Jews Reap Their Reward For Peddling Multiculturalism

[mg]

According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism

Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
decide what it is:

-------------------

"Jews Have No Future in France

By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET

Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .

Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.

The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.

The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html



------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

[El Castor]

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

[w***@msn.com]

And more Jewish actors and more Jewish lawyers and more ACLUers and more civil rights activists and more leftist Jews unhappy with America and American Christians and their traditions and more people meddling and tinkering with the underpinnings of the country. Yeah, bring 'em in. We don't have enough problems.

[mg]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

[Gary]

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?

Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

[w***@msn.com]

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

When they accomplish their goal of homogenizing amd mongrellizing all other peoples, they'll be the only pure blooded people left. Jerws have tinkered with countries they've occupied over the centuries, making themselves often non grata and often kicked out of various countries, or forbidden certain freedoms. They have a propensity to stir the pot.......it was a Jew (Marx) who invented Communism. They are a brainy bunch, but trouble makers in the final analysis. I lived close to them. They know how to discriminate. I often felt they looked down at the goys, as being inferior, and oftenwise, by braininess, the goys were. I hung around with a few in college.....very smart, and also very smug. My first date was with a Jew.......she was cute and shapely and had that Babra Streissand nose.......we didn't make it to a second date. I shouldn't complain, though, 'cause I didn't date much girls of my own nationality....they were just as snippy.I married a WASP, and that turned out just fine......going over 50 years now. She's a beautiful lady, educated and a retired career woman.

[Z]

Post by w***@msn.com
She's a beautiful lady, educated and a retired career woman.

Is she as stupid, bigoted and racist as you are?

[w***@msn.com]

Post by Z

Post by w***@msn.com
She's a beautiful lady, educated and a retired career woman.

Is she as stupid, bigoted and racist as you are?

No, but then she's never encountered anybody as despicable and stoopid as you. In that respect, you're unique.

[mg]

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I'm not going to go to the trouble to do the research, but I think
historically, Israel has probably had a very strict immigration
policy. So, if that's the case, they say one thing and do another.

Here's an article, I ran across in doing a quick search:

----------

"Israel - Strict Immigration Policies May Deport Kids of Foreign
Workers

Published on: June 30, 2010 10:05 PM

Israel - Peering over colorful poster boards, school children chant,
“I’m an Israeli child, Israel is my homeland!” But while they were
born in Israel, speak Hebrew and sport popular Israeli names,
they’re not legally Israeli children: they’re the sons and daughters
of Filipino, Thai and Chinese migrant workers.

When the school year ends today, 1,200 of these children are
scheduled for deportation. As Israel lacks any formal immigration
policy for non-Jews, all regulations regarding migrant workers are
at the discretion of the interior minister, Eli Yishai.

Yishai, who is also the head of the ultra-orthodox Shas Party, said
strict immigration control is essential to protect the Jewish
character of the state. A strong supporter of the deportation plan,
he recently threatened to give up his immigration duties if the
children are allowed to stay.
Advertisement:
AdChoices

“[They are] liable to damage the state’s Jewish identity, constitute
a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation,”
Yishai told Ha’aretz, an Israeli daily. . . ."

http://www.vosizneias.com/59151/2010/06/30/israel-strict-immigration-policies-may-deport-kids-of-foreign-workers/

[Gary]

Post by mg

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I'm not going to go to the trouble to do the research, but I think
historically, Israel has probably had a very strict immigration
policy. So, if that's the case, they say one thing and do another.
----------
"Israel - Strict Immigration Policies May Deport Kids of Foreign
Workers
Published on: June 30, 2010 10:05 PM
Israel - Peering over colorful poster boards, school children chant,
“I’m an Israeli child, Israel is my homeland!” But while they were
born in Israel, speak Hebrew and sport popular Israeli names,
they’re not legally Israeli children: they’re the sons and daughters
of Filipino, Thai and Chinese migrant workers.
When the school year ends today, 1,200 of these children are
scheduled for deportation. As Israel lacks any formal immigration
policy for non-Jews, all regulations regarding migrant workers are
at the discretion of the interior minister, Eli Yishai.
Yishai, who is also the head of the ultra-orthodox Shas Party, said
strict immigration control is essential to protect the Jewish
character of the state. A strong supporter of the deportation plan,
he recently threatened to give up his immigration duties if the
children are allowed to stay.
AdChoices
“[They are] liable to damage the state’s Jewish identity, constitute
a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation,”
Yishai told Ha’aretz, an Israeli daily. . . ."
http://www.vosizneias.com/59151/2010/06/30/israel-strict-immigration-policies-may-deport-kids-of-foreign-workers/

Obviously, I can't prove it. But I really believe that the American Jews
who supported and encouraged desegregation and multiculturalism in America --
would object strongly to it in Israel. (As your post suggests) And I doubt
you'll find many Jews who do not support it for America. It waters down the
European culture of our Founders and leaves us open to being manipulated by ...
guess who :-)

Did you ever wonder why Jews are so prominent and powerful in the Media ?
(Movies, TV, newspapers, etc) That is how to control public opinion -- and
assures Americans will accept what they preach. The Media may not produce as
much profit as international banking -- but it assures compliance to weakening
any single-culture.

Uh, oh ! I'd better shut up before I am labeled and anti-semitic bigot :-)

[mg]

Post by Gary

Post by mg

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I'm not going to go to the trouble to do the research, but I think
historically, Israel has probably had a very strict immigration
policy. So, if that's the case, they say one thing and do another.
----------
"Israel - Strict Immigration Policies May Deport Kids of Foreign
Workers
Published on: June 30, 2010 10:05 PM
Israel - Peering over colorful poster boards, school children chant,
“I’m an Israeli child, Israel is my homeland!” But while they were
born in Israel, speak Hebrew and sport popular Israeli names,
they’re not legally Israeli children: they’re the sons and daughters
of Filipino, Thai and Chinese migrant workers.
When the school year ends today, 1,200 of these children are
scheduled for deportation. As Israel lacks any formal immigration
policy for non-Jews, all regulations regarding migrant workers are
at the discretion of the interior minister, Eli Yishai.
Yishai, who is also the head of the ultra-orthodox Shas Party, said
strict immigration control is essential to protect the Jewish
character of the state. A strong supporter of the deportation plan,
he recently threatened to give up his immigration duties if the
children are allowed to stay.
AdChoices
“[They are] liable to damage the state’s Jewish identity, constitute
a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation,”
Yishai told Ha’aretz, an Israeli daily. . . ."
http://www.vosizneias.com/59151/2010/06/30/israel-strict-immigration-policies-may-deport-kids-of-foreign-workers/

Obviously, I can't prove it. But I really believe that the American Jews
who supported and encouraged desegregation and multiculturalism in America --
would object strongly to it in Israel. (As your post suggests) And I doubt
you'll find many Jews who do not support it for America. It waters down the
European culture of our Founders and leaves us open to being manipulated by ...
guess who :-)
Did you ever wonder why Jews are so prominent and powerful in the Media ?
(Movies, TV, newspapers, etc) That is how to control public opinion -- and
assures Americans will accept what they preach. The Media may not produce as
much profit as international banking -- but it assures compliance to weakening
any single-culture.
Uh, oh ! I'd better shut up before I am labeled and anti-semitic bigot :-)

Immigration dilutes democracy when people don't totally assimilate.
I think the American ideal was originally to have a situation where
people were 100% Americans and 100% loyal to American traditions and
values.

With all my friends and relatives and all my coworkers, over my
entire life, I doubt if very many of us even know for sure where we
came and we certainly didn't have any loyalties to any other
country, or any particular political party because of who we are and
where we came from.

That's not true with the country, as a whole though. I think it's
possible, in some circumstances, for the Cuban vote in Florida to
decide a presidential election and the same is true for the Jews.
Or, if it's not true, the Jews certainly carry a significant amount
of political power in elections.

In the case of Latinos (and African-Americans), they carry absolute
power to determine elections in many circumstances. As a matter of
fact, California has morphed into a Democratic state because of the
Latinos and it used to a Republican state.

[El Castor]

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.

As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

[Gary]

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.

And why do American conservatives care so much about Israel ? I hate to say
this -- but it is quite simple. Most conservatives are Christians. And a lot
of Christians -- in the South -- think Jesus will arrive in Israel when he
returns. It may be hard to believe -- but that is why they want to protect a
country they don't care anything else about.

Post by El Castor
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

I have no doubt about that :-)

[El Castor]

Post by Gary

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.

And why do American conservatives care so much about Israel ? I hate to say
this -- but it is quite simple. Most conservatives are Christians. And a lot
of Christians -- in the South -- think Jesus will arrive in Israel when he
returns. It may be hard to believe -- but that is why they want to protect a
country they don't care anything else about.

Well, most American and European victims of Hitler felt great sympathy
for European Jews who escaped the holocaust, while many of their
friends and relatives died. Israel was a place for them to start a new
life. Palestine, one of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, was under
British rule. The Brits naively divided it into three parts --
Palestinian, Jewish, and International for universally recognized holy
places. The Jewish refugees did a remarkable job defending themselves,
and eventually defeated an army raised by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and
Iraq that was determined to exterminate them.

I care about Israel. It would like to be a beacon of progress in the
Middle East, but instead it's like dangling a mouse in front of a
hungry snake -- the snake being Islam. It's hard to see how this is
going to end well.

Post by Gary

Post by El Castor
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

I have no doubt about that :-)

[w***@msn.com]

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

I'd say put them in Peurto Rico. They like the heat. Let the Spics put up with them. Use their brains but don't give them US citizenship, 'cause they'll beat you over the head with it, Protect them, even from themselves. Keep them from the mainland. They're about 3 percent of the population now. Any greater and it'll be not just the Mooselums going after them. They are irritating and can barely stand themselves. Nice to have around, but not too close.....in their case, "familiarity breeds contempt,"

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.

Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
in any nice parsing that doesn't change the main thrust:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

[El Castor]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

You won't read this, but maybe someone will. Where is your sympathy
for a million Jews that lived in the Arab Middle East, Turkey, and
Iran in 1948. Now 52,000 remain. The rest had their homes, business,
and land stolen and were forced to leave with little more than the
shirt on their back. I doubt they feel a great commonality with the
countries that forced them out at the point of a gun.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Israeli policy is what counts if one is Palestinian.
I wasn't painting all Jews with the same brush,
and nothing in my replies would indicate I was.
Maybe you were thinking of someone else, but it's
not even anybody else in this newsgroup unless
it's somebody I've killfiled.

The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Israeli policy is what counts if one is Palestinian.
I wasn't painting all Jews with the same brush,
and nothing in my replies would indicate I was.
Maybe you were thinking of someone else, but it's
not even anybody else in this newsgroup unless
it's somebody I've killfiled.
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:01 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

That's true and it's also true that the Palestinians had been
living there for 2000 years. If an American Indian came to
my flat and told me that the courts had given him right of
return to my flat, but I could live in the shed, I wouldn't be
happy about that myself, even though it was true that his
people had owned the land 200 years ago.

Post by billbowden
At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

A deal requires two sides that agree. If one side does
not agree, it's not a deal, it's an enforcement. My
American Indian might get a judgment from the US
government that he does have the right to my flat, and
I should just perform an impossible act on myself if I
don't like it, but I still won't be happy.

I don't see a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem
at this point that can be "fair" at all. It was easier in
the old days - Rome defeated Carthage and murdered
or enslaved all the Carthaginians, and nobody could
say boo about it. Might was Right, and that was the
end of it.

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:01 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

That's true and it's also true that the Palestinians had been
living there for 2000 years. If an American Indian came to
my flat and told me that the courts had given him right of
return to my flat, but I could live in the shed, I wouldn't be
happy about that myself, even though it was true that his
people had owned the land 200 years ago.

Post by billbowden
At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a
counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

A deal requires two sides that agree. If one side does
not agree, it's not a deal, it's an enforcement. My
American Indian might get a judgment from the US
government that he does have the right to my flat, and
I should just perform an impossible act on myself if I
don't like it, but I still won't be happy.
I don't see a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem
at this point that can be "fair" at all. It was easier in
the old days - Rome defeated Carthage and murdered
or enslaved all the Carthaginians, and nobody could
say boo about it. Might was Right, and that was the
end of it.

