John Chancellor, David McCullough and David Rubenstein had about the same voice–Roddy McDowell and Dereck Jacobi as well.

As a kid, I thought Tony Orlando, Robert Goulet and Wayne Newton were the same person.

There were two Engleberts Humperdinck…the first a children’s author…

Sociology news
https://phys.org/news/2025-11-black-student-unions-pressure-students.html


All true, but it’s also a question of where the culture, and especially the elite culture, was at each point in time. Burns began production on THE CIVIL WAR all the way back in 1986, with subsequent additional shoots and editing through 1989, which is right there in Reagan’s Morning In America, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Critical Race Theory had hardly begun as an academic burp in the halls of Harvard Law; the 20th century consensus on the Civil War was still intact, and Burns kept within that, with about as much in the way of nods to the post-civil rights era as you’d expect he could get away with and still secure his funding.

But as the Overton Window swung massively to the woke left in the 21st century, Burns swung with it, because that’s what was happening to the circles he moved in, and maybe more to the point, the circles from which he secured his funding. Maybe that’s who he always was deep down, but myabe he was just a socially malleable boomer progressive.

I think THE CIVIL WAR is still a pretty good Civil War documentary, and the ample time given to Foote is enough all by itself to forgive its modest sins and endless winsome fiddles. I don’t think any of his subsequent documentaries reach those heights. His BASEBALL documentary might be close if it were just retitled, BASEBALL EAST OF THE HUDSON RIVER.

What a difference success makes.
When he made The Civil War series, He has some documentaries under his belt, but nothing really the get his name out there.
That one did it. He was famous. Now he has all kinds of money and success, and he has chosen to stray from what got him started.
He could not have expressed the bias he did for the Civil War, because it would have been soundly trounced and rejected, as this documentary is today.

This is a choice, by him, I think. He does not feel constrained, and so will let his bias into the product.
This also happens with popular fictional TV shows. Especially in the sci fi realms. They hook you with a season or two of really good story, and then in the second or third season, turn left. The re-imagined BSG did this. It was sad.

The same is true in spades of Ken Burns’ Revolution documentary. ~80 percent is good, straight history. But that is marred by repeated genuflections to the DEI gods.

Episode 2 went right off the cliff. It felt like a 1619 Seminar more than a Revolutionary War documentary. How many more times do you want to remind us that George Washington owned slaves, Ken?

It is a shame; while Ken Burns has always been quite liberal, his early work usually kept the “anti-racism” agenda within bounds. But he’s gone with the flow. No way he’d make THE CIVIL WAR with all that screentime for someone like Shelby Foote again if he were doing it today.

To all,

I am now closing this theological discussion. Much of it is completely off topic for this post, based on obscure things that no one who reads my blog care about. More important, much of what our esteemed Steve Kellmeyer has spouted is blather, as far as I am concerned. He will disagree, which is his right, but my opinion is my right as well.

Anyone who tries to continue this particular discussion will find their comments deleted.

However, if people wish to go back to discussing my original post, and how DEI and Marxism has destroyed modern histories, that would be fine with me.

You / theologians could argue from today till the sun engulfs the earth about which religion is closer to which and which is closer to the true GOD.

What I do generally understand is that the Founders of America saw themselves for the most part as being based in the Judeo / Christian / Biblical based ethos. One third of the signers of the Constitution were Masons and believed in G.A.T.U. (The great architect of the universe).

And those Founders despised the Pope and the Catholic church and rejected its proposed authority over them.

So where does that leave this discussion? A theologian told you what you should think based on their historical interpretation regarding Christianity which precedes Islam by I think about 600 years or so. And Judaism which precedes Christianity by another 3000 years (?).

One (Judaism / Yahweh) precedes the other (Christianity / Jesus) and then they both precede (Islam / Muhammad)

Which one is most like the other? IMO, and I am not a theologian, Christianity is closer and more of a function of Judaism.

These are my observations and comments on the function of religion, any religion which are ALL human constructs attempting to formulate and understand what this is all about that we find ourselves immersed in. Theologians have their Subjective perspectives that they serve. (Religion just like politics, both are about social control for the most part is / are a treacherous activity)

“Spirituality or a belief in a God or a creator is an internal personal and pristine condition that no one other than the individual can knowingly corrupt. And whether that spirituality is based in a belief in a God or a creator or a belief in nature and the expanse of the overarching eternal universe, you personally internally recognize that there is something bigger and more than you. It is your personal conclusion about what your existence is in some way shape or form based on or influenced by and guides your spiritual life.

