Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: Gordon Brown tells British Zionists he always loved Israel
British premier stresses his pro-Israel credentials
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Gordon Brown tells British Zionists he always loved Israel
By Redress Information & Analysis
18 July 2007
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has appointed Israel apologists to key positions and has been at pains to reassure British Zionists of his support and affection for Israel
If anyone had harboured illusions that Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, might adopt a less biased position towards Israel than his Zionist predecessor, Tony Blair, now is the time to dispel them.
To begin with, Gordon Brown has appointed Israel apologists to key positions in his government, with arch-Zionist James Purnell heading the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has oversight responsibilities for the British media, including the BBC, and Douglas Alexander, a recipient of Labour Friends of Israel hospitality, taking over the Department for International Development.
They are complemented by another Israel apologist, Jim Murphy, who has become minister of state for Europe with responsibility for the BBC World Service and the British Council. Mr Murphy served as chairman of Labour Friends of Israel during 2000-02 and has also been a member of the Anglo-Israeli All-Party Parliamentary Group.
In addition, Gordon Brown has appointed Simon McDonald, a former British ambassador to Israel and a man described by Israeli officials as "a true friend to Israel", as his chief foreign policy adviser.
Another Israel fanatic, Meg Munn, becomes parliamentary under-secretary of state with responsibility for foreign affairs. Ms Munn is a former chairwoman of Labour Friends of Israel and is a recipient of hospitality from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Gordon Brown has also been at pain to stress his Christian Zionist credentials. In a speech to the Labour Friends of Israel annual fundraising dinner in April 2007, quoted by the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Brown described how his father, a Presbyterian preacher, had been a passionate supporter of Israel who had taken him to the racist Jews-only state at least twice a year for most of his adult life to show solidarity with the usurpers of Palestinian land. He said:
Many of you know my interest in Israel and in the Jewish community has been long-standing... My father was the chairman of the Church of Scotland's Israel Committee. Not only as I've described to some of you before did he make visits on almost two occasions a year for 20 years to Israel – but because of that, although Fife [Scotland], where I grew up, was a long way from Israel with no TV pictures to link us together – I had a very clear view from household slides and projectors about the history of Israel, about the trials and tribulations of the Jewish people, about the enormous suffering and loss during the Holocaust, as well as the extraordinary struggle that he described to me of people to create this magnificent homeland.
Indeed, Gordon Brown made a strong impression on his Zionist hosts. Jane Kennedy, chairwoman of Labour Friends of Israel, said:
I have always felt that Gordon Brown is instinctively a good friend of Israel and I look forward to working with him. The combination of Gordon as prime minister and Tony Blair as Quartet Middle East envoy is a really exciting prospect and gives real hope for progress in the Middle East peace process.
We ourselves have never harboured any illusions about Gordon Brown. For those of our readers who have, we suggest you take comfort in the fact that, as far as international relations and the Middle East are concerned, neither the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nor the Quartet are of any consequence whatsoever. While the has-been great power of bygone years is nothing but an appendage of the United States, the talking shop that has just appointed a war criminal as its peace envoy is no more than an international cover for US support for Israel.
Some surgical attention could make you lose that contemptuous sneer and unlike Sphincter of the Yard, you may even learn how to blink.
Given time.
But I doubt it.
Ed is trying to play catch up.
But, of course he never will.
He's never got over your joint hogging at uni see Dave.
But I bet you don't remember that do you ?
Ed The Younger is also very jealous of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's chosen-ness and chooseability-ness and may yet murder his bro in a fit of rage over some archaic sibling rivalry, nurtured by their eminent Marxist father.
David "the chosen one" Miliband, head honcho in a James "just call me Gordon" Brown lightweight Cabinet at the FCO may yet prove to be an asset of all things foreign.
A pick of a bad bunch ?
A true horticulturalist should thin out the weaker stems and encourage competition among the same cuttings.
Ed, it's down to you me old china.
Just do it Ed.
Get up. Get on down.
Just do it Ed.
You own the scene.
Listen to your boyhood voices.
Just do it Ed.
Before it's too late.
The debate is now closed.
PS:
The Baron of Mill Hill paid me a million squid not to write this and I have not been offered a peerage. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Milliband is a Zionist agent who has infiltrated the Labour party. We're living a charade where the people pulling the most important levers of power in this country hav not the least interest in the welfare of the British people. In fact they re working for right-wing foreign powers. Dark days. Let's hope the civil service block these Zionists' every move. Milliband could be caled Millibland if he were not so dangerous.
This mistake that is always made. is repeated again.
There is nothing RIGHT wing about Miliband.
Yes he is a zionist and yes so is Gordon Brown, in fact Gordon Browns dad was a Christian zionist who took young Gordon to Israel to indoctrinate him from an early age.
But why call them right wingers?
They are Labour through and through.
I have read so many times people writing things like New Labour are Tories in disguise. Because they cannot bring themselves to critcise Labour. Please get over it these are real Labour amny of them are even ex communists.
Labour has always been the zionist party. It was Labour that created Israel, it was Labour that supplied plutonium to Israel and more than 50% of Labour MPs are signed up zionists.
So please call a spade a spade these are LABOUR people and LABOUR is bad and always has been bad.
As you know David Miliband's dad Adolf Miliband was a communist who gave his £1.4 million house in Primrose hill to the Miliband brothers in order to avoid paying inheritence tax. These are what i call champagne socialists. Why cannot people bring themselves to criticise Labour. I dont have the same hangup Labour is shi t and always has been and so are all the people in it.
A vote for Labour is a vote for Israel _________________
Perhaps it will explain why so many of the so-called Israel-Palestine peace initiatives have failed, and will continue to fail. It might also explain why Gordon Brown feels the need to join the Zionists, because he’s never going to be able to negotiate with them, is he.
Quote:
All vows, obligations, oaths, anathemas, whether called "konam," "konas," or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this day of atonement unto the next, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have powers over us. the vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.
Additional information:
Lest I be branded an anti-Semite, according to the one who posted the item, this official translation into English can be found in Volume VIII of the Jewish Encyclopedia on page 539, in the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library and libraries of all leading cities.
