Page 6 of 12 [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

09 Jun 2009, 6:12 am

Laconvivencia wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
Laconvivencia reality and your obsessions are two separate things. Whist some of my view may overlap coincidently, your whole idea is out of a fairytale in my view. You are stuck in the past this is 2009 the inquisition was only one part of religious history.


learning about the Spanish Inquisition and Islamic spain is just as important as learning about the Holocaust.

Er... how should I put this...

No it's not, Laconvivencia. The Holocaust is a far more important historical event than former Jewish treatment in Spain, even though it happens to be your obsession.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

09 Jun 2009, 6:51 am

it is fine to learn from the past, so long as you don't get stuck in it, and come back to the present.



Laconvivencia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,333

09 Jun 2009, 9:30 am

Henriksson wrote:
Laconvivencia wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
Laconvivencia reality and your obsessions are two separate things. Whist some of my view may overlap coincidently, your whole idea is out of a fairytale in my view. You are stuck in the past this is 2009 the inquisition was only one part of religious history.


learning about the Spanish Inquisition and Islamic spain is just as important as learning about the Holocaust.

Er... how should I put this...

No it's not, Laconvivencia. The Holocaust is a far more important historical event than former Jewish treatment in Spain, even though it happens to be your obsession.


No Learning about Islamic spain and the Spanish Inquisition is just as important as the Holocaust.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

09 Jun 2009, 9:34 am

Maybe but you are viewing a modern situation through inquisition tined glasses

The whole bloodline argument further inflames the situation, it does not make it better. You are stuck in the past because you don't learn from it. You wouldn;t be the first or last though.

These people Jewish ancestry is not more relevant that their other ancestry. You are obsessed with your idea, which isn't in reality sorry.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Jun 2009, 9:36 am

Guys, convincing an Aspie that the subject of their obsession is not important is damn near impossible.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

09 Jun 2009, 9:39 am

Orwell wrote:
Guys, convincing an Aspie that the subject of their obsession is not important is damn near impossible.

maybe. My main obsession is programming, so I am open to different programming approaches. I suppose I could be very much stubborn in one area, but it not really my personality. I have not got a problem with other people's specialities.

I still haven't got used to the whole collaborative programming thing, but that is just my shortcoming I guess.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

09 Jun 2009, 9:49 am

cognito wrote:
you will have to excuse me if I think the UN is pointless. At the racism conference, the Iranian president just about denied the holocaust, so I don't take what they say seriously.


Well, the U.N. is a forum, where any leader can say any thing. In congresses and parliaments, people say all kinds of stupid things.

cognito wrote:
They want a bill passed which would make say anything negative about a religion a crime, the US is against it, why? because think about it, you say Islam is a false religion, it would be illegal, and you would go to jail.


The actual proposal includes calls for:

... nations to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general”, for states to "take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion…” States are also asked to encourage “tolerance and respect” for religion, and report on acts of violence or discrimination against religious populations.

So it is unlikely that someone in the US would be jailed for simply saying "I am a Christian, I don't think Islam is true" or vice versa. But it does raise issues related to possible conflicts between not hating/discriminating and freedom of religion and speech. Of course, we already have such grey areas when it comes to laws against discrimination and inciting others to violence....



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Jun 2009, 10:50 am

Henriksson wrote:
Er... how should I put this...

No it's not, Laconvivencia. The Holocaust is a far more important historical event than former Jewish treatment in Spain, even though it happens to be your obsession.


That is only because the Nazis had better technology than the Medieval Catholic Church in Spain. If the Spaniards had Zyklon B they would have done a bigger number on the Jews.

ruveyn



RockDrummer616
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 910
Location: Steel City (Golden State no more)

09 Jun 2009, 11:44 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
RockDrummer616 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
RockDrummer616 wrote:
monty wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Israel and Palestine are both badly at fault.


I agree. Israel has a right to exist - within it's internationally recognized borders. As long as it illegally occupies neighboring territory and expands settlements there and plans to permanently hold those lands, it s**ts on the idea of shalom.