Apparently, the Jews had purchased some portion of Israel before 1948
Israel is about 8000 miles square.and I think the Jews owned about 8% of it.
The rest was mostly worthless desert. So, I'm not sure how much worthless
land the Jews stole from the Palestinians or the conditions. Whatever
worthless land they stole, they turned into productive land. I think they
planted a bunch of olive trees.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:45:46 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:01 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

That's true and it's also true that the Palestinians had been
living there for 2000 years. If an American Indian came to
my flat and told me that the courts had given him right of
return to my flat, but I could live in the shed, I wouldn't be
happy about that myself, even though it was true that his
people had owned the land 200 years ago.

Post by billbowden
At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a
counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

A deal requires two sides that agree. If one side does
not agree, it's not a deal, it's an enforcement. My
American Indian might get a judgment from the US
government that he does have the right to my flat, and
I should just perform an impossible act on myself if I
don't like it, but I still won't be happy.
I don't see a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem
at this point that can be "fair" at all. It was easier in
the old days - Rome defeated Carthage and murdered
or enslaved all the Carthaginians, and nobody could
say boo about it. Might was Right, and that was the
end of it.

Apparently, the Jews had purchased some portion of Israel before 1948
Israel is about 8000 miles square.and I think the Jews owned about 8% of it.
The rest was mostly worthless desert. So, I'm not sure how much worthless
land the Jews stole from the Palestinians or the conditions. Whatever
worthless land they stole, they turned into productive land. I think they
planted a bunch of olive trees.

If it's worthless, why did they force the Palestinians out of it?
Donald Trump makes more money than I do. Does that mean
he can move into my flat and kick me out? (I guess he could
if he felt like it.)

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:45:46 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:01 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

That's true and it's also true that the Palestinians had been
living there for 2000 years. If an American Indian came to
my flat and told me that the courts had given him right of
return to my flat, but I could live in the shed, I wouldn't be
happy about that myself, even though it was true that his
people had owned the land 200 years ago.

Post by billbowden
At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

A deal requires two sides that agree. If one side does
not agree, it's not a deal, it's an enforcement. My
American Indian might get a judgment from the US
government that he does have the right to my flat, and
I should just perform an impossible act on myself if I
don't like it, but I still won't be happy.
I don't see a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem
at this point that can be "fair" at all. It was easier in
the old days - Rome defeated Carthage and murdered
or enslaved all the Carthaginians, and nobody could
say boo about it. Might was Right, and that was the
end of it.

Apparently, the Jews had purchased some portion of Israel before 1948
Israel is about 8000 miles square.and I think the Jews owned about 8% of it.
The rest was mostly worthless desert. So, I'm not sure how much worthless
land the Jews stole from the Palestinians or the conditions. Whatever
worthless land they stole, they turned into productive land. I think they
planted a bunch of olive trees.

If it's worthless, why did they force the Palestinians out of it?
Donald Trump makes more money than I do. Does that mean
he can move into my flat and kick me out? (I guess he could
if he felt like it.)

They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Stolen%20land.htm

"The first thing the Jewish National Fund did in 1934 was to purchase 51
square miles of this marshland for 900,000 Palestinian pounds ($4.5 million)
and set up 20 Jewish settlements on it. These Jews battled malaria, yellow
fever and the Middle Eastern sun to drain the swamps and reclaim the land."

" Ultimately, the Arab landowners drove out their Muslim brothers so that
they could sell the land for large amounts of money to the Jews.The Jewish
National Fund set up blue and white (Israel's national colors) collection
boxes all over the world and received generous contributions from Jewish
patrons, which were used to buy property in the Holy Land. Of the 429,887
dunams that the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association purchased from
private owners, 293,54 dunams almost 70 percent-was uncultivated land that
Arab proprietors living abroad had sold to Jews.By 1937, the amount
purchased by Jews increased to 579,492 dunams, and by 1948 almost 80 percent
of the land available for sale had been bought up by the Jewish people. The
rest of the land was ownerless desert, which was taken over by Israel after
the establishment of the state."

[wolfbat359]

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:45:46 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:01 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

Palestinans have been offerd many land deals but the only deal they want is
for Israel to not exist. From what hear, the world maps in Palestine do not
show the state of Israel. It doesn't exist. It's not on the map.

That's true and it's also true that the Palestinians had been
living there for 2000 years. If an American Indian came to
my flat and told me that the courts had given him right of
return to my flat, but I could live in the shed, I wouldn't be
happy about that myself, even though it was true that his
people had owned the land 200 years ago.

Post by billbowden
At Camp David (2000), Yassar Arafat rejected without making a counter-offer
at all, Israel's proposed 95% of the West Bank and Gaza as well as land
compensation for the remaining 5%, his rejection was wholly consistent with
Arab rejectionism of any Jewish presence at all. You could offer them
everything outside the original 1948 borders and they would reject the deal.

A deal requires two sides that agree. If one side does
not agree, it's not a deal, it's an enforcement. My
American Indian might get a judgment from the US
government that he does have the right to my flat, and
I should just perform an impossible act on myself if I
don't like it, but I still won't be happy.
I don't see a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem
at this point that can be "fair" at all. It was easier in
the old days - Rome defeated Carthage and murdered
or enslaved all the Carthaginians, and nobody could
say boo about it. Might was Right, and that was the
end of it.

Apparently, the Jews had purchased some portion of Israel before 1948
Israel is about 8000 miles square.and I think the Jews owned about 8% of it.
The rest was mostly worthless desert. So, I'm not sure how much worthless
land the Jews stole from the Palestinians or the conditions. Whatever
worthless land they stole, they turned into productive land. I think they
planted a bunch of olive trees.

If it's worthless, why did they force the Palestinians out of it?
Donald Trump makes more money than I do. Does that mean
he can move into my flat and kick me out? (I guess he could
if he felt like it.)

They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

1948 Palestinian exodus

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎‎, "al-Nakbah", literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.[3] The term "nakba" also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.

The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute[4] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[5][6]

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre,[7]:239–240 which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes;[8] collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders.[9][10] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.[11][dubious – discuss][12]

Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[13][14] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[15][16][17] while others dispute this charge.[18][19][20] ....

Post by billbowden
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Stolen%20land.htm
"The first thing the Jewish National Fund did in 1934 was to purchase 51
square miles of this marshland for 900,000 Palestinian pounds ($4.5 million)
and set up 20 Jewish settlements on it. These Jews battled malaria, yellow
fever and the Middle Eastern sun to drain the swamps and reclaim the land."
" Ultimately, the Arab landowners drove out their Muslim brothers so that
they could sell the land for large amounts of money to the Jews.The Jewish
National Fund set up blue and white (Israel's national colors) collection
boxes all over the world and received generous contributions from Jewish
patrons, which were used to buy property in the Holy Land. Of the 429,887
dunams that the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association purchased from
private owners, 293,54 dunams almost 70 percent-was uncultivated land that
Arab proprietors living abroad had sold to Jews.By 1937, the amount
purchased by Jews increased to 579,492 dunams, and by 1948 almost 80 percent
of the land available for sale had been bought up by the Jewish people. The
rest of the land was ownerless desert, which was taken over by Israel after
the establishment of the state."

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:57:31 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

Of course they forced the Palestinians out, just as surely
as the early Americans forced the Cherokee out of Carolina.
You've swallowed a whole lot of Israeli and Western World
propaganda, ISTM.

Post by billbowden
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Stolen%20land.htm
"The first thing the Jewish National Fund did in 1934 was to purchase 51
square miles of this marshland for 900,000 Palestinian pounds ($4.5 million)
and set up 20 Jewish settlements on it. These Jews battled malaria, yellow
fever and the Middle Eastern sun to drain the swamps and reclaim the land."
" Ultimately, the Arab landowners drove out their Muslim brothers so that
they could sell the land for large amounts of money to the Jews.The Jewish
National Fund set up blue and white (Israel's national colors) collection
boxes all over the world and received generous contributions from Jewish
patrons, which were used to buy property in the Holy Land. Of the 429,887
dunams that the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association purchased from
private owners, 293,54 dunams almost 70 percent-was uncultivated land that
Arab proprietors living abroad had sold to Jews.By 1937, the amount
purchased by Jews increased to 579,492 dunams, and by 1948 almost 80 percent
of the land available for sale had been bought up by the Jewish people. The
rest of the land was ownerless desert, which was taken over by Israel after
the establishment of the state."

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:57:31 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

Of course they forced the Palestinians out, just as surely
as the early Americans forced the Cherokee out of Carolina.
You've swallowed a whole lot of Israeli and Western World
propaganda, ISTM.

Well, I can't find any data on how many Palestinians were forced out of the
1948 Israel boundaries by the Jews without any compensation. Do you have a
reference?

.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 20:34:20 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:57:31 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

Of course they forced the Palestinians out, just as surely
as the early Americans forced the Cherokee out of Carolina.
You've swallowed a whole lot of Israeli and Western World
propaganda, ISTM.

Well, I can't find any data on how many Palestinians were forced out of the
1948 Israel boundaries by the Jews without any compensation. Do you have a
reference?

No. If you don't believe any were, I guess I can't help you.
If you want a reference, ask Josh. He seems to want
references all the time, so he must have a lot of them.
I could maybe get a reference from Harpo, except that
perhaps he died too soon.
http://tinyurl.com/mms2yme

On a more substantive note, cotton or polyester?
I can't make up my mind. Supposedly polyester
holds colour better, and doesn't wrinkle as easily.
When I look in my closet though, there doesn't seem
to be a big difference. Cotton does feel nicer, but
that's almost beyond my powers to notice at all.

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 20:34:20 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:57:31 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
They didn't force anybody out. The Arabs did.

Of course they forced the Palestinians out, just as surely
as the early Americans forced the Cherokee out of Carolina.
You've swallowed a whole lot of Israeli and Western World
propaganda, ISTM.

Well, I can't find any data on how many Palestinians were forced out of the
1948 Israel boundaries by the Jews without any compensation. Do you have a
reference?

No. If you don't believe any were, I guess I can't help you.
If you want a reference, ask Josh. He seems to want
references all the time, so he must have a lot of them.
I could maybe get a reference from Harpo, except that
perhaps he died too soon.
http://tinyurl.com/mms2yme
On a more substantive note, cotton or polyester?
I can't make up my mind. Supposedly polyester
holds colour better, and doesn't wrinkle as easily.
When I look in my closet though, there doesn't seem
to be a big difference. Cotton does feel nicer, but
that's almost beyond my powers to notice at all.

I never pay more than a dollar for T-shirts and I have no idea if they are
cotton or polyester. Last Saturday, I bought 3 pairs of heavy black socks
for $2.50 . Most of my other socks have holes in them, so now I have a 3
week supply of socks since I only change them once a week. I wear sandals so
they never stink.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:05:26 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden
I never pay more than a dollar for T-shirts and I have no idea if they are
cotton or polyester. Last Saturday, I bought 3 pairs of heavy black socks
for $2.50 . Most of my other socks have holes in them, so now I have a 3
week supply of socks since I only change them once a week. I wear sandals so
they never stink.

I'm a tightwad and I have no respect for "style",
but it looks like you've got me beat. I'm jealous!

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:05:26 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden
I never pay more than a dollar for T-shirts and I have no idea if they are
cotton or polyester. Last Saturday, I bought 3 pairs of heavy black socks
for $2.50 . Most of my other socks have holes in them, so now I have a 3
week supply of socks since I only change them once a week. I wear sandals so
they never stink.

I'm a tightwad and I have no respect for "style",
but it looks like you've got me beat. I'm jealous!

P.S. Black socks? You've REALLY got me beat!
Even I would never consider wearing black socks.
White, pink, rainbow: OK. But black? NEVER!

[Emily]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:05:26 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden
I never pay more than a dollar for T-shirts and I have no idea if they are
cotton or polyester. Last Saturday, I bought 3 pairs of heavy black socks
for $2.50 . Most of my other socks have holes in them, so now I have a 3
week supply of socks since I only change them once a week. I wear sandals so
they never stink.

