Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Jew-haters by the numbers

Michael Butler and his coblogger have some—shall we say, very “interesting”—opinions about the Jews. Says Butler:

“To put this in perspective, Jews constitute approximately 2% of the US population. Jews are, thus, statistically speaking, three times overrepresented in the House, five times overrepresented in the Senate and more than ten times overrepresented in the Supreme Court. Jews also head three of the most important Federal posts — Ben Bernanke is Chairman of the Fed, Michael Chertoff is head of Homeland Security, Michael Mukasey is Attorney General.”

http://butler-harris.org/archives/295

I wouldn’t say that Jews are overrepresented. Rather, I’d say that Jews are disproportionately represented. It’s not as if Jews have achieved their position through quotas.

As long as you get to where you are through diligence and talent, what does it matter if you’re disproportionately represented?

“To add insult to injury, even Editor-in-Chief of ‘Christian’ World Magazine is Jewish.”

How is it supposed to be “insulting” that a Marvin Olasky is Editor-in-Chief of World Magazine? Olasky is, after all, a Messianic Jew.

Does Butler take the position that Messianic Jews like Moishe Rosen, Michael L. Brown, Charles Lee Feinberg, John & Paul Feinberg, Steven Schlissel, Meredith Kline, and Jay Sekulow (to name a few) aren’t even Christian?

Or if he would concede their Christian bona fides, then why would it be “insulting” to have a Messianic Jew in charge of World Magazine?

“While you ponder this, ponder also the fruit of the federal government, the universities, and the media over the last few decades. Do you think there may be a connection between the steep decline of all three institutions and their increasingly Jewish composition?”

Wouldn’t the increasingly secular composition be a better index?

Butler then quotes some choice statements by Mencken:

“No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.”

True. We could say with equal justice that no Calvinist composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Doesn’t Butler claim to be a Calvinist?

Continuing with Menken: “no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world.”

Of course, that’s because Judaism represents an aniconic tradition.

“And no Jewish scientist has ever equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. . .”

Does Butler think that Darwin was a great scientist? Anyway, Jewish have made outstanding and disproportionate contributions to math, medicine, physics, economics, and chess—to name a few brainy disciplines.

Returning to Butler’s own statements: “For those who have not realized how much jews are our enemies, perhaps this short video will give some food for thought.”

The Jews are our enemies? Which Jews? Liberal Jews? Yes, but you could say the same thing about liberal goyim.

“My criterion was not who has the most ribbons and baubles. Indeed, one could make a case that those who win the silly prizes could almost certainly not be great. Very few of the greats are recognized by their contemporaries.The business about 42% citations in humanities shows how irrelevant raw statistical data is (”are” for the schoolmarms).”

Notice how he changes horses in mid-stream. He began by complaining that Jews are overrepresented in certain fields, but underrepresented in brainy fields like logic, math, medicine, and science.

When, however, commenters pointed out that Jews are disproportionately represented in the brainy fields as well, Butler suddenly decries the value of statistics.

“Name just one jewish writer of the caliber Milton, Goethe, Dante, Virgil, Pound, or Eliot. As you say, I could go on.”

Oh, I don't know. What about...the Bible?

“Even with this, the whole business about jewish brain power was not the point of my post. Jews are over overrepresented in most professions. That is a fact. The question is, why? I don’t believe it is because they are smarter or even that they are more ambitious than other races. The Chinese are just as ambitious and yet they do not dominate the fields they enter into. Something else is at play. I am asking my readers to try to answer this question. Once this is answered correctly, much light will be thrown on the jewish problem.”

The “Jewish problem”?

“The US is currently fighting two unjust wars for Israel and is threatening a third.”

How is the war in Afghanistan a war “for Israel”? (Not that I concede the war in Iraq is a war for Israel.)

Of course, Butler is a 9/11 Truther, so maybe I shouldn’t ask.

“For another, I do not hate jews per se. I do count Christ’s enemies as my own and jews are Christ’s enemies.”

Of course, he leaves out the second part of the verse he’s alluding to. Here’s the full quote: “As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom 11:28).

And, of course, Gentile unbelievers also enemies of the gospel—without the compensation of being beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

In addition, though, does he think that Messianic Jews are enemies of Christ? If not, why did he say it was “insulting” for Marvin Olasky to be in charge of World Magazine?

“But even if I were filled with hatred toward jews, it would not be irrational and certainly not blind.”

Why would it not be irrational to be filled with hatred for Jews? Didn’t Paul say, in the very verse he alluded to, that they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers?

“Consider all the fathers of our religion who have spoken against jews in even stronger terms than I. Consider that jews have been expelled from every European nation at one time or another. Prime facie this should cause us to pause and consider why they have taken such a strong line against jews.”

Doesn’t he claim to be a Calvinist? Historically, Calvinist has been a very philosemitic tradition.

“As for why ‘jewish infiltration’ is bad, just switch jewish with Muslim or animism or feminism or sadism and you will have the answer.”

So, from his standpoint, a Jew like Larry Kudlow, Daniel Lapin, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Bob Novak, Dennis Prager, Ben Stein, John Stossel, or Ludwig von Mises (to name a few) is equivalent to the Muslim, animist, feminist, or sadist?

