Please...being Jewish is as much a collective identity as it is an individual one. Being a Jew means identifying with a group of people. No Jew I've ever met claims that they and they alone constitute Judaism. That it may be an abstraction (although I would argue that it is just as concrete as individual identity) makes it no less operative.

When Hitler gassed or otherwise slaughtered the Gypsies, homos, Communists or dissident Xians, his violation of human rights was no worse than when he targeted the entire Jewish race. Each of those human beings, Jew, Pole, Xian or gay, had a right to live and to liberty that was violated at the level of individual.

"the rights violated are those of the *individual* not the right of the collective, which is an abstraction." Mona, my guess is you are not a person of color, not to be rude or anything, you got that white guy/white girl love affair with the individual . . . The "collective" or what we who actually live in the real world like to call our community--is not something that "exists merely as a idea" no matter how many times you want to say that it is. For many native/indigenous peoples, the rights that were/are taken are exactly those of "collective," as well as the right of the individual to exist as part of a collective. We place an entirely different relationship to resources, the land and how we might live upon it. Your notion of what freedom is differs greatly from mine.

Now, mind you, I consider myself "a new world baby" because I have so many cultures/histories streaming through my veins, but, libertarian values just are so NOT native in any way.

The "collective" is not an abstraction for many peoples, societies and cultures. It is the road we live on, the school we go to, it is, we the people and how we opt to maximize shared resources. And, for enormous numbers of people on the planet, we don't agree that everything, every drop of water, every square of land should be privately-held.

Through our governance, when we regulate ourselves and our behavior, we are speaking as individuals on behalf of the community that we desire to live within.

The difference that started in the 20th century was the recognition (nay, proof) that no logical systems are complete. That is a huge, huge break with all Western intellectual thought going back to Plato. With the exception of Heraclitus and a few outliers, it is practically unique.

Now, with the Jesus thing - can't say I know the theorist. I can only conflate him with the NT, because that's the only extant evidence about him. For all I know, he was a violent, racist revolutionary (and there's actually some good evidence for that - well as good as can exist for a completely unattested individual outside of his mythology).

To outline my answers:

Oh, so now it's logical & sane to conflate Jesus with the entire Bible, and all of it's subsequent implementations?

No, not sane...silly. What is accomplished?

To extract the implications of thing that intuitively appear to be "good", but in practice are dangerous.

Tell me jojo, in an extrapolation of your view, what theory, thought or idea is not susceptible to a transformation into dogma? What great idea is not capable of both beneficial and detrimental implementations, sometimes concurrently?

Well, we're all sinners. But it sure would be hard to turn the Principia Discordia into a dangerous dogma - I'm sure it's possibly, but I'll be damned if you turn that into a state religion!

How would you benchmark, measure or otherwise assess ideas, theories, and philosophies in this order?

Specifically. Looking at the specific social forms associated with those ideas. If I recall correctly, Bakunin was deeply worried about the ultimate results of Marxism because of the behavior of Marxists, in particular their belief that they had a scientific understanding of human nature leading to bullying and dishonest behavior in Communist organizations of the time.

What is the function of blame for you? What purpose does it serve? What benefit comes out of the assignment of blame for the theorist/thinker/philosopher?

As I said, recognizing the often counter-intuitive effects of belief systems. And as a warning to tread carefully on systems that historically have been used in tyrannical ways.

Isn't your assertion, ironically, a bit tyrannical? I can see a world that operated this way as being one of absolute oppression and tyranny, or if just a fanciful statement, not worth asserting at all.

Which is it? or something else I haven't considered? (certainly possible)

What is tyrannical about recognizing implications in our systems? They all have bugs, and some have worse bugs than others. I was not implying that they be dismissed, but they do have to be judged in context, in terms of what their practical effects have been, rather than in a purely ivory tower approach.

What is the danger of "Love your neighbor as yourself"? None is obvious, but with historical hindsight there is a real tyrannical implication - that the love you give yourself is appropriate for your neighbor, that you should treat her as you treat yourself. In that aphorism, there is a real blindness to individual variability. That has been turned into the Inquisition. That danger lay there, and if we don't recognize it, we can't update that aphorism. Maybe "Love your neighbor as they wish to be loved" is safer? Or "Love your neighbor as much as yourself"? But really, always remember, that they are not identical to you.

I honestly don't see the comparison. They have two completely different operating methodologies, are completely different with their guests, and well, are really completely different.

Olberman does not make sweeping damnation statements about whole cities, groups of people etc. He doesn't lie, bald-faced when cornered, or brazenly attack other people on his show. He clearly deliniates between his news delivery and his commentary, which is always directed at the behavior of one individual, not a group identity or collective system of beliefs.

O'Reily is not very bright. How he got famous speaks to his similarity to Gerry Springer mentality than to talent. He was a lousy local anchor in Hartford Conn. who made his name by being an asshole. Americans, at least many of us, love assholes.

So, sorry, but you're wrong.