Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?

[Pete at Home]

As for my sensitivity. John the revelator places a religious obligation (in chapter 2 of John epistle I, aka. 1 John 2) on Christians to repudiate the identification of an Antichrist as a "Christian."    and all three of the men that you misidentified as Christians, fit John's definition of an Antichrist. 

[AI Wessex]

Obama and Nancy Pelosi, among other prominent Democrats fit many Conservative's definition.  Who gets to decide who is or isn't the Antichrist?  Leading while claiming Christ as your spiritual light doesn't disqualify you, nor does simply proclaiming your faith.  It's not a call you can make about yourself, but one that others who proclaim their own faith and believe themselves devout make about you that counts.  If you're not devout enough why should any claim you make be taken on faith?

[Pete at Home]

Obama and Nancy Pelosi, among other prominent Democrats fit many Conservative's definition. 

You are not only wrong, but I don't believe you even understand what you just asserted.  Would you like me to explain?

Yes, there are dumb conservatives (not "many") that claim that Obama is "the antichrist" but that's not by the definition of an antichrist.    "The antichrist" is the traditional Bible illiterate moron's way of speaking of the figure known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelations, who, if you have read the book and have compared it at all to history, is a straightforward description of Emperor Nero.

That misuse of the term "the antichrist" is actually older than the bible itself, because in 1 John 2, John the beloved aka the Revelator said:

Please don't listen to the jackasses that talk about "the antichrist." Because antichrists are a dime a dozen.  Don't confuse them with the Beast I wrote about in the Apocalypse.  Now pay attention.  An antichrist is anyone who claims to ever have been Christian, who denies that Jesus Christ actually returned to us in the flesh.

Beware of Antichrists
Warning about Antichrists

18Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come. 19These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.

20But you are not like that, for the Holy One has given you his Spirit,e and all of you know the truth. 21So I am writing to you not because you don’t know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and lies. 22And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ.f Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.g 23Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. 25And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life he promised us.

26I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray

The warning about antichrists had zero to do with political leadership and everything to do with false spiritual leadership, aka apostasy.  (Hitler from this perspective was a false spiritual leader; the fact that he was a head of state has little to do with his being an antichrist).

Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.

[Pete at Home]

Who gets to decide who is or isn't the Antichrist? 

John the Beloved, who coined both the word "antichrists" and described the Beast of Revelations, the figure who illiterate morons of the last 2000 years have erroneously called "the antichrist."  Even though John SPECIFICALLY called them out on that error.

If you're not devout enough why should any claim you make be taken on faith?

Who said anything about faith?  Some statements are self-fulfilling.  For example, if I tell you "I am making a statement," that's inherently true, albeit circular.

[NobleHunter]

Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.

The 'AND' might make it tricky. For just one or the other the trick would be identifying any sincere belief in the sea of brainlessly repeated slander (and what I continue to hope is massive amounts of astro-turfing in website comments).

[AI Wessex]

Well, John is a pretty good authority, but he's a bit out of date for today's sharp minds.  I guess there are different ways to answer the question.  Like everything else the term "antichrist" has been appropriated by lots of people who don't care whose beliefs they trample.  They may define the term differently than you or other religious types, but they want you to know that what they say speaks for you, as well.

There is rampant misinformation being spread around that makes unbiblical statements about the antichrist, attempting to create links with Barack Obama. One of the most common states that the antichrist will be a man of Muslim/Arab descent, in his 40s, and will rule for 42 months (close to the length of a U.S. presidency). The Bible nowhere says anything about the ethnicity, religion, or age of the antichrist. Further, Barack Obama vehemently denies accusations that he is a Muslim, and he is not of Arab descent. The “42 months” concept is taken from Revelation 13:5-8, but there is absolutely nothing to connect the 42 months with the 4-year (48 months) tenure of a U.S. President. Intentional misinformation like this is deceptive and counterproductive. It likely will, in fact, make it more difficult to recognize the true antichrist once he appears on the scene.

With the distractions and misinformation put aside, that still leaves the question—is Barack Obama the antichrist? First, let’s look at a few things that argue against Barack Obama being the antichrist. There is some debate among Bible prophecy experts as to the ethnicity of the antichrist. Some believe that the antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew to claim to be the Messiah. Others believe that the antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire, most likely identified with modern-day Europe. Barack Obama is the son of a white, non-Jewish mother, and a black, non-Jewish, Kenyan father. He is neither Jewish or European (unless the United States is considered part of Europe in terms of Bible prophecy). Ethnically/racially speaking, Obama does not seem to match what the Bible says about the antichrist. Also, Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems highly unlikely that the antichrist would even claim/pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

Let’s look at a few items that the Bible ascribes to the antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, determined, and revolutionary individual. Often, hundreds of thousands of people attend events when Obama speaks. Believing him to be a great leader is one thing; mass-hysteria and complete devotion are another thing entirely. Barack Obama seems to have the ability to lead and inspire millions of people. The antichrist, who will be the leader of a one-world governmental system in the end times, would have to also possess such traits. It will take just such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The Bible prophesies that the antichrist will come to power peacefully (Revelation 6:2) and will rule the earth in a time of tremendous peace and prosperity, which will then be followed by the evil and devastation of the end times (Revelation chapters 6-19). Barack Obama’s message of world unity and peace is similar to what the Bible says about the beginning of antichrist’s reign. Further, Barack Obama seems to favor a “big government” approach to solving the world’s problems. While the end times’ one-world government is far beyond anything that Obama is proposing, his view of government does lead in that general direction.

