Home - List All Discussions

83 year old women has personally paid for 18,986 abortions

Meet atheist Anne Nicol Gaylor

by: Elessar

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/health_med_fit/article_9a9a1394-abd2-11df-aa6c-001cc4c03286.html
What kind of a person can do this? How does she sleep at night?

reply from: B0zo

"For me, it was all about the child," he said. "In the kind of world I want to live in, all children would be wanted."
There was a time when there was a concern about buring people alive. Some caskets were rigged with string so a bell could be rung if the "dead" person came back to life, and could be dug up. But I saw a more practical plan, more in line with the logic quoted above (from the article). A huge pointed spike was mounted in the lid of the casket, and would pierce through the body when it was closed. That would definately solve the problem of burying people alive.

reply from: Shenanigans

Wow, that's pretty sick.
I always wonder what makes a person go down such a dark path, what awful event has transpired in their life that they view the lives of others with such disregard? Because the other reason is that they're just plain evil or misguided, and neither of those things is something you want another to be.
Poor woman, I hope she repents before its too late for her.

reply from: BossMomma

That's a lot of blood on her hands, at 83 I really hope she has begged forgiveness for the killing she paid for.

reply from: ChuzLife

When I read that line (above in italics) I couldn't help but think,... "yeah you want every child to be wanted all right,... to the extent that if they aren't wanted? Kill-em!"

reply from: AshMarie88

Lord in Heaven bless her soul, because she surely won't be making it to a good place after she dies... If she has children or grandchildren, I wonder how she feels about them...

reply from: Shenanigans

She has a daughter, apparently, and that daughter is taking over the business.
I wonder if that woman wonders "it could have been me she paid to killed".

reply from: Banned Member

This article says nothing as to what criteria Gaylor uses to decide which people she'll help. I wonder if sounding black on the phone has the effect of loosening her purse strings faster and further?

reply from: BossMomma

What does being black have to do with it?

reply from: CP

It's easy for us to look at this kind of situation and think, "gee, what a horrid woman" and things like that, and view her as evil personified. Obviously, we condemn abortion, and for good reason I might add, but I really think we need to try and understand prochoicers a little better. This woman obviously doesn't see things the way we do, but in her mind, she's doing a good thing I'm sure. I prefer to view her as misguided, and I think that's a more accurate take than assuming she has no conscience or doesn't care about children or babies. She obviously has compassion for others, or I wouldn't think she would be spending her own money to try and help women in need.
Obviously that's what she's trying to do, help women...Imagine if her misguided dedication was helping our cause. I wonder if anyone has ever approached her about CPCs?
On another note, what was the relevance of her religious beliefs? What was the purpose behind specifically pointing out that she's an atheist? That's part of how this division among prolifers is perpetuated, those little things like that. If she had been a Christian, I'm betting you would not have specifically pointed that out. If I posted an article like this about a Christian, and pointed out specifically that they were Christian, I'm betting my motives would be questioned and people would be offended. Just sayin'... I have been accused of an anti-Christian agenda, and of starting trouble on the forum, but it's a two way street.
From the article:

reply from: CP

It sounded like he was implying that Mrs. Gaylor might be racist, as in eager to kill unborn black babies in particular. That is how I interpreted it anyway.

reply from: Elessar

I don't believe that people like this hate children per se. I do believe that people can be divided into two groups in the abortive world. One, the ignorant, who do not believe that they are killing children because they do not understand what abortion is as it pertains to real human development. Two, the pro-active, who use abortion to and ends for the purposes of population control by weeding out either the unneeded or the unwanted or the undesirable. The second group is more dangerous because they have the money and the political. They feed the lies to the first group and exploit them for the purposes of getting rid of them. I don't know if the women who this woman helps are black, but they are certainly almost always poor. The connection to race and abortion is somewhat dubious in my mind and somewhat archaic in our day, but as a form of economic discrimination, I believe that's quite obvious. Is Gaylot misinformed? I don't believe that she is for even a moment.

reply from: terry

It sounded like he was implying that Mrs. Gaylor might be racist, as in eager to kill unborn black babies in particular. That is how I interpreted it anyway.
I don't think the posters were being racist themselves, but just pointing out that racism might be a factor in this situation. There has been some great undercover work recently on this subject:
http://www.liveaction.org/planned-parenthood-racism-project

reply from: CP

Well, unless you think they would advocate the killing of born children with equal abandon, there must be an element of the same type of misunderstanding/ignorance regarding humans at earlier stages of development, wouldn't you say?

reply from: CP

It sounded like he was implying that Mrs. Gaylor might be racist, as in eager to kill unborn black babies in particular. That is how I interpreted it anyway.
I don't think the posters were being racist themselves, but just pointing out that racism might be a factor in this situation. There has been some great undercover work recently on this subject:
http://www.liveaction.org/planned-parenthood-racism-project
I thought maybe someone was interpreting Lefty's remark as racist, and I was saying I didn't interpret it that way, but maybe I misinterpreted those responses.
I thought Ash and BM were interpreting Lefty's remark as racist. Maybe I was wrong? I was defending Lefty, or so I thought, as distasteful as I find that to be. I do try to be fair, but like I said, I may have misinterpreted their responses (in which case I should certainly regret my haste).

