totally biased yet facinating and convincing
355118
While Mr. Strobel definitely presents his "Case for Christ" with eloquence. And the book is doubtless a "must have" for all Christian apologists. Still it causes me concern as a fledgling follower of  Christ. It alludes to the fact that the authors search for the truth led  him to his current belief in Christ. Though it is possible, I find it  difficult to believe that a skeptic and self proclaimed atheist would  depend solely on thirteen "Christian scholars" to base his  supposed skeptical investigation on. To represent the truth of Christ to a  doubting world it would behoove "Christian" authors to stay clear  of such obvious gray areas.
Still, I found the book fascinating and would  recommend it without hesitation. It is, in my opinion one of the best  single volume sources for Christian apologists.
3326736
You will not find a more straightforward Holocaust book than Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It. The  authors' basic argument is this: The extermination of six million Jews  during the Second World War is a historical fact. Those who deny it are  wrong.
It's hardly a provocative thesis. But ask yourself this: Would you  be able to refute a Holocaust denier? The fact of the Holocaust is like the  spherical Earth: Every reasonable person accepts it, but few can prove it.  That is why Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer teamed up with  historian Alex Grobman to write Denying History. They believe thinking  people have a duty to fight Holocaust denial head on; and they want them to  come to the battle armed with historical facts.
When the eyes of the  public are upon them -- such as during the 1985 trial of Canadian Holocaust  denier Ernst Z&uuml;ndel, or the famous 1994 Donahue episode that pitted two  Holocaust deniers against Shermer and an Auschwitz survivor -- deniers  often get the best of staged confrontations. The most prominent deniers  know a lot about the Holocaust, especially arcane subjects like the  chemistry of Zyklon-B gas and the architecture of gas chambers. Many of the  sound bites they spit out are quite true. It is a fact, for instance, that  the Nazis never manufactured soap from Jewish bodies on a mass scale --  contrary to urban legend. Deniers are also correct when they claim that  there is no known Holocaust order bearing Hitler's signature. David Irving,  the on-again off-again denier who recently lost a defamation suit in  Britain, has never had to make good on his $1,000 challenge to any  historian who could produce such a document.
But, as Denying History  makes clear, there is still a mountain of evidence proving the nature and  scale of the Holocaust. The Nazis' use of gas chambers has been established  by, among countless other sources, the 1946 Nuremberg confession of  Auschwitz commandant Rudolf H&ouml;ss, as well as the 250-page autobiographical  manuscript he wrote while awaiting execution. The estimate of six million  killed is supported by a spate of historical studies, and also by Nazi  physician Wilhelm Hoettel, who testified at Nuremberg that: "In the  various concentration camps approximately four million Jews had been  killed, while about two million were killed in other ways." None of  this evidence convinces the true denier, of course. He is, by necessity, a  conspiracy theorist. To him, every confession was coerced, every photograph  faked. As the authors of Denying History demonstrate in psychological  profiles of today's most prominent deniers, they see the  "holohoax" as a plot by Jews (or, "the traditional enemies  of truth" as they are commonly referred to in denier circles) to  discredit the Nazi regime and the German people. "There are certain  aspects of the Third Reich that are very admirable [such as its eugenics  and euthanasia programs] and I want to call people's attention to  these," Z&uuml;ndel told Shermer and Grobman in an interview. What the  Holocaust has done, he argues, is to "bar so many thinkers from  re-looking at the options that National Socialism German-style  offers."
It is tempting to mock these confused men (there is a great  essay to be written on why there does not exist a single preeminent female  denier). But Denying History betrays no contempt for its subjects. The  authors believe everyone has a right to be heard; and they treat Holocaust  deniers with clinical detachment. This attitude reflects the  authors'position of intellectual strength. Hatred for Holocaust deniers is  compounded by the helpless fear that the pseudo-historians' specious lies  may spread. When one is armed with concrete knowledge, however, that fear  is lessened and hatred gives way to pity.
2804732
Noam Chomsky in this book offers an amazingly compelling account of historical events to justify his main theses, as well as insight that would befit even the most informed American. His theses are that America is singularly bent on global hegemony and utter domination, and that it prioritizes this objective with such brazen religiosity--not dissimilar in intensity from American perceptions of so-called "Islamofascists"--that it may ultimately be ruinous to mankind as a whole, provoking an arms race of unprecedented proportions, including the likely participation of "terrorist" groups (aside from the United States).

