*no, believers have been saying for years that communism is a religion, and they are right.*

They are wrong. Go back to school and learn something.

*Communism is a religion that has as its leadership unelected, all-powerful dictators who make the promise of an unrealistic communal life. Sound familiar. It should.*

Besides the 'unelected' part, it sounds like our current administration.

*Atheism had nothing to do with the deaths of the 20th century.*

Chinese & Soviet communism were atheist states that murdered millions. Try again.

*Theocracies are currently murdering people in large numbers. Democracy has diluted the murderousness of religion.*

The theocracies that are currently murdering in large numbers are not democracies.

*Democracies are inherently atheistic.*

Wrong again.

*Even if you don't count the 20th century, religion has murdered millions of people.*

Wrong yet again. I defy you to find one pre-20th century conflict that racked up body counts in the million(s) let alone any that were religious in nature and racked up such body counts.

no, believers have been saying for years that communism is a religion, and they are right. Communism is a religion that has as its leadership unelected, all-powerful dictators who make the promise of an unrealistic communal life. Sound familiar. It should.

Atheism had nothing to do with the deaths of the 20th century. Theocracies are currently murdering people in large numbers. Democracy has diluted the murderousness of religion. Democracies are inherently atheistic. Murderous countries, such as Palestine and other muslim countries, are what this country would be if it were a theocracy.

Even if you don't count the 20th century, religion has murdered millions of people. And it was supposed to have the moral highground. Its murderous numbers would have been larger but it lacked the means and the population to make it as murderous as the religion of communism was in the 20th century.

John, still no comment how a man of the cloth can clearly and so easily not follow the holy book as you proclaimed earlier. Heretic?

*Religion and its influences are the cancer at the core of the human races inability to be one with itself.*

Secular and atheist states were responsible for the murder of over 100 million people in the 20th century. Please bring everyone up to speed on the wars that "the religious" started in that same time frame and tally up that death toll. We'll all be waiting.

In reality, there is only one world religion that cannot live at peace with ANY of its neighbors ANYWHERE on the surface of the Earth, and I think we all know which one that is.

What about the other post? You got a problem with Jews?

Bullseye? By the way, if you're the one trying to shoot out my porch light, I'm three more houses to the south.

BULLSEYE!!!! (Thanks for the backhanded compliments! They are much appreciated!)

JK_Holman, I find also religion to be a cancer, people organizing, misrepresenting the bible do just as John has done here, created people thinking wrong thoughts about the true things. I thank Jesus that I am not religious! With that said, the Jewish peoples plight isn't about religion it is about a promise that God made to them 6,000 years ago.

By the way, billnewbie, the Belsaw Institute called. They want you to go there and pickup your Associate In Arts in Flummery Degree.

Eyster keeps starting new blogs with the same subject in order to dodge justified vituperation.

Eyster, you are receiving an education here that isn't available in the cell of your fellow tenured radicals and the rest of your ilk. Welcome to the real world.

billnewbie, as the obvious unnamed object of your childish attempt at chidment, I feel compelled to point out that your post says a lot by what it doesn't say.

Why no defense of Israel? You got a problem with Jews?

Older........., a corollary of your post is that prior to our entrance into Iraq, Israel was never at risk of annihilation. You have to ignore a lot to come up with that conclusion.

seriouslyfunny, well said, I agree.

Eyster continues to dig further into the hole. It's funny that someone who is supposedly an "expert" on American Political Science [haha] is also an "expert" on the Arab-Israeli struggle, too. Garsh, whodathunkit?

It matters not one iota whether or not the Arabs have yet another "state". They will continue to work to eliminate the State of Israel and rid the area of Jews. That's been the mission since Islam arrived on the shores of the eastern Med over a thousand years ago, socialist obfuscators notwithstanding.

There will be a regional war again within the next five years or so, the 'good guys' will win since there will be a new US administration and all the borders will be redrawn anyway, so go ahead and beat your chests and tear at your hair, you pious partisans, for all the good it will do.

NVgrf, I think that someone is jealous.

Israel is just kidding about peace. All they care about is the land grab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e...

As long as we are in Iraq, Israel will survive. If that buffer to Iran is gone, as in the Iranians invading and occupying Iraq, then Israel will be in trouble. (Jordan will have no choice but to ally with Iran) Short of that no Arab army can successfully confront Israel. It will take the Egyptian’s, Syrian’s, and Iranian’s together pushing the Palestinians on in front of them to take the brunt of casualties to even have a chance of pushing the Jews out of Israel. And that can only happen after Iran has the bomb and delivery system to prevent Israeli use of theirs. Seems the issue of the day is not the continued existence of Israel, but the creation of Palestine. Palestinians/Palestine is nothing more than a nuisance to Israel, they have no chance of ever doing more than harassment, let alone threaten their existence. If Obama had supported the popular uprising in Iran like he did the rest of the Arab world uprisings, Iran might not even be a problem, and a main source of funds and weapons to Palestinians could dry up. That would help Israel tremendously. But Obama could only support the uprisings against quasi friendly rulers, not the one ones who publically state they hate us, and that Israel should be destroyed.

Wow, one self-proclaimed "expert" chiding another self-proclaimed "expert" for being a self-proclaimed "expert".... Priceless!