reply from: Elessar

It's no misunderstanding, because what they do understand, is that the killing of born children is illegal. Abortion is very much legal and they understand that they can however pay to kill as many unborn children as they can and produce the kind of world that they desire and believe in through abortion. I'm not suggesting that these people are mentally ill, or unaware of what things are factually true, merely that they evil.

reply from: CP

It's no misunderstanding, because what they do understand, is that the killing of born children is illegal. Abortion is very much legal and they understand that they can however pay to kill as many unborn children as they can and produce the kind of world that they desire and believe in through abortion. I'm not suggesting that these people are mentally ill, or unaware of what things are factually true, merely that they evil.
I'll concede that you're almost certainly right about some of them. I don't think most people are like that, though, regardless of which side of the fence they sit. There are prolifers who try to paint them all with the same brush, and they may or may not actually believe their own propaganda.
I know some prolifers consider this a "war," and that being the case, justify pretty much any means in an attempt to win it, perhaps even feeling justified in intentionally propagating misinformation or outright lies. Both sides do it, and some may feel it's necessary to "fight fire with fire."
The problem with that is that it could burn the whole world up. I prefer to fight fire by dousing it with water, and fight dishonest propaganda by exposing it for what it is. I think honesty is the best policy in the end. I think our credibility is very important, since we need to convince detractors that we are right, and that means we need them to respect us enough to take us seriously and hear us out.
Racists certainly exist, and you probably don't have to look far to find them, but I really don't take the spectacular conspiracy theories about organized efforts to exterminate minorities very seriously, and I doubt many reasonable people do. I'm not impressed with the prolife "stings" and exposes that supposedly "prove" PP is systematically targeting blacks for abortions as part of such a plot.

reply from: Elessar

You don't have to go under cover to see that Planned Parenthood targets poor heavily populated ares. You just need a pair of eyes.

reply from: AshMarie88

The lady calls abortion a "blessing", that's sick in itself. And watching an abortion firsthand didn't change her views, it sure would mine if I was her.
However, I didn't see anything racist in the article I just read. I don't know where leftnemesis got what he said from it.

reply from: Elessar

Some people are of the opinion that if abortion providers are painted as racists, than people will be less likely support abortion. Since Planned Parenthood's orgins have racist roots, all people who support abortion must be racists too. I think that's how it goes. I'm not sure. I'm not very good at race baiting or white guilt.

reply from: terry

I was agreeing with you! I still do! Relax! I hope I haven't made everyone edgy.

reply from: CP

I agree that there was really nothing in the article to imply that racism had anything to do with it.
I do know where the implications of racism associated with abortion come from, however. It started as conspiracy theories popular among some more extreme activists in the fight for racial equality, but has now been seized upon by prolifers. It's becoming a common accusation to imply that prochoicers are racist. I have some theories about why this is, but it might be best if I didn't get into them here. I have other venues where the atmosphere is more conducive to serious consideration of some of my thoughts.

reply from: CP

I was agreeing with you! I still do! Relax! I hope I haven't made everyone edgy.
You know, of course, that all your actions are being carefully scrutinized...There is an element of distrust that lingers here, and some of us are no doubt uncertain of some things at this point. I think some of us are indeed, as you say, somewhat "edgy" at this point.

reply from: BossMomma

It sounded like he was implying that Mrs. Gaylor might be racist, as in eager to kill unborn black babies in particular. That is how I interpreted it anyway.
Bleh, I've never seen racism as part of the abortion issue. If black women abort more than whites it's because they choose to, whitey ain't forcing them into the clinic.

reply from: Elessar

The only racism that I have seen throughout my adult life that promotes abortion is the kind that Jesse Jackson peddles. "It's the racial inequality, the struggle of the black man to be heard and the white man who doesn't have the moral authority to.... blah, blah, blah" Jesse cried the night President Abortion won. The only people I see promoting abortion among blacks are very frequently black.

reply from: BossMomma

Eh, whateva. Each day I go to work and I'm hounded by perfectly healthy black men and women who.."just need a little change" what they need is a damn job and in Downtown Houston there are plenty to be had. One of them tried to steal my purse today, thankfully my keychain comes complete with mace canister.
I get so sick of hearing how whites are supposedly oppressing them when day in and day out they are harassing tax paying employed citizens for money. Sorry if that came off as racist, I don't hate or fear black people/African Americans/people of color (whatever the politically correct term is these days) I just wish they'd quit gnashing their teeth at Whitey while holding their hand out begging for money.

reply from: Banned Member

It sounded like he was implying that Mrs. Gaylor might be racist, as in eager to kill unborn black babies in particular. That is how I interpreted it anyway.
Thanks CP for that clarification but it's probably a waste of time because the odds are good that they will misinterpret your words as well.