This mission, by itself, may not bother some (in fact, many would hold this to be a noble objective, using a twisted logic of malignant ethnocentrism), until one considers the historical implications that all point to catastrophic consequences but which cannot even begin to fathom specific results. Nothing of this magnitude (mostly because of the technology involved) has taken place before in the history of mankind. This is especially worrisome, though it is highly unlikely that even with such empirical proof staring it in the face, the oligarchy ruling with ostensibly democratic pretexts in this country would recognize its application or relevance to "them" and act accordingly. For history has a disturbing trend of repeating itself.

Chomsky also demonstrates the particularly unnerving paradigm that constitutes prevailing American foreign policy for the past half-century: that of blatantly patronizing or simply disregarding the resolutions and rulings of international law-making and arbitrating bodies, flagrant violations of treaties, and abstention from or veto of critical UN votes in clear pursuit of its hegemonic aspirations. This attitude of patent arrogance pervaded many empires of times past and so does it in the current administration, as well as most of its post-Wilsonian predecessors.

Without divulging of the contents of the book in what is supposed to be a generalized review, I unequivocally recommend "Hegemony or Survival," as it offers an edifying, if highly disconcerting, glimpse into the disturbing trends that our "freedom-loving" country has and continues to pursue. Whatever your political inclinations, read as objectively as possible, for the many machinations, subtexts, and acts of direct, absolute, and heinous contradiction with moral and historical principles you discover within are meticulously substantiated with fact and plainly irrefutable.
3403402
This book has again been 'in the news' lately with the recent unsuccessful libel action of 'Revisionist' David Irving against the author - with that in mind I took the opportunity to read through it once more, and again I  found a well- researched, strongly argued piece which with exquisite  precision exposes the activities and motivations of those who would deny  the existence of the holocaust, and contend that it is a gigantic  fabrication designed to promote the nebulous concept of 'Zionism' ( a  sobriquet for Israeli interests)
Lipstadt's strength lies in the fact  that she knows well the range of holocaust deniers. Men such as Ernst  Zundel, A self-styled 'free speech martyr' who once appeared in a Canadian  court with his face covered in shoe polish on the grounds  that 'only  blacks are entitled to freedom of speech' are fairly easily dismissed. Much  more insidious are the work of three more 'respectable' revisionists,  Arthur Butz, Harry Elmer Barnes and the late Paul Rassinier.
Butz is an  engineering professor - and thus knows well how to make his work appear  cogent to the uninformed. Lipstadt brilliantly exposes his selctive use of  evidence and seizure of isolated fragments of allied documents which  'jusify' Nazi actions. Barnes, whose work on destroying the myth of German  War Guilt in the First World War is worthy, then decides to pursue a  similar task with regard to the Holocaust, and the author again exposes the  fallacies of his arguments with considerable cogency.
Possibly the only  revisionist who comes out only partially tarnished is the so-called  'father' of Holocaust denial - the original 'sinner who cast the first  stone in this 'war'. Paul Rassinier is unique in that, unlike every other  author, he was there - a French resistance fighter, he spent nearly a year  in Buchenwald and as such, Lipstadt's observations on his motives are  necessarily less convincing than on those of modern day deniers.
That  Holocaust denial is a monstrous aberration is not in question - and those  that argue that by failing to engage these people in a debate, Lipstadt is  somehow conceding credence to their views is laughable. The only thing I  would say, is that from the tone of the views expressed previous to this  review, there is an unhealthy obsession with keeping the holocaust on a  pedestal, a sacred object which is unable to be debated in any degree. What  would Lipstadt make of historians who say, postulate only FIVE million dead  Jews, or who argue that some countries (Denmark,for example) escaped  lightly due in some part to the somewhat lukewarm attitudes of certain  German officers. Are those studying the Holocaust made aware of the many  non-Jews that died (2 million Soviet Prisoners of War)? - As long as the  Holocaust is treated as a uniquely Jewish tragedy, such people as are  exposed in these pages will continue to seize on it as a cloak for  attitudes which are either anti-semitic or concerned with the  rehabilitation of the Nazi vision.
That said, this is still a seminal  work, and vital reference for educators and students of the Holocaust  alike. I am informed, that in the wake of the Irving libel a New edition is  planned - I would recommend purchase to anyone.
2917153
I found this book to be very convincing... for amillenialism.