Probably the most important factor in identifying the antichrist is the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the antichrist will create a 7-year peace covenant with the nation of Israel, but then break the covenant after 3.5 years (Daniel 9:27). The antichrist will then essentially attempt a second Holocaust, the annihilation of the nation of Israel and Jews around the world. Barack Obama has stated his strong support for the nation of Israel. Obama claims that he will come to Israel’s defense should it be attacked. At the same time, Barack Obama has made some unclear statements regarding his support of Israel. Obama has had relationships with individuals and groups that have anti-Semitic tendencies. This claim of support for Israel, contradicted by dubious statements and troubling relationships, does seem reminiscent of what the Bible says about the antichrist and the nation of Israel.

Here's another one claiming Obama *is* the antichrist with a purely political message:

According to a recently published report, the report states While a traditional political party may have a line that it won’t cross,the Tea Party has a stone-engraved set of principles, all of which are sacrosanct. This is not a political platform to be negotiated but a catechism with only a single answer. It is now a commonplace for Tea Party candidates to vow they won’t sacrifice an iota of their principles. In this light, shutting down the Government rather than bending on legislation becomes a moral imperative. While critics may decry such a tactic as “rule or ruin,” Tea Party brethren celebrate it, rather, as the act of a defiant Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. For them, this is not demolition but reclamation, cleansing the sanctuary that has been profaned by liberals. They see themselves engaged in nothing less than a project of national salvation. The refusal to compromise is a watchword of their candidates who wear it as a badge of pride. This would seem disastrous in the give-and-take of politics but it is in keeping with sectarian religious doctrine. One doesn’t compromise on an article of faith.

[Pete at Home]

Returning to your erroneous statement, I bet that you won't find more than one or two nimrods who believe that both Obama AND Pelosi are "antichrists" because such an assertion would deviate from standard fundamentalist stupidity even more than it deviates from actual Canon.

The 'AND' might make it tricky. For just one or the other the trick would be identifying any sincere belief in the sea of brainlessly repeated slander (and what I continue to hope is massive amounts of astro-turfing in website comments).

Exactly.  According to the illiterate sister-*censored*ing definition of "the antichrist", you can't have two of them.  And according to John the evangelist/beloved/revelator, neither can at present be an antichrist since neither has denied that Christ is come in the flesh.

[AI Wessex]

My nearly illiterate reading on the bible says that John 2:22 says you can identify the antichrist this way, which is one of many translations the page lists:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

That would include anyone who is not a Christian, right?

[Pete at Home]

Well, John is a pretty good authority, but he's a bit out of date for today's sharp minds. 

Yes.  Gotta love those "bigger than Jesus" Christians.  If you abhor them, think how I must feel about their teachings, as a flawed but sincere believer in what He actually taught?

I guess there are different ways to answer the question.  Like everything else the term "antichrist" has been appropriated by lots of people who don't care whose beliefs they trample.  They may define the term differently than you or other religious types, but they want you to know that what they say speaks for you, as well.

You have to understand that when I quarrel with you over those terms, it's really with them I tangle with.  Just as moderate muslims who decry the antimuslim right's characterization of Islam, are really fighting against the fundamentalist bastards who say it's OK to *censored* a goat as long as you sell it to someone else and OK to *censored* a baby as long as you eat it afterwards. (/slight overstatement).  That's why I reject the FAUX news term "extreme islam" and use the term that moderate muslims have propounded, ie. ISLAMIST.

I would like to persuade you merely to give the same consideration to the Christian religion that I do to the Muslim religion.  Divide and conquer, man.  Neo-Christendomers can only be empowered when you cast him as Christianity central, just as Wahabeasts gain traction when anti-muslims describe wahabist trash as Islam 101.

There is rampant misinformation being spread around that makes unbiblical statements about the antichrist, attempting to create links with Barack Obama. One of the most common states that the antichrist will be a man of Muslim/Arab descent, in his 40s, and will rule for 42 months (close to the length of a U.S. presidency).

The 42 months refers to the Beast of Revelations persecution of Christians, not his reign.  Nero's persecution of Christians lasted 42 months.

The Bible nowhere says anything about the ethnicity, religion, or age of the antichrist.

Mostly true.  The Bible says that antichrists, plural, are former Christians, or persons who at least pretended to be Christian, but now assert that Christ did not come in the flesh.  Obama's made no such assertion.  HOWEVER, and more importantly, we must remember that when the illiterate literalists speak of "the antichrist" they actually mean the beast.  The Bible says that the beast's "number" is 666, which is what the Roman numerals in Nero's official name add up to. 

 

Further, Barack Obama vehemently denies accusations that he is a Muslim, and he is not of Arab descent.

Well-refuted.

The “42 months” concept is taken from Revelation 13:5-8, but there is absolutely nothing to connect the 42 months with the 4-year (48 months) tenure of a U.S. President. Intentional misinformation like this is deceptive and counterproductive. It likely will, in fact, make it more difficult to recognize the true antichrist once he appears on the scene.

It's possible that Nero was just a "type" for the beast, like Isaiah's "lucifer" references a Babylonian king as well as Satan.  In that case, you'd be right.

With the distractions and misinformation put aside, that still leaves the question—is Barack Obama the antichrist? First, let’s look at a few things that argue against Barack Obama being the antichrist. There is some debate among Bible prophecy experts as to the ethnicity of the antichrist.

That's an amusing and pointless endeavor, since first they've ignored prophesy by calling the beast "the antichrist", ignoring John's command that they not commit that specific blunder, and most ironically, they set themselves up to play 'herod/bavmorda' for an imaginary antichrist.  It's like a serial killer's wet dream, playing whack a mole against prophesy.