Please don't blame me if I didn't get what you said, but it sounds to me like you think Israel has no right to settle territory it captured in a war? In that case I disagree.


"Right to exist" seems a very flimsy and vague concept to begin with. I think it's rendered almost utterly meaningless when the dictates of the most democratic international law giving body (the UN General Assembly) are repetitively ignored. The only principles of governance in that region seem to be force (either internal to the region, the respective nation's military power, or external to the region, US favouritism).

Israel can morally exist and claim the rights to the Occupied Territories if they treat the Palestinians as [/b]equal citizens[b] and give them democratic rights and a chance to participate in Knesset elections. If not, end this political limbo and give the Palestinians of the territory a state.


I think this idea is acceptable, to give the Palestinians voting rights, but I don't think they want to be equal citizens. I think what they want is to be in control of the land and force the Israelites off.


Under what circumstances can you justify a system with differing civic rights for two distinct groups of people? The idea seems to be squarely against all moral sense.


I didn't try to justify it. What I think is that the Palestinians would not be satisfied with equality. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be equality, it just means that it probably won't solve the problem.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

09 Jun 2009, 12:21 pm

The settlers do not want to become citizen of Palestine, they are outside of Israel and lawless. There is whole infrastructure supporting the setters not in Israel that the Palestinians can't use. This is the occupation. it makes the occupied territories like Swiss cheese, yet the Palestinian authorities get blamed for not being able to administer. What do they expect? Well they know because that is their intention.

There are good examples of both grand and petty apartheid in the region.



Chibi_Neko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,485
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

09 Jun 2009, 2:50 pm

The whole thing that pisses me off about the fighting between Palestine and Israel is the fact that it is based on religion. Both Muslim and Jews say that the land was given to them by god...

HELLO!! ! You both worship the same god! Which means god gave the land to both of you and you should be getting along. But nooooo.... it's all about the prophets.... I guess god doesn't count anymore.

Idiots. Get rid of religion in the middle east, and you will have peace.


_________________
Humans are intelligent, but that doesn't make them smart.


Hashberry
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 249

09 Jun 2009, 3:00 pm

Chibi_Neko wrote:
The whole thing that pisses me off about the fighting between Palestine and Israel is the fact that it is based on religion. Both Muslim and Jews say that the land was given to them by god...

HELLO!! ! You both worship the same god! Which means god gave the land to both of you and you should be getting along. But nooooo.... it's all about the prophets.... I guess god doesn't count anymore.

Idiots. Get rid of religion in the middle east, and you will have peace.


Where on earth did you get that from? True the Jews believe it was given by god to them and that they are the "chosen people" - read superior..The Palestinians have NEVER said God gave it to them any more than any other people living in the land their ancestors have lived in for milenia.

Thus - Zionist Jews believe God gave it to them whereas the Palestinians are fighting for THEIR homeland and their ancestors. Nothing to do with religion on their part.



Hashberry
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 249

09 Jun 2009, 3:18 pm

Chabad rabbi: Jews should kill Arab men, women and children during war
By Nathaniel Popper, The Forward


Like the best Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, Manis Friedman has won the hearts of many unaffiliated Jews with his charismatic talks about love and God; it was Friedman who helped lead Bob Dylan into a relationship with Chabad.

But Friedman, who today travels the country as a Chabad speaker, showed a less warm and cuddly side when he was asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors.

"The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)," Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its "Ask the Rabbis" feature.
Advertisement
Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be "no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war."

"I don't believe in Western morality," he wrote. "Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention."

Friedman's use of phrasing that might seem more familiar coming from an Islamic extremist has generated a swift backlash. The editor of Moment, Nadine Epstein, said that since the piece was printed in the current issue they "have received many letters and e-mails in response to Rabbi Friedman's comments - and almost none of them have been positive."

Friedman quickly went into damage control. He released a statement to the Forward, through a Chabad spokesman, saying that his answer in Moment was "misleading" and that he does believe that "any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion."