I'm a tightwad and I have no respect for "style",
but it looks like you've got me beat. I'm jealous!

P.S. Black socks? You've REALLY got me beat!
Even I would never consider wearing black socks.
White, pink, rainbow: OK. But black? NEVER!

If you wear socks with sandals, believe me, it doesn't matter what
color the socks are. Or the sandals either.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:05:26 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden
I never pay more than a dollar for T-shirts and I have no idea if they are
cotton or polyester. Last Saturday, I bought 3 pairs of heavy black socks
for $2.50 . Most of my other socks have holes in them, so now I have a 3
week supply of socks since I only change them once a week. I wear sandals so
they never stink.

I'm a tightwad and I have no respect for "style",
but it looks like you've got me beat. I'm jealous!

P.S. Black socks? You've REALLY got me beat!
Even I would never consider wearing black socks.
White, pink, rainbow: OK. But black? NEVER!

If you wear socks with sandals, believe me, it doesn't matter what
color the socks are. Or the sandals either.

I associate black socks with business executives, and
I'd be horrified at being mistaken for a business executive.

Sandals? Hippie stuff, but "new age" hippie stuff:
not "cool" hippie stuff. I know, I'm a bundle of
neuroses. If you wanted to tell me that, you certainly
wouldn't be the first! You'd think I'd have outgrown
such neuroses by now, but I haven't.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Israeli policy is what counts if one is Palestinian.
I wasn't painting all Jews with the same brush,
and nothing in my replies would indicate I was.
Maybe you were thinking of someone else, but it's
not even anybody else in this newsgroup unless
it's somebody I've killfiled.
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

My original response was to Jeff in his response to Max who you have
kill filed. Sorry you got mixed into it. My bad.

Otherwise, I agree that Palestinians continue to get screwed by Israel.
Probably human nature to oppress people when you have the power to do so
and when sufficiently oppressed, people rebel in whatever way they can,
even if fire and brimstone rains down on them.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
The Palestinians didn't just get a bad deal in
the past: it's ongoing. The "settlements" keep
expanding.

My original response was to Jeff in his response to Max who you have
kill filed. Sorry you got mixed into it. My bad.

No problem. I have Jeff killfiled, not Max. I'm sure
that's what you meant but it was unclear as it came out.

Post by islander
Otherwise, I agree that Palestinians continue to get screwed by Israel.
Probably human nature to oppress people when you have the power to do so
and when sufficiently oppressed, people rebel in whatever way they can,
even if fire and brimstone rains down on them.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.

Huffington Post:
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

Not "many Americans", many liberals. Unlike cruel, barbaric,
expansionist Islam, the Jews of Israel are defending themselves. At
this point, over half the Jewish population of Israel consists of
refugees and their descendants, forced out of the rest of the Middle
East, North Africa, and now, Europe.

That said, it's hard to understand how Israel can survive. I believe
it is only a matter of time before a mushroom cloud appears over Tel
Aviv, and Islam re-asserts it's barbaric rule over Palestine.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

Not "many Americans", many liberals. Unlike cruel, barbaric,
expansionist Islam, the Jews of Israel are defending themselves. At
this point, over half the Jewish population of Israel consists of
refugees and their descendants, forced out of the rest of the Middle
East, North Africa, and now, Europe.
That said, it's hard to understand how Israel can survive. I believe
it is only a matter of time before a mushroom cloud appears over Tel
Aviv, and Islam re-asserts it's barbaric rule over Palestine.

Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and we would be a long way toward
solving many of the problems in the Middle East. Perhaps we just need
for a few more of the old men to die off. Netanyahu keeps making things
worse, IMV.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

Not "many Americans", many liberals. Unlike cruel, barbaric,
expansionist Islam, the Jews of Israel are defending themselves. At
this point, over half the Jewish population of Israel consists of
refugees and their descendants, forced out of the rest of the Middle
East, North Africa, and now, Europe.
That said, it's hard to understand how Israel can survive. I believe
it is only a matter of time before a mushroom cloud appears over Tel
Aviv, and Islam re-asserts it's barbaric rule over Palestine.

Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and we would be a long way toward
solving many of the problems in the Middle East. Perhaps we just need
for a few more of the old men to die off. Netanyahu keeps making things
worse, IMV.

There will never be a "solution".

"Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict"
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

Not "many Americans", many liberals. Unlike cruel, barbaric,
expansionist Islam, the Jews of Israel are defending themselves. At
this point, over half the Jewish population of Israel consists of
refugees and their descendants, forced out of the rest of the Middle
East, North Africa, and now, Europe.
That said, it's hard to understand how Israel can survive. I believe
it is only a matter of time before a mushroom cloud appears over Tel
Aviv, and Islam re-asserts it's barbaric rule over Palestine.

Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and we would be a long way toward
solving many of the problems in the Middle East. Perhaps we just need
for a few more of the old men to die off. Netanyahu keeps making things
worse, IMV.

There will never be a "solution".
"Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict"
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html

More evidence that religion is at the heart of the problem.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

For what it's worth (nothing in practice) I approve
that many Jews object to the Israeli policy, but that
doesn't change what the Israeli policy in practice "is",
and being what it "is", it doesn't back up your "to equate
Israelis with Jews would be a big mistake". How could
Palestinians, or any other non-Jew, possibly feel "equal"
when any Jew can walk in and be a citizen but Arabic
Palestinians can have their ancestral land taken away
from them at the drop of a hat? How can that be even
a persuasive fake for "equal" or "fair"? Most people,
such as you and I, wouldn't have a problem precisely
because we regard Israel as a "homeland of the Jews",
but we don't have ancestral ties to the land, which the
Palestinians do, yet they're herded into the camp that
Gaza has become, and squeezed out of lands that their
direct ancestors had cultivated for millennia

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Strictly speaking, Jews are members of an ethnoreligious group. My
point is that it is wrong to discriminate against them by painting them
with the same brush as Israelis. That holds whether you consider them
to be an ethnic group or a religious group.

Anti-Israeli sentiment is the root cause of the new anti-Semitism,
which is almost entirely of left wing origin.
"By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
<snip>
"Irwin Cotler, a former professor of law at McGill University, leading
scholar of human rights, and current Canadian member of Parliament and
special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
International Criminal Court, proposed the concept of “new
anti-Semitism” which entails the delegitimization, demonization and
setting of double standards, not only against the Jewish state, but
against the Jewish people. Nowhere in the world is this phenomenon
more rampant than on college campuses. With the newest incessant
barrage of anti-Israel legislation creeping into student governments
across the country, anti-Israel rhetoric has slowly but surely
transformed college campuses into breeding grounds for false
perceptions of Jews and their beliefs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

Not relevant to my point. Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is
doing it. Unfortunately, many Americans do not distinguish between Jews
and the policies of the Israeli government. The result can be expected
to be the same as equating Muslims with the acts of Islamic states or sects.

Not "many Americans", many liberals. Unlike cruel, barbaric,
expansionist Islam, the Jews of Israel are defending themselves. At
this point, over half the Jewish population of Israel consists of
refugees and their descendants, forced out of the rest of the Middle
East, North Africa, and now, Europe.
That said, it's hard to understand how Israel can survive. I believe
it is only a matter of time before a mushroom cloud appears over Tel
Aviv, and Islam re-asserts it's barbaric rule over Palestine.

Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and we would be a long way toward
solving many of the problems in the Middle East. Perhaps we just need
for a few more of the old men to die off. Netanyahu keeps making things
worse, IMV.

There will never be a "solution".
"Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict"
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html

More evidence that religion is at the heart of the problem.

Absolutely. Religion IS the heart of the problem.

[Gary]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
That's all well and good, but it's wishful thinking
so far, while the Palestinians are being treated
unequally and unfairly in current reality, not just
in the imagination. Gaza is in effect a prison
camp: poverty and squashing-together are
epidemic, but the people who were herded into
there can't go back to where they came from.

I totally agree that the Palestinians got a bad deal, but that deal is
Israeli policy and not Jewish policy. It is also Israeli policy to
define right to citizenship, not Jewish policy regardless of the
benefits that Jews receive and Palestinians do not receive. It is
Israeli policy to discriminate and that is a bad thing, IMV. But, to
paint all (or even most) Jews with the same brush would also be
discrimination on the basis of religion and that would also be a bad
thing, IMV.

Jewishness is not a religion, it is an ethnicity. Many Jews are not
religious, but still consider themselves to be 100% Jews. I recall a
Jewish friend who commented when the subject of Elvis Presley came up
that Elvis was half Jewish. Last I checked I do not believe it is
possible to be half Presbyterian. (-8

Most of the Jews I've known have been atheist. How many Baptist have you ever
met who were atheist ? Or ... how many Methodist men produce and direct
pornographic movies ? Yep, "Jew" is a tribe. Not a religion :-)

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

You seem to be saying that Jews "should not" be regarded
by Israel as the only Israelis, whereas mg is saying that in
practice that "is" for the most part the case.
Isn't it true that any Jew moving to Israel can claim
Israeli citizenship? Here's a URL, and I'm not interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
I'm sure that Palestinians in collection areas such as
Gaza and the outskirts of the West Bank, and those whose
families have had their lands confiscated, don't feel a
great commonality with the state of Israel.

No, I am saying that many Jews disagree with Israeli policy toward the
Palestinians and the Middle East in general. In fact, a lot of Israelis
disagree with their country's policy. I was, essentially disagreeing
with Jeff's comment about it being ironic that Jews tend to be liberal
and therefore multiculturalist. I could understand that he would have
difficulty dealing with that.

Not difficult at all. I am well aware of that tendency on the part of
many Jews. At one time I would have agreed with them. I was such an
enthusiastic supporter of the Palestinian cause that the Israeli
embassy returned my letters unopened and Jordan invited me to their
embassy's National Day celebration. In my case it had nothing to do
with politics -- just a lack of sufficient information. Enthusiastic
Liberal support of the Palestinian cause has nothing to do with
information -- it is a reflection of a mental state that is beyond
reason and information. Possibly a genetic defect in some otherwise
brilliant Ashkenazi Jews?

"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

Post by islander
A good friend of mine who I have written about here felt strongly enough
about this issue that he participated in the efforts to break the
Israeli blockade of Gaza in his '80s! He even spent some time in an
Israeli jail for his efforts. And yes, he was Jewish and well connected
with the Jewish efforts to break the blockade.

[islander]

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.

He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.

Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]

You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.

Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.

Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.
Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

Multiculturalism is fine -- unless the culture is completely contrary
to our laws and basic concepts of justice and the treatment of women.
Mexicans, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Koreans, and Russians can come
here, embrace our laws and constitution, and become part of the fabric
of American society. Islam, however, is a cultural and social system
completely contrary to our way of life. For a Muslim to adopt our laws
and constitution means abandoning Islam. Some might appear to do that,
but in large numbers Islamic attitudes towards women, Jews, and
non-believers in general resurfaces.

I don't care what a Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh believes. Good
for them. I hope it helps them. I am more tolerant of religion than
you are, but for a Muslim to fit into our culture he has to abandon
basic principles of Islam. Some can do that, but time and again we see
that many can't because adopting a Western attitude toward the most
basic precepts of our laws and culture means abandoning Islam.

From a poll of American Muslims ...