By anti-Judaic, the author does not mean that his opponents necessarily persecute Jews, treat Jews unfavorably, or see Jews as incapable of redemption. Instead, by anti-Judaic, he means that his opponents refuse to identify the modern state of Israel with the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The author begins with the premise that Christians should recognize Israel as a distinct, national people in their ancient territory as the recipients of God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He refuses to see these promises as fulfilled in the church made up of believing Jews and Gentiles. His main argument is that "supercessionist"/amillenial theology should be rejected because it has resulted in a denial of this premise. That is, it denies the legitimacy of the modern state of Israel as a result of the fulfillment of Scripture. The author begins with this premise and bends every statement toward the support of this premise, whether it fits or not.

Primarily, the book is full of assertions with little reasonable support. Far from proving his case, the author discredits himself and his view.
4025043
Pay no attention to haters: this book is a remarkable example of research done right: an extensive bilbiography, a thorough examination, a rich and vidid writing and an enthralling pace makes Herbert Bix's book a marvelous reading.

Let us begin with stating that this book has received a barrage of critics from lots of customers here, most of which bash this book claiming that Bix is a Marxist or a left-wing pamphleteer. While it cannot be denied that the author does seem to have some specific views on the monarchy, that does not detract in any way from the massive research he carried out in order to base such a claim. Yes: Bix does strive to make the reader believe that Hirohito was a shrewd and cunning politician that sought to manipulate the constitution and politics in order to get his will carried out, but the sources to which Bix points are indeed massive - and for that he is to be commended. While it is possible to differ with the author's opinion  - I, for one, having read John Toland's exquisite "The Rising Sun", do not share Bix's view on Hirohito's war participation in its entirety, and concur with lot of reviewers that whilst he adamantly sought to emphasise those sources which point to Hirohito's war guilt, he blatantly ignored those others which do not -, one just cannot ignore the fact that he does provide the reader with so vast an array of sources, that no matter who you are or what you have previously read, this book is sure to shed some light into some obscure area of this most intricate of eras. You have a right not to like his conclusions, but the sheer amount of effort and quality research in this volume is there for any and all to see.

Second, the book has received some bashing for its purported inextricable language. I strongly deny this claim on the basis that I am no scholar, nor versed in some archaic form of the english language, yet have managed to read this in a most fluid and smooth manner. Add to the fact that english is not my native tongue - albeit one which was all too present in my upbringing - and there you have it: all the accusations of this being unreadable except for the cultivated readers are dumb-founded arguments wielded by nay-sayers, who in their quest to undermine the author because of his views cling on to whatever they can to bring him down.

Ultimately, the book is a gem, and one which any reader who seeks to know more about the Pacific War, the intricacies of Japan's 20th century politics and/or the life of one of the most controversial figures of our time, this one is worth a shot.