reply from: Banned Member

Ok.. so the consensus here is that abortion in America has no racist undertones? Really?
Help me to speculate by pondering the following. If we were to assume that there actually are some people in America who truly are racist, and if those persons were cognizant of the fact that Blacks and Hispanics have a hugely disproportionate share of abortions in America, what might we conclude would be the average racist's opinion of those facts? Would they be pleased or displeased?
If we were to conclude that they would generally approve of any process that would reduce the number of individuals that they are predisposed to hate, then would the racists not then have tendencies to support the continuation of abortion for minorities at least? Hmm..?

reply from: CP

There are no doubt racists in this country, and I'm sure they would be happy to know that proportionately more black women are aborting than white women. That doesn't make them culpable in any way, however.
There are probably black racists who would be happy to know that more white babies are aborted than black, and that the black population is growing at a faster rate, but that doesn't mean they can be blamed for it.
If you could show that Mrs. Gaylor was turning away white women, or in any way selectively contributing to aborting blacks, you might convince me that there is a possibility she has racist intentions. I think it's irresponsible and dishonest to make such implications with no factual basis, however. It's like saying "could Mr. X be a pedophile" suggesting it out of malice, but with no evidence to indicate he might be.

reply from: CP

Can we assume that if racists are paying for minority abortions, that would effect the number of black women choosing to abort? Or can we assume that women who wish to abort will find the money somewhere, regardless of the color of their skin, especially considering the cost of raising a child?
In the case of the woman in the article, is there anything to imply that she is being selective based on race?

reply from: lukesmom

I don't know if this woman is discriminates against race but she sure discriminates against the "unwanted", less than perfect, unborn AND against christians in general. I live in the same area this supposed "nice" lady lives. Actually as female "Hitler" IMHO. She started the Freedom from religion group here and is over the top in discriminating against christians. According to her, all other groups have the right to express their views except christians. Funny how the liberal and pc media here depict her as their hero yet no mention of the true heros in the area who work daily, to ensure women and their families have what they need to raise their children successfully, rather than to destroy them. Heros who also give of their time and own money to build rather than destroy. Truthfully, the Gaylors are a "blight" on WI and considered an embarassment by many of us.

reply from: CP

Can I get a direct quote with source, or is this just your interpretation of something she has said or something you are repeating without actually knowing it is true?

reply from: lukesmom

Can I get a direct quote with source, or is this just your interpretation of something she has said or something you are repeating without actually knowing it is true?
The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.
http://www.ffrf.org/faq/about-the-foundation/why-is-the-foundation-concerned-with-state-church-entanglement/

Take a look at this site. Every legal action has been against christians. I couldn't find even one against another religion.
However, Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), said that the "war on Christmas" claim is not very original and that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, is "full of hot air."
"It's just a PR game for them to do this kind of thing this time of year," Gaylor told CNSNews.com. "They (Christians) are the least oppressed religion in the country, let me tell you. They try to call the shots, and they dictate terms to our government, and they have (President) Bush kow-towing to them and he's not even a Catholic. That was the only reason he vetoed stem cell research."
It is Christians who "are doing the persecuting" by trying to keep religion in the public square, said Gaylor. "But if they can say they are being persecuted, it's good for their religion."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41238

Actually, much of the antichristian comments I have heard Anne Nicol Gaylor (through the media, not personally) spew through the years aren't even on the internet. she doesn't have much to say about other religions/beliefs as you can see if you look at her Freedom From Religion Foundation site.

reply from: CP

Can I get a direct quote with source, or is this just your interpretation of something she has said or something you are repeating without actually knowing it is true?
The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.
http://www.ffrf.org/faq/about-the-foundation/why-is-the-foundation-concerned-with-state-church-entanglement/
">http://www.ffrf.org/faq/about-...h-entanglement/
Take a look at this site. Every legal action has been against christians. I couldn't find even one against another religion.
However, Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), said that the "war on Christmas" claim is not very original and that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, is "full of hot air."
"It's just a PR game for them to do this kind of thing this time of year," Gaylor told CNSNews.com. "They (Christians) are the least oppressed religion in the country, let me tell you. They try to call the shots, and they dictate terms to our government, and they have (President) Bush kow-towing to them and he's not even a Catholic. That was the only reason he vetoed stem cell research."
It is Christians who "are doing the persecuting" by trying to keep religion in the public square, said Gaylor. "But if they can say they are being persecuted, it's good for their religion."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41238
">http://www.cnsnews.com/public/...px?RsrcID=41238
Actually, much of the antichristian comments I have heard Anne Nicol Gaylor (through the media, not personally) spew through the years aren't even on the internet. she doesn't have much to say about other religions/beliefs as you can see if you look at her Freedom From Religion Foundation site.
I don't see any quotes that imply that she believes "all other groups have the right to express their views except christians." Where does she say Christians have no right to express their views?

reply from: lukesmom

Ummm, I never said she said anything. Her groups actions show her discrimination toward christianity same as her funding of abortions shows her discrimination against unwanted unborn.

reply from: CP

You said "according to her," which implies that she said it.
So it is really according to you? In other words, this is what you think she believes, and is actually not what she believes "according to her?"