"The opinion research being released this week was performed by The
Polling Company. It establishes that, while a majority of those
surveyed (54%) believe that Islam is “a religion like Christianity and
Judaism” and that “Islam is a religion of peace” (52%) more than
half (52%) said they were familiar with the authoritative and
supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call “shariah.” A
plurality of 44% correctly identified shariah as either “the Muslim
god Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via
jihad” (25%) or as “a comprehensive program governing all aspects of
the faithful Muslim’s life” (19%)."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/02/the-american-public-understand-islamic-supremacism-better-than-their-leaders-doesnt-want-it-here/

Islam is a violent expansionist religion. We have the opportunity to
let Muslims stay in areas of the world already conquered by Islam, and
practice their religion as they wish. We should avail ourselves of
that opportunity.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.
Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

Multiculturalism is fine -- unless the culture is completely contrary
to our laws and basic concepts of justice and the treatment of women.
Mexicans, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Koreans, and Russians can come
here, embrace our laws and constitution, and become part of the fabric
of American society. Islam, however, is a cultural and social system
completely contrary to our way of life. For a Muslim to adopt our laws
and constitution means abandoning Islam. Some might appear to do that,
but in large numbers Islamic attitudes towards women, Jews, and
non-believers in general resurfaces.
I don't care what a Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh believes. Good
for them. I hope it helps them. I am more tolerant of religion than
you are, but for a Muslim to fit into our culture he has to abandon
basic principles of Islam. Some can do that, but time and again we see
that many can't because adopting a Western attitude toward the most
basic precepts of our laws and culture means abandoning Islam.
From a poll of American Muslims ...
"The opinion research being released this week was performed by The
Polling Company. It establishes that, while a majority of those
surveyed (54%) believe that Islam is “a religion like Christianity and
Judaism” and that “Islam is a religion of peace” (52%) more than
half (52%) said they were familiar with the authoritative and
supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call “shariah.” A
plurality of 44% correctly identified shariah as either “the Muslim
god Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via
jihad” (25%) or as “a comprehensive program governing all aspects of
the faithful Muslim’s life” (19%)."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/02/the-american-public-understand-islamic-supremacism-better-than-their-leaders-doesnt-want-it-here/
Islam is a violent expansionist religion. We have the opportunity to
let Muslims stay in areas of the world already conquered by Islam, and
practice their religion as they wish. We should avail ourselves of
that opportunity.

You have chosen to characterize all Muslims with the worst of that
faith. Most Muslims who have immigrated to this country seem to fit in
just fine and ignore the more horrific parts of the Koran just as most
Christians ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible. The few who
cling to those passages in an attempt to justify their intolerance are
to be condemned and I wish that the remainder did a better job of
purging them from their belief system.

Why would not the Muslim and Christian religions remove all that
horrible stuff from the texts that they cling to so desperately? Just
another nasty part of religion, IMV.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.
Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

Multiculturalism is fine -- unless the culture is completely contrary
to our laws and basic concepts of justice and the treatment of women.
Mexicans, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Koreans, and Russians can come
here, embrace our laws and constitution, and become part of the fabric
of American society. Islam, however, is a cultural and social system
completely contrary to our way of life. For a Muslim to adopt our laws
and constitution means abandoning Islam. Some might appear to do that,
but in large numbers Islamic attitudes towards women, Jews, and
non-believers in general resurfaces.
I don't care what a Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh believes. Good
for them. I hope it helps them. I am more tolerant of religion than
you are, but for a Muslim to fit into our culture he has to abandon
basic principles of Islam. Some can do that, but time and again we see
that many can't because adopting a Western attitude toward the most
basic precepts of our laws and culture means abandoning Islam.
From a poll of American Muslims ...
"The opinion research being released this week was performed by The
Polling Company. It establishes that, while a majority of those
surveyed (54%) believe that Islam is “a religion like Christianity and
Judaism” and that “Islam is a religion of peace” (52%) more than
half (52%) said they were familiar with the authoritative and
supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call “shariah.” A
plurality of 44% correctly identified shariah as either “the Muslim
god Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via
jihad” (25%) or as “a comprehensive program governing all aspects of
the faithful Muslim’s life” (19%)."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/02/the-american-public-understand-islamic-supremacism-better-than-their-leaders-doesnt-want-it-here/
Islam is a violent expansionist religion. We have the opportunity to
let Muslims stay in areas of the world already conquered by Islam, and
practice their religion as they wish. We should avail ourselves of
that opportunity.

You have chosen to characterize all Muslims with the worst of that
faith. Most Muslims who have immigrated to this country seem to fit in
just fine and ignore the more horrific parts of the Koran just as most
Christians ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible. The few who
cling to those passages in an attempt to justify their intolerance are
to be condemned and I wish that the remainder did a better job of
purging them from their belief system.
Why would not the Muslim and Christian religions remove all that
horrible stuff from the texts that they cling to so desperately? Just
another nasty part of religion, IMV.

Please get off this all religions are equivalent nonsense. I believe
you and I are both agnostics, so we should be able to view
Christianity and Islam with a reasonable degree of objectivity.

The Koran is the exact word of God -- word for word relayed to
Mohammad by the angel Gabriel in the language of God, Arabic. Change
is unthinkable. The punishment for a Muslim who dares to suggest that
one word be changed or deleted is DEATH. The Christian Bible, in it's
many versions, is divided into Old and New testaments. With the coming
of Christ came the New testament which either superceded or
transformed the Old testaments laws from literal to spiritual.
Mohammad, who Muslims believe was the world's only perfect man, was a
war lord. He personally, or through direction, killed or assassinated
thousands of those who either refused to accept his brand of religion,
or opposed him personally. His preferred method of execution was
decapitation, and he laid out rules of warfare and deception through
words and deeds that are followed by Muslims to this day. How many did
Jesus kill or injure? How about Buddha?

I would add that Jesus said, "Render unto God that which is God's, and
unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Mohammad, on the other hand,
designed an entire theocratic society, with laws and finance, ruled by
religious courts. So, sorry if some Christians oppose abortion, or
don't vote the way you do, but that is nothing compared with the rules
of Islam which are drilled down to the proper way to beat a woman.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.
Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

Multiculturalism is fine -- unless the culture is completely contrary
to our laws and basic concepts of justice and the treatment of women.
Mexicans, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Koreans, and Russians can come
here, embrace our laws and constitution, and become part of the fabric
of American society. Islam, however, is a cultural and social system
completely contrary to our way of life. For a Muslim to adopt our laws
and constitution means abandoning Islam. Some might appear to do that,
but in large numbers Islamic attitudes towards women, Jews, and
non-believers in general resurfaces.
I don't care what a Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh believes. Good
for them. I hope it helps them. I am more tolerant of religion than
you are, but for a Muslim to fit into our culture he has to abandon
basic principles of Islam. Some can do that, but time and again we see
that many can't because adopting a Western attitude toward the most
basic precepts of our laws and culture means abandoning Islam.
From a poll of American Muslims ...
"The opinion research being released this week was performed by The
Polling Company. It establishes that, while a majority of those
surveyed (54%) believe that Islam is “a religion like Christianity and
Judaism” and that “Islam is a religion of peace” (52%) more than
half (52%) said they were familiar with the authoritative and
supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call “shariah.” A
plurality of 44% correctly identified shariah as either “the Muslim
god Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via
jihad” (25%) or as “a comprehensive program governing all aspects of
the faithful Muslim’s life” (19%)."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/02/the-american-public-understand-islamic-supremacism-better-than-their-leaders-doesnt-want-it-here/
Islam is a violent expansionist religion. We have the opportunity to
let Muslims stay in areas of the world already conquered by Islam, and
practice their religion as they wish. We should avail ourselves of
that opportunity.

You have chosen to characterize all Muslims with the worst of that
faith. Most Muslims who have immigrated to this country seem to fit in
just fine and ignore the more horrific parts of the Koran just as most
Christians ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible. The few who
cling to those passages in an attempt to justify their intolerance are
to be condemned and I wish that the remainder did a better job of
purging them from their belief system.
Why would not the Muslim and Christian religions remove all that
horrible stuff from the texts that they cling to so desperately? Just
another nasty part of religion, IMV.

Please get off this all religions are equivalent nonsense. I believe
you and I are both agnostics, so we should be able to view
Christianity and Islam with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
The Koran is the exact word of God -- word for word relayed to
Mohammad by the angel Gabriel in the language of God, Arabic. Change
is unthinkable. The punishment for a Muslim who dares to suggest that
one word be changed or deleted is DEATH. The Christian Bible, in it's
many versions, is divided into Old and New testaments. With the coming
of Christ came the New testament which either superceded or
transformed the Old testaments laws from literal to spiritual.
Mohammad, who Muslims believe was the world's only perfect man, was a
war lord. He personally, or through direction, killed or assassinated
thousands of those who either refused to accept his brand of religion,
or opposed him personally. His preferred method of execution was
decapitation, and he laid out rules of warfare and deception through
words and deeds that are followed by Muslims to this day. How many did
Jesus kill or injure? How about Buddha?
I would add that Jesus said, "Render unto God that which is God's, and
unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Mohammad, on the other hand,
designed an entire theocratic society, with laws and finance, ruled by
religious courts. So, sorry if some Christians oppose abortion, or
don't vote the way you do, but that is nothing compared with the rules
of Islam which are drilled down to the proper way to beat a woman.

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote possibility of any form of supreme being.

Otherwise, there is not a lot of difference in the sacred books of the
Abrahamic religions. That should not be surprising since they came from
the same region of the world and are a reflection of that history. Both
Islam and Christianity believe that their books are the Word of God. As
soon as you get into the infallibility argument, there are a lot of
nasty things that can be justified in all three Abrahamic religions.
Most religious people have grown to take all this with a grain of salt
and consider these books to be more of a reflection of the times than
absolute truth out of the mouth of God. That is true for both
Christianity and Islam. But, unfortunately the writings remain and
there are always those who use them for their hateful acts. In
Christianity, it was used to justify slavery. It was used to oppose
inter-racial marriage. Even now, it is used to oppose homosexuality,
even in this little newsgroup. There are even Christian sects in this
country that deny women's rights on the basis of Biblical writings.

As long as those writings exist in any belief system that asserts the
infallibility of the Word of God, there will be those who justify their
horrible acts on the basis of their religion. Islam is the worst of
these, but that could easily change to make Christianity even worse if
the fundamentalists ever get a chance.

[billbowden]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander
You have chosen to characterize all Muslims with the worst of that
faith. Most Muslims who have immigrated to this country seem to fit in
just fine and ignore the more horrific parts of the Koran just as most
Christians ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible. The few who
cling to those passages in an attempt to justify their intolerance are
to be condemned and I wish that the remainder did a better job of
purging them from their belief system.
Why would not the Muslim and Christian religions remove all that
horrible stuff from the texts that they cling to so desperately? Just
another nasty part of religion, IMV.

Please get off this all religions are equivalent nonsense. I believe
you and I are both agnostics, so we should be able to view
Christianity and Islam with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
The Koran is the exact word of God -- word for word relayed to
Mohammad by the angel Gabriel in the language of God, Arabic. Change
is unthinkable. The punishment for a Muslim who dares to suggest that
one word be changed or deleted is DEATH. The Christian Bible, in it's
many versions, is divided into Old and New testaments. With the coming
of Christ came the New testament which either superceded or
transformed the Old testaments laws from literal to spiritual.
Mohammad, who Muslims believe was the world's only perfect man, was a
war lord. He personally, or through direction, killed or assassinated
thousands of those who either refused to accept his brand of religion,
or opposed him personally. His preferred method of execution was
decapitation, and he laid out rules of warfare and deception through
words and deeds that are followed by Muslims to this day. How many did
Jesus kill or injure? How about Buddha?
I would add that Jesus said, "Render unto God that which is God's, and
unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Mohammad, on the other hand,
designed an entire theocratic society, with laws and finance, ruled by
religious courts. So, sorry if some Christians oppose abortion, or
don't vote the way you do, but that is nothing compared with the rules
of Islam which are drilled down to the proper way to beat a woman.

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am an
atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally realized
that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic? Even
Einstein said: " There are not laws without a lawgiver" and Einstein
believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question
that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the
problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[9]

Otherwise, there is not a lot of difference in the sacred books of the
Abrahamic religions. That should not be surprising since they came from
the same region of the world and are a reflection of that history. Both
Islam and Christianity believe that their books are the Word of God. As
soon as you get into the infallibility argument, there are a lot of nasty
things that can be justified in all three Abrahamic religions. Most
religious people have grown to take all this with a grain of salt and
consider these books to be more of a reflection of the times than absolute
truth out of the mouth of God. That is true for both Christianity and
Islam. But, unfortunately the writings remain and there are always those
who use them for their hateful acts. In Christianity, it was used to
justify slavery. It was used to oppose inter-racial marriage. Even now,
it is used to oppose homosexuality, even in this little newsgroup. There
are even Christian sects in this country that deny women's rights on the
basis of Biblical writings.
As long as those writings exist in any belief system that asserts the
infallibility of the Word of God, there will be those who justify their
horrible acts on the basis of their religion. Islam is the worst of
these, but that could easily change to make Christianity even worse if the
fundamentalists ever get a chance.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am an
atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally realized
that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

[billbowden]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am an
atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally realized
that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must
be a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

[El Castor]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:37:04 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must
be a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Arthur C. Clarke's third law -- Any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic. I
understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work (nor
does anybody else). All I know is if I follow certain rules, the outcome
will be what I want.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

Post by billbowden
I
understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work (nor
does anybody else). All I know is if I follow certain rules, the outcome
will be what I want.