Some believe that the antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew to claim to be the Messiah.

That's Fallwell's opinion.  Based on nothing other than racing to the bottom to the craziest possible extension of the misapplied word "anti-Christ." Fallwell's logic is like eating a pound of antipasta to cancel out the pound of pasta you just ate.

Others believe that the antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire, most likely identified with modern-day Europe.

Asuming you mean beast instead of antichrist, that's actually a lucid interpolation of scripture.  Well if Hitler magically comes back from the dead, that would be pretty clear evidence that he's the beast of Revelations. (who received a wound that all thought was fatal, and when he came back, all wondered at the power of the beast).  Since Naziism did proclaim itself a "reich" patterned after Rome.

Barack Obama is the son of a white, non-Jewish mother, and a black, non-Jewish, Kenyan father. He is neither Jewish or European (unless the United States is considered part of Europe in terms of Bible prophecy). Ethnically/racially speaking, Obama does not seem to match what the Bible says about the antichrist. Also, Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems highly unlikely that the antichrist would even claim/pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

All solid arguments assuming you mean the Beast.  OTOH, an antichrist, by John's own definition, is anyone who used to be or pretend to be Christian, who then denies that Christ is come in the flesh.  I don't think the Bible really rules out the Beast being a Christian.  I wouldn't bat an eye if Vladimir Putin ended up making Beast moves.  If he appoints a new Tsar of Russia, that might fit your description of a renewed Roman empire.  There are other things he is doing that set him up for that.  He's driving the refugee crisis through his manipulations in Syria, and setting himself up to position himself to be the savior of Europe from Islam in about 12 years.

Let’s look at a few items that the Bible ascribes to the antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, determined, and revolutionary individual.

Quibble on revolutionary.  I'd skip that part in your argument, otherwise good.

Often, hundreds of thousands of people attend events when Obama speaks. Believing him to be a great leader is one thing; mass-hysteria and complete devotion are another thing entirely.

Not your best argument, since mass hysteria and complete devotion are subject to interpretation and opinion.  I don't think Obama has near as devoted a following as say Rush Limbaugh had in the early 1990s, but it's still enough to alarm and annoy.  Not alarm as in thinking he's the beast, of course.  Please realize that I'm not arguing with you so much as trying to strengthen your argument that Obama is neither an Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation, or the hybrid "the beast" propounded by folksy bible illiteralists.

Barack Obama seems to have the ability to lead and inspire millions of people. The antichrist, who will be the leader of a one-world governmental system in the end times, would have to also possess such traits.

Suggested rephrase:

while millions see Obama as an inspired leader, he also has millions of folks dedicated to opposing his every move, including more than half of Congress.  the Beast aka the Antichrist is described as leading a united world government, whereas Obama cannot even appoint a replacement for a dead Supreme Court justice.  John prophesied that many shall ask "who can oppose the power of the beast," while no one has to look very far to find dedicated and powerful people who oppose Mr. Obama's power.

It will take just such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The Bible prophesies that the antichrist will come to power peacefully (Revelation 6:2) and will rule the earth in a time of tremendous peace and prosperity, which will then be followed by the evil and devastation of the end times (Revelation chapters 6-19).

YES!  That's a solid argument!  Ask them if they would characterize Obama's reign as a time of tremendous peace and prosperity.  Kick ass, dude.  Mind if I borrow that?

Probably the most important factor in identifying the antichrist is the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the antichrist will create a 7-year peace covenant with the nation of Israel

,


LOL.  Compared to Netanyahu, the Republicans have been positively cuddly and conciliatory to Obama.  The idea of Israel following Israel on a 7 year peace covenant seems pretty doubtful.
[/quote]


Need to run.  Will get back to this.  Funny that after all our tangles we share an agenda re interpretation of New Testament scripture.  Who'd have thunk it?  (and honestly I never thought of that odd Putin connection until you raised that Roman issue. What was your source on that?

[Pete at Home]

My nearly illiterate reading on the bible says that John 2:22 says you can identify the antichrist this way, which is one of many translations the page lists:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

That would include anyone who is not a Christian, right?

No, because later in the chapter John specifies that it only applies to people that we used to count among us.  So either Christians or folks from Christian families, or who used to identify as Christian.  And we don't go denouncing them as antichrists unless they are coming among Christians and promoting themselves as spiritual leaders.  My understanding is that John uses this dramatic term for no other reason than to make Christians remember who is not and cannot be their spiritual teachers.  The terror and dread of the word "antichrist" is something he never intended, and even denounces in 1 John 2.  It means nothing more or less than a specific type of Christian apostate.

Remember also that while Deuteronomy and the Koran stipulate death as a penalty for apostasty, there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to indicate that Christians should treat an antichrist or other apostate violently.  (although the book of Luke does have some disturbing stuff that could be interpreted as violence directed to church members that try to embezzle collective church money intended for the poor)

Anyway, I do know my bible, and I offer myself as a resource.

[Pete at Home]

Not as an authority, but as one who can help you find stuff.

I do NOT mean to suggest you are a bible illiterate.  I recognize that you are simply trying to adress the fundamentalist illiteralist argument in their own words. I actually admire the depth of thought that you have given a foreign religion to adress this issue.

[Pete at Home]

Al, check this out:

https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22obama+is+the+antichrist%22145000 hits

Putin Antichrist 12000 hits

Clinton antichrist

Barney Dinosaur antichrist

That's frightening!  Obama gets more hits as the Antichrist than Clinton, Putin, and Barney the Purple dinosaur combined!