Then we have this charming statement from Butler’s sidekick, Timothy Harris:

“I have a slightly different angle on this subject. Let it be that not just many, but all the inventors and mathematicians were of the hebishkeit. Fine; now will you all just go home to Israel please, and not come back? Take the spies, enslaving “financiers,” blaspheming movie-makers, tendentious news-casters, and corrupting judges and lawyers, and you can also have all those geniuses. Despite exceptions here and there, overall, the infiltrated hebishkeitsreich is simply unhealthy for goy nations. We’ll buy your ball point pens from afar.”

The worst part of this is that Butler is a ruling elder in the OPC as well as a philosophy prof. at an allegedly Reformed seminary:

http://www.christtheologicalseminary.net/our-teaching-faculty.php

Are his colleagues at CTS aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Is the RPCUS (with which his seminary is affiliated) aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Is the OPC aware of his anti-Semitic ravings? Shouldn’t he be defrocked?

He needs to join a denomination where he feels more at home—like the World Church of the Creator.

11 comments:

  1. Wasn't Einstein Jewish?
    Oppenheimer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you go into the meta of the offending post (keep your head down!), you'll see that one of Butler's critics refutes his ignorant claim with a lot of documentation regarding Jewish contributions to the very fields in question.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also consider the 178 Jewish Nobel Prize winners (23% of total winners). Not to mention they also comprise 38% of US National Medal of Science winners.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ha! Your feeble statistics are no match for Butler's argument, David. You see, his thesis is impregnable, because unfalsifiable. Follow the logic: when Jews are underrepresented in some field of note, it's because they're inferior; but when they're overrepresented, it's because they're fraudsters. Either way, they're bad, bad, bad!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow... I wonder what Dr. Bahnsen would say about Butler's post if he were alive today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A quick question - does conversion to judaism in 2008 make one eligible to be counted as "beloved for the sake of their forefathers"? -- or does it only count if one can claim genetic descent?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Craig,

    WWGBD? Good question.

    I imagine he would be quite disturbed: disturbed that a blog that ostensibly values and showcases critical thinking has failed to identify Butler's main thesis.

    Disturbed, that on top of the misidentified thesis, a sub point of the post was exaggerated and itself misconstrued: an irrelevant thesis by an opponent is deemed a "refutation" of a claim never made by Butler, namely that Jews haven't received awards for quantitatively contributing to field.

    Don't know if GB knew of the Jewish problem, but I do know he knew of fallacious reasoning and smear debate.

    Steve,
    Any response to Tim Harris' lingering question?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tim,

    You need to redirect your question to your sidekick. Butler alluded to Rom 11:28a to justify his position. That would commit him to the proposition that Rom 11:28 is applicable to modern Jews. Yet he only alluded to the first clause, not the second. But parity of reason, 11:28b would also be applicable to modern Jews. I was answering Butler on his own grounds. Hence, my personal views on that particular issue are beside the point.

    For the record, there are elect Jews today. They are beloved by God. Elect Jews, like elect Gentiles, will become Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  9. confederate said...

    “I imagine he would be quite disturbed: disturbed that a blog that ostensibly values and showcases critical thinking has failed to identify Butler's main thesis.”

    An assertion which you fail to document. Moreover, this is a diversionary tactic. Whether or not I identified his “main thesis” is irrelevant to the fact that he made other assertions about the Jews. His other assertions don’t have to figure in the “main thesis” to reflect his viewpoint. I’m still commenting on his stated beliefs.

    “Disturbed, that on top of the misidentified thesis, a sub point of the post was exaggerated and itself misconstrued: an irrelevant thesis by an opponent is deemed a ‘refutation’ of a claim never made by Butler, namely that Jews haven't received awards for quantitatively contributing to field.”

    Demonstrably false. Butler dismissed their awards when he said “My criterion was not who has the most ribbons and baubles. Indeed, one could make a case that those who win the silly prizes could almost certainly not be great. Very few of the greats are recognized by their contemporaries,” &c.

    You are trying your best to misrepresent Butler’s stated position to absolve him. This is a tacit admission on your part that he is guilty as charged.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,
    Yes Butler dismissed the awards... as a guage of determining true "contribution", but he didn't deny that they have recieved them.

    You should slow down and read more carefully.

    I'm not trying to misrepresent Butler in order to defend him. He's a big boy who can defend himself.

    I'm just irked that brothers in the faith are ready to throw him to the dogs for pointing out that that Jews have decisive influence in the vital organs of our gentile nation, yet rarely fight for it. And that their powerful presence in these institutions hasn't improved them for the other 97 percent of the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CONFEDERATE SAID:

    “Steve,_Yes Butler dismissed the awards... as a guage of determining true ‘contribution,’ but he didn't deny that they have recieved them.__You should slow down and read more carefully.”

    And you should know a throwaway argument when you see it.

    He made an ignorant statement. He was corrected by a well-informed commenter. Then he tried to salvage his original statement through redefinitions.

    “I'm just irked that brothers in the faith are ready to throw him to the dogs for pointing out that that Jews have decisive influence in the vital organs of our gentile nation, yet rarely fight for it. And that their powerful presence in these institutions hasn't improved them for the other 97 percent of the nation.”

    You conveniently turn a blind eye to the other things he said.

    ReplyDelete