5/5
1253460
After reading this evocative book this Episcopalian wants to move to Israel and join the Army.  The content of this book is overwhelmingly well thought out and well presented.  It reads like a legal brief in its detailed description of the BDS War Against Israel.
 The utter hypocrisy of the international community and the outright hostility towards Israel left me so angry that I had to put the book down at times.  The BDS War is taking place right in front of our faces on a daily basis.  It took the authors to point this out in graphic detail.
 In addition to the over hostility from Arab Nations, and the more subtle hostility of NGO, largest among them, the United Nations, all one needs to do is turn on the television or read the newspaper and the anti-Israel bias, even in American media is readily apparent.  The current crisis in Israel has only heighted that anti-Israel bias in the U.S. media.
 While the authors did implicate the current administration, they placed a greater burden of fault on the Europeans.  Failure to assign greater blame to President Obama and his administration is one of the few flaws in the authors' analysis.  President Obama's pro-Muslim agenda is worth a more serious critique.
 The book also fails to reconcile the dichotomy of opinions within the U.S. Jewish community.  Without questions, prominent Jews in America control and influence media outlets, financial institutions and cultural institutions.  However, the same American Jews overwhelming support, both electorally and financially, Barak Obama.  It is utterly contradictory to be pro-Israel and pro-Obama.  Making the argument that an American Jew can bifurcate their ideological support based on domestic policy and foreign policy is disturbing.  Once the pro-Muslim Democrat you elect because you support his domestic agenda is in office, you get with it his anti-Israel foreign policy.
 There is a lot of work to be done internationally and domestically.  First and foremost American Jews have to reconcile their support of liberal democratic politicians with their desire to protect their homeland from this horrific, not so nascent war.
 Kudos to the authors for being leaders in the United States and the world in continuing to expose those who would destroy Israel.
3819163
I have known Jeri since the days of the FFF.  My respect for her back then has grown into a great admiration for her brilliance, insight, and courage after having read this book.  Jeri not only has the Fundamentalist abusers figured out in microscopic and crisp detail, but succeeds brilliantly in assessing the proper expression and amount of moral blame due upon  the "good churches and pastors" --- those who have sat silently while the thousands of innocent child victims twisted in the wind after enduring the kind of abuse that all but rivals the Jesuit Inquisitors of an earlier era.  These are the "men" who attended the conferences every year hosted by Fundamentalist leaders like Clarence Sexton who had no qualms against rubbing elbows with convicted child rapists, all the while bankrolled by the "good churches."
 I was one of these deluded members staunchly supporting my pastor, Jack Hyles for the seven years it took me to graduate from Hyles-Anderson College and Seminary in the 1980's. If anyone had done more to lift the impenetrable curtains behind which these impostors delineate the precepts of what the author has SO ingeniously and accurately termed, "Schizophrenic  Christianity," I don't know who it could be, with the probable exception of Voyle Glover
(author of "Fundamental Seduction").
 This is not an "attack" book, as some of the Fundamentalist dimwits incapable of mounting a reasoned or credible defense will always allege.  This book
stands on its own two feet.  It cannot be assailed head on on a biblical or rational basis, but only through the traditional cultic tactics of labeling, ad hominem attacks, and the religious politics of personal degradation.  Happily, there could never be a more convincing sign of an argument bankrupt of moral
or intellectual integrity than this transparent and vapid tactic.
 My eyebrows did go up at reading of the author's view of the local church, but as in the rest of the book, the case made is anything but personal and fanciful, so much so that I have every intention of carefully rethinking my doctrine on that subject in the days to come.  Facts are facts.
 You may, as I will be doing, want to buy multiple copies of this to place before people you know in these toxic churches, even "the good ones."  My only regret is that I can only give this book five stars.  It deserves TEN!
Jerry D. Kaifetz, Ph. D  (author of "Profaned Pulpit---The Jack Schaap Story")
1088779
As a philosophy major years ago I always pursued the evidence without regard for the comfort level of its sometimes revelations. This book exposes an uncomfortable degree of attention on a topic that many would rather pretend does not exist. Who ever really wants to know that which is true from that which is false, must be willing to accept the evidence where ever it leads. The facts of racism have been with us since the slave trade was introduced to Europe by Ottomans from the Barbary Coast circa 1450 ACE. Thomas Sowell has researched and written comprehensively on this subject with the academic focus he so ably brings to his subject matter. The white guilt over slavery is a media tool for the gullible who lack the mental acuity and integrity to study for themselves what history so lucidly records.
791368
I don't believe I've ever read a more biased book in my life.  For someone who is talking about prices, Eduardo Porter should be consistent on whether or not he factors inflation into his price comparisons.  Shockingly, he is inconsistent with this metric, varying such accounting when it suits his liberal agenda.