Thankfully, 230000 odd hits suggest that a plurality of Christians recognize that the details of the "Beast" actually refer to the emperor Nero. https://www.google.com/search?q=antichrist+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Nero+antichrist

Note also the blessed small number that say it this way:
14000.  That would be funnier if that number were 144,000

[Pete at Home]

Here's another one claiming Obama *is* the antichrist with a purely political message:

Quote

    According to a recently published report, the report states While a traditional political party may have a line that it won’t cross,the Tea Party has a stone-engraved set of principles, all of which are sacrosanct. This is not a political platform to be negotiated but a catechism with only a single answer. It is now a commonplace for Tea Party candidates to vow they won’t sacrifice an iota of their principles. In this light, shutting down the Government rather than bending on legislation becomes a moral imperative. While critics may decry such a tactic as “rule or ruin,” Tea Party brethren celebrate it, rather, as the act of a defiant Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. For them, this is not demolition but reclamation, cleansing the sanctuary that has been profaned by liberals. They see themselves engaged in nothing less than a project of national salvation. The refusal to compromise is a watchword of their candidates who wear it as a badge of pride. This would seem disastrous in the give-and-take of politics but it is in keeping with sectarian religious doctrine. One doesn’t compromise on an article of faith

Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??

Honestly, that thing about Obama being the beast aka "the antichrist" is the stuff of spooks and kooks and you need not worry about it.  For any literate Christian to take it seriously, we'd have to see Obama ascend to secretary general of the UN, be given unprecedented power, receive a wound no one thought he'd recover from, and yet recover (like Clinton from Monica ), create and break a 7 year covenant with Israel, and persecute Christians for 42 months.  Seems fairly unlikely.

It seems sinful to speculate, because that's obviously whoring the scriptures and seeking to steady God's ark.  The point of such prophesies isn't to make us responsible for saving the world.  The point of Revelations is that the beast will even take in the faithful, and we're not given the information in order to prevent it, but rather, that WHEN it happens to us, that we know that God foresaw it, and that God will save us from it in the end if we just endure.  God didn't give us prophesies to encourage us to play Herod and try to thwart them.

[AI Wessex]

Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??

It was from a site that calls Obama the antichrist.  I didn't think I needed to infect the thread with their diseased thought process, but I thought their justification for everything Tea Party was interesting and weird enough to bring over.   It shows just how crazy Obama haters can be when they put their minds to it, or leave them out of their deep thoughts.

[Pete at Home]

Huh? What does that have to do with "the antichrist"??

It was from a site that calls Obama the antichrist.  I didn't think I needed to infect the thread with their diseased thought process, but I thought their justification for everything Tea Party was interesting and weird enough to bring over.   It shows just how crazy Obama haters can be when they put their minds to it, or leave them out of their deep thoughts.

Oh, some Christians use "the Antichrist" as a pious blasphemy to smear against anyone they don't like -- not unlike some Jews use the Holocaust.  E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."     I imagine some spoiled Jewish kids have told their parents that brussel sprouts and green beans are worse than the holocaust, like the spoiled Christian kids who come back and say they think their math teacher is the antichrist.

[AI Wessex]

E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."

A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.

[AI Wessex]

Do you really want to elect one of these people?

Trump: I know politicians believe it or not, better than you do and it's not good (looking at Cruz)

Cruz: Oh I believe it. For 40 years you have been funding liberal Democratic politicians

Trump: I funded you.

(laughter)

Trump: I gave him a check (at Cruz)

(yelling)

Cruz: You gave me $5000

Rubio: He never funded me

(clapping and overtalk)

Trump: Autograph (yelling) thank you for the book

(overtalk)

Cruz: Donald, I understand rules are very hard for you, You are very confused

(yelling)

Trump: This is very fun up here (laughing)

Cruz: Donald, relax

(overtalk)

Trump: I am relaxed. You are a basket case. Don't get nervous.

(overtalk)

Cruz: I promise you, nothing about you makes anyone nervous

(yelling)

Wolf: gentleman, gentlemen

Cruz: Excuse me, he called me a liar

(screaming)

Cruz: Do I not get a response? (raised voice)

Wolf: you will get plenty of response...but let's talk about ISIS

[AI Wessex]

A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.

To explain my strong reaction further, the reason that the Obama-antichrist association is apt and the poor marriage choice-holocaust is not is that in the first case the speakers are led to believe the possibility by and as an article of faith that is above challenge by reason.  The second (if it ever actually would happen -- I have never heard that comparison made) only expresses disappointment and disapproval coming from a caricature of an overbearing Jewish mother.  Like the shyster meme and the chiseling businessman it is nothing more than a bigoted joke that should be avoided.   I don't joke about Mormon underwear for the same reason.

[Pyrtolin]

Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?

When ironic things come packaged with such pious sanctimony, what else should one do?

Feel a strong measure of pity for the kind of damage that leads people to that kind of self destruction.

[AI Wessex]

We're so far beyond mere pity.  It's as if roughly 1/4 - 1/3 of the country has been brainwashed to believe that another 1/4 - 1/3 hates this country and by extension hates them, too, and a further 1/4 - 1/3 don't belong here.  You can't just shake your head and laugh it off anymore.

[seekingprometheus]

Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?

[Pete at Home]

E,g, marriage between a Jew and a non Jew is "worse than the holocaust."

A failed attempt at humor, I hope.  If not, it's a disgusting comparison.

I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?  I found the comparison rather common there, and no, they are dead serious.  It's common enough to appear in various works of fiction, including Chaim Potok's work (Potok seems to decry fanatics that say this).


