Brian puts it better than I did. Why do people assume that when I say an argument is reasonable that I necessarily agree with it in whole or part?
-Chip
________________________________
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org on behalf of BklynMagus Sent: Sat 2/11/2006 1:56 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Rabbi Michael Lerner using the Antisemitism card against the US Green party
Dear List:
Yoshie writes:
> Chip, anti-Semitism isn't non-existent in the US left, but calling
for divestment from Israel without calling for divestment from the
US, China, Russia, Sudan, etc. isn't ipso facto anti-Semitic, as
Rabbi Lerner alleges in this case.
It is a tough call. Clearly, Chinese depradations in Tibet demand a call for divestment, but the US left is peculiarly silent.
Why? Because of China's leftist past? Because Buddhism lies outside the Abrahamic continuum?
I think Lerner's claim is a simplification, but the left's selectivity here is in urgent need of unpacking.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4523 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20060211/a7e34bd0/attachment.bin>