reply from: lukesmom

According to her implies statement and/or act. As I said, her statements quoted by media years ago would not have made the internet as her daughter's statements are so for proof of her beliefs, all I can supply are her acts through the foundation she formed, the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Sorry I can't give you more than that but it's going to have to do. Actually, acts show the "true" person more than words.
Regardless, going back to the op, Anne Nicol Gaylor discriminates against the unborn by her very actions. Something she seems to be mistakenly proud of. She also has demonstrated by her actions through the foundation she has formed, discrimination against christians.
I am wondering why you are so intent on nit picking, CP.

reply from: joueravecfous

So fighting to keep religion out of the public sphere constitutes discrimination against only Christians? Are the other religions exempt from her efforts or are they also victims of discrimination? Where is the outrage from the Muslims, Jews and Hindus?
Which religions do the most to assert their influence in public? Why does fighting that influence equal discrimination in your view?

reply from: CP

I'm just kind of getting an anti-atheist vibe here, and wondering why it's OK to "bash" atheists for their views, but not OK for them to "bash" Christian views....Seems a little one way to me. Maybe you think only Christians have a right to express their views?

reply from: CP

No, you're talking about your interpretation of her statement or act, which makes it according to you. I'm betting she will deny this is her position, and we already see that you can not clearly show that it is. I agree with most of her "anti-Christian" sentiments, even though I disagree with her stance on abortion. If I was a Muslim, and wanted my religion to be imposed on the public the way some Christians seem to want theirs to be, those same Christians would be upset, I'm sure. They want prayer in public schools, but only Christian prayer. They aren't going to stand for any others having the rights they demand for themselves, and that is the problem.
I saw kids made to stand in the hall while Christians essentially worshiped in school when I was a child, and I saw those same kids ostracized, even persecuted by the Christian kids. It can get really ugly, trust me. Removing the Christian monopoly on worship from our schools was a good thing, and I think that applies to other areas of life as well. If you wouldn't want a Muslim to be allowed to do it, what makes you think a Christian should be allowed to?

reply from: faithman

http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html

reply from: lukesmom

I'm just kind of getting an anti-atheist vibe here, and wondering why it's OK to "bash" atheists for their views, but not OK for them to "bash" Christian views....Seems a little one way to me. Maybe you think only Christians have a right to express their views?
Well your "vibes" are wrong and I am not and have never "bashed" atheists or anyone else for their religious/lack of religious beliefs. I respect their views and expect they respect mine. I respect everyone to be able to voice their veiw respectfully that is why I am so against Anne Nicol Gaylor and her bunch from the Freedom From Religion group. They are trying to take away my rights to express myself as a christian. Do you think only nonchristians have a right to express their views? Or maybe just nonCatholics since Catholics seem to get your panties in a bundle? Just a "vibe" I get from you.

reply from: lukesmom

No, you're talking about your interpretation of her statement or act, which makes it according to you. I'm betting she will deny this is her position, and we already see that you can not clearly show that it is. I agree with most of her "anti-Christian" sentiments, even though I disagree with her stance on abortion. If I was a Muslim, and wanted my religion to be imposed on the public the way some Christians seem to want theirs to be, those same Christians would be upset, I'm sure. They want prayer in public schools, but only Christian prayer. They aren't going to stand for any others having the rights they demand for themselves, and that is the problem.
That is YOUR interpitation of what I am saying. I have no problem with atheists in general. I DO have a problem with the Anne Gaylor bunch not because they are athiests but because they want to take my right to express my religion away. They want freedom from religion not freedom of religion. Why is it I have to sign a waver form for the school to talk about Mexico's religious holiday's during spanish class but in another class all other religions can be talked about without problems? Why is it christian holidays have to be renamed if discussed at school but all other religious holidays do not? What I am saying is they should ALL be treated alike, not one over the other. We seem to have gone into pc overkill and are trying now to over compensate and totally disregard the christian faith. No one is forcing anyone to be part of any religion but we all have the right to express our religion whether we be christian, Wiicon, Jewish, Muslim, etc or lack of religion.
Who says Christians only want their prayers in school? Please give reliable proof of that. Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
We're talking, what, 50 yrs ago? We also sat under desks in case of a nuclear attack from the Russians who were the bad guys at the time. After having ashes place on my forehead, I was made fun of at school. My cousin wasn't allowed to marry the woman he was in love with because her family didn't like Catholics. My own husbands extended family hated Catholics and made it well known. They were suprised how normal I was. Didn't eat or sacrifice small children...oops that's myths about the Jews. Somehow I don't feel too sorry for you. We all get discriminated against in one way or another. Get over it. In today's schools and society the discrimination is against christians, Catholics in particular. Seems to be pc. Heck, you can see it on this board almost daily, sometimes from you. Maybe I should sue for my rights as a Catholic. Nah, I'm a big girl and take ignorant comments for what they are.
What I think, FYI, is all religions beliefs and nonbeliefs should have equal rights. I actually like to hear different beliefs, helps me fine tune my own beliefs and I like learning about others. I am secure enough in myself and my beliefs. I get the "vibe" you aren't which is why you seem to have such hate and disrespect toward the Catholic religion.