The Kol Nidrei service is the first part of the Yom Kippur services and has a long history of being misunderstood. A simple reading of the text without any Talmudic or legal knowledge would lead one to believe that it is license to lie and deceive. However, even a little knowledge shows that this perception is totally incorrect. What we will show is that Kol Nidrei's effect is legally very small and is, in fact, either an annulment for strictly personal vows or a clause for a limited number of future personal vows. Either way, it absolutely DOES NOT undermine the effectiveness of vows taken for others.
Actually, there seems to be a Freudian slip in the last line: ‘...vows taken for others.’? I was under the impression that the vows being written about were personal ones. How can you take a vow for another person?
‘I promise that he will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God.’ Is that possible?
Oh, by the way: a simple reading of the text of some of my posts will mean nothing, unless you have legal or expert knowledge about how I was brought up and an insight into why I might possibly write ‘wrong’ when I actually mean ‘right’.
Is that clear? _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Right, Anthony, i must disagree with this post of yours.
You have fallen into the trap and made a mistake.
Please do not confuse the Jewish religion with Zionism
Whatever you agree or disagree with Israel try not to bring the seperate and unconnected religion into the argument.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: No Trap
No Trap
Stelios,
Are you saying that the Knesset is not largely made up of practicing Jews? One’s who do not celebrate Yom Kippur, and recite that prayer? That they are also Zionists is beside the point. Of course there are Jews who abhor Zionism, but they, presumably, also recite the ‘Day of Atonement’ prayer.
My suggestion that there is a correlation between the lack of progress towards a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and a get-out-of-jail-free prayer—which appears to absolve those who recite it from their vows and obligations—still has relevance.
The Yom Kippur prayer appears to be universal, within the Jewish faith. It is Zionism which is not universally embraced by all Jews, which is certainly something to be thankful for.
You are a human being. So is Gordon Brown, but what he does should not reflect on you, particularly if you distance yourself from his views and policies. So, should we go easy on Gordon Brown, because it might reflect badly on you, as a fellow human being?
I don’t think so, because I believe that intelligent people should be able to make the distinction between you and Gordon Brown, as well as between peace-loving Jews and Zionist Jews, even if they do share the same, rather contemptible, prayer. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: The Issue is not that some Jews are against Zionism
The Issue is not that some Jews are against Zionism
Stelios wrote:
Quote:
but zionism is forbidden in the Jewish religion. So the answer is zionists are Not proper Jews.
The answer to what?
What is forbidden, in most, if not all religions, and what goes on, are quite different things. Murder is forbidden in the Christian religion, but Christians still commit murders.
The reality is that the Zionists are the Jews who hold power in Israel, and they seem to be increasing their hold over the British parliament; a hold of a similar kind to that which they already have over the U.S. Congress. (Please see ‘The Israel Lobby’, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html )
That is the issue, not—as welcome as it may be—that some, or even many Jews are against Zionism. Let’s face it, most of the British public would be against Zionism taking a hold in the U.K., and the fact that this is happening is what needs to be revealed.
Presumably, it is the reason why mason-free party started the thread. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:49 am Post subject:
Excellent series of posts Anthony.
Can I ask one thing.....Are you saying that reciting the 'Day of Atonement' prayer is part of the normal religious practice of all Jews or is such a prayer a more obscure and therefore optional part of the Jewish scripture and practices.
I know this might be tricky for a non-Jew to answer but I would be interested to hear what you know about this.
It seems such a wicked prayer....or rather the opposite of prayer...more an occult incantation....that it is hard to imagine why decent Jewish individuals have tolerated the existence of such a passage in their 'Good Book'. This is obviously the kind of Pharisaical poison that is condemned by Christ in the New Testament.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: The Kol Nidre Prayer
The Kol Nidre Prayer
kb24 wrote,
Quote:
Are you saying that reciting the 'Day of Atonement' prayer is part of the normal religious practice of all Jews or is such a prayer a more obscure and therefore optional part of the Jewish scripture and practices.[?]
According to the post where I found the translation, as well as to Wikipedia, it appears that this is an integral part of the Yon Kippur ceremony, much as The Lord’s Prayer is a part of many Christian church services.
As I have already indicated, above, and, as is explained in the Wikipedia entry, Talmudic scholars are quick to point out that the prayer has been taken out of context, by non-Jews; their explanation being that it has to do mainly with personal vows. But whether or not ordinary Jews, who do not happen to be Talmudic scholars, look at it in this way is another matter.
What I find interesting about the learned interpretation is: why would personal vows need to be rescinded, by the one doing the original vowing? Personal vows would cover such things as: I vow to clean my teeth properly; I vow to be nicer to Aunt Sarah; I vow to do my homework on time; I vow not to be late for work; I vow not to take the Lord’s name in vain; I vow not to dodge paying the bus fare. Again: I can’t see why the rescinding of such personal vows—the kinds of things which many of us would call New Year’s Resolutions—would need to be enshrined in a prayer. Look at a distillation of its salient points:
All vows, obligations, oaths, anathemas, whether called "konam," "konas," or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound...
...May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have powers over us. [emphasis added]
That certainly looks like a pretty universal set of get-out clauses to me, and I don’t find it surprising that some people may not have looked too kindly on those who may have regularly used them to their own advantage. It could almost certainly be one of the root causes of anti-Semitism, along with the fact that Jews call themselves The Chosen People, which, the Talmudic scholars will no doubt hasten to assure us, does not really mean what it implies.
Whether or not the Kol Nidre prayer is only meant to cover such things as absolving oneself from a personally-imposed pledge to regularly clean one’s shoes, it appears that the Zionists who run Israel, and who use the prayer along with non-Zionist Jews, are taking it—consciously or unconsciously—very much at face value in their dealings with the Palestinians.
Further, the democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote’ has been trampled upon, particularly in the U.S., by the wholesale buying of politicians, who, having accepted huge campaign contributions to get themselves elected, are then in the pockets of those organization and individuals who made the contributions. And the Israel Lobby is, along with the National Rifle Association, almost invincible, as Walt and Mearsheimer have pointed out, and which is evident, for all to see, when Israel defies its chief supporter on all kinds of issues, such as the building of the infamous Wall, and the murder of Palestinian freedom fighters.
Quote:
Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Quote:
A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders).
It is one’s own mind-set which governs one’s behaviour, whether about personal matters, or when dealing with others at an international level, and if that prayer is to the Jewish religion as the do-unto-others rule appears to be to many other faiths, then it should be taken into account by all those who want to see fair and just resolutions to the world’s many problems.