He also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of markets, assuming that price changes are a reflection of some occurrence, rather than the delta between expectations and an occurrence (e.g. pg 244-245).

Furthermore, he continually blames free markets for problems that arose as a direct result of government intervention.  I believe that banks are in part to blame for the Global Credit Crisis.  But blame also needs to be laid upon the Fed (who sets credit rates) and the federal government for coercing banks into giving loans to people who shouldn't have qualified.

I also LOVE how Porter quotes President Hoover (who was pro government meddling in markets) on page 243 to put words into the mouth of Andrew Mellon (anti government meddling in the markets).

Finally, to imply that Obama and the Dems aren't in bed with the big bankers is beyond naive; it shows a lack of journalistic integrity.  (For the record, I think both political parties are in bed with the bankers and both deserve the ire of the people; Eduardo seems to think that only the Republicans are to blame).
1832083
Any reviews accusing this author of bashing religion are unfounded.  What this author does criticize is the dangerous behavior of fanatics who choose willful ignorance and blind allegiance to dangerous ideas.  The fact that other reviewers try to promote anti-science charlatans or defend cults that hide under the cover of religion actually proves his point - people who believe these non-sensical ideas are manipulative and will stop at nothing to defend their warped sense of reality.  If anything, my only criticism of the author is that he tries too hard to defend more mainstream religions by mentioning the Catholic hospital and educational systems, and the benefits of spiritual life for people that find comfort in faith.  Religion already has plenty of defenders.

As to the claims that this book is poorly sourced because it references a list of cult-like organizations previously identified, some of whom are not still in operation?  That is a ridiculous attempt to find any way to discredit this otherwise damning examination of the problems of uncritical adherence to naive and dogmatic world views.  I understand that people would rather attack the author than acknowledge that what he is saying is true, but the attacks are baseless.

One point that the author makes that I found particularly interesting:  cults demand purity.  I see this as evidenced by the anti-science extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.  For the religious right, "purity" means obsession with sexual purity of women and purity of thought (ignorance / obedience to authority).  For the liberal left, "purity" means obsession with naturalness, even if that means fear of evidence-based medicine and scientific advancement.
267275
With "North Korea: Another Country", Bruce Cumings has penned one of the worst and most outrageous kinds of apologist-for-tyranny books imaginable - a genre one would have thought might have gone out of style with the exposure of Stalin apologist Walter Duranty. The title alone speaks volumes. Cumings pleads open-mindedness and fairness in telling a tale that Kim Jong Il is no doubt happy to have told, but Cumings' moral-relativism-as-religion bias is obvious after just a few pages. At one point Cumings lists the "various achievements of [the Kim] regime: compassionate care for children in general and war orphans in particular; 'radical change' in the position of women; genuinely free housing, free health care, and preventive medicine; and infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine." This one reprehensible sentence contains more deliberate moral blindness and bias than can be rebutted in one review. Suffice it to say that I know of nobody who has seriously considered living in North Korea in order to get any of the supposed socialist benefits he describes. 'Free' they may be in monetary terms, but as the saying goes "you get what you pay for". Once I took off the binding, Cumings' book has proven excellent at helping to paper-train my dog.
3829251
Conservatives have a  fixation on the belief that the left-wing is essentially totalitarian. Who knows, they may be right!