reply from: joueravecfous

Specifically, how? What is something they've done or tried to do that took away your rights to express yourself as a christian?

reply from: CP

Less than that actually, but important court cases eliminated the problem, and Christians are still crying about that, aren't they? The bad anti-Christs are taking God out of the schools, the laws, and everything else...Isn't that the argument? And when I give you rational explanations, you give me this "50 years ago" stuff?
Who is it that appears to be taking the sharing of opposing views personally here, LM? Does it offend you that I do not accept Catholic doctrine, or is it that I dare publicly state my views? Why is this about me all of a sudden?

reply from: CP

Can you cite examples for me?

reply from: CP

Well, since you're a Christian, let's start with you. Are you going to tell me that when we talk about the issue of prayer in schools, your agenda is to force kids to take turns sitting in the hall while each and every different belief takes a turn worshiping in class?
Color me skeptical...

reply from: faithman

http://www.facebook.com/?tid=432080588420&sk=messages#!/pages/Trolls4Life/134835289891790

reply from: lukesmom

Well, since you're a Christian, let's start with you. Are you going to tell me that when we talk about the issue of prayer in schools, your agenda is to force kids to take turns sitting in the hall while each and every different belief takes a turn worshiping in class?
Color me skeptical...
If one religion is allowed to pray in school then all should and if that is too time consuming then none should be allowed. Which is fine with me. My "agenda" is for my kids is to go to school to learn the basic school subjects. They go to religious ed to learn about religion. I expect them to live God's love at all times and that includes respecting everyone's view. Are you done judging me?

reply from: lukesmom

Can you cite examples for me?
Read the board, or did Terry remove our posts on the subject and fmans? Neither of you have anything good to say about "papists" unless you have changed since I was last here about 4-5 months ago.

reply from: CP

Well, since you're a Christian, let's start with you. Are you going to tell me that when we talk about the issue of prayer in schools, your agenda is to force kids to take turns sitting in the hall while each and every different belief takes a turn worshiping in class?
Color me skeptical...
If one religion is allowed to pray in school then all should and if that is too time consuming then none should be allowed. Which is fine with me. My "agenda" is for my kids is to go to school to learn the basic school subjects. They go to religious ed to learn about religion. I expect them to live God's love at all times and that includes respecting everyone's view. Are you done judging me?
So are you an advocate of public practice of religion, or not? Do you agree with Mrs. Gaylor on this issue?

reply from: CP

Can you cite examples for me?
Read the board, or did Terry remove our posts on the subject and fmans? Neither of you have anything good to say about "papists" unless you have changed since I was last here about 4-5 months ago.
So, the board represents "schools and society" in your view, or just Faithman and I?
And saying things that offend you constitutes "discrimination" in your view?

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm just kind of getting an anti-atheist vibe here, and wondering why it's OK to "bash" atheists for their views, but not OK for them to "bash" Christian views....Seems a little one way to me. Maybe you think only Christians have a right to express their views?
Just remember, you can't bash Christians, but you can have at it with the Catholics.

reply from: faithman

Only if they start mess.

reply from: BossMomma

Christians and, Muslims.

reply from: faithman

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Trolls4Life/134835289891790?ref=ts

reply from: Shenanigans

Do people who work at Lipton Tea get a coffee break?

reply from: CP

Christians and, Muslims.
Actually, a strong argument could be made that it is the Jews. We're just really smart about how we do it, and manage to fly under the radar to some extent. Christians and Muslims are inept. My people are crafty. Of course, I, personally, am much too honest to make a good Jew, and my people hate me for it. I do have the advantage of it being difficult to charge me with anti-Semitism (the standard response to any challenge against anything the Jewish people do wrong). My people use everything to our advantage, and do not miss a trick. This black genocide conspiracy actually takes a page from our book. Dishonest propaganda, especially the exploiting of "racial" guilt and paranoia to serve our own ends is something we truly understand. Just look at how we exploit the Holocaust to control America for Israel's gain!
Check this out...
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html

reply from: CP

Oh, and this is relevant because my people gave you your Old Testament (but only when they "fell from grace" and were defeated as a nation, they kept it to themselves and the rulers used it to manipulate their own people before that) and centuries later, still use it to play you like fiddles. The few, expertly manipulating the many... PM me if you would like to understand more.

reply from: Banned Member

I'm calling a truce on this one CP, so don't taze me bro.
I once read a piece with a theory about why Jews are good with money, selling goods and entertainment. The theory postulates that centuries of discriminative pressures placed upon Jews by Christians is the exact mechanism that eventually improved them as a theocratic/racial entity. Apparently Jews all over Europe and the middle east were prevented from joining guilds and learning trade skills or doing any kind of, what was considered, honest work in the old days and therefore were permitted and relegated to the re-selling of goods and to entertainment based occupational lifestyles such as the Gypsy Jews. Apparently the reselling of goods in the old days was considered to be a lowlife way of making a living and professional entertainers were held in low esteem as well. The Jews who did manage to flourish at these vocations were only the very most clever ones. Therefore only the cleverest Jews were able to raise and maintain large families (and not starve to death) and therefore more frequently genetically passed on the special brand of mentality it took to thrive under the conditional pressures put upon them by the scornful Christian populace and Christian institutions. The irony being that widespread religious bigotry ultimately served to improve the overall Jewish gene pool. (While causing horrible suffering for the not so gifted Jews) The Jews became the money changers of the word and some of the best entertainment geniuses of the modern world as a result of their repression. So when Christians complain about Jews controlling things it can be blamed upon bad Karma.. or something to that effect.
I realize that I pecked this out pretty fast and skipped a few steps but I would really like to hear what you think of this theory.
Bunk? Possible?

