Is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) A Hypocritical Organization Regarding Jews?

1. Introduction of the Issue

The dictionary definition of "hypocritical" is:

Dictionary.com :
      

"1.

of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess:

The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do” attitude can appear hypocritical to a child.

2.

possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy :

Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?"

 CAIR's stated principles are:

CORE PRINCIPLES

1. CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
2. CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
3. CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
4. CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
5. CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
6. CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
7. CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
8. CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
9. CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
10. CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.

We can see than that in general CAIR's stated principles are that in general it is a defender of all religions against discrimination and specifically a defender of American Muslims against discrimination.

What is CAIR's attitude than towards the Jewish religion in general and specifically American Jews?

2. Discussion

 

On the following page:

CAIR Positions Around The World 

CAIR has 6 pages of its positions on countries around the world, including Afganistan, Iraq and Syria. 3 of the pages are on Israel. CAIR states:

"the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that are the main source of anti-American feeling in the Muslim world."

All 3 pages consist entirely of criticism of Israel. There is no mention of any criticism of the Palestinians, even though the US, multiple other countries and now even CAIR (in press releases not on this page) all agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. We have also seen that the Palestinian Authority and Fatah themselves now meet the definition of Terrorist Organizations in this prior article:

Is The Palestinian Authority a Terrorist Organization Under International Law?  

For those not familiar with the Palestinian government, Hamas + Palestinian Authority = Palestinian government.  

There is currently no shortage of incidents of Palestinian Terrorism:

2/3 of Palestinians support stabbings  

Official PA TV to kids: Israel will cease to exist

PA school honors two terrorist stabbers with football tournament in their names  

Mahmoud Abbas: Murdering Israelis is “popular peaceful uprising” 


Terrorists who butchered 5 rabbis exemplified the meaning of heroism 

CAIR has a page condemning specific terrorist attacks here:

CAIR’s Condemnation of Terrorism 

with the most recent condemnation 11-16-15 yet there are no mentions of the multiple Palestinian terrorist attacks in the last two months. 

Now let's go to the CAIR Search page and see what we can find:

CAIR Search Page 

Type in "CAIR" = 121 results

Type in "Israel" = 54 results

Type in "AIPAC" (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) = 50 results.

For an organization that claims to be primarily about American Muslims these search results seem to indicate that CAIR is also very concerned about Israeli Jews and American Jews (which makes up the large majority of Jews in the world). 

CAIR claims in their principles:

"CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life."

"CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide."

So CAIR claims that they have an important principle of avoiding negative attitudes towards other religions. Just the same as their primary purpose of trying to prevent other religions from having negative attitudes towards American Muslims and Muslim countries. Looking at these many articles though on CAIR's website about Jews (In contrast CAIR has 16 search results for Hinduism, 52 results for Christianity = most of these articles describe multiple religions and are not specific to Hinduism or Christianity or critical of them. How many Hindus/Christians are there compared to Jews?) we've already seen that CAIR is highly critical of Israel, what is their attitude towards American Jews?

CAIR search for "AIPAC":

1st article = "
would make American Muslims and Arab-Americans "second class citizens" who could legally be subject to Israel's policy of ethnic and religious profiling"

 2nd article = "upcoming trial of former AIPAC lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman"

3rd article = "A federal judge went too far when he ruled that two pro-Israel lobbyists charged with trafficking in classified information were entitled to present certain secret information in court to mount their defense, prosecutors argued in a new brief filed with a federal appeals court."

4th article = "While almost all federally financed programs were denied any funding increase for the coming year, aid to Israel from the United States will increase thanks to a legislative loophole and some deft maneuvering by pro-Israel lobbyists."

5th article =  "
If there's any doubt about AIPAC being the belle of Washington, check out next week's ball."

Most, if not all, articles at CAIR about Israel and AIPAC are critical/negative. 