That's the second time that NVgrf has bragged about being a U.N. delegate during the '80's. I see he's finally gotten John's attention with it too. I'm sure we are all anxiously anticipating NVgrf's "perspective", should he ever deign to offer one. Still, you have to wonder, considering the abject failure of the U.N. during the '80's over the Palestinian problem, why anyone would willingly admit to being a part of that fiasco, which the U.N.'s efforts there and then were, let alone proudly proclaiming to be part of it twice?

John if abbas who just gave his speech at the UN and is also the leader of the fatah party really wanted peace why did one of his own in the fatah party declare the following on the al jazeera arabic language network the same day, "The settlement should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President [Abbas] understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end."?

Gazettefan, There will be no survival of Israel if there is a Palestinian State under their current leadership. They have avowed the destruction of Israel just as has Ahmadinejad. I'd like to believe that the majority of the Palestinian people are not blood-thirsty terrorists out for genocide, but the leadership certainly is, and they've allied themselves with Iran's extremists. Until and unless there are acknowledgments of the Holocaust, and Israel's right to Sovereignty, there should be no discussion of any possibility for a Palestinian State.

Giving the Palestinians a state would be rewarding terrorism. You already kind of stated that in your third point John. Here we go.....

Older......, the current issue is the survival of Israel. Palestine will not concede that the land in question will not be used to annihilate the state of Israel. Your musing sidesteps the real issue.

Just read this morning in the Gazette about some of our "brightest and best" at UW LaCrosse who were throwing around a dead cat and tipping over a car! Must be some of John's(or other professors of his ilk of which there are many) students! Ever wonder why Eyester doesn't answer anyone in his blog? It's because his arguments won't hold water! I'm sure he could not present both sides of anything in his calssroom!

Ignoring that every time an agreement has been reached it has not lasted and many in that area of the world will never stop until there is no israel, thinking a new agreement will make the world a better place is very naive.

What do you do with Jerusalem, in particular the spot on which the rock sits, one of the holiest sites of two warring religions? The current situation cannot last; neither party will cede that spot to the other. The agreement made with the Muslim authority was for temporary peace. Both sides could be perfectly happy (not happening, just for the sake of argument) with all other aspects of a potential agreement, but the rock cannot be split or shared.
Utopian thinking is all well and fine in fairy tale land, but we are in reality. On the Palestinian side you have people kicked from their family’s land which is now occupied by Jews. If this were you would you be happy with anything less than the return of land you believe is rightfully yours? On the Israeli side you have the belief that this land was given to them by God himself as their homeland. Would you cede this right to someone else?
Yammer on about a two state solution all you want, been going on almost as long as Israel has been a mandate state, will continue to go on for generations with no resolution.

If Eyster is teaching his Palestinian stance in the class room, then, he is teaching the "benefits" of terrorism to innocent young people. The beginnings of this curricula began during the Vietnam War with the likes of his buddy Stan Milam and the likes of Bill Ayer, Bernadine Dohrn, and the nut-job terrorist, murderer who bombed that building at UW Madison.

NV...., what other places have you visited from which you returned an expert?

Don't the Israelis who've had their babies blown up by Palestinian terrorists have more expertise on the area than you and Eyster and Mrs. Eyster?

http://gazettextra.com/photos/2011/sep/2...

NV, you are totally wrong, the majority of Israelites do not want a two state system. What you experienced in the 1980's is not what is going on today.
.
First, interesting that the Gazette published Marilyns letter, which is also antisemitic in nature, but as Americans, we do have a right to our own opinion right or wrong.
.
Secondly, recognizing the rights of a terrorist nation who by their own admission is set to destroy the Jewish people, is in itself antisemitic. You might as well go on with a sign at ground zero saying you support the release of terrorists who helped in the 9/11 attack.
.
Thirdly, Palestinian leaders have stated for years that they will not stop until the Jewish people have been exterminated. Jihad, look it up. Palestine will not stop. Are you kidding me that you are teaching a terrorism course and have this view? Have you ever read Palestinian government literature and their government supported propaganda, I have, I would suggest you do also.
.
Forth, interesting link, Abdul-Hadi will turn out to be a interesting character in our world's history, but it will not be a good one.
.
Fifth, Palestine's denial of Israels existence in that land prior to their settlement cannot be changed in history either. Israels borders were set up thousands of years before Palestine.
.
Sixth, Dissenters in Israel? Some real facts of a handful of citizens in Israel who want to hand over their land. I am glad that the BBC was able to find the few disenters.

I spoke via Skype with a good friend in Israel a few minutes ago after asking her to read your blog. A prominent physician, she stated it was her opinion that you are wrong and wonder why America must join in on the attack on her nation. She stated that there are very few people who support the Palestinian cause in Israel and that the Israeli citizens are preparing in ways that they have not for years for war.
.
Seventh, any reason why you wouldn't defend your previous post about your religious affiliation and how that your stance goes against your previously strong stated religious beliefs?

VALAUBLE to have YOUR personal testimony, "NVgrf"! What do YOU see as ways the USA can bolster meaningful, appropriate and deliberate movement to the 2-state solution WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED. Dare I ask YOUR perspective on Israeli settlements? Here we go... John W. Eyster

Having served as a delegate to the United Nations Conference for a Two State Solution in the 1980's, I certainly agree that this is the fair and viable solution. Today, a large segment of the Israeli Jewish population agrees.