[El Castor]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.

I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?

Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden
I
understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work (nor
does anybody else). All I know is if I follow certain rules, the outcome
will be what I want.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

[El Castor]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:44:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

I can't speak for your intentions, but you should understand that your
repeated use of the word "magic" certainly sounded like deliberate
mocking.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:44:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

I can't speak for your intentions, but you should understand that your
repeated use of the word "magic" certainly sounded like deliberate
mocking.

billbowden said that those who don't believe in a supreme being must
believe in magic. I merely countered that those who believe in a
supreme being must believe just as much (but not more) in magic.

[islander]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the
possibility is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can
hypothesize that invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence
the probability that this might be a possibility is so small as to be
dismissed.

This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

[billbowden]

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

[islander]

Post by billbowden

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that
belief infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you
lose the right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy
ideas. Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are
simply not in the realm of reality.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

Neither religious or atheistic advocacy in public schools is permitted
by the First Amendment.

[billbowden]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility

is

Post by islander
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

Neither religious or atheistic advocacy in public schools is permitted by
the First Amendment.

How about evolution? Is that taught in public schools? Is it a required
subject for graduation?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:42:49 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

You mean like that the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Or that Jehovah spoke to Abraham in the form of a
burning bush? Or that black people are black because
they were scorched by Jehovah for not accepting Him?

[Emily]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:42:49 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

Why should either one be presented in public schools? I'm definitely
against teaching religion in public schools. If people want their
kids' minds warped with that stuff, they can send them to religious
schools or haul them off to Sunday school on Sunday mornings. Judging
from where our kids rate compared to other civilized countries, they
need to spend more time on the basics.

[islander]

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the possibility
is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can hypothesize that
invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence the probability that
this might be a possibility is so small as to be dismissed.

Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

You have the right to believe anything that you want, but when that belief
infringes upon the rights of others, as religion has done, you lose the
right to insist that there is any credibility for your crazy ideas.
Ultimately mathematical probability reveals that some things are simply
not in the realm of reality.

Yes, but I also support 1st amendment rights to present religious ideas in
public schools along with Atheist ideas. Should be given equal time don't
you think?

In a class on religion, yes. Otherwise, no. It should definitely not
be taught as an alternative to science.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:58:53 -0700, "billbowden"
<snip>

Post by billbowden
Invisible pink elephants are hard to imagine. But if I propose there is a
China Teapot orbiting Jupiter, the possibility is real. Probably unlikely,
but could exist.

Post by islander
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

The orbiting teapot "theory" has been around a while, but as I
recall it was orbiting the sun just beyond Mars.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the
possibility is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can
hypothesize that invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence
the probability that this might be a possibility is so small as to be
dismissed.
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

What's the logical/scientific argument that backs up your assertion that
the possibility of the existence of a supreme being is remote?

[islander]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the
possibility is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can
hypothesize that invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence
the probability that this might be a possibility is so small as to be
dismissed.
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

What's the logical/scientific argument that backs up your assertion that
the possibility of the existence of a supreme being is remote?

Most of the arguments for or against the existence of a supreme being
are philosophical and there is a great deal published on this. I
imagine that you are familiar with Descartes' argument for and Kant and
Russell's counter arguments. In the end, I'm not sure that a
philosophical argument can be made if one removes the popular belief
that God exists as a physical entity as opposed to a concept.

My personal belief is based on the study of Anthropology and its
intersection with Sociology. It is more a cause and effect argument.
Why does religion exist and why has it evolved into monotheistic
religion based on the existence of a supreme being? Prior to the
evolution of societies, human groups did not grow larger than roughly
150 individuals in hunter/gatherer tribes. Their religion was based on
the assignment of things that they otherwise did not understand to
physical things that were familiar to them - spirits of living things
like trees or animals and celestial observations that were useful to
predict changes in the seasons. Of most significance was that these
relatively small groups did not have a need for an all-knowing,
all-seeing god with a role to oversee rules of behavior. It was
possible for everyone in the tribe to know all members of the tribe and
if someone misbehaved, it was dealt with quickly and efficiently.

When agriculture became possible (a product of the benign climate of the
Holocene) it also became possible for much larger groups to form in what
we describe as the beginnings of civilization, towns, cities, etc. It
was no longer possible for every individual to know every other
individual in a group and some mechanism was needed to define and
enforce rules of conduct. As a result, polytheistic religion was
transformed into monotheistic religion, not just in an Abrahamic sense,
but similar transformations occurred around the world. What better than
an all-knowing, all seeing God to maintain order in large groups?

I view this as a natural evolution of ideas to meet the changing needs
of an emerging civilization based on ever larger groups of humans.
There are many examples of how that transition occurred, sometimes
peaceful, sometimes not. For example, the Hajj is celebrated to this
day by Muslims in recognition of the transition from polytheistic
religion to the monotheistic religion of Islam.

This explanation of the evolution of religion and the relationship of a
supreme being to that evolution is a sufficient argument to me. To add
anything more in the sense of assigning physical attributes to a God is
unnecessary and only further complicates what is a simple and
straightforward explanation, especially since there is no physical
evidence to support those physical attributes. Adding those
complications reduces the probability that any supreme being exists.
Occam's razor?

If you would like to take Descartes' argument that God is a concept and
not a physical entity, that is another story altogether.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an
agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept
the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the
possibility is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can
hypothesize that invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence
the probability that this might be a possibility is so small as to be
dismissed.
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

What's the logical/scientific argument that backs up your assertion that
the possibility of the existence of a supreme being is remote?

Most of the arguments for or against the existence of a supreme being
are philosophical and there is a great deal published on this. I
imagine that you are familiar with Descartes' argument for and Kant and
Russell's counter arguments. In the end, I'm not sure that a
philosophical argument can be made if one removes the popular belief
that God exists as a physical entity as opposed to a concept.
My personal belief is based on the study of Anthropology and its
intersection with Sociology. It is more a cause and effect argument.
Why does religion exist and why has it evolved into monotheistic
religion based on the existence of a supreme being? Prior to the
evolution of societies, human groups did not grow larger than roughly
150 individuals in hunter/gatherer tribes. Their religion was based on
the assignment of things that they otherwise did not understand to
physical things that were familiar to them - spirits of living things
like trees or animals and celestial observations that were useful to
predict changes in the seasons. Of most significance was that these
relatively small groups did not have a need for an all-knowing,
all-seeing god with a role to oversee rules of behavior. It was
possible for everyone in the tribe to know all members of the tribe and
if someone misbehaved, it was dealt with quickly and efficiently.
When agriculture became possible (a product of the benign climate of the
Holocene) it also became possible for much larger groups to form in what
we describe as the beginnings of civilization, towns, cities, etc. It
was no longer possible for every individual to know every other
individual in a group and some mechanism was needed to define and
enforce rules of conduct. As a result, polytheistic religion was
transformed into monotheistic religion, not just in an Abrahamic sense,
but similar transformations occurred around the world. What better than
an all-knowing, all seeing God to maintain order in large groups?
I view this as a natural evolution of ideas to meet the changing needs
of an emerging civilization based on ever larger groups of humans. There
are many examples of how that transition occurred, sometimes peaceful,
sometimes not. For example, the Hajj is celebrated to this day by
Muslims in recognition of the transition from polytheistic religion to
the monotheistic religion of Islam.
This explanation of the evolution of religion and the relationship of a
supreme being to that evolution is a sufficient argument to me. To add
anything more in the sense of assigning physical attributes to a God is
unnecessary and only further complicates what is a simple and
straightforward explanation, especially since there is no physical
evidence to support those physical attributes. Adding those
complications reduces the probability that any supreme being exists.
Occam's razor?
If you would like to take Descartes' argument that God is a concept and
not a physical entity, that is another story altogether.

I was thinking of both concepts. Even in the case of the physical
supreme being, human belief in a physical supreme being has no relevance
to whether the physical supreme being exists. Thus, your observations
about how monotheism developed in humans strike me as a red herring.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What's the logical/scientific argument that backs up your assertion that
the possibility of the existence of a supreme being is remote?

Most of the arguments for or against the existence of a supreme being
are philosophical and there is a great deal published on this. I
imagine that you are familiar with Descartes' argument for and Kant and
Russell's counter arguments. In the end, I'm not sure that a
philosophical argument can be made if one removes the popular belief
that God exists as a physical entity as opposed to a concept.
My personal belief is based on the study of Anthropology and its
intersection with Sociology. It is more a cause and effect argument.
Why does religion exist and why has it evolved into monotheistic
religion based on the existence of a supreme being? Prior to the
evolution of societies, human groups did not grow larger than roughly
150 individuals in hunter/gatherer tribes. Their religion was based on
the assignment of things that they otherwise did not understand to
physical things that were familiar to them - spirits of living things
like trees or animals and celestial observations that were useful to
predict changes in the seasons. Of most significance was that these
relatively small groups did not have a need for an all-knowing,
all-seeing god with a role to oversee rules of behavior. It was
possible for everyone in the tribe to know all members of the tribe and
if someone misbehaved, it was dealt with quickly and efficiently.
When agriculture became possible (a product of the benign climate of the
Holocene) it also became possible for much larger groups to form in what
we describe as the beginnings of civilization, towns, cities, etc. It
was no longer possible for every individual to know every other
individual in a group and some mechanism was needed to define and
enforce rules of conduct. As a result, polytheistic religion was
transformed into monotheistic religion, not just in an Abrahamic sense,
but similar transformations occurred around the world. What better than
an all-knowing, all seeing God to maintain order in large groups?
I view this as a natural evolution of ideas to meet the changing needs
of an emerging civilization based on ever larger groups of humans.
There are many examples of how that transition occurred, sometimes
peaceful, sometimes not. For example, the Hajj is celebrated to this
day by Muslims in recognition of the transition from polytheistic
religion to the monotheistic religion of Islam.
This explanation of the evolution of religion and the relationship of a
supreme being to that evolution is a sufficient argument to me. To add
anything more in the sense of assigning physical attributes to a God is
unnecessary and only further complicates what is a simple and
straightforward explanation, especially since there is no physical
evidence to support those physical attributes. Adding those
complications reduces the probability that any supreme being exists.
Occam's razor?
If you would like to take Descartes' argument that God is a concept and
not a physical entity, that is another story altogether.

Josh didn't have to put in any effort to get you
write all that, did he? It's an unattractive game
he likes to play to massage his ego, IMV.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:42:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by billbowden

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

Post by islander
I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

It's beyond our comprehension.

Right. But, that observation undermines your argument that there must be
a supreme being or else the universe works by magic.

Why does it undermine anything? A supreme being accounts for the magic.

Who accounts for the supreme being? When you answer "it's beyond our
comprehension" you are saying it's magic. Thus as a matter of logic,
the rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being because both rely on magic to explain how the world works.

What is dark matter and dark energy? How is quantum entanglement
explained? What was the Big Bang? What came before it? What might
exist that we are simply unable to comprehend? In a universe of
infinite size and age, the possibilities are infinite -- not magic.
I could make fun of beliefs that are fundamental to your Jewish
culture. Did Moses exist, or was he just a fabrication of some ancient
scribe? Are you perhaps not Jewish at all, but just the descendant of
a Khazar tribesman pretending to be Jewish because it was convenient?
Are your beliefs nothing more than magical garbage?
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same. It's called agnosticism.

I didn't make fun of any belief. I said, "as a matter of logic, the
rejection of a supreme being is on par with the belief in a supreme
being". Neither is based in logic or science (neither can be
falsified). Both are articles of faith. In short, I am making the
argument for agnosticism from a logic/scientific standpoint.