A close alliance with Israel, as Gordon Brown seems to be promoting, has to be an open invitation to those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to do as they see fit, in order to restore some kind of balance. If Gordon Brown and his cabinet are unable to work that one out for themselves, during their coffee break, then heaven help the British pawns in the endless war game and the suppression of more precious freedoms which are bound to follow.
Is that anti-Semitism? I hear someone ask.
No, it’s anti-Stupidity. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Anthony you really have crossed the line of what is acceptable. Mate you know i never hold back with the things i say, but you have gone too far. I suggest you delete before the moderators delete on your behalf.
The topic was Gordon Brown but you turned it into an attack on a whole religion. I say that was uncalled for and nothing to do with Gordon Brown.
Anthony your posts constitute a hate speech and they may come back to haunt you one day.
So better just delete before too many people read them. _________________
It is not immediately apparent to me what your concern with regards Antony's posts is beyond a general concern that these posts may be anti-jewish. Is there anything specific I'm missing?
As a general rule, there is no problem with being critical of aspects of a particular faith, be it christianity, islam or judaism. And there is much to be critical of in my opinion. In all faiths there is critical dialogue both internal and external and that is surely to be encouraged. After all in this country's past, christianity has been used to justify slavery, conquest and the British empire and it was only through brave voices challenging this bs that the christian church no longer endorses slavery. All the abrahamic faiths have been used to justify attrocities often against 'non-believers'. It is then duty of people of peace to expose and denounce this. I wonder what jewsagainstzionism have to say about this prayer and ceremony.
Problems arise when this legitimate criticism goes further and leads to bigotted conclusions such as all jews do this, all christians are this, all muslims are that, etc. but I'm not seeing this. Please PM me if I've missed something. Thanks
That certainly looks like a pretty universal set of get-out clauses to me, and I don’t find it surprising that some people may not have looked too kindly on those who may have regularly used them to their own advantage. It could almost certainly be one of the root causes of anti-Semitism, along with the fact that Jews call themselves The Chosen People, which, the Talmudic scholars will no doubt hasten to assure us, does not really mean what it implies.
Whether or not the Kol Nidre prayer is only meant to cover such things as absolving oneself from a personally-imposed pledge to regularly clean one’s shoes, it appears that the Zionists who run Israel, and who use the prayer along with non-Zionist Jews, are taking it—consciously or unconsciously—very much at face value in their dealings with the Palestinians.
I don't pretend to know much more than zilch about Jewish prayers, but just a few questions.
a/When looking for a mundane, everyday view on this, I just looked at wikipedia and it says:
Quote:
Philip Birnbaum, in his classic edition of the Mahzor (High holy day prayer book) comments on this passage: "It refers to vows assumed by an individual for himself alone, where no other persons or interests are involved. Though the context makes it perfectly obvious that no vows or obligations towards others are implied, there have been many who were misled into believing that by means of this formula all their vows and oaths are annulled. In the eleventh century Rabbi Meir ben Samuel (Rashi's son-in-law) changed the original wording of Kol Nidre so as to make the Ashkenazi version apply to the future instead of the past; that is, to vows that one might not be able to fulfill during the next year." The Sephardi version still refers to the past year.
The tendency to make vows to God was strong in ancient Israel; the Torah found it necessary to protest against the excessive estimate of the religious value of such obligations. "When you make any vow to the Lord your God, you must pay it without delay...If you refrain from making a vow, that is no sin for you; but you must be careful to perform any promise you have made with your lips." (Deut. 23:22)
Rash vows to God that for whatever reason were not fulfilled created painful religious and ethical difficulties for those who had made them; this led to an earnest desire for dispensation from them. This need gave rise to the rite of absolution from a vow ('hattarat nedarim') which might be performed only by a scholar, or an expert on the one hand, or by a board of three Jewish laymen on the other.
This rite declared that the petitioners, who were seeking reconciliation with God, solemnly retracted their vows and oaths which they had made to God during the period intervening between the previous Day of Atonement and the present one; this rite made them null and void from the beginning, entreating in their stead pardon and forgiveness from God. This is in accordance with the older text of the formula as it is preserved in the Siddur of Amram Gaon.
Use by anti-Semites
The Kol Nidre has been one of the means used by Jewish apostates and by enemies of the Jews to cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of an oath taken by a Jew. This charge was leveled so much that many non-Jewish legislators considered it necessary to have a special form of oath administered to Jews ("Jew's oath"), and many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer. As early as 1240 Jehiel of Paris was obliged to defend the "Kol Nidre" against these charges.
[edit]Counterpoint
Rabbis have always pointed out that the dispensation from vows in the "Kol Nidre" refers only to those which an individual voluntarily assumes for himself alone and in which no other persons or their interests are involved. The formula is restricted to those vows which are between man and God alone; they have no effect on vows made between one man and another. No vow, promise, or oath which concerns another person, a court of justice, or a community is implied in the Kol Nidre. According to Jewish doctrine, the sole purpose of this prayer is to give protection from divine punishment in case of violation of the vow.
Five geonim (rabbinic leaders of medieval Babylonian Jewry) were against while only one was in favor of reciting the prayer. Even so early an authority as Saadia wished to restrict it to those vows which were extorted from the congregation in the synagogue in times of persecution ("Kol Bo"), and he declared explicitly that the "Kol Nidre" gave no absolution from oaths which an individual had taken during the year.
Judah ben Barzillai, a Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his work on Jewish law "Sefer ha-'Ittim," declares that the custom of reciting the "Kol Nidre" was unjustifiable and misleading, since many ignorant persons believe that all their vows and oaths are annulled through this formula, and consequently they take such obligations on themselves carelessly.
The actual wording of the Kol Nidre is as follows ( in Aramaic ) :
"All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
As pointed out above, many Rabbis state that the vows referred to are individual only. The prayer begins however with the words "All vows" and it is up to the individual reciting it to decide what meaning he places on this.
And from Jewish encyclopedia.com
Quote:
The teachers of the synagogues, however, have never failed to point out to their cobelievers that the dispensation from vows in the "Kol Nidre" refers only to those which an individual voluntarily assumes for himself alone (see RoSH to Ned. 23b) and in which no other persons or their interests are involved. In other words, the formula is restricted to those vows which concern only the relation of man to his conscience or to his Heavenly Judge (see especially Tos. to Ned. 23b). In the opinion of Jewish teachers, therefore, the object of the "Kol Nidre" in declaring oaths null and void is to give protection from divine punishment in case of violation of the vow. No vow, promise, or oath, however, which concerns another person, a court of justice, or a community is implied in the "Kol Nidr
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=340&letter=K#1024
- is there any evidence that this is inaccurate in practice or that Jewish people actually view the prayer in some other way? The wiki article does note it is up to the individual how it is interpreted; can it be evidenced it is specifically used as a justification for routine oath breaking in a widespread fashion? Calling it the Day of Antonement does itself make more sense to me in the context of the framework suggested by wiki, but I don't pretend any expertise, it just took me about a minute to find this apparently standard interpretation.
b/Is there any evidence that the prayer forms a central plank of Jewish life that Jews rigorously adhere to in terms of the interpretation you suggest? I.e. do Jews routinely anul oaths following the Day pf Antonement? If the prayer were important and interpreted in the way you suggest, it would be rather far fetched to suggst it only applies to Palestinian/Israeli relations.
c/Does a single piece of scripture have an all-encompassing implication for an entire religion? Nick Griffin has a habit of picking out seemingly violent, arrogant or oppressive verses from the Hadith and Koran (particularly the 'sword verses') to evidence that Islam is a violent religion that wants to subject us all to a highly oppressive Shariah law. If the verses he isolates are textually accurate, does this mean he is correct about Muslims par se? Do all Christians follow the Bible to the letter? If we find prayers, psalms or scripture that seems 'a bit rum' does it suggest all Christians specifically adhere to it rather than follow a broader contextual view?
d/Is there any actual evidence the Kol Nidre specifically has a direct impact in the way the Israelis deal with the Palestinians? For example, do the Israelis routinely anul any agreements straight after the Day of Antonement comes round but not before? Does this prayer offer greater illumination as to their motivations than viewing them as a powerful state treating a weaker people whose land they want like nonsense in time honoured fashion employed by Gentiles through the ages?
e/Does this mean anything beyond the fact you've found a Jewish prayer which, when interpreted in a particular fashion, you don't like? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
d/Is there any actual evidence the Kol Nidre specifically has a direct impact in the way the Israelis deal with the Palestinians?
....It is so hard to tell isn't it? If a smoker gets lung cancer one cannot prove that the smoking caused the cancer.
....so we have to look at the bigger picture. Everything about Israel's record exhudes bad faith. Look at Sharon's fomentation of the Palestinian intifada. Look at Israel's influence in the US and the UK. Look at 9/11. Look at the UN resolution that declared Zionism to be a racist creed (in 1975){and so it is...but for Israel, racism is OK it seems}. This resolution was rescinded without explanation in 1994.
This prayer looks bad. Its trecherous appearance is of a piece with Israel's actions.
Can one establish any causal influence on events or behaviour......well. no.
However, we would be wise to mark this prayer and wonder why such an apparently offensive spiritual expression has been allowed to stand for all these centuries.
Stelios,
You cannot criticise anyone for quoting words that came from their someone's own mouths or writings.
d/Is there any actual evidence the Kol Nidre specifically has a direct impact in the way the Israelis deal with the Palestinians?
....It is so hard to tell isn't it? If a smoker gets lung cancer one cannot prove that the smoking caused the cancer.
....so we have to look at the bigger picture. Everything about Israel's record exhudes bad faith. Look at Sharon's fomentation of the Palestinian intifada. Look at Israel's influence in the US and the UK. Look at 9/11. Look at the UN resolution that declared Zionism to be a racist creed (in 1975){and so it is...but for Israel, racism is OK it seems}. This resolution was rescinded without explanation in 1994.
This prayer looks bad. Its trecherous appearance is of a piece with Israel's actions.
Can one establish any causal influence on events or behaviour......well. no.
However, we would be wise to mark this prayer and wonder why such an apparently offensive spiritual expression has been allowed to stand for all these centuries.
Well a way to at least begin to evidence it would be to start by demonstrating that Jewish people have a widespread tendency to interpret the prayer in the way Anthony is suggesting as opposed to it being in relation to their personal relationship with God.
Given that the prayer is specifically part of Yom Kippur, this would mean that Jewish people abandon contractual relationships at this time. If you did not honour contracts at other times, the prayer would be superfluous and meaningless (as per Anthony's interpretation), so it would follow contracts made in the interim are to be honoured. The prayer quoted makes no stated distinction between Jews and Gentiles, so presumably Anthony is suggesting there is a religiously ordained free-for-all with everyone shafting everyone else. I've yet to see evidence for this and find the notion rather bizarre.
It's almost like it's being suggested that Jewish people go round saying "Wahey! it's that time again! We can f*ck 'em all cos our prayer said so! ".
And even if this rather odd interpretation given were true...well, do I really need to start trawling through the New Testament, finding things that sound a bit dodgy and then claiming they directly link America's behaviour?
Surreal as the concept is, I actually find myself agreeing with Tory boy Stelios insofar as trying to link the actions of Israel with Judaism itself is highly inaccurate. Saying Zionism represents Judaism is like saying fundamentalist, crack-addled, whoremongering American televangelists represent Christianity.
I'm fairly confident the Israeli state doesn't need to rely on some antiquated prayer to make themselves feel ok about their actions. Power and money run this world. No-one at the top needs to start flicking through scripture to justify themselves. Except I suspect Tony Blair actually might as I have a personal suspicion he's 'unwell'.
But the strongest evidence you could certainly provide is that they abandon any contractual agreements with the Palestinians after Yom Kippur.
Quite how this prayer ties in with their everyday actions of bulldozing houses and building big walls is beyond me. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: My Posts Do Not Constitute Hate Speeches
My Posts Do Not Constitute Hate Speeches
Stelios wrote:
Quote:
Anthony your posts constitute a hate speech and they may come back to haunt you one day.
My conscience is quite clear, and I will withdraw nothing. What I have written constitutes a valid search for possible reasons why Zionist Israel behaves the way it does towards the people whose ancestral land they now occupy, and concern that the British prime minister appears to condone their past actions, and, as the first post in this topic seems to suggest, will continue so to do. I am also concerned that the Israel Lobby now appears to be in control of the United States administration and Congress—at least with regard to its foreign policy—and that calls for a pre-emptive attack on Iran are being put forth at the behest of that lobby.
This topic has to do with a newly appointed British prime minister stating his support for Israel, to British Zionists, and if the connotations of that are not clear enough, then we might as well all pack it in, as far as any hope for peace in the Middle East is concerned. Here is another reminder.
Jane Kennedy, chairwoman Labour Friends of Israel, said:
Quote:
I have always felt that Gordon Brown is instinctively a good friend of Israel and I look forward to working with him. The combination of Gordon as prime minister and Tony Blair as Quartet Middle East envoy is a really exciting prospect and gives real hope for progress in the Middle East peace process.
Given Blair’s record, that means that the Palestinians will probably get an even worse hearing than they have over the past 60 years, and that they and their sympathisers will be gearing themselves up for more desperate measures. How many more times are we going to have the BBC announcing new Middle East peace initiatives, led by the likes of Condoleezza Rice, when we all know how the last 50 or so ended up?
I knew it was likely that someone would pull out the anti-Semitism card, but I am surprised that it was you, Stelios. Even so, I had hoped that whoever it happened to be would do more than make blanket accusations. I’d hoped they would take the time to point out exactly what they had a problem with. So I will have to ask you what it is that you find so offensive in my attempt to shed light on a concern which I know is shared by many other decent, law-abiding, non-anti-Semitic people: Israel’s seeming belief that the world owes it a living, and the signals that are being put out by the United States, Britain, and large chunks of the U.E., that no matter how they behave towards their neighbours and those whose land they have stolen, they will be allowed to get away with just about anything, and never mind about the peace treaties, the pledges or any other undertakings they may give, when it suits them?
I also have to say that the last person I expected to, if not exactly spring to my defence, then to casually saunter up and point out that he was not overly concerned, was Ian Neal, who wrote:
Quote:
It is not immediately apparent to me what your concern with regards Antony's posts is beyond a general concern that these posts may be anti-jewish. Is there anything specific I'm missing?
Thank you, Ian. But, frankly, I think that I am entitled to point out what I feel may be a reason why Zionist Israel behaves as it does—due to a possible grossly-antisocial flaw in a traditional Jewish prayer—as I am to point out that I think stoning adulterers to death and chopping off the hands of thieves is grossly antisocial, without it being said that my posts may be anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim, or anti anything, for that matter. I am against people behaving in an overbearing and dishonest manner towards anyone, and particularly towards a people whom they know they have displaced from their own homeland. If it happens to be Jews doing such things, then I am against those Jews who are doing those things not, as has been immediately, and erroneously assumed by Stelios, all Jews.
If I am forced to give an attestation regarding my personal feelings towards particular Jews, then I will, but, at the moment, I feel that it is inappropriate. I want my arguments and reasoning to be understood for their intellectual validity, not their emotional content.
I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-stupidly-standing-about-and-allowing-bad-things-to-happen, just because I am too frightened to say anything for fear of being called anti-Semitic. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Mate let me ask you a question.
How many well known zionists such as:
Henry Kissinger
David Milliband
Paul Wolfewitch
Donald Rumsfeld
Alan Greenspan
Ehud Olmert
etc
have you ever seen wearing any zionist ever wearing a Jewish hat and allowing his ringlets to grow long. Have you ever seen any zionist observing Jewish customs such as not working on the shabbath and obstaining from eating certain foods?
and women such as Madeline Albright and Melanie Phillips
how many of them have shaved their head and or have observed any aparant evidence of being a practicing Jew.
So it is wrong to simply tar the Jewish religion with the same brush as zionism, because almost all zionists are not in fact practicing Jews.
look at the rules of what qualifies a person to call themselves jewish and compare that with the zionists
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
I would say that not a single active zionist qualifies as being entitled to describe themselves as Jewish.
You cannot blame the Jewish religion for the misdeeds committed by zionists. Moving on your attack is actually an attack against the Jewish religion itself. The day of atonement is one of many Jewish festivals. It is an act of repentence in a way, but moreso it is a symbolic gesture to underline the supremacy of God and that God's laws supercede any other covenants. It should be viewd in the same way as a catholic confesses and is absolved of all sin. It is correct that legally national laws overule religious laws but every religion seeks to remind it's members to understand that in the eyes of God national, local or ethnic laws are secondary.
Talking on a mobile phone whilst driving (as long as that does not occur on the shabbath) maybe a loose example. You may be breaking the law but there is nothing in the religion that forbids it.
Telling your wife her bum does not look big is another loose example. You may be lying but it is a white lie.
And so you atone for any pledges or undertakings and reafirm the seniority of God's word over all others.
It is also written in the Torah that the Jews cannot have a country solely for Jews. They have been told to scatter and spread all over the world and only return when God decrees it and not before. But do not forget zionism is like communism - a political system.
Many scholars including learned Jewish Talmudic lecturers argue that zionism is the same as Apartheid. Jimmy Carter former US president also stated the same thing.
I have shown you videos of REAL Jews being beaten up by zionists.
I have shown you news footage.
I have shown you the difference between REAL Jews and zionists.
I have also demonstrated that the vast bulk of zionists are NOT Jews. I have not even stated examples of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch and George Bush committed zionists.
So for you to continue attacking the Jewish religion which i respect as a monotheistic faith simialr to my own is wrong and nothing short of a hate speech much like the BNPs false attacks on Islam.
Anthony as i have said before i generally agree with much of what you say, and i respect everything you write, but i wish to make this point very strongly. A practising Jew, a practising Muslim a practising Christian or a practising catholic is a distinct person from one who uses the teachings of a religion to further his own ambitions. An example would be the Karl Marx and Trotsky and Lenin and co. They had Jewish progeny but were quite clearly anti-Jewish in their outlook.
Their Jewish background clearly influenced them because Marxism is loosely based on the Kibbutz system.
However the fact that communism murdered more Jews than Hitler demonstrates it was an anti-Jewish lifestyle. Zionism uses some Jewish allegory but in fact is strictly at odds with Jewish teachings.
Another example i can provide is my personal criticism of the Catholic church and it's leadership. I say this because i am not critical of catholicas or their religion. But i am critical of the institution and it's heirachy. And i seperate my criticism as such. _________________
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: Asking Valid Questions Does Not Constitute Hate Speech
Asking Valid Questions Does Not Constitute Hate Speech
Stelios,
I’m beginning to get a taste of what Ernst Zundell and Robert Faurisson must have felt when they were first accused of holocaust denial, and they defended themselves by pointing out that a lot of the things they were saying and writing about were already in the public record. Are you hoping for a seat on the E.U.’s hate-speech committee, when it comes into effect? If not, then I suggest that you carefully review your accusations against me, because you are beginning to sound like a one-man Inquisition, and that is becoming offensive.
It seems that the bases for your accusations are that I do not revere and respect the beliefs, teachings and customs of certain groups of people, simply because they sincerely believe themselves to be right in what they do, how they worship, and what they pass on to their children. (You should see and hear me when I view what I regard to be mass hysteria, on TV programmes which cover religious ceremonies of all kinds, and the sheer power that most of them represent. And I’m not talking about the power of a god.)
I notice that you didn’t include the Aztecs in your comparisons of religious practices; a people who allowed their priests to develop their religion, quite literally, into a running river of blood as they ripped out the still-beating hearts of their sacrificial victims and held them high for the ‘worshippers’ to see, the stories of which resulted in horrifying nightmares, when I read them as a boy.
The mostly self-appointed leaders of the sects of most religions have developed, through the ages, sets of rules and regulations as to how those under their thrall should behave, not only towards members of their own faith, but, quite often, there is a different set of rules for their behaviour towards those whom they feel are not following what they believe to be ‘The True Path.’ Look at Christianity; look at the Great Schism and the Reformation; look at the Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam. Look at the Taliban! That Zionists, most of whom still regard themselves as Jews, are moving in one direction, within the general bounds of what they still view as their faith, while those who wear skull caps, ringlets and old-fashioned top hats are opposing their interpretation of the scriptures, cannot be grounds for me not to comment on something which appears, at face value, to be a possible reason why Jews have been marginalized and persecuted in many societies, down through those same ages. Or is to even mention this well-known and well-documented fact, of itself, hateful? Zionism, remember, did not come into existence until the late 19th century, but the Yom Kippur prayer existed, by all accounts, for many centuries prior to that.
There is nothing hateful in pointing out a possible reason why Jews found it necessary to form the Anti Defamation League, for example. Just as there is nothing hateful in pointing out the possible reasons why many Palestinians and other Muslims have reached a point where they regard the suicidal act of mutual destruction as the only way to counter what they see as massive, internationally-condoned injustices against themselves and their people.
Why must we, when it comes to religious beliefs, turn our backs on the concept of cause and effect, simply because it might offend a certain group? Why must we ignore, play down, or even condone something which appears to be manifestly antisocial; the teaching of which could well lead to suspicion and discrimination?
With regard to your ability to separate your criticism of the leadership of the Roman Catholic church and Roman Catholics, in general, the ritual of confession appears to be accepted and acceptable by most, if not all Roman Catholics. I happen to find the concept of confession and priest-granted absolution exceedingly antisocial. While it may not directly encourage wrongful acts against others, it makes it a darn sight easier for someone who commits them to ease their conscience, in the sure knowledge that their confession will be held in confidence; a burden shared is a burden halved. Well that may be so for the confessor, but I cannot help but wonder how many priests, in the Diocese of Los Angeles, were confessing their paedophilic sins to other priests—even to each other—while the lives of their victims were being ruined. And that went on for three decades, but was being covered up in the name of the greater good of the Catholic Church. How can any faith be enhanced by covering up the very kinds of things it professes to forbid, or which could lead it into disrepute in the eyes of others? Does mentioning this constitute hate speech against all Roman Catholics? I don’t think so. To me it is something about which I hold strong views, in that I think that it is immoral to offer absolution and protection for what the rest of society regard as criminal acts, in much the same way that I would find it immoral to make a pledge, or enter into an agreement, then to break it, as the Kol Nidre prayer seems to be advocating.
Religious beliefs and customs should not be closed for discussion, purely on the grounds that they are traditional, or that those who believe and act upon them have a right to do so for mystical—some would say god-given—reasons, in the face of what the majority in a society hold to be acceptable behaviour.
Stelios, are you one of those who would smilingly accept the introduction of Sharia law into Britain, because a large number of Muslims were pressing for it? Could it happen that opposing such an introduction, in say, 2050 will be grounds for a prosecution under the anti-religious hate laws which are currently being formulated by the European parliament? Or is the maintenance of the right to free speech going to triumph, in the end? I sincerely hope so; otherwise we and our children will be in deep trouble. You could start the maintenance-of-free-speech ball rolling, right now, Stelios, by retracting your accusations against me.
kb234 wrote:
Quote:
However, we would be wise to mark this prayer and wonder why such an apparently offensive spiritual expression has been allowed to stand for all these centuries.
Extremely well put, and Dogsmilk has given us a list of choices to ponder. That is what open debate is all about.
Albert Einstein, although in favour of a Jewish homeland, made it clear that he would be against it becoming a nation state, and he warned that displacing other people to create one would lead to all sorts of problems. In a letter to Chiam Wiezmann, a Pole who later became Israel's first president, he wrote: "... Should we be unable to find a way to honest co-operation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering...." The letter, declining Weizmann’s offer for Einstein to become Israel’s first president, was written on November 25th, 1929.
Einstein was not a Zionist, but he was a Jew, and several questions come to mind, with regard to this letter:
Why, as Einstein writes, had Jews been suffering for 2,000 years?
Why did Einstein feel it necessary to warn Wiezmann that honest co-operation and honest pacts with the Arabs were going to be necessary, presumably in order to put a stop to that suffering? Could this mean that Einstein was well aware that Jews were not always honest in their pacts with non-Jews? And don’t forget: Zionism was then in its infancy.
Is what Einstein seems to be implying a million miles away from what I am more specifically suggesting: which is that it is possible that the Kol Nidre prayer, along with their concept of being ‘The Chosen People,’ may have something to do with Jewish suffering, brought about by their attitudes when dealing with non-Jews? Haven’t we all been told, when some minor misfortune has befallen us: ‘Well, you brought it upon yourself.’
Under the terms you seem to have in mind, Stelios, could Einstein’s letter have constituted hate speech, in that he was implying that Jews do not always stick to their pledges, pacts, contracts or other civil obligations? Or is it okay for a Jew to mention such things, but not okay for others to bring them up? Like only Jews can tell Jewish jokes, but everyone, including Jews, can get away with telling Irish or Polish ones.
Isn’t it possible that, in putting their god and the teachings and writings of their holy men (I do not accept that a mystical being actually wrote the prayer) above the accepted values of the societies in which they were living, they became outcasts? Ones who were not to be trusted? If that were the case, I am sure that some of them have taken heed of the lessons of history, but it is also just as certain that some of them have not, hence the continuous conflict in the Middle East, which is affecting us all.
Finally, how did the Aztecs let things get so out of hand? Blind faith in their priests, would be my guess. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
The only thing I'd say about the Aztec practices was that wasn't it the Spanish invaders that wrote the history? Just as the Romans wrote of the Celts? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Asking Valid Questions Does Not Constitute Hate Speech
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Stelios, are you one of those who would smilingly accept the introduction of Sharia law into Britain, because a large number of Muslims were pressing for it
the answer is no i would not
As i implied in my previous posts your attacks on Judaism were merely a precursor to a wider broadside against all religion. In what way does my defense of a religion imply that i would be smiling if sharia law was imposed in Britain. Anthony you are now showing your true colours. Britain is a secular country so there is as much chance of ANY religious laws being imposed in Britain as there is a chance of anyone ever walking on the moon. It may happen one day but the odds are extremely slim.
Sharia law is a set of voluntary guidlines about everything in a persons life as diverse as washing before a person prays, about fasting, about giving money to charity, fasting.
It is also a guidline for general good practice such as marraige, divorce, inheritence, type of foods, and legal behaviour.
For example sharia law states that if a couple divorce they must divide the assets and an adequate compensation must be paid usually to the wife but not exclusively. I cannot see anything different between UK divorce guidlines and Sharia divorce guidlines.
But i know exactly what you are talking about and i will answer you in the same way. The sharia law you are talking about is stuff like an adolturer being stoned to death. Allow me to enlighten you. Stoning an adolturer to death is NOT sharia law. It is man made law. And you have indeed successfully falling victim to the Nick Griffin school of Islamic studies. What you believe to be 'sharia' laws are in fact man made laws, the saudi arabian weekly peak time dozens of beheadings and lashes and torture has nothing to do with the Koran it has everything to do with a brutal government stamping out dissent. The American backed Taliban regime in afghanistan was rejected by the whole muslim world as having nothing to do with Islam.
So please when quoting Nick Griffins views do some research first. When Nick Griffin stated on the BBC a number of lies about the Muslim religion he was prosecuted.
You see if you choose to attack a religion you must not lie, because that becomes a hate speech. I know you have not yet crossed that line and i withdraw my previous sugesstion that you had. But you are skating very close.
I defend Judaism because i defend all monotheistic faiths. I cannot discuss Incas drinking blood because i have no data about their faith. Religion is good. But some politicians twist the message of religion and mislead citizens of many countries. Religion is all about forgiveness, self sacrifice and not giving in to sin. Nick Griffin talked about "whatever your right hand possesses". He stated that Muslim men were kidnapping and raping God fearing white anglo saxon girls.
However, the expression "whatever your right hand possesses" actually refers to a person with whom you are not married but are aquainted IE: girlfriend/fiancee
I defend Christianity and Islam and Judaism with equal advocacy. So please go right ahead and attack. But allow me to remind you, the Topic was Gordon Brown - Zionist not another God banned from this forum debate. _________________
Come out of hiding Salman Rushgie it was all a mistake and you are perfectly safe. What they really meant to say was they love you and are full of forgiveness. When they scream "death to Denmark" for having the timerity to publish cartoons, what they are showing is their respect for free speech and the loving nature of Islam. Don't look at what they do - look at what they say!!
as you know Britain has blasphemy laws, but these dont protect Islam.
Quote:
When they scream "death to Denmark" for having the timerity to publish cartoons, what they are showing is their respect for free speech and the loving nature of Islam. Don't look at what they do - look at what they say!!
That old chestnut again? Blackcat your intevention highlights a big misconception. The media portrays muslims as a group of a billion people who shout "death to Denmark" and cover themselves with petrol and burn themselves and blow themselves up.
This is simply not true, it is a propaganda war against a billion people.
Whatever the suject matter the BBC and the murdoch media will always find a nutter with a hook and a long beard to quote and them ttribute these remarks to all one billion muslims.
A person could quote Pat Buchanon or Bill O'Reilly and pretend that they speak for Christianity and Catholism. But that would be a lie because they do not. And any bile they spew is their own PERSONAL views.
Likewise any bile that emerges from a guy with a long beard and a hook for a hand cannot be used a a blueprint for the views of a billion people.
Are you telling me that a muslim living in the Sudan starving and looking for food was intermittently shaking their fists and punching the air shouting "death to denmark" ofcourse not.
But the media would love for you to believe that muslims are a sub human species that are only interested in committing suicide and blowing themselves up. Most of what is atributed to muslims such as 911 and 7/7 has in fact turned out not to be the case.
So next time you feel like putting the boot in to a religion - any religion, do so using facts not half truths and hearsay
unless you would rather propagate the lies _________________
Are you telling me that a muslim living in the Sudan starving and looking for food was intermittently shaking their fists and punching the air shouting "death to denmark" ofcourse not.
The fact you have to resort to an example of a man so desperate to survive that he has no time to join the masses screaming for Rushdie to be murdered is very telling. I am currently reading a book by Paul Theroux, a famous "travel" writer who canoed around the islands of Polynesia and on his travels frequently asked Muslims he encountered what they thought of Rushdie (he is a personal friend of his) and without exception they all said he must die!!! So much for them being the minority. Like all the major religions Islam says one thing and does another. The murders committed in the name of those religions number millions and the vast majority of Muslims want Rushdie killed. Perfectly in keeping with the historical record of Islam. In Pakistan a man is currently awaiting execution for the crime of rejecting Islam in favour of Christianity. So much for tolerance.
Blackcat - Pakistan is a military dictatorship SUPPORTED by Britain. There is no country in the world that is a muslim country. Pakistan has large Sikh and Hindu minorities as well as a number of Christians.
Ofcourse it is wrong for anyone to be killed for the faith.
There are a billion people of muslim extraction. Of those billion there are rapists, murderers, thieves, drug dealers, tax cheats, etc etc. THose people in there actions are not to be considered that that is what there religion teaches them. You may in fact even call many of those billion un islamic. So why not quote examples such as Cat Stevens or Mohammed Ali as representing Muslims.
I do not recall either of these individuals asking for Rushdie to be killed. _________________
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: What Attacks?[/
What Attacks?
Stelios,
You really will have to stop making accusations against me, or you will have to start substantiating the claims you keep making.
Quote:
As i implied in my previous posts your attacks on Judaism were merely a precursor to a wider broadside against all religion
1. What, exactly have I attacked, about Judaism? I have certainly stated that I do not like the negative connotations in one of their major prayers, and it seems that Albert Einstein had a similar concern to mine, when he wrote:
Quote:
... Should we be unable to find a way to honest co-operation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering...."
Maybe I am wrong, but Albert was a pretty smart man, and it looks to me as though he was warning against entering into the kinds of pacts that are ripped up by one of the parties, when it suits them. Of course he could have meant that the Arabs may not co-operate honestly, and do the pact ripping, how would I know?
There are a lot of things which I do not like or admire about many religions, and, as far as am aware, this is still permissible. The ‘Day of Atonement Prayer’ happens to be one of them, but this hardly constitutes an attack on the entire religion.
Agreed? Yes or No.
2. Where is my ‘broadside against all religion? Please quote the exact passages.
Quote:
And you have indeed successfully falling victim to the Nick Griffin school of Islamic studies.
Wrong, again. I hardly know anything about Nick Griffin, or his views, but I have read the Koran from cover to cover, and I have to say that I found much of it quite disturbing.
Quote:
Allow me to enlighten you. Stoning an adolturer to death is NOT sharia law. It is man made law.
Stelios,
Are you really that naïve? All religious laws are man made. Who do you think writes this stuff down? Mahomet was a man, according to Islamic scholars, he wrote down the verses of the Koran, or recited them to scribes. The English translation I once had is long gone, however I did find the following passages on the Internet.
Quote:
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Quote:
[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Of course, Muslim scholars will be quick to either distance themselves from the above translations, or possibly point out that they do not really mean what we think they mean. I haven’t found any direct reference to stoning, as a punishment for adultery, but it is a punishment enshrined in the laws of some modern Muslim sects; laws which are written and condoned by their so-called ‘Holy Men.’
Quote:
So please when quoting Nick Griffins views…When Nick Griffin stated on the BBC a number of lies about the Muslim religion he was prosecuted.
I never quote the views of others, unless I am using them in an argument, or unless I agree with them. In the case of Nick Griffin, apart from a few news items about him, I have very little knowledge of the man or his views, but I seem to remember that the prosecution against him failed. Am I right? If so, you should have pointed this out, lest someone accuses you of lies of omission.
Quote:
You see if you choose to attack a religion you must not lie, because that becomes a hate speech. I know you have not yet crossed that line and i withdraw my previous sugesstion that you had. But you are skating very close.
Thank you for withdrawing your previous suggestion, but I have to warn you that I will continue skating very close to the line, because I believe that evil people are habitually using religions for their own ends, and unless they are exposed they will continue to damage the people they profess to share their religion with, as well as others.
Quote:
I cannot discuss Incas drinking blood because i have no data about their faith.
This is, perhaps, an example of why you jump to incorrect conclusions: you don’t appear to read what is written. I wrote nothing about ‘Incas drinking blood’. I wrote: ‘…running rivers of blood…’ You’ve attributed to me words I did not write, so it is likely that you have misread other passages, as well.
Quote:
I defend Christianity and Islam and Judaism with equal advocacy. So please go right ahead and attack. But allow me to remind you, the Topic was Gordon Brown - Zionist not another God banned from this forum debate.
Defend away, but remember that it is not obligatory for everyone else to have your tolerance for the undoubted savage excesses of some of the practitioners of those religions, past and present.
As far as the Topic is concerned, religion and the way different people worship; the rules that they set, or which are set for them, are inseparable from the conflicts which currently inflame the Middle East. The fact that the British prime minister is so openly throwing his hat into the ring in support of Zionist Israel—which is, no matter what you say, a Jewish state—means that trying to keep religion and god out of the discussion is like saying that, when having a chat about Manchester United and Chelsea, it would be better if football were not mentioned.
Please, Stelios, try to look at the big picture. There are good people and there are bad people. It should be obvious that the bad people are far more likely to triumph over the good people, because the good people are too trusting, and the bad ones have no compunction in using that trust to their own advantage, and they don’t mind invoking god, in whatever way they see fit, if they see an advantage in doing so.
I can’t get into your exchange with blackcat, but I cannot help but comment on the following line you wrote:
Quote:
So next time you feel like putting the boot in to a religion - any religion, do so using facts not half truths and hearsay unless you would rather propagate the lies. italics added
My question is: What are the facts? For example, how can you be sure that there is only one god? Just because some mortal said so? Is that one of the facts? It sounds more like hearsay, to me. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject:
Anthony,
I wouldn't worry too much about Stelios'. His attacks seem to me to be rather wild and not a little confused. He doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between 'hate speech' and fair comment . Also he seems to lack the ability to discern where persons are 'coming from'.
Anthony, as we have crossed swords regarding the existence of God before and also whether there is only one God we dont need to debate that issue again. The fact is many of us do believe in God and we also believe that God is a just and compassionate being. Who knows our innermost thoughts and desires and helps us in our darkest hours. Provides guidence and structure to our lives. And moreover is a force for good because for many it is acceptance of God and fear of God which keeps us on the straight and narrow.
"If anyone slew an innocent person it would be as if he slew the whole mankind and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole mankind"
[5:32]
One thing you should not, there arer many discredited versions of the Koran in circulation. Which have been used to twist the meanings and original words. Because most of the world does not speak aincient arabic and instead rely on english translations they must therefore be wary to only read verified versions. Such as:
http://www.emuslim.com/QuranYusufAli/QuranCh.asp?Chapter=005
[5.39] But whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms, then surely God will turn to him mercifully; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful _________________
So why not quote examples such as Cat Stevens or Mohammed Ali as representing Muslims.
I do not recall either of these individuals asking for Rushdie to be killed.
If they were typical there would be no problem. They are a tiny minority and that IS the problem. No matter how you try to skew the reality, the actuality of Islam is violent and murderous and repressive.
All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Next
Page 1 of 9
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