reply from: CP

Jews have been making livings off trade and handing down the "tricks of trade" from generation to generation since before Christ. Abraham sold idols for a living to people who worshiped many different gods in Ur (province of Sumeria) before he started his own religion.
I don't think so. Trade was very important, and could be risky business as well. Trading was, in itself, not looked down upon. There was probably resentment for very successful traders, however, especially if they were viewed as being unfair and taking advantage of others. This is what always got the Jews in trouble. They had laws prohibiting them from usury against fellow Jews, but they took full advantage of Gentiles for personal gain. This is, of course, not to say that all Jews were this way. As with every group, there are always good, bad, and in between. It's just the bad things that stand out. There have always been poor Jews and honest Jews. The wealthier and more corrupt (the two often go hand in hand) just gain more notoriety, and prompt generalized resentment.

reply from: CP

I would take that bet. Gentiles would never have been able to understand the Hebrew Tanakh if Jews had not decided it served their interests.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't think so. Trade was very important, and could be risky business as well. Trading was, in itself, not looked down upon. There was probably resentment for very successful traders, however, especially if they were viewed as being unfair and taking advantage of others. This is what always got the Jews in trouble. They had laws prohibiting them from usury against fellow Jews, but they took full advantage of Gentiles for personal gain. This is, of course, not to say that all Jews were this way. As with every group, there are always good, bad, and in between. It's just the bad things that stand out. There have always been poor Jews and honest Jews. The wealthier and more corrupt (the two often go hand in hand) just gain more notoriety, and prompt generalized resentment.
OK, but how about the rest of the post. Were Jews excluded from the guilds and such? Were Jews genetically benefited from discrimination? etc.

reply from: lukesmom

How does a race/religion "genetically benefit" from discrimination? Does this discrimination have to go on for centuries before there is a benefit?

reply from: Shenanigans

Maybe I missed something, but did all the bad at math Jews get slaughtered? So only the good math Jews lived? So that math skill is essentially genetically based?
Like the peppered moth experiment? Only with Jews and abaci?

reply from: Banned Member

Maybe I missed something, but did all the bad at math Jews get slaughtered? So only the good math Jews lived? So that math skill is essentially genetically based?
Like the peppered moth experiment? Only with Jews and abaci?
Go back up and read my first post on this page.

reply from: CP

Jews have been discriminated against, sure, but so have nearly every other group at some time or another, and they have also taken turns playing the part of the oppressor...
Were Jews genetically benefited by discrimination? I think that might be stretching the point to some degree. Adversity can certainly weed out the weak in any species, but there is nothing special about what Jews have experienced. I doubt there is any group of human beings that has not taken their turn at both extremes, having been both oppressor and oppressed. I would be hard pressed to concede that getting the short end of the stick was ever good for any of them.
It is not necessary to kill off those who do not possess a certain trait in order for those who do to pass it on to future generations...No, I do not think any group of human beings benefits genetically from oppression. Genetically speaking, diversity is a good thing, and intelligence/business acumen is certainly not the only desirable trait that can be beneficial to a group.

reply from: Banned Member

I'm not convinced. Natural selection is a powerful force. There have been 2 thousand years and 120 or so generations of hard core discrimination against the Jews so it seems like it would have to have had some effect. Let's not forget that the Nazi's killed a big bunch of poor Jews, thereby, somewhat weeding out many of the less intelligent. (Most of the rich guys saw it coming and left Europe or bought their way out before it was too late). The theory of natural selection says that those most suited to cope with adversity and change will reproduce with more frequency than those that don't cope as well. That which does not kill us makes us stronger (Nietzsche).
If this isn't correct, then how do we account for all the rich and/or comedic Jews? What are the causal factors?

reply from: CP

There were a lot of very intelligent Jews killed in the Holocaust. My grandmother escaped mostly due to sheer luck.
I'm not saying it is not possible that your arguments have at least some merit. I can say with almost absolute certainty, however, that Christian discrimination against Jews has not been responsible for the success of Jews in business or the relatively high rate of intellectuals within the group. These are some of the reasons Jews have been despised by other groups, and the phenomenon predates Christianity.
The "causal factors?" The same as with any other group, I would guess, and in all likelihood, many, many factors are involved. The emphasis on business and accumulating wealth is largely cultural. All groups of people have members who are very ambitious, but for Jews, it has traditionally been a way of life more so than any other group I'm aware of.