But we'll never know for sure.

We shall remain ignorant of the outcome as long as we must depend on 19th century thinkers like Mr Glazov for our historical edification, who unthinkingly perpetrate that most grievous of sins against knowledge  --  for the same person who selects the data to be analysed then performs  the analysis of the data!

Social reality is pliable in a manner that physical reality is not. A geologist studying a fault system has very little choice as to which data to include and which to exclude from the database. Those decisions are already made long before he gets his degree. A paucity of variables and a number of other factors reduce the number of liberties, so that perhaps 6 or 7 or 8 geologists might reach exactly the same conclusion regarding  a given phenomenon and a given hypothesis. .

Society is much more complex that the planet's crust. Consequently historians are seldom as trammelled as geologists in their findings -- if they don't  reach the desired conclusion, they need only jettison some inconvenient data. Who's to notice? It's been done before:

The ideological comrade in arms of Mr Glazov, the celebrated Jonah Goldberg, triumphantly demonstrated several years ago exactly the same finding that Mr Glazov today triumphantly demonstrates:

"The Left is totalitarian!"

It's been said so often, it almost seems obvious. How strange then, that in order to arrive at such a banal and obvious conclusion as "The Left is totalitarian!"  Mr Goldberg was forced to make a number of  audacious alterations to several crucial events of 20th century Italian history. In the process, a key figure of the democratic Italian opposition became an unperson, so to speak.

That's what I meant about jettisoning inconvenient data. Cement overcoats.

Mr Goldberg was having trouble demonstrating his thesis that the Left is totalitarian. An individual cropped up again and  again in 20th century Italian history, thumbing his nose at Mr Goldberg and disproving his yearned-for conclusion.

Mr Goldberg's solution was Solomonic: he simply amputated from Italian history the meddlesome head of the parliamentary opposition, who gave  Mussolini such a hard time and hampered his rise to power by denouncing him in Parliament and through the press for election fraud and violence ...so much so  that Mussolini had him murdered. You see... Mussolini's main opponent was a socialist!

So to get around that little difficulty Mr Goldberg simply arranged for the pinko intruder into Mr Goldberg's conservative Weltanschauung to disappear through the ... (conservative)  memory-hole. And presto, the point was proved! The Left really IS totalitarian!

Mr. Glazov is a real historian with a Phd, and will doubtless spurn such unconventional, not to say piratical, historiographical procedures as those espoused by Mr. Goldberg.

But somebody better check. Just in case.
1604778
Ezra provides an argument as to the nature of the self-admitted terrorist Omar Khadr and for the likely outcomes of Omar being repatriated from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the Canadian justice system in the near future. Ezra has provided copious references notes supporting his thesis that occupy almost 20% of the book, yet instead of being a stuffy academic treatise the book retains Ezra's talent for mocking an opposing point of view in an entertaining way.

Without doubt, you are going to feel strongly about this book, as it brings up issues that divides the western world into different camps on philosophy and politics. Issues such as personal responsibility, what constitutes treason, what the social contract is for citizenship, hypocrisy in justice and politics, propaganda, torture, international law, and media bias. It also should raise questions in the reader as to their own beliefs, biases and prejudices, whichever side you are on.

For those who haven't been intently following the Omar Khadr case in Canada, the book lays out who Omar Khadr is, his formative influences, his family, and even hints at what his current mental disposition and ideology is (as well as could be gleaned from psychological and behavioural reports can). Much of the most damning evidence is taken from his guilty plea confession, one that some readers may be inclined to dismiss if their personal philosophy is that all such confessions are invalid due to the claim of duress under the circumstances. Ezra is hoping to convince you that Omar's behaviour is wilfully treasonous and will continue to be treasonous and thus a danger to Canada and her citizens. Prisoners of war are normally released at the end of a war: what happens if the western world thinks the war has ended but the Islamists believe they are in a war that will never end?