3. Conclusion

Webster's Dictionary

Simple Definition of discrimination

• : the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

We've seen that CAIR has a primary purpose of trying to prevent discrimination against American Muslims and Muslims in general. We've also seen that CAIR discriminates against American Jews and Jews in general. What should we do?:

1) In return discriminate against Muslims? No.

2) In return discriminate against American Muslims? Uh uh.

3) Create an organization that publicly presents CAIR in the worst possible way? Of course not.

What we should do is point out to CAIR that currently they are a hypocritical organization. 

If they really want a positive dialogue with other religions and not just be seen as advocates for Muslims than they need to condemn current Palestinian Terrorism and not just present/mostly present articles that are critical/negative of Jews. 

 

 

The Best of "Proofs That Jesus Existed"

 1. ARGUMENT FROM TWITTER 
(1) Received Tweet "I existed#HJ Jesusomeg@lpha.netbible"
(2) Tweet sent by Jesus
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

2. ARGUMENT FROM YHWH IS A MAD GENIUS
(1) YHWH knew his son would get crucified and sent him for that purpose
(2) You can't make this stuff up
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

3. ARGUMENT FROM THE CRUCIFIXION
(1) Crucifixion was a really, really, really, really horrible way to die
(2) Nobody would make up a story about a god who dies a horrible death
(3) Previous stories about gods who died horrible deaths were just myths
(4) Therefore, Jesus existed.

4. ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSITY CLASS
(1) Dr. James McGrath, University Professor, teaches a course on The Historical Jesus
(2) Universities only offer Historical courses on historical people
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

5. ARGUMENT FROM GREEK
(1) I know Greek.
(2) You don't know Greek.
(3) The New Testament was written in Greek.
(4) Therefore, Jesus existed.

6. ARGUMENT FROM MOSES ANALOGY
(1) The Christian Bible claims repeatedly that Jesus was the new Moses.
(2) Jesus was just as real as Moses.
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

7. ARGUMENT FROM THIS LIST
(1) MJs have no arguments that Jesus did not exist.
(2) All MJs can do is try to make fun of arguments that Jesus existed.
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

8. ARGUMENT FROM JEDI MIND TRICK
(1) The evidence for Impossible Jesus is basically the same as the evidence for possible Jesus.
(2) (Voice accompanied by hand-waving) "This isn't the argument you are looking for".
(3) This isn't the argument I was looking for.
(4) (Voice accompanied by hand-waving) "The Jesus existed argument can move along".
(5) The Jesus existed argument can move along.
(6) Therefore, Jesus existed.

9. ARGUMENT FROM SIMON SAID
(1) Simon said: "You are the Christ".
(2) Jesus did not exist.
(3) Simon diidn't saay.
(4) Therefore, Jesus existed

10. ARGUMENT FROM OH SNAP
(1) Oh no he di-int.
(2) Oh yes he di-id.
(3) Oh snap! (accompanied by snapping motion)
(4) Therefore, Jesus existed.

11. ARGUMENT FROM INTERVIEW WITH SATAN
(1) Satan: "Ya know, I'm sick and tired of Atheists going around telling people that Me and Jesus didn't exist and I would really like to show them a thing or two except I can't, because I don't exist."
(2) Therefore, Jesus existed.

12. ARGUMENT FROM COUSIN IT ANALOGY
(1) Put the original Gospel on a pedestal.
(2) Cut out all of the Impossible.
(3) Cut out all of the implausible and unlikely.
(4) Cut out all of the contrived and contradicted.
(5) Cut out all of the paralleled to The Jewish Bible, Paul and Josephus.
(6) There's an equally famous episode of The Addams Family where Cousin It gets a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left.
(7) According to The Addams Family Cousin It still existed.
(8) Therefore, Jesus existed.

13. ARGUMENT FROM LIAR, LORD OR LUNATIC ARGUMENT 
(1) Jesus was either a liar, lord, or lunatic 
(2) Hey, we've exhausted the options.
(3) If Jesus was a liar, by considering if he was a liar, you show he existed.
(4) If Jesus was a lunatic,... he existed.
(5) If Jesus was a lord,... he existed.
(6) What can I say? Whichever way you go, he existed.
(7) Therefore, Jesus existed.

14. ARGUMENT FROM "GOOD NEWS"/BAD NEWS
(1) I've got some good news and bad news regarding Jesus existing
(2) First, the bad news. There is no good news
(3) Now the good news. I won't tell you the bad news
(4) Therefore, Jesus existed.

15. ARGUMENT FROM ANCIENT STANDARDS
(1) Modern standards of proof generally require multiple, confirming, independent, credible first-hand witnesses.
(2) We don't have that for HJ.
(3) Ancient standards of proof accepted a lower standard.
(4) We should use a lower standard of proof for HJ because HJ was ancient.
(5) Therefore, Jesus existed

16. ARGUMENT FROM RICK PERRY
(1) I have three independent Gospel agencies that are evidence for Jesus' baptism.
(2) The first is "Mark".
(3) The second is "John" who is independent from "Mark" because no one knows who "Mark" was.
(4) The third is independent from "John" because no one knows who "John" was.
(5) The third one is, uhm, lessee...the Department of Energy? No, that's not it.
(6) Zzz...(wake up Rick), huh, oh yeah, let's see, ahhh...(shrug and lift hands) oops.
(7) Therefore, Jesus existed

17.  ARGUMENT FROM HATE
1. Atheists hate Jesus.
2. You can't hate something that doesn't exist.
3. Therefore Jesus exists.

18. ARGUMENT FROM CRUCIFIXION
(1) Pontius Pilate cruciified Jesus
(2) Pilate is unlikely to have crucified a mythical man
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed. 

19. ARGUMENT FROM THE MATRIX TIME TRAVEL
(1) 2011 - No qualified professional believes in MJ.
(2) 2012 - No qualified professional believes in MJ except for 1 PhD student with a Bible related degree.
(3) 2013 - No qualified professional believes in MJ except for 1 University professor with a Bible related degree.
(4) 2014 - No qualified professional believes in MJ except for 2 University professors with Bible related degrees.
(5) 2015 - No qualified professional believes in MJ except for 3 University professors with Bible related degrees.
(6) On Fight Club's longest possible time line, belief in HJ than goes to -0-.
(6) Therefore, Jesus existed.

Arguments From Silence for Mark 16:8 as Original Ending - The Gospel of Matthew

1. Introduction of the Issue

A previous post here The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - "Matthew"   demonstrated that the Gospel of Matthew is evidence that 16:8 was the original ending of the Gospel of Mark. But how good is this evidence?

2. Discussion

 

And the People Bowed and Prayed, to (the) Theon god they Made

The related Wikipedia article indicates that the following are good criteria for the Argument From Silence:

The evidence in question:

1) Would have been accessible to the author.

2) Would be of general interest to the author.

3) Would have been considered authoritative to the author.

4) Would have been useful to the author.

Because Arguments from Silence than are based on the implicit which is subjective compared to arguments based on the explicit, they are normally not strong evidence. In order to rise to the level of any type of evidence, all four criteria above must be strong. On the other hand, if you have a connected string of Arguments from Silence from a logical grouping of authors which than gives the argument Scope, the argument becomes progressively stronger.

As the Argument from Silence applies to the question of the likely original ending of the Gospel of Mark (GMark), it is generally agreed for the second century that as the century progresses, the evidence gets progressively better that second century Christian authors were aware of the LE. The primary argument for proponents of LE as original (generally fundamentalists) is that the earliest positive evidence for either ending are second century Patristics who support the LE. The earlier second century Patristics who show no or little evidence of being aware of the LE will be ignored/denied as evidence by Fundamentalists invoking "Argument from Silence".

It's generally agreed that the next significant Christian writing after GMark is the Gospel of Matthew (GMatthew). For GMatthew, let's examine the four criteria above for level of strength:

1) Would have been accessible to the author.

It's generally agreed that GMark was GMatthew's primary source = Strong

2) Would be of general interest to the author.

For the same reason as 1) = Strong

3) Would have been considered authoritative to the author.

For the same reason as 1) = Strong

4) Would have been useful to the author.

As far as we know, GMark was the original Gospel narrative and at the time GMatthew wrote, there were not any others. Almost all the stories in GMark are also in GMatthew. The only two action stories missing in GMatthew are the healing at Bethsaida and the widow at the Temple. GMatthew copies GMark's resurrection predictions almost word for word. Presumably, the most important story as far as GMatthew was concerned was a story showing witnesses to a resurrected Jesus. If the LE was in GMatthew's source of GMark it would have been very useful to GMatthew = Strong

3. Conclusion

All of the above criteria than test strong = GMatthew is evidence for 16:8 as original. By itself, not strong evidence, but it is evidence that should be inventoried.

 

The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - The Gospel of Peter

1. Introduction of the Issue

Aha!

  Continuing with an examination of 2nd century witness to the original ending of GMark. We have just seen that GMatthew and GLuke are the earliest Patristic witness for original ending of GMark, testifying for 16:8 due to closely following GMark to 16:8 and than, for GMatthew, largely ignoring 16:9-20, and for GLuke, while having some specific parallels to and generally following the LE, showing a noticeable change in copying style immediately after 16:8. The Gospel of Peter  likewise looks to have GMark as a source through 16:8:

2. Discussion

 

Who is Mary Schtuppsucker?!

 

And now, a close examination of The Gospel of Peter. First, a comparison up to 16:8:

  It's clear that GPeter follows GMark reMarkably well for 16:1-8. Most of the additions in GPeter here are commentary on GMark's basic narrative.

  We've seen that GPeter follows GMark remarkably well for 16:1-8. But, it's generally thought that GPeter was written after GMatthew. We've already seen that GMatthew also follows GMark remarkably well for 16:1-8 so the question is, who was GPeter following, GMark, GMatthew or both?

Let's do a comparison than of the three:

  If you can not see the two above images they can be seen here:

Comparison of Peter 50-57 to GMark 16:1-8/GMatthew 28:1-8


We can see than from the above that to 16:8 GPeter follows GMark better than it follows GMatthew = GMark 16:1-8 was likely the main source for GPeter 50-57.

And now a comparison of the LE with post-resurrection narrative in The Gospel of Peter (the part that is extant):

  If you can not see the above image it can be seen here:

Comparison of Peter 58-60 to the LE 

The big difference here is the timing. In GPeter, the eight days of Passover are over when the narrative continues. Note that if there was a post-resurrection appearance in GPeter, it came later than post-resurrection appearances in the LE. For a subsequent author to GMark, who wants a post-resurrection reunion, this is a more gradual edit to one than the LE. GPeter accepts the ending of its base, 16:8, where the women do not tell. The author needs to add an entire pericope just to explain the supposed circumstances of how the disciples did learn that Jesus was resurrected.

Also related to GPeter's acceptance of 16:8 as the ending is that since it is accepted that the women did not tell anyone, the author needs a supposed witness to tell, hence GPeter is written in the first person (Peter). GPeter accepts that Peter had totally given up on Jesus including not believing that he would be resurrected.

Another difference is that GPeter refers to the twelve disciples while the LE refers to eleven. 

3. Conclusion

Now we are getting somewhere!

 Summary of points indicating that GPeter's source of GMark did not have the LE:

1) GPeter follows GMark remarkably well to 16:8.

2) The timing of the post-resurrection narrative in GPeter is completely different from the timing of the LE.

3) There are no significant parallels here between GPeter and the LE.

4) GPeter is more of a reaction to 16:8 than the LE is.

Conclusion = GPeter is evidence for 16:8 as original.