Any formalized construct of man (and woman) and any power derived thereof, which employs an authority and hierarchy, which at its core essentially operates in some respects like a corporation, or a business, or a political party, because it is a construct of man (or woman) all have the potential to be corrupt and the power derived abused. This is true of all such things that are a construct of man (or woman). JGL”

There is more here: https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/god-spirituality-v-politics-law-and-justice-commerce-religion-1

Rambam says you are wrong.
Rambam’s position is that Judaism is closer to Islam than it is to Christianity.

When it comes to Jewish theology, neither one of us has sufficient stature to challenge him on what the post-Temple Jewish viewpoint is. Indeed, even Robert doesn’t have statures to make that challenge, as I think he would readily agree.

He pointed out to me on numerous occasions that Judaism and Islam are much more closely aligned than Judaism and Christianity were.

When you assert Judaism and Christianity are closer than Judaism and Islam, you are implicitly saying Maimonedes is wrong.

That’s a very bold position for a Christian to take about one of the most prominent Jewish theologians of the Post-Temple period. If Rambam says X is the proper Jewish view, I would want to find a Jewish theologian of similar stature to support me before I contradicted him. I sure wouldn’t try to assert that his view of Judaism is wrong based on my own take.

Can you quote back to me the passage which betrays my anger?
I can’t see it.

During the first century AD, the Roman Empire was 10-20% Jewish. This was accomplished through active proselytization, especially during the Second Temple period. Avot d’Rebbi Natan portrays his co-religionists converting idol-worshipers, with statements like “Whoever converts an idol-worshiper is as if he created him.” The Talmud (Pesachim 87b) suggests that the exile of the Israelites was partly to facilitate adding converts from among the nations. Additionally, the Torah is presented in some rabbinic views as a universal blueprint for creation, offered to all nations (who rejected it) before being given to Israel, and revealed in the desert to avoid exclusive claims by any one group. Philo of Alexandria actively encouraged Gentiles to observe the Torah, viewing it as wisdom for all nations.

There was even forced conversion. Forced proselytism occurred under the Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty in the 2nd century BCE. John Hyrcanus, a high priest and ruler, compelled the Idumeans (Edomites) to convert to Judaism by the sword, as recorded by the historian Josephus.

He pointed out to me on numerous occasions that Judaism and Islam are much more closely aligned than Judaism and Christianity were.

When you assert Judaism and Christianity are closer than Judaism and Islam, you are implicitly saying Maimonedes is wrong.

That’s a very bold position for a Christian to take about one of the most prominent Jewish theologians of the Post-Temple period. If Rambam says X is the proper Jewish view, I would want to find a Jewish theologian of similar stature to support me before I contradicted him. I sure wouldn’t try to assert that his view of Judaism is wrong based on my own take.

Akira the Don / Jordan Peterson
Tarantula’s 🕷
https://youtu.be/7zIkUkRLJAM?t=87
(7:59)

“When they call themselves the Good and the Just, do not forget that they would be Pharisees… if only they had – power!”

I think you are slicing things kind of thin here.

Why are you so angry about this issue?

I can tell you and state with certainty that there is a great distinction between the Judeo / Christian ethic and the Islamic ethic.

Now there is a distinction.

The Bible which structures both Judeo and Christian thinking which is about the light and the Koran which from what I can detect is primarily a dark military document and a guide to life are without doubt two different perspectives.

And the one is IMO not compatible with the other and poses a fundamental insurgent threat to Western civilization. Western civilization being a result of Judeo / Christian thinking and perspective.

The point of contention here is whether there is such a thing as “Judeo-Christian values” or “morality”.
When Christians were TRYING VERY HARD to be accepted by the Temple and post-Temple communities, both groups tended to reject the Jews who held such radical theological-moral views. The idea that a man can forgive sins (a power Jesus gave to the 12 in the Upper Room), for instance, was simply anathema to the Jewish understanding of forgiveness. The Jews who held to Jesus’ moral and theological view of the universe were so deeply condemned as heretics that they were even given a distinguishing name: Christians.

As I pointed out to Coutour, even Muslims are not considered as heretical as Christians. For instance, Maimonedes saw zero problem with Jews praying in a mosque, but absolutely forbad Jews from praying in a Christian church. In pretty much every war Christianity fought against Islam, when given the choice between supporting the Muslims and supporting the Christians, post-Temple Jewish communities (there were, of course, no other kind) always sided with the Muslims against the Christians.

The term “Judeo-Christian” was invented by Christians in the 1800s to encourage Jewish conversion and was applied primarily to Jewish converts to Christianity.

