally sided with Athanasius, but the emperor Constantine was baptized by an Arian priest shortly before his death. (One of the decisions made during the Council was a ban on self-castration (???). They were arguing and quarrelling in Greek and Latin (we must assume that half of the attendees spoke no Greek, the other half no Latin) over semantic Greek/Hebrew/Latin finesses such as the difference between “essence” and “substance” etc. etc.

In later Councils (381, Constantinople), the emperor Theodosius finally ORDERED Athanasianism, including the Trinity to be the true belief, threatening everybody who did not believe this version with punishments for heresy. There were other modifications of the Christian doctrine, up until the 5th century, and we are not even talking about the "Donation of Constantine" three hundred years later, which proved to be one of the biggest frauds in history, which the Vatican even concedes, a lie made up to guarantee the Popes’ power over half of the Old World. (The Pope invented another version of the installment of papal power to circumvent this embarrassment.) Btw, In the Westphalian Peace in 1648, people were also ORDERED to believe either the catholic or the protestant version of Christianity, depending on in which principality or countship they lived (“Cuius regio, eius religio”). Eternal truth?

Let’s make a little thought experiment: If we go back 300 years from today (roughly the interval between the supposed life of Jesus and the Council of Nicaea) and imagine such a story as the life of Jesus, say around the year 1700, 50 years after the 30 years’ war, translated and edited over and over - I don’t think anybody in his clear mind would assign much validity to anything philosophical, religious or scientific (still a unity then) that might have happened at this occasion, except maybe an interest on what people thought in that long bygone historic past. Galilei comes to mind. That is the "eternal truth" people like Tim want to sell us as the voice of God!

Scholars have pointed out that already in those old Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts there were thousands of errors, mistakes and discrepancies, and the discrepancies up to this day, of course, have multiplied. The English language didn’t exist at that council, and still the pious believers actually believe that “God” dictated his word (in English?) - to whom, btw?, since the persons supposed to have written the NT are rarely, if at all, clearly documented outside the church itself.

In the face of such historical documentations I really am at a loss to find any reason whatsoever (except for the social usefulness) for anybody to be a “believer” – the object of the "belief" actually being untraceable.

Writers are under no obligation to "reinforce the self-understanding of minority peoples"--or majority peoples, for that matter. Or should I say, to reinforce the self-understanding of those people who want to see their group presented in a wholly positive light. That's not literature but propaganda. But since you do seem to have read the critical commentary on this subject, you know that the objections raised to Roth's early work by rabinnical poohbahs essentially boiled down to: "He's telling the goyim what we don't want them to hear." As I wrote, this particular short story deals with the claims of individual conscience versus group loyalty--a subject that, I would venture to say, is of interest to any thinking human being of any group.

For the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist who still cannot come to grips with the flaws and errors of Islam, four recommended books for her/his Xmas wish list: (prices are FOB Brooklyn, NY)

1. In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed (Paperback - Nov 1, 2005)
Buy new: $19.95 $13.57 from amazon.com

2. Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography by Bruce Chilton (Paperback - Nov 15, 2005)
Buy new: $14.95 $10.1732 Used & new from $5.00 from amazon.com

3. Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Paperback - April 1, 2008)
Buy new: $15.00 $10.2058 Used & new from $8.29 from amazon.com

4. The Satanic Verses: A Novel by Salman Rushdie (Paperback - Mar 11, 2008)
Buy new: $16.00 $10.8830 Used & new from $9.01
from amazon.com

An excerpt from Professor Chilton's Rabbi Paul:

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mo's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Susan Jacoby:

While I can't speak for the others who found themselves speechless at your choice of "Defender," I can certainly speak for myself, and ask why you presume others who raised questions "only heard of Roth." Where, may I ask is the evidence for this assertion?

As for me, I can only repeat recommendations I made earlier: Research the critical and popular reception to this short story; Roth's response to the reception; Roth's later pronouncements on the consequences of his Jewish identity. Although I don't feel it's my responsibility as a blogger to educate you on Roth, I will say that I've presented on him, and am finishing up an article that deals with his work in a larger context. If you have questions later on that I can answer, I will be happy to do so.

In the interim, you might want to return to Goodbye Columbus and read "Eli the Fanatic." This is a tale that resonates with Jewish subjectivity and fits squarely into centuries of Jewish thought. It is part of current curricula in courses on American Jewish literature.

In posting, I think it is important for you to consider the self-understanding of minority peoples in this, our multi-cultural world.