At the end of the book Ezra makes a call for action on the reader: to mitigate the injustice that is likely to happen if nothing is done - if you support Ezra's point of view.  Even if you absolutely disagree with Ezra's arguments in this book, you should read it for within it lies many key issues that Canada needs to resolve. Ezra is shamelessly pushing his own agenda, but if he is right, this is nothing compared to the overwhelming uncritical support Omar has enjoyed from much of the Canadian media as well as institutions such as the Canadian Bar Association.

Ultimately this book is not just about Omar himself, but it is more that his particular case raises many questions about the Canadian (and other western) societies. For Ezra's theme is that we seem overeager to provide resources to people who hate us, would see us dead and our society demolished and yet vehemently demand the benefits and protection that this very society has provided. For Canadians, and to a lesser extent all non-Islamists, you might be justifiably concerned that your safety may have been traded for political expediency.
817615
In "The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips does an excellent job dismantling the intellectual pretensions, both risible and pernicious, of today's elitists and of the suckers who drink from the same trough:  The devotion to "progress" (novelties, fads, and trends) and to neo-paganism; the contempt for tradition, continuity, family, and religion; the moral relativism and, indeed, indifference; the fanatical commitment to scientism and Frankensteinism, including stem-cell research, global warming, and Darwinian evolution; and the concomitant persecution of those, including scientists, who dare to question the orthodoxy.

That being said, I must express my extreme dismay with Phillips' worshiping at the shrine of Israel and her accompanying Christophobia, most evident in her subtly titled chapter "The Revival of Christian Jew-Hatred".

Regardless of egregious Vatican II and post-conciliar trends and attitudes, Church teaching on Judaism is authoritative, definitive, and immutable -- the Old Testament has been fulfilled by the New, and Judaism has been superseded by Christianity.  Even more broadly erroneous is Phillips' opinion that Western Civilization is somehow based on Judaic mores.  Is she kidding?  The cradle of Western Civilization is the Church.  Any opposing contention is anti-historical in the extreme.

On page 366, Phillips asks, "So where does Christianity stand on the pivotal issue of Israel?  One might expect it [Christianity] to defend truth against lies...not least because it [Christianity] is founded on the religious precepts of Jesus the Jew."  Jesus the Jew?  Christianity isn't founded on the religious precepts (whatever they are) of Jesus the Jew (whoever that is), but by Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

In short, Phillips' obsessive need to depict Christianity as little more than the quirky, rather silly, and too-big-for-his-britches baby brother of Judaism is delusional and reprehensible -- and, of course, offensive.

I don't gainsay that Phillips has made points that needed to be made, but her effort has been hopelessly marred by her startling and disturbing Christophobia (as well as by a heaping helping of neocon drivel).

It only remains for me to announce that Phillips' use of BCE and CE, rather than of BC and AD, was so annoying and insulting that, in and of itself, it cost her a star.
2493647
It is very interesting the amount of strawman, ad hominem's and even deliberate dishonest tactics being used in this so-called documentary. During the beginning of the documentary they try to equate the higher criticism was liberalism and then attribute the thinkers such as Strauss as antisemitic. Anyone who has read Frederick Strauss work that he attributed much of the Gospel accounts of Jesus as mythic creations. The earliest mention of higher criticism being equated with antisemitism is in an article titled "Higher Criticism, Higher Antisemitism," written by a rabbi who is complaining that the Higher Critics do not allow for Jewish Scholars to lay claim to the authenticity of the rabbinic claims of Jewish origins.

In many cases their conflation of Higher Criticism with Liberalism is based on a modern understanding of liberal politics, when in reality liberal politics in the 1920s had very many of the same traits that conservative politics have today.