Now, in the 21st-century, everyone is trying to change the definition and pretend the phrase points to some common, shared, hand-in-hand heritage of Jews and Christians building Western civilization together in the post-Temple era. It is very much like Obama’s bromide that “Muslims fought in our (America’s) wars!”. Well, Obama was right. Muslims DID fight in our wars. They just never fought on our side.

This is not a commentary on the Muslims today who reject the violence of orthodox Islam (such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims), but it should be recognized that the Muslims who reject violence are considered heretics by orthodox Muslims. Are there pro-life Jews who support the idea of a human being with rights existing from the moment of conception? Sure. But they are the exception, not the rule. It is incontrovertibly true that for most of Judeo-Christian history, there has been no such thing as Judeo-Christian values or morality. Appeals to this concept in a historical context are anachronistic at best, a pure lie at worst.

Steve Kellmeyer: You really do come off as very angry, as sippin_bourbon notes. You also seem very obsessed with discrediting all Judaism, in ways that really make no sense unless we come to conclusions that are very ugly.

I don’t like banning, but I find your increasingly angry and hateful tone quite disturbing and unhealthy for a rational human being. That you don’t see it and appear willing to magnify it (including using CAPS to shout at us) is even more troubling.

At some point, if you don’t moderate the tone of your comments, you will find yourself banned. Right now you are not contributing anything but anger and hate, wrapped up in arguments that are cherry-picked and incoherent.

Where did Christ say forgive only those that agree with you, or share your values, ethics or morals?

True Judaism vs false Judaism, point to an authority.
These are red herrings.
I think you are more upset that I will not debate you only on your set terms. But your terms are far too narrow minded. And so I will not.

Not sure if it is true, but you do come across as very angry.

Why do I not just agree with you? Well then, my friend, we would both be wrong.

Cotour, the TEMPLE Jews came first, but the POST-TEMPLE Jews came after. Post-Temple Judaism bears almost no resemblance to Temple Judaism. Christ and the early Christians were all Temple Jews. The Christian perspective is an outgrowth of the Temple Judaism perspective, but it isn’t the same, nor is the Christian perspective even acceptable to either version of Judaism, because the earliest Christians were KICKED OUT of every synagogue they attempted to enter and teach in. That’s why the word “Christian” was invented – to distinguish the UNACCEPTABLE Christian viewpoint from the Jewish viewpoint.

From the Seder to the rabbi-synagogue-Talmud system, post-Temple Judaism is simply not the same as Temple Judaism. And neither is coterminous, or even similar to, Christianity.

Which came first, the Jews or the Christians?

The Jews precede the Christians.

Is the Christian perspective a function of the Jewish perspective?

Absolutely, they are inextricably connected.

So how can the statement: “Western civilization was built on Christian values NOT Jewish values.” be true?

It cannot be true.

The Jewish / Hebrew thought process and philosophy thread runs through the Christian philosophy.

The one is closely related to the other, they are different but very similar in their foundation.

Q: Why is it so essential that this bright line be drawn between the two for you Cardano?

Cardano: In doing a search of BtB’s comments, I discovered you previously commented using your name, Steve Kellmeyer. I do not like it when people change their name or nickname. Either one or the other, but not both.

Second, it appears that when you commented previously, you also got very hostile to any disagreement, accusing anyone who disagreed with you as ignorant or wrong or worse. Like in this thread, you started out saying things that were interesting and worth reading, but if anyone disagreed you got angry and went off the deep end.

Finally, I don’t like your overall hostility to Judaism, bordering now almost on hate. Sorry if you don’t like what I am saying, but that is how you are appearing. You certainly are not exhibiting any good will at all.

Overall, I am torn. I think you can contribute to the discussion here, but not if you end up in these dark places each time. Also, you changed your nickname, something that is often done to hide a person’s overall position on the issues.

I am going to think about this, but if I find you continuing on this path I might find myself forced to ban you. I don’t want to, but if I do, it will be because of your actions.

You don’t know which sect of Judaism is True Judaism ™, nor which sect is false.
Perhaps the ones who spit are the True Jews (again, tm) while all the rabbinic Jews who oppose it are not really Jews at all?
You don’t know.

Why don’t we both just agree that you and Robert are wrong?
That’s certainly as easy, and certainly more honest than your mealy-mouthed decision to be neither hot nor cold. Aren’t you supposed to let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no? You earlier asked that I forgive others in the spirit of Christ – but noticed that this was an invocation of a Christian value which is foreign to Judaism. Odd for a man espousing your position (perhaps you’re being adulterous with your own views).

