Firenze Sage: Chimera or racism?

Margo Hendricks, Univ. of CA at Santa Cruz professor in Literature for 20 years, says that racism is alive and well on the campus during her tenure. Statistics on Ratemyprofessors.com show that retiring UCSC professor Hendricks is viewed as unorganized, self centered and fails to listen.

Share
Racism at Univ. of CA at Santa Cruz?

The fact that racism has been alive and well on the campus during my tenure at UCSC has never escaped me,” she [Margo Hendricks] wrote. “Students, staff and faculty of African American descent (regardless of color) experience subtle and not so subtle attacks in the classroom, in evaluations, and personnel actions.”

Thus spake Margo Hendricks who provides no evidence to support her rant, but expects millions or billions to be spent to alleviate her complaint.

Of note the website “Ratemyprofessors.com” is almost universal in the view that she is unorganized, self centered, and fails to listen.

A recent rally at UCSC demanded a more diversified student body so that ethnic groups at the school reflect the same percentage as the population as a whole.

This is the same campus, UCSC, that awarded Black Panther Huey Newton a PhD, [cop killer tried several times for murder and later convicted of embezzling money from programs he created for black children] and employs in positions of authority Stalinist thinking Angela Davis and sister Bettina Aptheker.

Racist graffiti is unfortunate but hardly cataclysmic. Some paint remover would solve more problems than a giant new affirmative action plan.

by FirenzieSage48@gmail.com
————————————————–

For persons who do not know who Huey Newton is, here is some info:

Huey Newton proved to be as violent as the party he helped to create when he was thrust into the national limelight in October 1967; accused of murdering Oakland police officer John Frey. In September 1968 Newton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to two to 15 years in prison. In May 1970 the California Appellate Court reversed Newton’s conviction and ordered a new trial. After two more trials the State of California dropped its case against Newton, citing technicalities including the judge’s failure to relay proper instructions to the jury.

After his release from prison Newton overhauled the Black Panther Party, revised its program, and changed its rhetoric. While he had been imprisoned, party membership had decreased significantly in several cities, and the FBI had started a campaign to disrupt and eventually bring down the Black Panthers. Abandoning its Marxist-Leninist ideology, Newton now concentrated on community survival programs. The Black Panthers sponsored a free breakfast program for children, sickle-cell anemia tests, free food and shoes, and a school, the Samuel Napier Intercommunal Youth Institute. However, as before, the Black Panthers were not without controversy. Funding for several of their programs were raised as the result of the co-operation of drug dealers and prostitution rings.

Newton tried to shed his image as a firebreathing revolutionary, but he continued to have difficulty with the police. In 1974 several assault charges were filed against him, and he was also accused of murdering a 17-year-old prostitute, Kathleen Smith. Newton failed to make his court appearance. His bail was revoked, a bench warrant issued, and his name added to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most wanted list. Newton had jumped bail and escaped to Cuba, where he spent three years in exile. In Cuba he worked as a machinist and teacher. He returned home in 1977 to face murder charges because, he said, the climate in the United States had changed and he believed he could get a fair trial. He was acquitted of the murder of Kathleen Smith after two juries were deadlocked.

In addition to organizing the Black Panther Party and serving as its minister of defense, Newton unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party in 1968. In 1971, between his second and third trials for the murder of John Frey, he visited China for ten days, where he met with Premier Chou En-lai and Chiang Ch’ing, the wife of Chairman Mao Tse-tung. While there he was offered political asylum. Newton studied for a Ph.D. in the history of social consciousness at the University of California in 1978. In 1985 the 43-year-old Newton was arrested for embezzling state and federal funds from the Black Panthers’ community education and nutrition programs. In 1989 he was convicted of embezzling funds from a school run by the Black Panthers, supposedly to support his alcohol and drug addictions. By this time the Panthers had turned to less violent activism. On August 22, 1989, Newton was gunned down by a drug dealer, ironically in the same city streets of Oakland that saw the rise of the Black Panthers 23 years ago. Bill Turque in Newsweek described a sad but appropriate farewell: “A small florist’s card, resting with bouquets of red gladiolus’s and white dahlias on a chain-link fence near the shooting scene, summed it up: ‘Huey: for the early years.'”