E Favorite

It has become obvious to me for a very long time that ALL theology is written by committees. And there is ALWAYS a political expedient for the theology that the committee writes; sometimes it is to maintain power and wealth; sometimes it is to surrender power and wealth, as for example, when military guards stand at the door, and the building is surrounded by a foreign army; the committee writes and re-writes what it must.

The counter to all of this, is the individual person, who thinks and reflects, inwardly, and in solitude.

Steven -- yes - misquoting Jesus would be a great book for Tim or anyone interested in how the bible was written.

Last segment to Tim - I’m intrigued by your use of of the words fact, self evident proof and miracle, as if using these words in relation to how the bible was written makes it so. It suggests to me how intelligent people (which your writing style suggests to me) who are also religiously indoctrinated can be influenced to think that empirical evidence and miraculous events are compatible, which they are not.

Jihadist:

"The Most Unforgettable Books I Ever Met :

* How Soil Turn Into Brain
* The World is Flat
* How the Milky Way Revolves Around Fallen Planet Earth"

You are a smile for me this Thursday morning!
(And I think I recognize the authors of said books!)

E-Favorite:

Wouldn't "Misquoting Jesus" be a good read for Tim?

Susan

The posts on this thread got off to a little bit of a weird start, because the cryptic comments assumed that all the rest of us would understand them, when most of us did not, and because you were being condemned, for liking what you like.

But don't worry. You're still the most popular panelst.

next to last segment to Tim

So, a committee is not a committee when the human writers are divinely inspired. Where does it say in the Bible that it is divinely inspired? As I recall, that’s something the Catholic church decided (in committee) when church scholars had to acknowledge that multiple human sources over centuries were responsible for the Bible. How does one know which books are divinely inspired and which are not? Perhaps the ones that made it into the canon at one of the many human committee meetings deciding what’s in and what’s out?

Trying this in segments, to Tim:

Still, I will admit that in the paragraph that follows, you have opened my eyes to the tactics used to explain and justify to believers the FACT that the Bible, like all books, was written by humans:

"No, a committee did not write the Bible. The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. The fact that this happen is one proof that the Bible is God's word. The miracle of this book is self evident proof of it's source."

What is wrong with a lot of you? The panelists were simply asked to name the books which have had a great deal of influence on their lives--not to write a long apologia for these books.

What really stuns me is that most of you, who not only haven't read the short story "Defender of the Faith" but have only "heard of" Philip Roth, have opinions about someone whose work you don't know and have not read. And apparently you're not interested at all in Nadezhda Mandelstam, a truly remarkable figure in 20th-century letters. If you want to know anything about these books, why not try reading them instead of science fiction. (Though I too like Ray Bradbury.)

The best way to make up your mind about a book is to read it, not to repeat received opinion you have half-absorbed from half-read book reviews and the sort of literary gossip that often has nothing to do with books themselves.

I'm really disgusted at being told that I shouldn't like the books I like by people who haven't read those books.

It is interesting that Susan will acknowledge the greatness of this book but will not acknowledge the author. Susan, through the greatness of this book God is calling you. Some people see God in the stars at night. I do. Some people see God in the daily beauty around them. I do. And then God give some people, like you, the intelligence to appreciate the beauty of words, and the beauty of books. Ask God to open your eyes and he will and then you will see His beauty, mercy and grace in this greatest book of all, The Bible.

Posted by Tim June 26, 2008 5:42 AM

**********************

E Favourite, just so that you don't misinterpret, I was referring to this part. It is an open secret that there are many interpretations to the Bible as there are Christian denominations, and differing views among members of really large denominations. There is also a common belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour that binds all Christians.

Tim - I'm happy to see you on the forum. Your recent post is fascinating. Perhaps you don't realize that even many Christians do not share your views of the Bible and do not want their eyes "opened" in the way you offer.

test

The Most Unforgettable Books I Ever Met :

* How Soil Turn Into Brain
* The World is Flat
* How the Milky Way Revolves Around Fallen Planet Earth

In Search of Paul?

First, the Bible is written by a Committee.
Then, Jesus did not exist.
Now, Paul is lost.

Where is Angela?
Where is Spiderman2?
Where is Thomas Baum?
Where is Canyon Shearer?

Hmmm, 2 Timothy by most contemporary NT exegetes was not written by St. Paul but by a pseudo Paul so that puts the damper on "all scripture inspired by god". And 2 Peter was one of the last epistles written well past the death of St. Peter i.e. (65 CE vs. 100-160 CE)

See Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul and Professors JD Crossan and JL Reed's book, In Search of Paul.

Tim, it is this very compulsion of well meaning Christians like you, to preach at people all the time, never exercising their faculty of discernment, that has given all Christians a bad name.

People are turned off by in-your-face preaching at every turn, even if it is done with the best intention.

Why could you not have resisted the urge to preach to Susan Jacoby who is *an atheist by choice?* She has had plenty of chances to explore faith in God and found her faith in atheism.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is an on faith forum with many many panelists who are believers.

Tim, it is this very compulsion of well meaning Christians like you, to preach at people all the time, never exercising their faculty of discernment that has given all Christians a bad name. People are turned off by in-your-face preaching at every turn if it is done with the best intention.

Why could you not have resisted the urge to preach to Susan Jacoby who is an atheist by choice who has plenty of chances to explore her faith? Just in case you didn't notice, this is an on faith forum with many many panelists who are believers.

Susan says, "The King James Bible, which is indeed the only great book ever written by a committee."

Has anyone ever worked with on a church committee? It is next to impossible to get agreement on theological issues. For example, even in areas where the Bible is clear, like homosexually, the church argues about the issue. Then there are many issues that are not so clearly stated and a church committee can easily grind to a halt. It is simply impossible that the Bible itself could be constucted over the course of some 1500 years by many different authors and then pieced together by some committee!

No, a committee did not write the Bible. The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. The fact that this happen is one proof that the Bible is God's word. The miracle of this book is self evident proof of it's source.

Finally, the Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

It is interesting that Susan will acknowledge the greatness of this book but will not acknowledge the author. Susan, through the greatness of this book God is calling you. Some people see God in the stars at night. I do. Some people see God in the daily beauty around them. I do. And then God give some people, like you, the intelligence to appreciate the beauty of words, and the beauty of books. Ask God to open your eyes and he will and then you will see His beauty, mercy and grace in this greatest book of all, The Bible.

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

Actually those skilled in the sciences will appreciate said list.

Ghostbuster,
If you like The Lottery (also a favorite of mine), you should try the book Harvest Home by Thomas Tryon (one of several good ones by him).

I also liked the original short story The Birds by Daphne du Maurier. The movie was such a disappointment after that.

Oh, splendid... be still my beating heart... yawn.... CCNL has spammed another pointless list that no sane person will read.... yawn... zzzzzzzzzzzz

More favorite books:

(i.e. Mother Nature/The Singularity and Her/Its Wonders of Science Not Theological Books of Fiction and Myth)

CRC Standard Mathematical Tables. 28th Edition. W.H. Boyer, PhD. 1987 by CRC Express, Inc.

Transport Phenomena. Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot. McGraw-Hill.

Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids. Volume I. Fluid Mechanics. 2nd Edition. Bird, Armstrong, and Hassager. 1987 by John Wiley and Sons.

Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes. 2nd Edition. Felder and Roussoau. 1986 by John Wiley and Sons.

Kinetics of Heterogeneous Catalytic Reactions. Boudart and Djega-Mariadassou. 1984 by Princeton University Press.

Introduction to Polymers. 2nd Edition. Young and Lovell. 1991 by Chapman & Hall.

Code of Federal Regulations. Housing & Urban Development. Volume 24, Parts 1700 to end. Revised as of April 1, 1993 by the Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration.

Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. Box, Hunter, and Hunter. 1978 by John Wiley and Sons.

Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 3rd Edition. Incropera and DeWitt. 1990 by John Wiley and Sons.

Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 3rd Edition. F.P. Incropera & D.P. DeWitt. 1990 by John Wiley and Sons.

Chemical Engineering Series. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. 4th Edition. McCabe, Smith, & Harriott. 1985 by McGraw-Hill Inc.

Chemical Engineering Series. Mass Transfer Operations. 3rd Edition. R.E. Treybal. 1980 by McGraw-Hill Company.

Chemical Engineering Series. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. Peters & Timmerhaus. 1980 by McGraw-Hill Inc.

Plastics Technology Manufacturing Handbook and Buyers' Guide. 1994-1995. Mid-July 1994. Rekstad & Naitove.

Mathematical Methods in Chemical Engineering. 2nd Edition. V.G. Jenson and G.V. Jeffreys. 1977 by Academic Press Ltd.

Chemical Reaction Engineering. 2nd Edition. O. Levenspiel. 1972 by John Wiley & Sons.