Woke leftism is abhorrent, but so is the dishonesty of Woke Rightism.
Modern post-Temple Judaism (a version Christ never espoused) has as much in common with Christianity as Islam – not much.

On the other stuff..

I think we will just disagree.

But either way, praying for you.

You seem to think that religion is subject to democratic vote – your implicit assumption is the majority rules and the majority defines what constitutes any particular religion. If that is true, then who gets a vote? There are many more Muslims than Jews, and pretty much all the Muslims agree that Judaism is not a real religion, it’s just a twisted version of Islam. Given that neither you nor Robert can define who is Jewish, on what grounds do you deny the Muslim attestation? Sure, the Muslims are genocidal animals, but the Jews fought on the side of the Muslims during the Crusades.

According to Robert, who says Jewish values formed Western civilization, the Crusades were therefore implicitly a Jewish movement.

Repentance is, indeed, huge for Christianity. But a Christian can repent of a sin, like murder, and be forgiven by God. According to Jewish theology, repentance can only be forgiven by the one against whom you sinned, so even God cannot forgive murder. Murder cannot be forgiven because the victim isn’t available to proffer forgiveness. For rabbinic Judaism, repentance is not necessary to enter the World to Come – simply being Jewish, no matter how sinful or guilty you may be – is enough to enter heaven.

I readily grant that Judaism was as formative on Western Civilization as Islam was, and for substantially the same reasons.
But I’m pretty sure Robert wants to pretend Judaism and Christianity worked hand-in-hand to create western Civilization, which is certainly not the case.

Robert is a woke historian from the Right, who doesn’t compare the similar (no matter how sparse) atrocities between Japan and America, as the woke Leftists do, but rather attempts to conflate whatever he sees as virtuous in Judaism with what he sees as virtuous in Christianity. But Jews and Christians don’t see the same things as virtuous.

So, Robert claims that rejecting the New Testament is a minor thing, not really relevant to the building of the West.
That is certainly a minority viewpoint.
It is also certainly not historically or spiritually different from spitting at a Christian church as you pass by.

(If this appears twice, apologies).

I am reading Six Frigates, by Ian Toll. (Early US Navy)
He also has a trilogy of the US Navy in the Pacific that I will read next.

So far so good. Will let you know.

In Six Frigates, he mentions but does not dwell on Maryland and Delaware merchantmen being fitted out to transport slaves.
It is given in the context of a hypocrisy, which is honest.
It is not presented to justify the Sultans’ piracy and extortion as an acceptable enterprise.

And there are some base values/ethics that are shared.
You seem upset by the latter.
———————
No, the laws and rules of each are not precisely the same.
But the 10 Commandments, as a set of ideals, is accepted by both groups.
These are the basis of societal standards for behavior in Western Civilization.
It is a set of values and ethics, not hardened strict rules.
There are other things as well. Jewish tradition has courts, both civil and criminal.
You mentioned that lack of emphasis on forgiveness but there is emphasis on repentance (a concept you failed to mention, which is huge for Christianity).
There is a belief in the preservation of life.
Life Liberty and Property were major themes of John Locke, who cited Hebrew scripture more than any other.
John Adams stated that he believed that Jews were responsible for civilizing men than any other nation.

The laws and rules of each are not precisely the same, no one claimed they were.
Yet this is where you point to find difference.
Mr Z is correct with the Forest and Trees analogy.
———————–

You want to point to fringe behavior, and the handful of Rabbis that want to accept Polygamy, as proof of difference.
Well, here you go. Evangelical Christians doing the same:
https://www.deseret.com/2008/2/28/20073463/idaho-evangelical-christian-polygamists-use-internet-to-meet-potential-spouses/
Both Fringe.

Most LDS follow the ban on it.
I would wager there are more fundamentalist LDS in polygamous marriage then Jews.
(I would not wager a lot, as I am not a betting man, by nature).

Fringe instances of spitting? Yes.
Why? Because you must scour the interwebs to find instances of it. Otherwise, no one talks about it, reports it, etc.
Someone defended it by claiming it is tradition? So does the KKK in their pointy little hats.
Who cares.
I can ignore both patterns of bad behavior, equally.
———————–
Last, I would ask you this:
A Jewish man, walking in a country in the middle east spits at a church or a priest.
What does Christ tell us to do?
Hint: Rant about it on the internet is not the answer.
Matt 5:39.
This verse of oft abused, but in this case is applies directly.
There is also Acts 5:41
But if that is too much, try 1PET 4:14.

I will pray for you, my friend.

sippin_bourbon: I just finished Miracle at Midway. Quite excellent.