Share

What words best describe Islam? jehad? terrorism? pedophilia? sexual abusers? women haters?

Scott Kennedy with the Center for Non-violence in Santa Cruz, CA writes in The Sentinel 2-13-2011 that it is wrong for people to equate Islam with terrorism. What words come to mind when you think of Islam?

Not one of the examples Kennedy uses concern the middle east where despots routinely flog and beat their people and, until Tunisian and Egyptian people rose up, most middle eastern people have long accepted abject poverty and brutal treatment by their rulers.

Somehow it sticks in one’s throat that someone like Kennedy from a center for non-violence defends the political/ religion of Islam. In my view, Islam is probably the most brutal and repressive religion and political system in today’s world.

Should people equate Islam iwth terrorism? What words come to mind for you when thinking of Islam? One image that comes to mind is thousands of Islamic males reciting the Koran with their foreheads on the ground and their rear ends up.

See below for a well written book review about A God Who Hates.

Book Review: “A God Who Hates” by Wafa Sultan
From the desk of Fjordman on Wed, 2010-04-07 09:35

The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still upheld today. The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad by the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his book at Jihad Watch previously.
In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from representing a “perversion” of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam.

In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed “reformist” Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic doctrines is quite limited, Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime – which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources – occupy a major part of his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist.

Wafa Sultan, page 66: “For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up.”

On the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding,” she states on page 69: “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously.

Page 158: “When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick,’ is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), ‘speak forcefully and carry a big stick’; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.”

A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them.

Page 215: “Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man’s expressing feelings of guilt about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man’s adherence to Islam is defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’ As long as he continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: ‘To paradise, oh beloved of God.’”

Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God.

A God Who Hates, page 159: “Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: ‘Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.’ In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the mountaintop, as follows: ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you’ (4:59). ‘Those in authority among you’ means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, ‘your rulers.’ In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: ‘Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.’ Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: ‘If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.’”

Page 160-161: “Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree.”

Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and the Communists didn’t ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard.

I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the Turks also contributed next to nothing to science.

The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their women. They don’t need to get drunk to do so.

A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan’s book provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle can be broken without repudiating Islam.

Share

Aptos psychologist: What do muslim women think?

Monterey Bay Forum www.freedomOK.net welcomes musim women to post. What are your hopes and dreams? Talk about your life. Do you read the Koran? Send to DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
خليج مونتري www.freedomok.net يرحب منتدى النساء المسلمات فيما بعد عن حياتهم. *ما هي جهودكم الآمال والأحلام? هل قرأتم القرآن? ارسال البريد الالكتروني drcameronjackson@gmail.com

Share

Aptos psychologist: from the Koran/ Quran- “Women are your fields, go then, into your fields whence you please.” de-humanizes women into things to be used by Islamic men

Given that Islam treats women as less than human — as fields to be used as Islamic men choose — it’s no wonder that Islamic countries fare poorly.

The report below by Josh Sayles appears in today’s Jewish News of Greater Phoenix. It is a follow-up report to the original report (“Islam 101? BJE Course on radicalism labeled as Basics- July 30, 2010) in the Jewish News about the “Islam 101” course taught by Carl Goldberg and sponsored by the local chapter of the Bureau of Jewish Education. You may also recall the op-ed Dr. Jasser wrote, “A Course on Islam”, (July 30, 2010) special for the Jewish News on Goldberg’s course available at this link.

2] Dr. Jasser appeared on today’s Dennis Miller radio program to discuss recent revelations that the controversial “Ground Zero” Islamic Center project is seeking a $5 million grant for contruction from the 9/11 Lower Manhattan development fund, the new TSA screening kerfluffle, and the Oklahoma question 755 against sharia law. Listen to the interview at Dennis Miller’s homepage (subscribers only). — “Jasser on Chutzpah” – We will try to obtain the interview for posting at our site soon.

A Course on Islam reignites community concern
November 24, 2010
Jewish News of Greater Phoenix
by Josh Sayles, Staff Writer

Despite concerns expressed last summer by community leaders including Temple Kol Ami’s Rabbi B. Charles Herring and Anti-Defamation League Regional Director Bill Straus about Dr. Carl Goldberg’s views on Islam, the Bureau of Jewish Education brought Goldberg back this fall to teach about the religion.

“I obviously don’t make the decisions of how to manage the Bureau of Jewish Education, nor would I expect (BJE Director) Aaron (Scholar) to attempt to manage the affairs of the ADL,” said Straus. “I am disappointed, though. It’s been obvious to me for years that Carl made up his mind (about Islam) a long time ago and is unwilling to hear any side of this issue other than the one he insists on embracing.”

Goldberg, who is a Realtor, is Jewish and has a doctorate in Russian history, recently taught a six-part weekly course titled “Islam and the Quran” Oct. 13-Nov. 17 through the Bureau of Jewish Education in Scottsdale; this reporter attended four of the six classes. Goldberg taught a similar class at the bureau, “Islam 101,” last summer (“Islam 101? BJE course on radicalism labeled as basics,” Jewish News, July 30).

In both BJE courses, Goldberg highlighted dozens of controversial passages in the Quran, such as: “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward;” and, “Women are your fields; go then, into your fields whence you please.”

Goldberg emphasized to both his students and to Jewish News that the theories he presents are not his, and that he gets his information “from the most esteemed Muslim scholars of the 20th century,” such as Sayyid Qutb, Abul Maududi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi; he also frequently cites Robert Spencer. He said when he speaks of the dangers of Islam he is not talking about all Muslims, only those who follow Islamic doctrines.

Islamic doctrines are the principal foundations of the religion.

For the fourth session of “Islam and the Quran,” held Nov. 3, Scholar invited Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a local Muslim, to be guest lecturer. Goldberg and Jasser have fundamental differences in their approaches to Islam.

Scholar told Jewish News those differences were of little concern to him. “I don’t care whether people agree with each other,” he said. “(Jasser’s) was a viewpoint we needed to hear.”

Jasser, an internist, is the founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy and believes that Islam needs severe reform. He advocates for the separation of “mosque and state” and calls for other moderate Muslims to speak out against Shariah (Islamic) law as a form of government. Jasser admitted that there are not many Muslims, local or otherwise, willing to publicly support his ideas.Goldberg rejects Jasser’s attempts at reform as “not viable” and says that pious Muslims must, at Allah’s orders, blindly follow the Quran – interpreted as the literal word of Allah – which is why passages like the aforementioned one are fuel for terrorism. Jasser agrees that there are problematic verses in the Quran, but rejects Goldberg’s views on Islam as “fossilized.”

Their differences were on display during Jasser’s talk. He began by telling the 17 students that he had an hour to deprogram them of everything they had been learning, and then promptly passed around handouts that read, “‘Carl Goldberg’s’ Islam is uni-dimensional.”

Meanwhile, Goldberg sat in the corner quietly taking notes and chuckling softly every time Jasser quipped a zinger in his direction. Goldberg spent much of the next class rebutting Jasser’s presentation.

“It’s just been beyond frustrating to see how the comments (Goldberg) makes today … about Islam and Muslims and the Quran are exactly the same type of ones he (said) in 2003,” Jasser told Jewish News. “There has been absolutely no progress … from his perspective of what the solution is.

“The only reason I (lectured in) this course is because … I think that his students deserve to hear a different perspective.”

“I’m not in the business of providing solutions,” Goldberg responded. “I’m in the business of providing the truth about Islam so that people can become educated and learn about it. The solutions will be left up to the American people in an open discussion.”

Jasser said Goldberg’s explanation was inadequate.

“For him to … say that it is appropriate, in a setting where America’s No. 1 fear currently is the security threat from radical Islam, to present these problems without solutions is just dangerous,” he said. “It’s like sitting down and talking to patients about cancer without giving them any hope of any solution or any treatment.”

Jasser went on to claim that Goldberg believed “that every Muslim that reads the Quran piously is a possible enemy of this country.”

“(The Quran) says that non-Muslims are the vilest of beasts, the lowest of animals, the worst of creatures, and that non-Muslims are your enemy,” Goldberg replied. “(When) you believe you’re reading the literal word of God, what do you do with it?”

Additionally, in his Nov. 10 class, Goldberg said of secular Muslims, “They may not read the Quran, they may not go to mosque, but they hate the Jews. That much they’ve been taught.”

“That statement is offensive and not true of the Muslims I know,” said Jasser. “He’s basically saying that the secular Muslims are like the Fatah, and the Islamists are like Hamas. That paradigm may be true in the West Bank and Gaza, but to apply that to 1.5 billion Muslims is absurd.”

Scholar, too, distanced himself from Goldberg’s statement about secular Islam. “That is not a view that I would support in any way,” he said.

Scholar said that the purpose of the class was intended to be “instructional, not indoctrinating. We really believe that (our students) are smart. … Let them make up their minds.”

“Give Carl some credit,” Scholar added later. “He may be overzealous sometimes, but he believes in what he’s doing.”

When Jewish News asked Scholar if Goldberg would be teaching about Islam for the BJE next semester, he said only, “Just watch our class offerings. That’s all. The bureau doesn’t have to deal in controversy, we don’t have to deal in negativism. We’re not indoctrinators, we’re teachers, and we want to teach.”

Goldberg said that if he had the choice of picking a guest lecturer, he would have invited Azra Hussain, co-founder and director of the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona. He said that she is more closely aligned than Jassser with mainstream Islam and would have a more difficult time refuting problem passages from the Quran.

Hussain, shocked Goldberg would want her to speak in his class, said that his claims were not wrong, “but he makes it sound as if I’m avoiding (discussing the Quran),” she said. “I’m not avoiding it. It’s just that’s not what I’ve been asked to do.

“When you go and talk about Christianity 101, nobody’s asking you to sit down and talk about the books of the Bible and the New Testament,” she said. “I don’t do presentations about the Quran ever. … I do an Islam 101 presentation, telling about practices, belief, holidays, terminology (and) demographics.”

Scholar said that for the second semester in a row, Goldberg received “very positive” marks from students.

“It’s a very necessary course to have because we are at war, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, with the radical extremists of Islam,” said Honey Levin, one of Goldberg’s students. “They have stated over and over as they (fly) into our buildings and as they try to kill us that it’s all done in the name of Allah.”

Levin, like several other students Jewish News spoke to, said that she respects Jasser greatly and was thrilled he came to speak, but disagrees with his views on Islam.

“I’d love to believe his interpretation of the Quran, but it doesn’t hold water with the people that are trying to kill us,” she said.

Dr. Lance Cohen, a student who said he knew nothing of Islam before attending the course, said he also falls “more in Goldberg’s camp.”

“(He) has his biases … but what Goldberg’s trying to sell, I’m buying,” he said. “One of the main themes that Carl kept hammering home is that (Islam) is more than just a religion, it’s an ideology. I think that’s absolutely crucial to understand. Islamic thought is all about controlling society, controlling the people that are in it, waging war against infidels and converting as many people to Islam as possible.”
Of several students Jewish News spoke to who lean toward Jasser, Barbara Davis was the only one willing to go on the record. She said she attended the class because she thought it was important to hear the other side, but “there’s no question (Goldberg) has an agenda. It’s a frightening agenda, and I think that most people in the class were on his wavelength.”

“His agenda was to ‘educate’ us – and I’m putting the word ‘educate’ in quotes – to the fact that there is a very large group of people, maybe one half of the (world’s) 1.5 billion Muslims, who are set on making the world into a place that (operates) on Shariah law, and that the rest of the Muslim world is either oblivious to it or doesn’t care,” she said.

“I know Dr. Goldberg feels that it is a very dangerous situation out there, and maybe he’s right. I’m not saying there aren’t elements that are dangerous. But … he keeps pointing to the fact that there’s this large group that wants to take over the world and you better look out. I felt like the whole course was, ‘You better look out.'”

Share

Am I my brother’s keeper? How does the Muslim religion answer this question if posed by a woman?

From the perspective of a Muslim women, how much freedom can she have? Does the Islamic God hate women?

Share
Am I my brother's keeper? What about Muslim women - are they constrained like in a cage or what?

So if a Muslim woman tells her husband/ family that she wants to live a life apart from the Islamic faith, can she do so? Will she be 1) be “watched over” or ” 2) be “constrained”? Below are thoughts about what it means to be “my brother’s keeper….”

The Real Meaning of ‘My Brother’s Keeper’
By Matthew Eckel

“This is such an elementary point that I fear making it will seem silly. On the other hand, so many people seem so completely in the dark about it that it is worth stating the obvious. Claiming to be “my brother’s keeper,” as President Obama is so wont to spout, is an insult to the brother!

“I suppose the confusion is perfectly understandable since most of us encounter the phrase in its English translation and not the original Hebrew, and numerous otherwise-well-meaning organizations have taken it as their motto. See here, here, and here for examples.

“After all, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “to keep” as “to watch over and defend esp. from danger, harm, or loss.” But Webster’s also defines “to keep” as “to restrain from departure” and “to retain or continue to have in one’s possession or power.” So which meaning does “brother’s keeper” have in its original usage?

“The phrase comes, of course, from Genesis, chapter 4 — God’s devastating interrogation of Cain after Cain killed Abel out of rank jealousy. God asks Cain innocently, “Where is your brother, Abel? [i]” Cain replies, “I don’t know,” and asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now, some of us grew up aping that catchy margarine slogan, “it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature,” so we can immediately recognize that it is probably not a great idea to try to deceive the Creator of heaven and earth, especially just after you did something He warned you not to do. God, of course, is not amused and curses Cain, who ends up lamenting, “My punishment is more than I can bear.”

But what was Cain actually saying when he uttered those words to God? The Hebrew word used here for “keeper” means more than “protector” or “defender”; it is more akin to “overseer” or “master,” as in “keeping” sheep (1 Samuel 17:20, 22); royal wardrobes (2 Kings 22:14); the king’s forest (Nehemiah 2:3, 3:29); gates (1 Chronicles 9:19); vineyards (Song of Solomon 1:6); and the temple threshold (Jeremiah 52:24) [ii]. Although these jobs are foreign to most of us, we can get the sense of them by thinking “zookeeper” or “doorkeeper.”

Now, if you think that treating your brother like a dumb animal, a clothes collection, a tree, a gate, a vine, or a doorway is charitable, then consider the context — Cain was wise-assing God! Cain wasn’t responsibly pondering, “Am I my brother’s noble defender?” He was saying, “How the hell do I know where he is? It’s not in my job description to keep track of him!” It was meant to shame God into replying, “On no, of course you aren’t. I’m so sorry I asked.” Simply put, Cain’s rhetorical sneer is not the query of a loving, responsible brother, but the bald bluster of a brutal murderer.

“Look, the pages of American Thinker are hardly the place to get into a theological debate about the meaning of obscure biblical phrases, but you need to know that when a die-hard leftist appropriates a wise-ass remark made by the archetypal murderer, he is really showing you more about himself than he would like. He’s really saying, “It’s my job (because I take it upon myself) to keep these people in line because they are unthinking, inanimate, and helpless objects which are frankly more like property than equals.” If that is what Obama really thinks of the American people, then we can only hope we escape his brotherly affections.

Back to Muslim women. How are Muslim women treated based on their religious writings? Are they in “a cage” or are they “free to go”?> How can American Christians, Jews and those interested in women’s rights assist Muslim women to be free?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

——————————————————————————–

[i] All bible quotes are taken from the New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, the International Bible Society.

[ii] W. O. Klopfenstein, Keeper, Keepers, III Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 781 (Merrill C. Tenney et al. eds., 1976).
13 Comments on “The Real Meaning of ‘My Brother’s Keeper’

Share