Google search.  OK,
  Q: My fiance's parents told me that for a Jew to marry a non-Jew and have children is worse than the Holocaust!
A: Our only route to survival is for Jewish people to marry Jewish people

I am NOT trying to suggest that Chabad is typical of all Judaism, or even of Orthodox Judaism, but it's certainly the fastest growing sect of Judaism, neh?

Suggests that some folks who used to say marrying a gentile was worse than the holocaust are not hurling that vile phrase at same sex marriage. 

In November, an army officer in Israel was removed from his position because he likened non-Orthodox Judaism to Nazi crimes. In a talk to 60 soldiers about the status of women, the instructor, Lt. Gamliel Peretz, began by citing the traditional morning blessing in which, he said, all Jewish men thank God for not making them women.

The New York Times (Nov. 23, 1999) reports that, "One young soldier, the teenage daughter of a Reform rabbi, raised her hand to challenge him. Not all Jews say that, she said. Some use an alternative blessing which thanks God for making people as they are. According to army records, the lieutenant, who is Orthodox, then said, 'The Reform and Conservative are not Jews to me...The Reform and the Conservative caused the assimilation of eight million Jews, and this was worse than the Holocaust, in which only six million were killed.'"
Jonathan Rosenblum, a spokesman for an Orthodox media resource center, said he did not consider the lieutenant's statement to be "extreme," but condemned the comparison to the Holocaust. He said, however, that he detected "an aura of witch-hunt in the rapidity with which Lt. Peretz was tried, expelled from the army and classified as some sort of pariah forever."

In fact, the treatment of Lt. Peretz is indeed extraordinary, since denunciations of non-Orthodox Judaism in similar terms are widespread, even in high government circles.

Rabbi Richard A. Block, president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said he faced a similar verbal assault from a member of parliament. He and another well-known Reform rabbi had been invited to attend a parliamentary committee meeting on conversion. A legislator from the United Torah Judaism Party entered the committee. "He started screaming," Rabbi Block said. "He said he wouldn't sit with the Reform because we have caused the assimilation of millions of Jews, worse than the Nazis. It was the same thing this officer said, but I guess it's okay for a Knesset member."

Please let me know if I'm making you feel uncomfortable.  I have no desire to bash Jews, but rather explain a spiritual and intellectual malady that exists among Christians, Jews, and many other groups.  I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you and I agree in condemning this sort of ... for want of a better word, blasphemy against humanity.

[Pete at Home]

Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?

I've made that argument for Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey.  I guess we saw it in the deep south in the 1960s, in Detroit in the 1990s, and in New York City today, with the disgusting coddling of the Central park muggers, who got their 41 million and now are coming back for another 52.

[Fenring]

Has anyone landed on the possibility that the problem is democracy?

If you let the mob rule, is it really any surprise that it acts like a ridiculous mob?

I think the problem is not so much democracy, but rather in whose hands democracy is put. A people unprepared to defend it from within will lose it quickly enough. And apparently nothing makes a people unprepared as much as (in no particular order) calamity and comfort.

[AI Wessex]

I think it's reasonable to imagine a DQ scale like is used to measure IQ.  The average person is no genius, but functional.  The healthier the environment where Democracy takes place, the better decisions they and everyone else can make about it.

[AI Wessex]

I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?

Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view ?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

** In the original, the term holocaust predates Christianity and meant a (ritual, ceremonial) burnt offering to one's Gods.  The OT uses a form of the word in that way, but as we've used it since the middle ages the term has come to mean to burn something wholly by ritual or absolute intent, as to utterly destroy a body through fire.  The Nazi's intended to exterminate all Jews and destroy most of the bodies as a matter of formal (ritual) policy, so the term holocaust applies to them in ways it doesn't apply to all ethnic cleansings or massacres of even large populations.

[Pete at Home]

I don't think it's a question of general social health.  There are some particular valuable social strengths (e.g. family cohesion) that don't make for safer democracies.  And then there are social maladies, weaknesses, etc. that make Democracy extremely dangerous.  Close ethnic division and rivalry, for example.  Bloody Kansas, and the nearby similar persecution of the LDS in Missouri (culminating in the Lt Governor Boggs' "extermination order") never would have occurred if it were not for democratic forces.  The killings and pogroms had everything to do with the vote.  Similarly, the KKK never existed prior to the Civil War (Tarantino's revisionism notwithstanding), but formed initially to suppress the black vote.

When one or more groups of 25%+ hate and fear another group or groups more than they love justice, Democracy becomes a very dangerous thing. 

This is why I am very suspicious of a candidate whose main argument is that you need to vote for me because my rival hasn't shown enough "respect" to a candidate of your color, or women need to vote for me because I'm a woman, and there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for me.  These are appeals to identity factionalism, which is a good deal more dangerous and potentially murderous than ideology factionalism.

[Pete at Home]

I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?

Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view ?

No, I'm not Jewish, but my family lived in the Detroit area at least four times, once of which my dad was assigned to shepherd an LDS congregation ("branch") in the heart of Detroit.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

Not at all.  It's in Detroit that I was first (and repeatedly) exposed to Jews who made that "worse than the holocaust" argument.  Are you saying you're from that area?  Perhaps you read different news than I do.  Can't remember if it was Detroit news or the Detroit Free Press that published those local rabbis blathering against Jews marrying non-Jews being "worse than the Holocaust."  I thought it was a freakish Detroit anomaly, but have since run into the naziesque meme from New York rabbis and also in an article from Israel, which I cited and linked to in a forum discussion a couple years ago. 