They also make the most astounding use of an appeal to authority by claiming that this one fringe New Testament Scholar says that all the books of the New Testament could be dated before 40CE. And the most ridiculous claim being made above all is this conflation of this notion that of a scholar is going against the mainstream of his own school of thought he is to be taken credible on face value, and they use an analogy of law to get this across. Of course the difference is that in legal courts an expert is taken in to give information about evidence they deem to damning and then they bring in a second expert to verify independently of the other expert that this is what the evidence seems to point to and on the defendants side they bring in an expert to dispute the evidence. It may be one or the other. That being said however, these experts are in no way trying to convince other experts of their errors, they are in fact trying to convince the judge or the jury. In peer-review, you are supposed to provide evidence, interpretation of that evidence and a conclusion based on a follow of examination of the evidence through methodology to convince your peers who will rip it apart piece by piece in an attempt to falsify or find any errors. There is a huge difference in method and presentation of evidence and the crowd in which they convince between the legal system and academicians.

Another issue with this is that having a fringe academic and those who agree with him does not make him credible. What makes a case by a fringe academic credible is the evidence, method and conclusions they come and how many have been convinced by his case.

Basically, a bad DVD to buy if you are a skeptic, a good documentary if you are an apologist and wish to use bias to interpret evidence and would get a feel for the various strawman arguments to use in a debate to convince the gullible of your case.
4451051
XXXXX

"If I cannot definitely prove that the usefulness of religion is in the past,

[1] and that its foundational books are transparent fables,
[2] and that it is a man-made imposition,
[3] and that it has been an enemy of science and inquiry,
[4] and that it has subsisted largely on lies and fears,
[5] and been the accomplice of ignorance and guilt as well as slavery, genocide...and tyranny...
[6] [and that there is a] connection between religion, racism, and [dictatorship or] totalitarianism [as found, for example, in the Hitler and Stalin regimes],

I can most certainly claim that religion is fully aware of these criticisms.

It is also fully aware of the ever-mounting evidence, concerning the origins of the cosmos and the origin of species, which consign it to marginality if not to irrelevance."

The above is found in this fascinating book by Christopher Hitchens (1949 to 2011).  He was a British-American author and journalist whose career spanned more than four decades.  Hitchens was named number five an a list of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals."

He supports his position that "religion poisons everything" with personal stories, documented historical evidence, and analysis of religious texts.

Hitchens is mainly concerned with the Abrahamic religions (the largest being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) although he touches on other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

I feel that the best way of conveying what this book has to offer is to list some of its chapter titles:

(1)  Religion kills
(2)  A note on health to which religion can be hazardous
(3)  The metaphysical claims of religion are false
(4)  Arguments from design
(5)  Revelation: the nightmare of the "Old" Testament
(6)  The 'New' Testament exceeds the evil of the "Old" one
(7)  Does religion make people behave better?
(8)  Is religion child abuse?
(9)  A finer tradition: the resistance of the rational

One of my favourite chapters is the one where the author tells us that "there are, indeed, several ways in which religion is not just amoral, but positively immoral."  These are:

(1) Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and [to those that believe too easily especially with no proof]
(2) The doctrine of blood sacrifice
(3) The doctrine of atonement
(4) The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
(5) The imposition of impossible tasks and rules

Finally, the vocabulary used in this book is, in a word, impeccable.  I, personally, appreciated this but some potential readers may have to resort to using a dictionary for some words.

In his book's acknowledgements section, Hitchens states,

"To all those...who live in...worlds where superstition and barbarism are still dominant...I hope this little book may fall [into their hands]."

In conclusion, I fully agree with the endorsement on the book's back cover that states:

"an intellectual willing to show his teeth in the cause of righteousness."

Christopher Hitchens may be the best since Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" (1927) to laying out essential arguments with both force and precision!!

(first published 2007;  18 chapters;  conclusion;  main narrative 285 pages;  acknowledgements;  references;  index)

<<Stephen PLETKO, London, Ontario, Canada>>

XXXXX