reply from: yosephdaviyd

Well ...... that made me vomit ...

reply from: Banned Member

LOL
Great avatar dude. I was torn between that one and Santa Claus but that one seemed less honest for me to use.

reply from: Banned Member

Sure there was. Many Doctors, Lawyers and Academics were murdered but the extremely rich knew what was up and skedaddled. Also, many German nationals simply saw the rumors as being too outrageous to be true.
Dumb luck eh? That's no reason. How about that Jews were allowed to charge interest whereas Christians weren't? That was a large side benefit to being excluded from society was it not? It was called usury and is the origin of the word. Go ahead, look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_interest_in_Judaism Perhaps your racial pride blinds you from seeing the obvious. Whatever.

reply from: Banned Member

I Googled this and can't find anything that substantiates this claim. Can you provide reference?
Did the slaves of Egypt not also endure hardships that accelerated the process of natural selection?
I think the whole Jewish phenomena is a tribute to the human spirit and it's reaction to adversity. That's no insult. It's just irony.

reply from: yosephdaviyd

LOL
Great avatar dude. I was torn between that one and Santa Claus but that one seemed less honest for me to use.
LOL, yeah, well it is a little inauthentic for me, but I thought the other black guy looked corny. This guy has flair! LOL

reply from: Banned Member

LOL
Great avatar dude. I was torn between that one and Santa Claus but that one seemed less honest for me to use.
LOL, yeah, well it is a little inauthentic for me, but I thought the other black guy looked corny. This guy has flair! LOL
Hey Yoseph.. I just visited your web page and blog. Welcome to the forum.
If you stick around you will discover that I am not the most popular poster up here but that's only because I know when I'm being messed with and have zero tolerance for BS. I also have a way of aggravating my adversaries that adds to my personal unpopularity but I couldn't care less if I am popular in cyberspace. (The real world is quite a different subject however.)
Reading your pages I can see that you are an honest and clear thinker with common sense and a goodness about you. That's a good sign.. so I hope to get to know you better.

reply from: yosephdaviyd

Cool, thanks for perusing. What I've noticed most around here is that you guys are very patient! I saw one of your post get ripped to shreads - someone quoted every sentence of yours and responded to it line by line and you responded by line by line. I saw a few of you do that. LOL Keep the fire burning!
David L. Gray

reply from: CP

I Googled this and can't find anything that substantiates this claim. Can you provide reference?
Did the slaves of Egypt not also endure hardships that accelerated the process of natural selection?
I think the whole Jewish phenomena is a tribute to the human spirit and it's reaction to adversity. That's no insult. It's just irony.
In reality, Christianity would probably not even exist had it not been for the fact that there was a great deal of resentment for, and as a result, oppression of Jews. The fact that "anti-Semitic" sentiment existed long before Christianity is well documented, and I am surprised to hear that you can not find anything on the internet to substantiate this "claim."
They certainly "endured hardships," but no more or less than other groups who were exploited at one time or another, and that includes the many groups the Hebrews themselves oppressed or destroyed...
I don't see how that would lead one to conclude that this kind of experience "accelerated the process of natural selection," however, and even if it did, why would it effect the Jewish people to a greater extent than the others who had similar experiences?
As I have already pointed out, nearly every group has taken turns as both oppressor and oppressed, so the Jews are hardly unique in that sense. They have simply proven to be more skilled at using these experiences to advance their own interests after the fact. The "poor Jews," who everyone has always persecuted, have no monopoly on history of adversity, and have themselves spent a large part of their history exploiting and oppressing others...
If discrimination and adversity made a people evolve more quickly into more intelligent groups, they should certainly have contributed to their own enemies (which, historically, included everyone who was not a Jew) benefiting greatly from this presumed drastic "acceleration of natural selection."

reply from: Banned Member

Wrong again.
The Jews are a unique group.
CP.. the Jews are a unique group.
The Jews are the only group that uses the same word to describe their race and their religion, that's pretty unique.
Most interestingly though is the fact that they are the only group, I've ever heard of, that started out as slaves (a repressed group indeed) and then, following their liberation, were heavily discriminated against by most of the world for two thousand years and counting.
You claim there are similar groups who have gone through similar adversity, can you name one? I'll bet you a nickel you can't.

reply from: CP

*sigh*
All distinct groups are "unique," or they wouldn't be distinct groups, LN...It should have been clear from the context that I meant they are not unique in having been oppressed.
Off the top of my head, the Irish, blacks, Gentiles at the hands of the Jews themselves, non-Christians during the inquisition, Tibetans.....
I predict that you will now offer a semantic argument in which you challenge my use of the word "similar" and assert that nothing compares to the Holocaust, at which point I will ask if you are aware of the reason why there are no more Hittites or Midianites left on the planet.... (Hint: Jews were not only victims of attempted genocide, but actually successfully committed genocide in the past.)

reply from: Banned Member

"sigh" lulz
If you want me to read the rest of your post then you will need to repost it without the effeminate little little "sigh" criticism thingy.
Man up or shut up.