Transport Processes & Unit Operations. 2nd Edition. C.J. Geankoplis. 1983 by Alyn & Bacon, Inc.

Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis. 3rd Edition. White, Agee, & Case. 1989 by John Wiley & Sons.

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 65th Edition. Weast, et al. 1984 by CRC Press, Inc.

Particle Size Measurement. 3rd Edition. T. Allen, PhD. Powder Technology Series. Edited by B. Scarlett.
1981 by Chapman and Hall, LTD.

Fluid Mixing Technology. J.Y. Oldshue, PhD. 1983 by Chemical Engineering McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone. 2nd Edition. R.S. Boynton, Consultant. 1980 by John Wiley and Sons. (TN 967.B73 1980)

Handbook of Foamed Plastics. R.J. Bender. 1965 by Lake Publishing Company.

Dispersion of Powders in Liquids. 3rd Edition. G.D. Parfitt. 1981 by Applied Science Publishers Inc. (TP 936.D57 1981 c. 2)

Coffee Volume I: Chemistry. Clarke and Macrae. 1985 by Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.

Food and Packaging Interactions. J.H. Hotchkiss. 1988 by the American Chemical Society, Washington DC. )

Diffusion In and Through Polymers - Principles and Applications. W.R. Vieth. 1991 by Carl Hanser Verlag (Oxford University Press).

Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena. M.J. Rosen. 1978 by John Wiley and Sons. ((TP 994.R67 c. 3)

Processes for Major Addition-Type Plastics and Their Monomers. L.F. Albright. 1974 by McGraw-Hill Inc. ((TP 1180.P67 A42)

Rigid Plastics Foams. 2nd Edition. T.H. Ferrigno. 1967 by Reinhold Publishing Corporation. (TP 1183.F6 F4 1967 c. 2)

The Vanderbilt Rubber Handbook. R.O. Babbit. 1978 by R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. (TS 1890.V3 1978)

Physical Properties of Polymers. F. Bueche. 1962 by John Wiley and Sons.
(
Organic Peroxides. D. Swern. 1970 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Advances in Foam Aging. A Topic in Energy Conservations. D.A. Brandreth. 1986 by Caisse Editions. (

Cellular Solids Structure and Properties. Gibson and Ashby. 1988 by Pergamon Press.

Volatile Compounds in Food and Qualitative and Quantitative Data. Volumes I&II and Index. 1989 by Maarse and Visscher. TNO-CIVO Food Analysis Institute - The Netherlands. 1989 v.1-3)

Ghostbuster,

'Fahrenheit 451' is quite a book. That book was published in 1953, and is still timely - re the fundies, who would love to burn books if they could get away with it.

I have read everything by Bradbury. His short stories are really good.

My list of favorites in no particular order:

The aforementioned "Killer Angels"

"There is Something Amazing about Grace" by Phil Yancey

"The Shadow University" by Kors and Silverglate

The Lottery" a short story by Shirley Jackson

Farenheit 451

I also enjoy reading an occasional biography. Most recently one on Lenin.

Now you see why I'm a loner on boards ;)

Hi, Ghostbuster,

I have read "The Killer Angels" maybe five times. Saw the movie twice. Wish I had it. I am a true Civil War junkie. Hell, a history junkie, specialty in military history. Keep in touch.

Arminius

Arminus,

I couldn't help but notice your selection. "The Killer Angels", by Michael Shaara. That is one of my all time favorites too. Have you been to Gettysburg yet?

GB - a Civil War buff

Earlier, I mentioned "Spring Snow" by Yukio Mishima. Now, I am remembering, that was not exactly right.

It was a bitter sweet story of young love set in Japan. So, I looked for another book to read by this author, and I read "Confessions of a Mssk" which is the first person narrative of a maladjusted teenage boy, set against the backdrop of the war with America and the daily bombing of Tokyo. I liked that book very much. (Proabably not a girly-type book). What I noticed, was that even though it was set in Japan, still, alot of the things about this person seemed familiar.

I have also read "The Great Gatsby", "This Side of Paradise", and "Tender is the Night" by F. Scott Fitzgerald. For each one of these books, the prose writing often seemed like poetry, and then when the story came to an end, I felt a sort of quivery weepiness inside, that I wished the story could keep going on a little longer.

Another book that gave me this feeling was "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells. The book was very short, but also very expansive in its plot-line, portraying the future of the world thousands of centuries hence. It was written in 1899, but is not dated at all. I have read it over several times, and always when I get to the end, I have a breathless longing, that the story could go on, just a little more; I feel like I must know what happened to the people in the story; but then I know there is no more, and close it, and lay it aside.

When I was sick and an invalid, I read the book "The Will to Believe" by William James. It helped me alot to face my unhappy life, with a lighter heart, and with the ability and strength to accept the things that had happened to me, when before, I could not. I do not even know how this book came to be in my posession. Maybe someone whom I have now forgotten, passed it along to me.

Oops, forgot two very important favorite books i.e.

1. Salman (recently knighted) Rushdie's The Satanic Verses

and

2. Hirsi Ali's Infidel.

J. Chick. Smokescreens

Farnaz and the "Defender of the Faith"?

The thing about Philip Roth and "Goodbye, Columbus" and some of his earlier writings before or after that book, ("Defender of the Faith" too?) was that, Mr. Roth was accused of being "anti-Semitic" and a "self-hating Jew". This was in the late sixties and/or early seventies.

I remember this on Philip Roth somewhat as when Salman Rushdie's flap happened over his "The Satanic Verses", he alluded to Philip Roth's similar experience in being "branded" and "opposed" for "Goodbye, Columbus".

Better Farnaz or other Jewish person of any religious or non-religious stripe to elaborate and/or clarify on this.

Regards
"J"

E-Favorite:

I'm reading "Misquoting Jesus" currently. Loving it.

I'm a bit of a romantic sap so I still think a lot about "The Thorn Birds" by Colleen McCullough, and I can still hear that music by Henry Mancini (and of course picture Rachel Ward coming down that staircase in the movie--she makes me believe in goddesses. Father Ralph was an idiot.)

Loved Larry McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove."

Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" was a great read.

Anything by Chet Raymo.

Favorite of all time? I'd have to say "Lord of the Rings" took me the farthest away from this existance for a good many pleasurable weeks!

The Gospell of Judas, very illuminating.

Some interesting stuff here, but the blog is hardly on fire.

Naming favorite books is easy - top of my list, "Lord of the Rings", second is the Odyssey. The rest is in a state of flux...

Except for two:

"How the Irish Saved Civilization", by Thomas Cahill
I've always been a history fan, but this one opened my eyes. I came away with a deep appreciation of the Irish - my father was born there - and a much lower appreciation of the English. One of the endearing statements is that S Freud once declared that the Irish are the one people who cannot be psychoanalyzed. That's a compliment!

"The Killer Angels", by Michael Shaara
Historical novel about the Battle of Gettysburg, and nothing else. If you want to know just what was in the minds of both sides, read this remarkable book. The presentation of the characters of the major figures in this decisive battle are nothing short of remarkable. Well written, easy to read. Pulitzer Prize winner, and deserved it.

My favorite Book as a kid was Forever Amber, an historical novel written by Kathleen Windsor in 1944. It was another title in my mother’s ancient library. Wikipedia describes it thus: “The saga frolicked through Restoration England and vivid images of fashion, politics, bedrooms and public disasters of the time, including the plague and the Great fire of London.”

I was reading for the bedroom scenes, but became entranced with that period of English history. I didn’t realize life could be so different from my own experience. It was the first book that made history come alive for me. Wiki says it was a bestseller in it’s time and was made into a movie in 1947 starring Linda Darnell. I’d like to see it.

A recent favorite is Bart Erhman’s “Misquoting Jesus.” It was the first book I read ABOUT religion, that was written objectively without the presumption of belief. I was already on the Road to atheism when I read it, but I found myself fascinated with the very human way the bible had evolved.

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

I remember, a very long time ago, I read a book called "Spring Snow" by Yukio Mishima.

Has anyone else ever heard of this book?

I must admit I have not read “Defender of the Faith,” though I’ve read some other pieces by Roth. I’m curious what makes Susan Jacoby so evil/ignorant/foolish/White/Christian, etc. for having liked the story at the age of fourteen.

I’m also wondering why those individuals who have such a strong opinion about this story haven’t posted a list of the works they consider the most influential in THEIR lives.

Sad, really.

An opportunity for the panelists to share a little of themselves by offering works of literature that had an impact on their lives, and what does Ms. Jacoby do? She takes a brief moment to open with an attack on Christianity. Was that necessary? Was it too impossible to take a break from your constant whining and share something of value? It's as if she is obsessed with slandering faith.

Congratulations. Well done.