Note it's also a pack of New York and Detroit area shuls that sent money to Baruch Goldstein's widow and paid for the legal defense of Rabin's murderer.

As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

That's a tough issue that affects more than just fundamentalists.  Jesus talks about being in the world but not of the world.  I think there's a third way where you recognize that the world hates you and your values, but you don't hate the world back.  But that's a very hard path to follow, reserved for the likes of Martin Luther King and other saints.

But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

I'm sorry to have popped that bubble.   But relieved to hear that you could have grown up without hearing such references.  Now you know how I feel when I hear about David Duke, etc.

** In the original, the term holocaust predates Christianity and meant a (ritual, ceremonial) burnt offering to one's Gods.  The OT uses a form of the word in that way, but as we've used it since the middle ages the term has come to mean to burn something wholly by ritual or absolute intent, as to utterly destroy a body through fire.  The Nazi's intended to exterminate all Jews and destroy most of the bodies as a matter of formal (ritual) policy, so the term holocaust applies to them in ways it doesn't apply to all ethnic cleansings or massacres of even large populations.

Interesting background; thank you.  Does it apply to other groups the Nazis intended to and attempted to exterminate in entirety, such as Gypsies?

[AI Wessex]

Interesting mix of anti-semitism and rightwing ghoulishness from the severe winter of 2013:

“I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this cold weather is far worse than the Holocaust,”

BTW, I live in Ann Arbor and and travel to other suburbs and Detroit regularly, and know Jews and non-Jews everywhere I go.  The comment cited above is much worse than anything I have ever personally experienced from anybody I've met anywhere around here.  If I'm living in a bubble, it's a pretty big one.

Does it [holocaust] apply to other groups the Nazis intended to and attempted to exterminate in entirety, such as Gypsies?

Depends on the magnitude of the slaughter and the determination of the murderers, I suppose.  Overall, I think people (even Jews) have come to see the Nazi efforts to eradicate undesirable populations as a holocaust in its totality.  Having lost all of my European relatives who were alive in what are now Germany and Poland during the war, I can't compare the sense of loss and devastation to anything else I know of.  For equivalency of evil we can consider the bombings our side carried out Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden, but the combined death tolls from those horrific attacks, which were considered strategic and carried out in far more dramatic fashion, pale in comparison to the "banality of evil" that drove the Nazi program.

[Pete at Home]

As best I can tell, the origin of the putrid phrase that 'Intermarriage is worse than holocaust' came from none other than Golda Meir, once Prime Minister of Israel.   

I have never been to Ann Arbor but have never heard anything bad about it or anyone there, other than university nonsense.

I strongly suspect that tweet was misunderstood, and that he was poking fun of the common meme of Jews saying that Jewish intermarriage is worse than the holocaust.  But even if he's serious, I'm not sure how you'd get it to "right wing."  Some sorts of dickishness transcend politics.

Here's what I'm talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Holocaust

The silent holocaust is a phrase that is used to refer to multiple unrelated items.

    Certain Jewish communal and religious leaders have used this term to describe Jewish assimilation (cultural assimilation, religious assimilation) and interfaith marriage of Jews with gentiles.[1][2]
    Abortion, among some involved in pro-life activism. One group has even named itself "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/top-rabbi-jews-assimilation-europe-worse-holocaust/

www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/IntermarriageWhyNot/

Jews are assimilating at rates rivaling the holocaust. Find out why a Jew should not intermarry.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/rabbi-intermarriage-plays-into-nazis-hands/

israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/03/europes-spiritual-holocaust.html

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26067980 "worse than Hitler"

Bemoaning holocaust shiksas is by far the most common species of holocaust denial on the internet.

[Pete at Home]

I take it you've never known Jews in the Detroit area?

Being Jewish by heritage in a city with a relatively high Jewish population and surrounding suburbs with even higher concentrations of Jews, why would you take that view ?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, since I don't talk that much about my own religious background, and assume you were being ironical.

As for the rest, the phenomenon is sad and overblown, especially when applied to individuals.  It's a shameful accusation something like accusing someone of genocide if the person mugs their son or daughter.  As for orthodox revulsion about trends in Jewish culture, the totality of the effect of Jewish assimilation has had a very significant impact on the ways Jews involve themselves in society, so I can see why people with the most rigid and committed views about that are upset.  Like fundamentalists of every religion and bigots of every persuasion, they should either stay in their bubbles and not venture out, or pop the bubble and join the free world.

But a holocaust is the willful attempt to exterminate an entire religious and ethnic population through genocide**.  It's laughable and unsettling to make any claim to equivalence.  I've never heard it from any of my Jewish friends or relatives, and until you dug up those references (thanks) never would have thought it happens.

BTW, it gets worse!

Hitler was not only sent by Heaven, but was sent as a kindness from Heaven…. Because assimilation and intermarriage are worse than death.

-Rabbi Avigdor HaKohen Miller (August 28, 1908 – April 20, 2001)

I wonder what Samuel Willenberg, a Treblinka survivor who passed away last week, would say about Rabbi Miller's florid reductionism.

Samuel Willenberg, the last survivor of the Treblinka Nazi death camp in Poland where 875,000 were systematically murdered, died Friday in Israel at the age of 93.

Only 67 people survived the death camp in Poland, according to the Associated Press. It was designed and built almost entirely for the factory-like killing of human beings, nearly all Jews. The Nazis worked to destroy and erase all evidence of the camp and genocide before advancing Soviet armies could find it.

Willenberg, the son of an Orthodox Christian mother and Jewish father, was brought to the camp in 1942. As an able-bodied 19-year-old, he was spared death and was given the task of sorting through the belongings of those murdered in the gas chambers.

In August of 1943, Willenberg joined a group of Jews who stole weapons, set fire to the camp and tried to escape. Most of them were killed. Willenberg was shot in the leg but managed to clamber over a pile of bodies, climb over a fence and make his way into the woods. He later joined the Polish resistance and took part in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944.

Personally, I would call Willenberg a hero.  But to some entitled old gasbags, Willenberg's very existence was "worse than the holocaust," because his father married an Orthodox Christian.

[Pete at Home]

Damn, there's more of this rot.  Please note that other than Wikipedia all my sources cited here are Jewish sources!

Describing a visit to Israel, the Canadian Jewish writer Modechai Richler, in his book, This Year in Jerusalem, reports: "...unable to sleep, I read The Jerusalem Post in bed...The Post paid tribute to cartoonist Noah Mordechai Birzowski, who had just turned 75. A contributor since 1940 to The Palestine Post, as it then was, and other Israeli newspapers, Birzowski signed his name Noah Bee. One of the cartoons reproduced for the tribute was in two final frames with the headnote, 'Final Solutions.' The first frame showed Jews in striped concentration camp uniforms, lining up to be consumed in a crematorium, smoke billowing out of its tall chimney. The second frame was a drawing of a couple being married in church, standing before a crucifix with the footnote 'intermarriage.'

[AI Wessex]

The GOP has entered a bizarre kind of fugue state now due to the Party's inability to either control or thwart Trump's candidacy. I'm quoting extensively from the article, which has a longer and more detailed review of the maneuvering that once was behind the scenes but is now being done and talked about openly.  Note the two mentions of Paul LePage, the wacko Governor of Maine, at the top and bottom of the article.  The glaring omission is that none of the discussion revolves around uniting behind Ted Cruz.  That means that as bad as they can imagine a Trump presidency would be, they all see Cruz as an even worse alternative.  Who's driving this car, anyway?

The scenario Karl Rove outlined was bleak.

Addressing a luncheon of Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19, he warned that Donald J. Trump’s increasingly likely nomination would be catastrophic, dooming the party in November. But Mr. Rove, the master strategist of George W. Bush’s campaigns, insisted it was not too late for them to stop Mr. Trump, according to three people present.

At a meeting of Republican governors the next morning, Paul R. LePage of Maine called for action. Seated at a long boardroom table at the Willard Hotel, he erupted in frustration over the state of the 2016 race, saying Mr. Trump’s nomination would deeply wound the Republican Party. Mr. LePage urged the governors to draft an open letter “to the people,” disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of politics.
...
Efforts to unite warring candidates behind one failed spectacularly: An overture from Senator Marco Rubio to Mr. Christie angered and insulted the governor. An unsubtle appeal from Mitt Romney to John Kasich, about the party’s need to consolidate behind one rival to Mr. Trump, fell on deaf ears.
,,,
Despite all the forces arrayed against Mr. Trump, the interviews show, the party has been gripped by a nearly incapacitating leadership vacuum and a paralytic sense of indecision and despair, as he has won smashing victories in South Carolina and Nevada.
...
Should Mr. Trump clinch the presidential nomination, it would represent a rout of historic proportions for the institutional Republican Party, and could set off an internal rift unseen in either party for a half-century, since white Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party en masse during the civil rights movement.
...
Late last fall, the strategists Alex Castellanos and Gail Gitcho, both presidential campaign veterans, reached out to dozens of the party’s leading donors, including the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and the hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, with a plan to create a “super PAC” that would take down Mr. Trump. In a confidential memo, the strategists laid out the mission of a group they called “ProtectUS.”

“We want voters to imagine Donald Trump in the Big Chair in the Oval Office, with responsibilities for worldwide confrontation at his fingertips,” they wrote in the previously unreported memo. Mr. Castellanos even produced ads portraying Mr. Trump as unfit for the presidency, according to people who saw them and who, along with many of those interviewed, insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.
...
Mr. Trump’s challengers are staking their hopes on a set of guerrilla tactics and long-shot possibilities, racing to line up mainstream voters and interest groups against his increasingly formidable campaign. Donors and elected leaders have begun to rouse themselves for the fight, but perhaps too late.
...
In Washington, Mr. Kasich’s persistence in the race has become a source of frustration. At Senate luncheons on Wednesday and Thursday, Republican lawmakers vented about Mr. Kasich’s intransigence, calling it selfishness.
...
Mr. McConnell was especially vocal, describing Mr. Kasich’s persistence as irrational because he has no plausible path to the nomination, several senators said.

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.
...
“There’s this desire, verging on panic, to consolidate the field,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former supporter of Mr. Bush. “But I don’t see any movement at all.”
...
Fred Malek, the finance chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said the party’s mainstream had simply run up against the limits of its influence.

“There’s no single leader and no single institution that can bring a diverse group called the Republican Party together, behind a single candidate,” Mr. Malek said. “It just doesn’t exist.”

On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview said Mr. Trump could be “one of the greatest presidents.”

That governor was Paul LePage.

[Pete at Home]

Pete, I agree that Cruz and his campaign see it that way, what I don't get is why everyone else thinks its funny.  That reflects a hidden bit of assumptions on the part of those laughing, don't you think?

Yes, but then I think my assumptions about Cruz are correct.  (OTOH I guess everyone thinks their assumptions are correct)

Did a bit of checking, and looks like other Republican candidates are supported by porn stars, and don't have a problem with that.  Mary Cary, has tweeted support for Mark Rubio.  I'm a fan of MC's non-porn antics, like running for Governor of California, and hope she goes back to comedy and stops getting bad surgery.  And Orrin Hatch, LDS senator from Utah, IIRC talked about a constitutional amendment so that a former porn star known as Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. 

In other news, media heads are angry with Trump for not repudiating David Duke's endorsement until he had the time to look up who the *censored* David Duke is.

[AI Wessex]

He didn't need to look it up.  Back in 2000 he decided not to run partly because he didn't want to be associated with Duke/KKK and Pat Buchanon:

“The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani,” the New York Times quoted Trump saying in a statement. “This is not company I wish to keep.”

[Pete at Home]

so?  You never forget a name in 16 years?

The first statement 16 years ago he'd researched and decided Duke wasn't someone he wanted associated with.

The second, just days ago, he claims he didn't remember who Duke was and wanted to make sure before saying something.  He checked, and then disavowed for his third statement. 

You have any more plausible reason that he asked to check before he disavowed?
His latest rejection of Duke is the first fact I've seen to cause me to question about him being Clinton's straw man.

Occam's razor says it happened like he said it did.

[D.W.]

Occam's razor says it happened like he said it did.

I don't think Trump is an idiot.  I actually think he's extremely calculated.

This delay, which sparks a media outrage, then his statement that, of course he disavows Duke/KKK makes perfect sense.  It diffuses the issue neatly.  It lets the crazy racists brush it off as, "Well he HAS to say that". 

Nothing about this campaign season is served well by use of Occam's razor.

[Pete at Home]

And how would that play differently if he'd disavowed the first time?  Saying he doesn't know who Duke is, is more of a slap in the face.  And it's more of a disavowal if he's had time to look and see who it is, rather than just disavowing by peer pressure.

Dunno if Duke is a crazy racist like Lester Maddox, or a canny racist like governor Wallace.

[D.W.]

It wouldn't be news...

[Seriati]

The endorsement alone was enough to make it news, regardless of how quickly its disavowed.  It's play too well into a narrative that people want to hear.

[Pete at Home]

You know from past posts that I'm no friend to Mr. Trump, and I think this is the first time  I've defended him on anything.  But I actually like it that he asked time to look into who Duke was rather than just take his interlocutor's word on it.

[AI Wessex]

If this doesn't take care of Trump, we'll have to step up to a silver bullet or a stake in the heart -- or maybe a world-class steak.

[TheDrake]

I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of. Then also, Trump could very reasonably have answered the KKK part of the question without addressing Duke by name, in his own personal style such as...

"I think the Ku Klux Klan is absolutely disgusting. They are a bunch of racist slob losers. I hope they'll keep their ugly faces out of the voting booths. If Duke is a member of the KKK, and I don't know that he is, but if he is then he's a loser."

Of course, he fielded a question about Duke two days prior to the interview with this statement...

"David Duke endorsed me? OK, alright. I disavow, OK?"

Prior to that, and not ancient history, in an August interview he was asked if he would repudiate an earlier endorsement, and he said, "Sure, I would if that would make you feel better."

Which is a particularly odd response for anyone but the Donald.

[AI Wessex]

I read an article about Trump's penchant to pass along wild conspiracy theories.  I find this quote by Erick Erickson criticizing him for that pretty amusing, as Erickson is himself quite comfortable challenging Obama's religious faith:

It was a question that most major presidential candidates would have quickly dismissed as absurd, even offensive: What do you make of these theories that Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered?

For Donald J. Trump, it appeared unavoidably juicy, and possibly the next big pop-culture fixation. “You know, I just landed, and I’m hearing it’s a big topic,” Mr. Trump told the radio host Michael Savage from South Carolina, in an interview just a few days after the Supreme Court justice’s unexpected death
...
... to publicly entertain such theories, Mr. Erickson said, means sliding down a dangerous slope. “You hand yourself over the idea that there’s an invisible hand at work that you can’t see,” he said. “You then begin to cast about to blame someone for controlling that invisible hand, and you lose perspective on what is and is not happening, and what is and isn’t real.”

Isn't the belief in an "invisible hand" the essence of "faith"?

[Pete at Home]

I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of.

Does your awareness extend to anything outrageous Mr. Duke has actually said or done, other than being a member of the sheetheads or supporting Mr. Trump?

[D.W.]

*former leader, not member

[AI Wessex]

Trump (Drumpf?) denounced him on Friday, so either he's drifting into a new form of dementia or he had just been lucky in answering previous questions that he couldn't hear on Sunday and gave up when the letters K.K.K were too badly distorted by the cheap earpiece they gave him.  Hmmm, I'm going with option 3...

[scifibum]

Here's a decent rundown on the Trump/Duke inconsistencies:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/01/fact-check-donald-trump-david-duke/81146158/

He was lying when he said he didn't know anything about Duke.  The only explanations that make sense are:

1) memory/cognition problems that should disqualify him for office
2) hedging because he needs/wants support from Duke's allies but realizes he can't admit that

I'm leaning #2.  The whole "he says what we're all thinking" has all along been about race.

[TheDrake]

I find it hard to believe that anybody with a passing interest in politics or issues of race can't remember David Duke. He's the most famous white supremacist that I'm aware of.

Does your awareness extend to anything outrageous Mr. Duke has actually said or done, other than being a member of the sheetheads or supporting Mr. Trump?

Being a Klan leader is sufficient for me, and the only degree of granularity that I remembered about him.

[Pete at Home]

I agree it's enough to want to dissociate from him.  I disagree that it's enough that everyone should instantly remember his name and piss our collective pants when uttered.