reply from: CP

Either address the relevant points, or don't. I don't care.
(Edited to remove a quote that the moderator has deemed inappropriate. If the post is inappropriate and must be edited, then obviously I should not allow the quote to remain.)

reply from: CP

Oh, and you owe me a nickle....

reply from: CP

The Jews did not "start out as slaves." The Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, but obviously existed prior to enslavement. If you intend to make a distinction between the Hebrews and the Jews, then I must point out the fact that the "Jewish" identity did not exist at the time of the enslavement of the Hebrews or their release...
This is not really relevant, but I thought I would set the record straight.

reply from: Banned Member

The Jews did not "start out as slaves." The Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, but obviously existed prior to enslavement. If you intend to make a distinction between the Hebrews and the Jews, then I must point out the fact that the "Jewish" identity did not exist at the time of the enslavement of the Hebrews or their release...
This is not really relevant, but I thought I would set the record straight.
OK, I guess I knew that. I have no knowledge of pre-slave Hebrew history so therefore cannot speak to it.

reply from: BossMomma

Wow, [offensive quote]? My my, doesn't this kinda violate the spirit of the new rules? I wonder if other Jewish readers took offense to such a blatant jab. My Jewish ex-husband was reading over my shoulder and was just mortified..

reply from: terry

I, too, am UTTERLY MORTIFIED.
That sort of thing will not be tolerated on this forum. If you do it, you will be banned, end of story. I just banned leftsnemesis.

reply from: BossMomma

I, too, am UTTERLY MORTIFIED.
That sort of thing will not be tolerated on this forum. If you do it, you will be banned, end of story. I just banned leftsnemesis.
Why am I being jumped on? I didn't do anything.

reply from: terry

I, too, am UTTERLY MORTIFIED.
That sort of thing will not be tolerated on this forum. If you do it, you will be banned, end of story. I just banned leftsnemesis.
Why am I being jumped on? I didn't do anything.
Um, I am agreeing with your Jewish ex-husband that what LN wrote was awful. I was mortified. The "if you do it" was meant as a general admonition to the forum at large, not anything directed at you personally. Although, in the "I didn't do anything" vein, I have to note that actually, you have done plenty, but no, I wasn't jumping on you, in this case, it was a note to everyone, just quoting you because I agreed with you about being mortified.

reply from: BossMomma

I, too, am UTTERLY MORTIFIED.
That sort of thing will not be tolerated on this forum. If you do it, you will be banned, end of story. I just banned leftsnemesis.
Why am I being jumped on? I didn't do anything.
Um, I am agreeing with your Jewish ex-husband that what LN wrote was awful. I was mortified. The "if you do it" was meant as a general admonition to the forum at large, not anything directed at you personally. Although, in the "I didn't do anything" vein, I have to note that actually, you have done plenty, but no, I wasn't jumping on you, in this case, it was a note to everyone, just quoting you because I agreed with you about being mortified.
Ah ok, I was actually kidding when I said my ex was mortified, I just remembered his crying about how I traumatized his wife and thought I'd call him on the hypocrisy. And on the "what'd I do vein" I have done my share but no more than most here. This micromanaging is taking getting used to and IMHO the forum has lost a lot of flavor and has become something resembling an episode of Barney and friends, I'm sure my two year old would be loving it.

reply from: terry

So you think more than half the forum members are at least as prone to personal attacks and obscenity as you are? Just to give you a little perspective--when I started moderating, I identified a list of problem members whose posts I have to watch extra closely. The only people still on that list right now are you and faithman. I can't imagine how you can kid yourself into thinking that you're an average poster in this respect. In fact, when it comes to obscenity, I think you're #1. And I do not mean this as a compliment.

reply from: CP

Personally, I'm happy to be able to expend all my passion on relevant issues, where it belongs. If we all take the same passion and effort we have expended on pointless personal disputes and focus it on important issues, we can truly become a force to be reckoned with. I admire the passion that is evident in the posters here. Focus it on what is really important to you, and control it so that it serves your ends. Do not allow it to control you.

reply from: BossMomma

So you think more than half the forum members are at least as prone to personal attacks and obscenity as you are? Just to give you a little perspective--when I started moderating, I identified a list of problem members whose posts I have to watch extra closely. The only people still on that list right now are you and faithman. I can't imagine how you can kid yourself into thinking that you're an average poster in this respect. In fact, when it comes to obscenity, I think you're #1. And I do not mean this as a compliment.
Didn't take it as one, but frankly I only attacked those who attacked me. If they can't take it they shouldn't be the first one's stepping up to dish it. As to my obsenity? I come from a deep southern region where such open expression is par for the course. I also work at a prison where vulgarity is as common as mosquito's in july, please excuse me if my offensive speech isn't always taken as such by me. You think I'm vulgar? In my neighborhood I'm just the girl next door and plenty of people appreciate that I say what I think and don't candy coat it. I'm not used to being verbally neutered but I am working on it.

reply from: terry

Ok. Sorry to cramp your style, I can see that it is your way, and I do thank you for your efforts and your patience with me as we all work out a balance we can deal with.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics