Aggie and Lurker,

You're both trying to defend a corrupt status quo. Go back a hundred posts or so Lurker to the post about genetic requirements within the religion. It's there and I checked into it and its true. Jews require a geneology for certain offices. And go back to the first post for the definition of 'semite'. That's where I began, with the dictionary definition. Arabs are semites, too, yet you choose to narrow it to just include Jews. I find it odd the Jewsish church doesn't censure members who feel free to scream 'anti-semite' at the drop of a hat. Strong control in all areas except that one? You can't eat a ham sandwich but you can blast thousands of well-meaning preachers when you feel like it? You have to follow thousands of 'rules', but you can make up your own definition of anti-semitism as the need arises? Seems the church ENCOURAGES confusion on this.

This thread made me think of Clarence Thomas, for some reason. During his confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thomas couldn't answer some of the standard legal questions asked of anyone in his position. Biden and Kennedy and the rest were pretty shocked, but they persevered and asked the questions, and Thomas eventually said he would have to 'apply natural law' to one of the hypothetical situations described. Then he explained natural law as being this vague thing he could 'sniff out when he heard it'...something like that. I mean, he was imminently unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, yet there he was, saying 200+ years of legal precedent took a back seat to his gut feeling. Pitiful. Biden should have gaveled the proceedings closed and asked for the next candidate. But instead they went on until finally Thomas said he was beginning to think he was in a 'high tech lynching'. He played the race card. Too stupid to get ahead without that being placed on the fast-track, but smart enough to know he'd get special treatment by pointing out he was black. And to their eternal discredit, the Committee gave in. And Thomas has never written an opinion to my knowledge...he just votes like Rehnquist tells him to, and Clarence Thomas appointed a Nazi to the White House because American Senators didn't stick to the principle of equality.

For some reason, that's what this 'anti-semitism' talk makes me think of. Jews seem to want a blank check they can pull out any time they're at a loss in an argument, and 'anti-semite' is that check. And if Jews are free to make up their own definition of anti-semite, then so am I. Go back to the definition of 'semite' in the first post. It includes Arabs. So if you are not AS concerned about the Arabs being murdered at Guantanamo as you are about Jews dying, then you are an anti-semite. And that's not hair-splitting. It's literal. Figured out by someone who didn't have the benefit of rabbinical brainwashing.