But Friedman's words have generated a debate about whether there is a darker side to the cheery face that the Chabad-Lubavitch movement shows to the world in its friendly outreach to unaffiliated Jews. Mordecai Specktor, editor of the Jewish community newspaper in Friedman's hometown, St. Paul. Minnesota, said: "The public face of Lubavitch is educational programs and promoting Yiddishkeit. But I do often hear this hard line that Friedman expresses here."

"He sets things out in pretty stark terms, but I think this is what Lubavitchers believe, more or less," said Specktor, who is also the publisher of the American Jewish World.

"They are not about loving the Arabs or a two-state solution or any of that stuff. They are fundamentalists. They are our fundamentalists."

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a regular critic of Arab extremists, said that in the Jewish community, "We are not immune to having these views. There are people in our community who have these bigoted, racist views."

But, Foxman warned, Friedman's views are not reflective of the Chabad rabbis he knows. "I am not shocked that there would be a rabbi who would have these views," Foxman said, "but I am shocked that Moment would give up all editorial discretion and good sense to publish this as representative of Chabad."

A few days after anger about the comment surfaced, Chabad headquarters released a statement saying that, "we vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war."

The statement added: "In keeping with Jewish law, it is the unequivocal position of Chabad-Lubavitch that all human life is G-d given, precious, and must be treated with respect, dignity and compassion."

In Moment, Friedman's comment is listed as the Chabad response to the question "How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?" after a number of answers from rabbis representing other Jewish streams, most of which state a conciliatory attitude toward Arabs.

Epstein said that Friedman was "brave" for stating his views so clearly.

"The American Jewish community doesn't have the chance to hear opinions like this," Epstein said, "not because they are rare, but because we don't often ask Chabad and other similar groups what they think."

The Chabad movement is generally known for its hawkish policies toward the Palestinians; the Chabad Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rejected peace accords with the Palestinians. Rabbi Moshe Feller, the top Chabad rabbi in Minnesota, said that the rebbe taught that it is not a mitzvah to kill, but that Jews do have an obligation to act in self-defense.

"Jews as a whole, they try to save the lives of others," Feller told the Forward, "but if it's to save our lives, then we have to do what we have to do. It's a last resort."

Friedman is not a fringe rabbi within the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. He was the English translator for the Chabad Rebbe, and at the rebbe's urging, he founded Beis Chana, a network of camps and schools for Jewish women. Friedman is also a popular speaker and writer on issues of love and relationships. His first book, "Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore?" was promoted with a quote from Bob Dylan, who Friedman brought to meet the rebbe.

On his blog and Facebook page, Friedman's emphasis is on his sympathetic, caring side. It was this reputation that made the comment in Moment so surprising to Steve Hunegs, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council: Minnesota and the Dakotas.

"Rabbi Friedman is a best-selling author who addresses some of the most sensitive issues of the time," Hunegs said. "I intend to call him and talk to him about this."

But Shmarya Rosenberg, a blogger and critic of Chabad who lives a few blocks from Friedman in Minnesota, says that the comment in Moment is not an aberration from his experiences with Friedman and many other Chabad rabbis.

"What he's saying is the standard normal view of a Chabadnik," Rosenberg said. "They just don't say it in public."

For his part, Friedman was quick to modify the statement that he wrote in Moment. He told the Forward that the line about killing women and children should have been in quotes; he said it is a line from the Torah, though he declined to specify from which part. Friedman also said that he was not advocating for Israel to actually kill women and children. Instead, he said, he believed that Israel should publicly say that it is willing to do these things in order to scare Palestinians and prevent war.

"If we took this policy, no one would be killed - because there would be no war," Friedman said. "The same is true of the United States."

Friedman did acknowledge, however, that in self-defense, the behavior he talked about would be permissible.

"If your children are threatened, you do whatever it takes - and you don't have to apologize," he said.

Friedman argued that he is different from Arab terrorists who have used similar language about killing Jewish civilians.

