Saturday, 11 October 2014

David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me

1) New blog on the kid : David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me, 2) The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church, 3) Correspondence de of Hans Georg Lundahl : David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy

Here is what CMI have to say about him (whole article):

CMI : Darwinist professor David Barash gets ‘theological’ in the classroom
But his presentation is a one-sided, intellectually dishonest attack on religion
by Keaton Halley and Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 11 October 2014 (GMT+10)

Here is what he has to say about himself, or rather the part of his origins:

My parents were Canadian, my dad from Montreal and my mom from a small town a hundred miles or so further north in Quebec, known as Ste. Sophie. (Their parents in turn were immigrants from Eastern Europe.)

David P. Barash (his own site)

I have a certain feeling they left Eastern Europe for Canada to avoid pogroms, and that hatred of Christianity in David P. Barash comes from there. Also, when they came to Canada, Evolutionism was the vogue among a certain élite. And that people, as it happens, sometimes carries gratitude to men to the point of idolatry and apostasy from God.

I do not know what Barash means, but I would be surprised if the name wasn't Hebrew. It is triliteral (three consonants). It contains a shin. There is an Asher Barash who studies German Historicism. So, I think my guess is fairly solid, as guesses go.

Now, back to the CMI article, now for details:

Barash (1946– ) is well known for his radical anti-Christian views. His book Peace and Conflict Studies (2002) has been criticized for Marxist–Leninist views and for a moral equivalence between Islamist terrorists murdering innocents in their fight for imposition of Sharia tyranny and soldiers fighting for genuine freedom.

Jews who remain within that community have a certain history of more or less equating Christians and Muslims. As I mentioned Pogroms, it is not totally not at all understandable. But it is nevertheless wrong.

One of their ways of describing Christianity and Islam seems to be (I have not read their Talmud myself) referring to ancestry (including by adopotion or even discipleship as quasi-adoption, I presume?) of Esau for Christians and Ishmael for Muslims. Calling Christians Edomites probably goes back to after the Sack of Jerusalem by Titus, when Christians having fled from Jerusalem to Pella (in Jordan, i e in "Edom-Moab-and-Ammon") came back from there and brought converts from there. Jews think the Jordanians arriving after Titus had left for Rome mean they have a right to describe Christians as Edomites. I think the floight to Pella and making converts there fulfil the promise about Messiah of his conquering Edom, Moab and Ammon (Isaiah 11), and very correctly so, since Christ did it "post-mortem" through His Church, and Isaiah 11 has a verse "and his sepulchre shall be glorious" (i e by the Resurrection), which Jewry has changed (reading or interpretation) to "and his abode shall be glorious" (though, as His abode is Heaven, since Ascension, that also remains true). Calling Islam Ishmael refers - with less bad faith - to fact that Mohammed was from Mid Arabian Peninsula, where Ishmaelites and Madianites had mixted, Ishmaelites having upper hand.

Unfortunately, Barash now thinks that his biology class is the proper forum for explicitly attacking his students’ religious convictions, as he shamelessly announced in his recent New York Times op-ed.

Chesterton noted that Jews have some cultural trouble distinguishing public from private, distinguishing a public trust from a private property. As I mentioned Pogroms, I might add that Chesterton deplored them.

In publishing such views, the NYT is at least displaying some sort of historical consistency. Its star reporter Walter Duranty (1884–1957) was a cheerleader for Stalin’s evolution-spawned genocide4 in the 1930s. Consistent with the evolutionary denial of the sanctity of innocent human life made in God’s image, Duranty infamously said, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” where ‘breaking eggs’ = murdering people, and ‘a few’ = tens of millions.

I wonder if Duranty was Jewish? As to NYT, whether its founders were Jewish or not, they were in New York - a town with very many Jews, or a city, if you prefer. Now, let us look it up ...

New York Times was founded by Henry Jarvis Raymond - a Whig, a liberal progressive, a Republican, a Abraham Lincoln partisan. However, after the war he prones clemency towards the South. OK, not as bad as Duranty, then. By the way, New York Times in 1990 had one article by Karl E. Meyer admit that Duranty was bad in denying the famine in Ukraine. But let us not forget that while it went on, New York Times published Duranty, but the correct journalism was done by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. Of the latter I know, he became a Catholic.

Of the former I learn he visited Adolf Hitler - in 1933. Well before any atrocities of his on a scale comparable to Holodomor and Russian Red Terror were known. Of course, even in 1933, there was an installation of Labour Camps with Draconian measures against shirkers ... but I do not know these measures were put into practise before the War. One man cannot see in every direction.

But obviously the fact Gareth Jones had visited Hitler was an excuse for men like Duranty to contradict him as biassed. As to Karl E. Meyer, his article came a bit late for Ukraine, it came in 1990 - when Soviet Union fell and everyone admitted Holodomor.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Segrais, Torcy
Motherhood of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary

PS, if CMI are, perhaps understandably, a bit shy about pointing out the Jewish heritage of Barash and his Antichristianity, it is a bit thick that they seem to be so ghastly innocent about it being psychology Barash lectures in. Not as if Freud, Sigmund, and Jung, were antichristian? Freud same Darwinian way as Barash, Jung more Blavatskaja type. One reason I will never be member of Watchtower sect is they are so innocent about psycholists and about psychology. Innocent in the way which here in France is called "naïveté".

No comments:

Post a Comment