DITLD: "I cannot tell from these cryptic posts, what anyone is thinking about anything."

It's not just you, I can't tell either.

I also am not familiar with "Defender of the Faith" nor am I familiar with Roth. After I googled his name, then, I seem to remember him a little.

Defeinder of the Faith was one of the titles of Henry VIII, before he nationalized the Catholic Churh in England. Has it got anything to do with that?

So, what's it about? Why is it so terrible? Can anyone say?

Is this the book that everyone seems bent out of shape over? Or was it Susan's reference to the Bible?

I cannot tell from these cryptic posts, what anyone is thinking about anything.

I'm not familiar with "defender of the faith" and even if I were, I wouldn't tell anyone why they should or shouldn't be offended by it. SOulds like you're offended, so maybe you could explain.

Asking Susan directly seems like the obvious way to get her feelings about the piece.

Regardng Mein Kampf - I leafed through that as a kid in my mother's ancient library.

Interesting, but not very good bedtime reading, IMO.

Perhaps you were being sarcastic.

E Favorite:

You make an excellent point. My favorite movie is "Birth of a Nation." Before I go to sleep, I like to read "Mein Kampf." Who is to say what should and should not be meaningful to another?

Since you obviously know "Defender of the Faith," perhaps you could expain why those who are offended shouldn't be.

So? What is the problem?

I guess I am just a well meaning person who should probably be from Iowa, too.

I'm confused - are some of the posters here saying that Susan has poor taste in books? That her favorite books aren't the right favorite books? That she should have other favorite books that the posters approve of?

I thought predilections were by definition a personal matter.

RE: "Defender of the Faith"

There's no point in taking Jacoby to task on this. She'll never be able to comprehend the problem. Rather, she'll respond at some point with a defensive 1950s style "analysis" of Roth's style, that it was meaningful "to her," etc. She's a well-meaning Christian White lady, who might as well be living on a farm in Iowa as in New York.

I suggest we drop it, and consider one another's posts, which are almost inevitably more intelligent than Jacoby's essays. Hopefully, at some point, the blog will find a more educated, enlightened atheist panelist who will post regularly.

Apparently some of the posters read only the first sentence of her brief essay and missed
"...[and showing] the ridiculousness of supernatural explanations for human behavior."

Sheesh! They are giving non-believers the reputation of having a short attention span!

Susan Jacoby:

I confess I am speechless, though not Jewish, speechless.

I think you should go to YouTube and watch the Jesus Lizards five times a day for the next three months before you post again.

Wiglaf

DITLD

I read Susan’s essay first, then the first three comments, and I had to wonder what they read. Clearly it wasn’t Susan’s essay.

RE: "Defender of the Faith"

She says her father was Jewish before he converted. Maybe she hates her father.

I have read the three posts before I read Susan's essay. Oh my goodness, she must have really written something awful this time. I wonder what it could be? I know when I read it, I will not understand any of the negative posts.

Susan Jacoby:

RE: Unforgettable Reading Matter

Certainly not what you write, I, as an atheist, hope and pray.

"Defender of the Fatih." Y C+2 & Co., PSC, who publishes on your thread, has deemed Moronism to be a heresy, an abomination in his eyes--Perhaps, you missed that post. Speaking as one half Catholic, half Protestant, currently atheist, I can't hold your Catholic chromosomes responsible for your chronic ignorance. Cultural Catholicsm, Whiteness, on the other hand, may play roles.

It is also possible that you have just awakened from a sixty-year sleep, that you are psychotic, abusing alcohol, or spending too much time on recreational drugs. God only knows. Whatever the source of your offensive and profoundly ignorant proclamations and self-revelations, you would do all us atheists a good turn if you would subject your "essays" to the scrutiny of culturally literate people before you post them.

I'm never disappointed by Susan's essays and this is no exception. While perhaps interesting choices, it's difficult (if pointless) to critique subjective preferences.

I'd pick:

How We Believe by Michael Shermer
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

I'm only half way through Susan's Freethinkers but I'm enjoying it as well.

Susan Jacoby:

What else but "Defender of the Faith" would you possibly have chosen?

You are what you are, exceptionally white and culturally Christian. Merry Anonymous is correct: You disappoint. You disappoint. You disappoint.

But not for much longer, not now that we know who you are.

If you ever do get off your block, read the Jewish reaction to "Defender," Roth's response to the reaction, critics on Roth and the reaction, Roth on his own Jewish identity.

If and when you have time, look at a calendar. Note the century and year.