"When they say it, it's genocide, not self-defense," Friedman said. "With them, it's a religious belief - they need to rid the area of us. We're not saying that."

Feller, the Chabad leader in Minnesota, said that the way Friedman had chosen to express himself was "radical."

"I love him," Feller said. "I brought him out here - he's magnificent. He's brought thousands back to Torah mitzvah. But he shoots from the hip sometimes."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091469.html



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

09 Jun 2009, 4:13 pm

Hashberry wrote:
Chibi_Neko wrote:
The whole thing that pisses me off about the fighting between Palestine and Israel is the fact that it is based on religion. Both Muslim and Jews say that the land was given to them by god...

HELLO!! ! You both worship the same god! Which means god gave the land to both of you and you should be getting along. But nooooo.... it's all about the prophets.... I guess god doesn't count anymore.

Idiots. Get rid of religion in the middle east, and you will have peace.


Where on earth did you get that from? True the Jews believe it was given by god to them and that they are the "chosen people" - read superior..The Palestinians have NEVER said God gave it to them any more than any other people living in the land their ancestors have lived in for milenia.

Thus - Zionist Jews believe God gave it to them whereas the Palestinians are fighting for THEIR homeland and their ancestors. Nothing to do with religion on their part.


Jerusalem is the third-holiest place in the world for Moslems. They want it back.


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

09 Jun 2009, 7:15 pm

I've been told that whenever you have two Jewish people together, you have 3 opinions. If there's ever been a country that's more divided, yet still not in a civil war, I'm not sure who it is.

Some folks seem to be looking for a way to sum up all Israelis by one example. If that was true, we'd be all like Rush Limbaugh, but wait, wouldn't it be Michael Moore, but maybe Art Bell, or possibly Randi Rhodes...or maybe...

It's hard to do a 'national character' in the way they did back in the 19th Century. Societies are complex organisms, where unanimity of thought is not often found (unless you're thinking North Korea...;)

There's always been a land sharing agenda here. The Israelis can have any part seaward of low tide. It's been that way since the days of the Grand Mufti, back in the early 20th Century.

The radicals have a similar plan; Israelis can have any portion of Israel/Palestine, as long as it's 6 feet under.

Just remember, if you approach a subject in a certain manner, people may make assumptions that aren't necessarily correct.

Image



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Jun 2009, 10:32 pm

pakled wrote:
I've been told that whenever you have two Jewish people together, you have 3 opinions. If there's ever been a country that's more divided, yet still not in a civil war, I'm not sure who it is.

Some folks seem to be looking for a way to sum up all Israelis by one example. If that was true, we'd be all like Rush Limbaugh, but wait, wouldn't it be Michael Moore, but maybe Art Bell, or possibly Randi Rhodes...or maybe...

It's hard to do a 'national character' in the way they did back in the 19th Century. Societies are complex organisms, where unanimity of thought is not often found (unless you're thinking North Korea...;)

There's always been a land sharing agenda here. The Israelis can have any part seaward of low tide. It's been that way since the days of the Grand Mufti, back in the early 20th Century.

The radicals have a similar plan; Israelis can have any portion of Israel/Palestine, as long as it's 6 feet under.

Just remember, if you approach a subject in a certain manner, people may make assumptions that aren't necessarily correct.

Image


This discussion, at least as I approach it, is not about aggregating Israelis together as a homogenous group. There are vast differences between Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Moderate Jews, Secular Jews, Settlers, Urban Israelis, and Arab Citizens of Israel (which most Palestinians are not). What this is primary about is institutional factors, namely what the Israeli State has been doing in the Occupied Territories and the mass influx of culturally stubborn Orthodox Jewish settlers into the occupied territories (Okay, if you desire, this issue can be personalized a bit. I stil think looking at the situation as a sum of impersonal institutional factors is much more constructive.).

And, to make it clear, the Israeli State, while a pretty democratic society as far as industrialize countries go, is not equivalent to the Israeli people.