Actually not. The argument supporting a supreme being is based on the
suggestion that the existence of a supreme being is unknowable. The
argument against the existence of a supreme being is that the
possibility is so remote as to be dismissed as improbable. I can
hypothesize that invisible pink elephants exist, but without evidence
the probability that this might be a possibility is so small as to be
dismissed.
This is similar to a lot of arguments that any possible possibility is
sufficient to negate more plausible explanation.

Living in a universe in which respected physicists speculate on the
possibility of multiple dimensions, parallel universes, multiverses,
infinite universes and the possibility that we are nothing more than a
computer simulation, I find your pink elephant argument to be shallow
at best, and an obvious manifestation of your political differences
with many of those who are religious.

[islander]

Post by El Castor
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same.

Are you actually making an argument in support of multiculturalism? Are
you expressing tolerance for someone whose culture and traditions are
different from your own? I'm impressed!

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Or perhaps I should respect your culture and traditions and admit that
I don't know what I don't know, and perhaps you should be wise enough
to do the same.

Are you actually making an argument in support of multiculturalism? Are
you expressing tolerance for someone whose culture and traditions are
different from your own? I'm impressed!

That is exactly what I am saying. If Presbyterians, Buddhists,
Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs .... and Muslims have religious beliefs that
help them deal with life's adversities, then more power to them. I
completely support them in that. However, when those religious beliefs
require them to impose their religion on others at the point of a gun
or bomb, and significantly alter my own social compact, moral values,
legal, and political system, then I believe it is best that they go
somewhere else to practice their religion amongst themselves, and
leave me in peace.

[El Castor]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:57 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by billbowden

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am an
atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally realized
that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very remote
possibility of any form of supreme being.

So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic?

If there is a supreme being, how do they work?

I am an agnostic, and have been since I was a child. I am not an
atheist for the simple reason that I accept that humanity does not
understand the nature and origin of the universe, or even our own
existence. We have lots of interesting theories, but what came before
the Big Bang, and what exactly was that Big Bang, how to explain
Einstein's "spooky action at a distance", dark matter and energy,
multiverses and parallel universes, string theory, etc. Lots of
theory, but no definitive answers about the true origin and nature of
the universe. If the universe is infinite in size and time, and it
seems that it must be, what timeless being might have survived in an
infinity? Until we can answer those questions, why should you or I
presume to be so important that we have all the answers and are able
to declare what can and cannot be?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:42:58 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic? Even
Einstein said: " There are not laws without a lawgiver" and Einstein
believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question
that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the
problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[9]

If there is a supreme being, how did that happen?
If a supreme being can create himself without first
existing in order to do that, that's quite a trick even
for a supreme being. The fact of existence is by
its very nature not accessible to reason, Throwing
"God" at it in the hope that will clear up the mystery
doesn't help any more than throwing a turnip at it.
(Even less, because at least we know turnips exist.)

Einstein, like Spinoza, did not believe in a personal
god who cares for (or even knows about) humans.
"God" for him was just a name for the fact of existence.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my
religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it.
http://tinyurl.com/n3cb5l4

[billbowden]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:42:58 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic? Even
Einstein said: " There are not laws without a lawgiver" and Einstein
believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"-a
question
that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the
problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[9]

If there is a supreme being, how did that happen?
If a supreme being can create himself without first
existing in order to do that, that's quite a trick even
for a supreme being. The fact of existence is by
its very nature not accessible to reason, Throwing
"God" at it in the hope that will clear up the mystery
doesn't help any more than throwing a turnip at it.
(Even less, because at least we know turnips exist.)
Einstein, like Spinoza, did not believe in a personal
god who cares for (or even knows about) humans.
"God" for him was just a name for the fact of existence.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my
religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it.
http://tinyurl.com/n3cb5l4

You are promoting the chicken or the egg theory. The point is, we don't know
the origin of the universe or the origin of a God. It's a push and that's
why Einstein said the question it too vast for our simple minds.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:52:39 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:42:58 -0700, "billbowden"

Post by billbowden
So, if there is no supreme being, how does the universe work? Magic? Even
Einstein said: " There are not laws without a lawgiver" and Einstein
believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"-a
question
that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the
problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[9]

If there is a supreme being, how did that happen?
If a supreme being can create himself without first
existing in order to do that, that's quite a trick even
for a supreme being. The fact of existence is by
its very nature not accessible to reason, Throwing
"God" at it in the hope that will clear up the mystery
doesn't help any more than throwing a turnip at it.
(Even less, because at least we know turnips exist.)
Einstein, like Spinoza, did not believe in a personal
god who cares for (or even knows about) humans.
"God" for him was just a name for the fact of existence.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my
religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it.
http://tinyurl.com/n3cb5l4

You are promoting the chicken or the egg theory.

Just a comedy line, not a "theory".

Post by billbowden
?The point is, we don't know
the origin of the universe or the origin of a God. It's a push and that's
why Einstein said the question it too vast for our simple minds.

It's not a push when one side invokes a construction
for whose reality there is no evidence. Man's desire is
not evidence of anything but man's desire.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
"Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder"
"Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond
adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With
luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health
professional will facilitate the search for a cure."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

You are swimming in some pretty nasty waters there. Are you sure that
you want to quote his blog?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dave_Blount
"David "Dave" Blount is a completely insane far-right blogger and
political commentator for the extreme right-wing hate site Moonbattery
and occasionally for John Hawkins's Right Wing News. Among his more
notable observations is the the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the
Democrats in Congress (a common claim from partisan Republicans on other
right wing blogs), that Nelson Mandela was a "socialist thug" [1], and
that Occupy Wall Street is a Marxist-Leninist revolution. [2]. He is
quick to viciously bash and demonize any viewpoint that is not as
reactionary as his own with such hate and vitriol that it would make
Michelle Malkin cringe.
He is also an unabashed racist. Unlike some other hardline
anti-immigrant pundits, he makes no attempt to sound like he's not a
blatant white-supremacist. His screeds against hispanics and immigration
reform are almost indistinguishable from the racist screeds of
Stormfront. [3] [4] [5] He is a huge conspiracy theorist, of the Alex
Jones variety. Some his screeds are so insane and paranoid that they
seem like a parody of what paranoid wingnuts write. [6] [7] He violates
Godwin's Law enough to make Glenn Beck seem like an amateur.
Among his more notable activites is citing the white supremacist
Metapedia in order to blame Obama for "Beat Up A White Kid day" in
Cleveland (something that happened only a few times in the early 1990s),
[8] publishing a screed with so many incoherent non sequiturs that your
brain will melt trying to make sense of it, [9] making many posts of
Fred Phelps level hate-spewing towards gay people [10] [11] [12] [13],
pushing the "zomg teh government is stockpiling ammo" bullshit [14]
[15], a screed accusing Chris Christie and other "RINO" politicians of
being backed by George Soros and his "shadow government," [16], and a
screed that is so fantastically angry, incoherent, illogical, fanatical,
completely factually incorrect in every possible way, paranoid, and
batshit insane that it looks like Blount was just using Wingnut Mad Libs
and stringing a bunch of scary buzz words and phrases into one
completely nonsensical clusterfuck of epic proportions.[17]
You get one guess as to what he thinks of Trayvon Martin and the media
circus surrounding his death.
Much like Bryan Fischer, the man manages to outdo himself. Just when you
think he can't get any more hateful and crazy, he comes back in full
force with something that would make even the most hardcore of atheists
pray to God that Dave Blount is just a brilliant stealth parody. It's a
rant against Time Magazine for reporting on child-free couples.
Apparently, this means that TIME is part of the "liberal ruling class"
and that they are "Propagandizing Against Reproduction."[18]"

Hey! I can have a little fun now and then, can't I?

I'll never understand conservative humor.

I know.

There was a segment on Friday's PBS Newshour that you might enjoy. It
was an interview of Joan Nathan and her new book, *King Solomon's
Table.* To me, the interesting thing about this interview was in the
preservation of the cultural tradition of the Shabbat and particularly
the Passover celebration of the Seder table.
Something to admire in her efforts to preserve Jewish traditions and a
good example of why multiculturalism is a good thing.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/jewish-tables-around-world-serve-feast-traditions/

Multiculturalism is fine -- unless the culture is completely contrary
to our laws and basic concepts of justice and the treatment of women.
Mexicans, Brazilians, Germans, Chinese, Koreans, and Russians can come
here, embrace our laws and constitution, and become part of the fabric
of American society. Islam, however, is a cultural and social system
completely contrary to our way of life. For a Muslim to adopt our laws
and constitution means abandoning Islam. Some might appear to do that,
but in large numbers Islamic attitudes towards women, Jews, and
non-believers in general resurfaces.
I don't care what a Jew, Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh believes. Good
for them. I hope it helps them. I am more tolerant of religion than
you are, but for a Muslim to fit into our culture he has to abandon
basic principles of Islam. Some can do that, but time and again we see
that many can't because adopting a Western attitude toward the most
basic precepts of our laws and culture means abandoning Islam.
From a poll of American Muslims ...
"The opinion research being released this week was performed by The
Polling Company. It establishes that, while a majority of those
surveyed (54%) believe that Islam is “a religion like Christianity and
Judaism” and that “Islam is a religion of peace” (52%) more than
half (52%) said they were familiar with the authoritative and
supremacist Islamic doctrine its adherents call “shariah.” A
plurality of 44% correctly identified shariah as either “the Muslim
god Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide via
jihad” (25%) or as “a comprehensive program governing all aspects of
the faithful Muslim’s life” (19%)."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/02/the-american-public-understand-islamic-supremacism-better-than-their-leaders-doesnt-want-it-here/
Islam is a violent expansionist religion. We have the opportunity to
let Muslims stay in areas of the world already conquered by Islam, and
practice their religion as they wish. We should avail ourselves of
that opportunity.

You have chosen to characterize all Muslims with the worst of that
faith. Most Muslims who have immigrated to this country seem to fit in
just fine and ignore the more horrific parts of the Koran just as most
Christians ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible. The few who
cling to those passages in an attempt to justify their intolerance are
to be condemned and I wish that the remainder did a better job of
purging them from their belief system.
Why would not the Muslim and Christian religions remove all that
horrible stuff from the texts that they cling to so desperately? Just
another nasty part of religion, IMV.

Please get off this all religions are equivalent nonsense. I believe
you and I are both agnostics, so we should be able to view
Christianity and Islam with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
The Koran is the exact word of God -- word for word relayed to
Mohammad by the angel Gabriel in the language of God, Arabic. Change
is unthinkable. The punishment for a Muslim who dares to suggest that
one word be changed or deleted is DEATH. The Christian Bible, in it's
many versions, is divided into Old and New testaments. With the coming
of Christ came the New testament which either superceded or
transformed the Old testaments laws from literal to spiritual.
Mohammad, who Muslims believe was the world's only perfect man, was a
war lord. He personally, or through direction, killed or assassinated
thousands of those who either refused to accept his brand of religion,
or opposed him personally. His preferred method of execution was
decapitation, and he laid out rules of warfare and deception through
words and deeds that are followed by Muslims to this day. How many did
Jesus kill or injure? How about Buddha?
I would add that Jesus said, "Render unto God that which is God's, and
unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Mohammad, on the other hand,
designed an entire theocratic society, with laws and finance, ruled by
religious courts. So, sorry if some Christians oppose abortion, or
don't vote the way you do, but that is nothing compared with the rules
of Islam which are drilled down to the proper way to beat a woman.

I'm not saying that they are equivalent and I am not an agnostic, I am
an atheist. I used to be a "strict agnostic" years ago, but finally
realized that that belief was bending over backward to accept the very
remote possibility of any form of supreme being.
Otherwise, there is not a lot of difference in the sacred books of the
Abrahamic religions.

Oh, really ...

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads
and strike off every fingertip of them."
"Allah"(Quran 8:12)

"Fight everyone in the way of Allah and
kill those who disbelieve in Allah."
Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq 992)

"Love your neighbor and pray for those who persecute you."
Jesus (Matthew 5:44)

Post by islander
That should not be surprising since they came from
the same region of the world and are a reflection of that history. Both
Islam and Christianity believe that their books are the Word of God. As
soon as you get into the infallibility argument, there are a lot of
nasty things that can be justified in all three Abrahamic religions.
Most religious people have grown to take all this with a grain of salt
and consider these books to be more of a reflection of the times than
absolute truth out of the mouth of God. That is true for both
Christianity and Islam. But, unfortunately the writings remain and
there are always those who use them for their hateful acts. In
Christianity, it was used to justify slavery. It was used to oppose
inter-racial marriage. Even now, it is used to oppose homosexuality,
even in this little newsgroup. There are even Christian sects in this
country that deny women's rights on the basis of Biblical writings.
As long as those writings exist in any belief system that asserts the
infallibility of the Word of God, there will be those who justify their
horrible acts on the basis of their religion. Islam is the worst of
these, but that could easily change to make Christianity even worse if
the fundamentalists ever get a chance.

Your fantasies aside, with the exception of insignificant cults,
Christianity does not, and never will, play host to the deliberately
constructed and irreversible fundamentalism of Islam. In any event, we
must concern ourselves with the now, not some fantasy future.

Here is the Muslim score card for the last 30 days ...

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
2017.04.12 Afghanistan Kabul 5 5 A suicide
bomber on foot blows away five bystanders.
2017.04.11 Iraq Mosul 2 0 The two children of an
imam are shot dead at a mosque for his refusal to help the caliphate.
2017.04.09 Egypt Tanta 29 78 A suicide bomber blows
up in the middle of a Palm Sunday service, taking out over two dozen
Christians.
2017.04.09 Egypt Alexandria 18 48 A Fedayeen
suicide bomber is stopped trying to enter a church. At least seventeen
innocents are laid out in the blast.
2017.04.09 Somalia Mogadishu 17 0 A
Shahid suicide bomber plows into a minibus, killing seventeen
civilians.
2017.04.07 Somalia Mogadishu 3 5 An
al-Qaeda linked group sends mortar rounds into family homes, killing
three women.
2017.04.07 Sweden Stockholm 4 15 A
'radicalized' Muslim steals a truck and mows down four pedestrians,
including an 11-year-old girl.
2017.04.07 Syria Shaddadi 2 3 An ISIS
explosive device claims a woman and child.
2017.04.07 Australia Queanbeyan 1 3 A gas
station worker is stabbed to death by two 'radicalized' teens.
2017.04.07 Pakistan Lahore 1 0 A 68-year-old
Ahmadi religious minority is gunned down by sectarian Jihadis.
2017.04.06 Iraq Mosul 8 4 Eight students are
left dead when Islamic fundamentalists bomb a university.
2017.04.06 Somalia Golweyn 19 3 Islamists
are blamed for a roadside bomb that takes out nineteen civilians on a
bus.
2017.04.06 Iraq Hajjaj 1 0 A child is obliterated
by a suicide bomber.
2017.04.06 Syria Deir Ezzor 33 0 The Islamic
State slaughters thirty-three young people with "sharp tools."
2017.04.06 Israel Ofra 1 1 A Palestinian rams his
car into an Israeli checkpoint, killing one.
2017.04.05 Mali Hombari 1 0 A French
peacekeeper is killed by an Islamist landmine.
2017.04.05 Somalia Mogadishu 7 10 Seven
patrons at a café are taken out in mid-bite by a suicide car bomber.
2017.04.05 Pakistan Lahore 6 2 A Fedayeen
suicide bomber targets a team of census takers, killing six members.
2017.04.05 Iraq Tikrit 22 20 Ten people lose their
lives to ISIS shrapnel.
2017.04.05 Iraq Baghdad 3 4 A Mujahid
roadside blast takes out three civilians.
2017.04.05 Iraq Baghdad 4 8 A bomb blast
targeting construction workers kills four.
2017.04.05 Nigeria Abbati 7 0 Islamists
murder seven members of a peaceful farming community in cold blood.
2017.04.05 Sudan Omdurman 1 0 A Muslim mob
invades a Christian school and stabs an elder to death.
2017.04.04 Iraq Kirkuk 31 42 Thirty-one are
massacred when suicide bombers blow themselves up inside homes.
2017.04.04 Russia Astrakhan 2 0 Islamic State
gunmen take out a pair of traffic cops.
2017.04.04 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A man is shot to death
by Muslim radicals for accepting water from US soldiers.
2017.04.04 Iraq Ba'aj 1 0 A civilian is burned
alive in a marketplace by the Islamic State.
2017.04.04 Iraq Mosul 44 0 Forty-four more Iraqis
are executed point-blank by the Islamic State.
2017.04.04 Iraq Rajm al-Hadid 6 29 Women and
children are among a half-dozen civilians killed by ISIS in a
suspected chemical attack.
2017.04.04 France Paris 1 0 A young Muslim man
throws a 66-year-old Jewish woman to her death from a balcony while
praising Allah.
2017.04.03 Iraq Iskandariya 1 0 A suicide
bomber kills a guard who stopped him from entering a funeral.
2017.04.03 Iraq Fallujah 3 4 A Shahid
suicide bombing claims three lives.
2017.04.03 Iraq Mosul 32 0 Thirty-two innocents,
including women and children are picked apart by Islamic State
shrapnel.
2017.04.03 India Pantha Chowk 1 5 A child is
among the casualties of a Lashkar-e-Toiba shooting.
2017.04.03 Nigeria Nzaav 8 0 Eight
villagers are left dead after a brutal assault by Muslim militants.
2017.04.03 Israel Jerusalem 0 3 A Palestinian
stabs two Torah scholars and a guard.
2017.04.03 Russia St. Petersburg 14 49 A Fedayeen
subway bomber sends ball bearing and bolts through a subway car,
aerating fourteen commuters.
2017.04.03 Iraq Qayyarah 20 0 The bodies of
twenty women and children are found in a mass grave of ISIS execution
victims.
2017.04.02 Iraq Mosul 16 0 Sixteen civilians are
executed and dumped in a mass grave.
2017.04.02 Iraq Muqdadiya 1 0 A woman is
reduced to parts by a ISIS bomb blast.
2017.04.02 Afghanistan Ghazni 4 1 Four Afghans
are blown to bits by Taliban bombers.
2017.04.02 Nigeria Makurdi 2 0 A
65-year-old man is among two villagers murdered by Fulani terrorists.
2017.04.02 Iraq Tamouz 13 0 Thirteen civilians are
machine-gunned for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.04.02 India Nowhatta 1 15 Terrorists
throw a grenade into the street, killing one and injuring fifteen.
2017.04.02 Nigeria Ikyoawen 4 0 Four
people are killed by Fulani terrorists.
2017.04.01 Iraq Mosul 14 26 ISIS send rockets into
a neighborhood, killing fourteen residents.
2017.04.01 Iraq Mosul 17 1 Seventeen family
members are lured outside their home and killed with a bomb. The
victims include a 3-year-old boy and a disabled girl.
2017.04.01 Egypt Tanta 1 15 Fundamentalists set
off a bomb outside a training center.
2017.04.01 India Sarai Tehsil 1 0 A 14-year-old
girl is strangled by her family for unIslamic behavior.
2017.03.31 Pakistan Parachinar 24 90 Over
two-dozen lives at a market and rival mosque are snuffed out by a
Sunni suicide bomber.
2017.03.31 Afghanistan Takhar 5 0 Four children
and a parent are disassembled by Sunni shrapnel.
2017.03.31 Afghanistan Khwaja Bahuddin 3 0
Two women are among three family members murdered in their home by the
Taliban.
2017.03.31 Iraq Rutba 1 4 A Shahid suicide
bomber kills one other person.
2017.03.31 Iraq Tal Afar 2 0 Two people are
gunned down by followers of a militant preacher.
2017.03.30 Nigeria Dumba 1 0 Islamists kill
a herdsman for refusing to pay protection money.
2017.03.30 Nigeria Wumyeduga 12 23 A
dozen villagers are left dead following a Boko Haram raid.
2017.03.30 Nigeria Damboa 5 5 A female
suicide bomber blows herself up at a funeral, taking five others with
her.
2017.03.30 Nigeria Kubuwa 3 3 Three people
are killed when Boko Haram ambush a food truck.
2017.03.30 Iraq Zanjili 23 0 Twenty-three
people are executed for refusing to abandon their homes to caliphate
members.
2017.03.30 Iraq Deka Barka 2 0 A man and his
wife are torn to ribbons by ISIS shrapnel.
2017.03.30 Pakistan Nankana 1 0 A
prominent Ahmadi Muslim is gunned down outside his home by
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.
2017.03.30 Thailand Narathiwat 1 3 Muslim
'separatists' fire into a police station, killing one officer.
2017.03.30 Iraq Saadiya 6 0 Six Kurds are
murdered by an Islamic State member.
2017.03.30 Syria Raqqa 1 0 A baby is slaughtered
by the Islamic State after its father tries to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.29 Iraq Mosul 7 11 An ISIS mortar attack
on a neighborhood, leaves seven dead residents.
2017.03.29 Iraq Baghdad 17 60 A Shahid
suicide truck bomber detonates in the middle of a crowded street,
claiming at least seventeen lives.
2017.03.29 Thailand Yala 1 0 An off-duty
security member is riddled with bullets by Muslim terrorists.
2017.03.29 Iraq Jazair 3 5 Three children are
pulled into pieces by ISIS shrapnel.
2017.03.29 Mali Boulikessi 3 0 The "Group to
Support Islam and Muslims" machine-gun two officers and a civilian at
a checkpoint.
2017.03.29 Bangladesh Nasirpur 4 0 Four
children are killed by Neo-Jama'atul Mujahideen suicide bombers.
2017.03.29 Iraq Mosul 7 4 Bombers pick off women
and children trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.28 Afghanistan Khakrez 4 5 Sunni
fundamentalists attack local security personnel in the middle of the
night and kill four.
2017.03.28 Egypt Sinai 2 0 Islamic militants
behead two Sufis for witchcraft.
2017.03.27 Iraq Baqubah 3 0 Three
tribesmen are kidnapped and murdered by the Islamic State.
2017.03.27 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A gay man is stoned to
death for 'violating the limits of Allah and Islam.'
2017.03.27 Iraq Okaidat 1 0 An imam is
assassinated by Religion of Peace rivals.
2017.03.27 Yemen Huta 10 4 An Ansar al-Sharia
suicide bomber sends ten other souls to Allah.
2017.03.27 Nigeria Emuhu 3 6 Three
villagers lose their lives to a brutal raid by Fulani terrorists.
2017.03.27 Thailand Rangae 1 5 Militant
Muslims open indiscriminate fire on a police parade, killing one
member.
2017.03.26 Afghanistan Darzab 3 0 Three
'ordinary civilians' are executed by the Islamic State.
2017.03.26 Nigeria Mkomon 1 0 Muslim
militants shoot a Christian in the head as he is on a swimming trip.
2017.03.26 Iraq Mosul 16 43 Two children are among
sixteen civilians exterminated by ISIS shrapnel at a marketplace.
2017.03.26 Iraq Sham 30 0 Women and children are
among thirty civilians executed for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.25 Iraq Mosul 4 6 Four civilians are
taken out by a Mujahideen car bomb.
2017.03.25 Mali Ouélessbougou 3 0 At least three
others are killed by Jihadis in two attacks targeting transport buses.
2017.03.25 Bangladesh Sylhet 6 50 A half-dozen
people at an apartment building are laid out by Jamayetul Mujahideen
bombers.
2017.03.25 Egypt al-Arish 1 0 An Islamic
sniper picks off a policeman at a checkpoint.
2017.03.25 Egypt al-Arish 3 6 Three security
personnel lose their lives to an Islamic State roadside bomb.
2017.03.25 Mali Almoustarat 3 4 Suspected
Muslim radicals machine-gun three people.
2017.03.24 Chechnya Naurskaya 6 3 Islamic
State militants stage a suicide attack on a Russian base, killing six
defenders.
2017.03.24 Somalia Mogadishu 5 10 An
Islamist car bomb outside a hotel leaves one dead.
2017.03.24 Iraq Yarmouk 20 0 Nine women are
among twenty civilians executed for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.24 Iraq Mosul 12 6 The Islamic State
fires shells into a neighborhood, killing a dozen residents.
2017.03.23 Iraq Wadi Akab 3 0 Three women
are burned alive by the Islamic State for refusing to executed fellow
civilians.
2017.03.23 Egypt Sinai 10 7 Islamic roadside
blasts take out ten security personnel.
2017.03.23 Yemen Abyan 1 3 A boy is killed when
al-Qaeda target a family vehicle with an RPG.
2017.03.23 Somalia Barawe 17 22 al-Shabaab
claims an attack that left seventeen others dead.
2017.03.22 Afghanistan Spinzar 9 0 Nine
local cops are assassinated by Taliban gunmen.
2017.03.22 Syria Tasil 1 0 A man is tied up and
shot to death for 'cursing Allah'.
2017.03.22 Iraq Mosul 13 35 Thirteen residents are
crushed beneath a barrage of ISIS mortars.
2017.03.22 Nigeria Muna 13 20 Four suicide
bombers attack a refugee camp, killing thirteen people.
2017.03.22 England London 5 29 A Muslim man
mows down pedestrians on a bridge, killing a teacher, tourist and an
elderly man, before stabbing a police officer to death. A fifth victim
succumbs weeks later.
2017.03.21 India Muzaffarnagar 1 0 A conservative
Muslims slits his 15-year-old daughter's throat after catching her
with a boy.
2017.03.21 Iraq Hamrin 5 4 A bomb targeting
families fleeing the caliphate picks off five members.
2017.03.21 Italy Foggia 0 1 A Muslim 'migrant'
attempts to rams his car into police, then attacks officers with a
knife.
2017.03.21 Afghanistan Greshk 14 6 A suicide
bomber rams a checkpoint, taking fourteen lives.
2017.03.21 Somalia Mogadishu 10 15 At
least ten innocents are claimed by a Fedayeen suicide car bomber.
2017.03.21 Egypt Sinai 3 2 Three civilians are
imploded in their own car by an Islamist bomb blast.
2017.03.20 Nigeria Zaki Biam 20 0 Suspected
Fulani terrorists massacre at least twenty villagers.
2017.03.20 Iraq Baghdad 23 45 Two dozen
innocents are blown to bits by an ISIS car bomb attack in a Shiite
neighborhood.
2017.03.20 Iraq Baghdad 2 5 Two bombs, one
at a market, produce two dead Iraqis.
2017.03.20 Pakistan Sheikhupura 1 0 A
young Christian is shot to death by Muslim extremists after refusing
to work on Sunday.
2017.03.19 Nigeria Oshugu 2 0 Muslims attack
a church and kill two worshippers.
2017.03.19 Afghanistan Tiran Kot 3 4 Three
local security personnel are brutally machine-gunned by Taliban
fundamentalists.
2017.03.18 France Paris 0 0 A man 'here to die for
Allah' is gunned down by airport security as he tries to snatch a
weapon.
2017.03.18 Iraq Dainiya 2 3 Terrorists
claim two lives with an IED.
2017.03.18 Nigeria Maiduguri 4 8 A
mother and her two children are among four wiped out by three Religion
of Peace suicide bombers.
2017.03.18 Iraq Mosul 24 0 A mass grave is
discovered containing the remains of two dozen Islamic State victims,
including children.
2017.03.18 Cameroon Soueram 2 0 A Boko
Haram attack leaves two dead.
2017.03.17 Pakistan Landikotal 2 4 A
group advocating Sharia fires on border guards, killing two.
2017.03.17 Afghanistan Srkh Rod 1 0 A
suicide bomber kills his own brother.
2017.03.17 Yemen Marib 34 0 Shiite rebels fire two
rockets into a Sunni mosque, killing thirty-four during Friday
prayers.
2017.03.17 Pakistan Charsadda 1 2 Two
Shahid suicide bombers manage to kill only one other person.
2017.03.17 Afghanistan Khost 1 3 One person is
laid out by a Fedayeen suicide car bomber.
2017.03.17 France Paris 2 0 A father and son's
throats are slit by a family member yelling 'Allah Akbar'.
2017.03.16 Nigeria Magumeri 1 0 A
local cop is killed when Boko Haram attack a small town.
2017.03.16 Thailand Pattani 1 1 Muslim
terrorists fire on a pair of elderly siblings, killing the brother and
injuring his sister.
2017.03.16 Syria Deir ez-Zor 1 8 Terrorists
pound an apartment building with rockets, killing a woman.
2017.03.16 India South Ukkadam 1 0 An atheist is
hacked to death by an angry Muslim over Facebook posts attacking
religion.
2017.03.16 Iraq Riyadh 9 0 Nine civilians are
executed for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.16 Nigeria Ayati 5 0 A pregnant
woman is among five civilians gunned down in cold blood by Fulani
terrorists.
2017.03.16 Iraq Yarmouk 14 13 ISIS member
send rockets into a residential neighborhood reclaimed by security
forces.
2017.03.16 Bangladesh Sitakunda 1 0 A
young child is blown to bits by a female suicide bomber.
2017.03.16 Sudan Abbasiya 2 0 Two children
die from injuries after an attack by a group allied with the National
Islamic Front.
2017.03.15 Iraq Wadi Hajar 17 0 Seventeen
civilians are kidnapped and executed by the Islamic State.
2017.03.15 Syria Hamadaniyeh 1 3 A woman and
three children are among the casualties of a Sunni rocket attack.
2017.03.15 Iraq Mosul 4 0 A suicide bomber in a
bulldozer plows through a barricade and takes out four.
2017.03.15 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 16 Four
female suicide bombers kill two people in a residential area.
2017.03.15 Syria Damascus 31 102 Thirty-one
innocents at a courthouse are reduced to bloody pulp by a Fedayeen
suicide bomber.
2017.03.15 Syria Rabweh 8 28 Eight people at a
restaurant are taken out in mid-bite by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2017.03.15 Nigeria Borno 3 0 Boko Haram
members recite from the Quran as they slit the throats of three
hostages.
2017.03.15 Iraq Tikrit 11 41 Religion of Peace
advocates set off a car bomb along a street packed with medical
clinics.
2017.03.15 India Hyhama 1 1 A minor girl is killed
when Lashkar-e-Toiba members open fire on a security patrol.
2017.03.14 Iraq Hawija 9 0 Children are among
nine Iraqis burned alive for trying to flee the caliphate.
2017.03.14 Afghanistan Kamarkulagh 1 0 An
imam is gunned down in his mosque by Religion of Peace rivals.
2017.03.14 Syria Homs 1 2 Terrorists bomb a bus,
killing one passenger.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by Gary

Post by mg
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:18:51 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

As far as I'm concerned, Europe's Jews are welcome to come here. We
can always use a few more movie producers and Nobel prizes.

Jews integrate well into our society. They believe in democracy.
They're very intelligent and no more violent than the general
population, and are probably less violent, I suppose, than the
general population. They appear to have good family values and they
take care of their children and I imagine they have a low government
subsidy/welfare rate and a very low illegitimacy rate, etc.

I have always had a lot of respect for the Jews. As individuals and as a
group. Their ability to maintain their culture and traditions all these years
amazes me.

Post by mg
So, I don't have any objections to Jews. However, my point is that
when someone peddles a brand new idea like multiculturalism, there
can be unforeseen and unintended consequences, and in this case
their super-duper idea for a brave new world of multiculturalism,
jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Why is it that a group who knows the value of single culture and the power of a
unified tribe -- encourages other people and cultures to integrate and become
"multicultural" ?
Could it be that they gain strength when other (larger) cultures are weakened ?
Could this be the secret of their success over thousands of years ? They
certainly sold the idea to the early Christians. (who rushed out to take all of
god's children to their bosom)

I think you are mistaking Judaism for Liberalism. Jews, because they
have always felt estranged and unwelcome by some elements of society,
lean towards the liberal multiculturalist side of the aisle. Liberal
Jews, like all liberals, are multiculturalists, and Jews who tend to
be smart and well placed in society, have their voices heard.
Ironically, liberals as a group, are anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and
are in effect the locus of a new anti-Semitism, while conservatives,
on the other hand, are more supportive of Israel.
As the influence of Islam in Europe increases, Jews are leaving in
droves, mainly for Israel. If and when things go south for Israel, the
world's Jewish population will likely end up mainly in the US and
Canada. (-8

Israel has a special meaning to Jews, but to equate Israelis with Jews
would be a big mistake. There are a lot of Jews who disagree with
Israeli policy vis.a.vis the Palestinians and the Middle East in
general. Nothing ironic about that. Just smart.

Jews who have been blinded by liberalism. Not smart -- just
disgraceful.

[GLOBALIST]

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

I can't see Jews converting to Islam.
Their religion is centuries older than Mohammed.
And I don't know "why" they would not ask for
police protection.
Trump is correct in clamping down on Muslim
refugees without very strict vetting.

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

Post by mg
According to Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor of psychology at
California State University, Long Beach, Jews have been prominent as
main ideologues and promoters of multiculturalism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
Now, however, they are reaping what they sowed, and multiculturalism
in Europe has brought them persecution by the Muslims. There must be
some sort of deep psychological/sociological/philosophical,
scientific lesson about human nature to be derived from the
Jewish/Muslim experience, but I'll leave it to someone else to
-------------------
"Jews Have No Future in France
By Dr. Michael Laitman, 01/15/2016, 04:34 pm ET
Following the jihadist attack on a kippa [Jewish skull-cap] wearing
Jewish teacher in Marseille, the president of the city’s Jewish
community, Zvi Ammar, advised French Jews to leave their kippas at
home. In my view, it is time for the Israeli Foreign Office to
assist French Jews in leaving France before it is too late. . . .
Many of them have already taken off their kippas, tucked in their
Star of David necklaces, removed the mezuzahs [cased excerpts from
the Torah (Old Testament)] from their doorposts, and even avoid
visiting places associated with Jews. Worse yet, according to the
European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), a staggering 77%
[of Jews] do not even bother reporting abuse or harassment.
The situation in Europe has been escalating for years, but now it is
becoming crystal clear: in view of the wave of radical Islamic
terrorism and the recent waves of Muslim immigration to Europe, the
Jews have no future there. In a 2013 televised conversation I had
with the late, Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, who was then head of the
Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he said that in the current
state of affairs, European Jewry has 10-20 years left.
The Israeli Foreign Office is urging European governments to
increase protection of Jewish communities, but it is too little too
late. Currently, Europe’s Jews have two options if they want to stay
safe: Convert to Islam or run for their lives. . . ."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-laitman/jews-have-no-future-in-fr_b_8987428.html
------------------------------------
The beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust
filled my heart.
-- Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein

I can't see Jews converting to Islam.
Their religion is centuries older than Mohammed.
And I don't know "why" they would not ask for
police protection.
Trump is correct in clamping down on Muslim
refugees without very strict vetting.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

OK, Village Idiot, I'll bite yet again.

Do cite from either of The Whining Donald's two immigration bans, Village
Idiot, the words where The Whining Donald is in fact "clamping down on
Muslim refugees without very strict vetting" from either the initial seven
or the subsequent six predominantly Muslim nations. Or, Village Idiot, do
you the Village Idiot equate that total immigration ban from those countries
to actually and in reality be "clamping down on Muslim refugees without very
strict vetting"?

Why, Village Idiot, do you like to create and spread fake news so much?

Please clarify, Village Idiot.

wups..and again does the Village Idiot perform his Intellectual Coward ploy
to run yet once more away from the issue, of curse with his tail prim and
properly held between his legs, back into that deep dark delirious hole of
his under his rock!

[Z]

Post by GLOBALIST
Trump is correct in clamping down on Muslim
refugees without very strict vetting.

And where would you suggest that the refugees go? Where they come from
is bombed out and all rubble so they can't "go back where they came from".

[w***@gmail.com]

As I remember reading, in 1948 Israel was small and it was attacked by its large neighboring countries that wanted to exterminate Israel. Most people expected Israel to lose that war and the Arab inhabitants were urged by their leaders to temporarily leave their homes to permit the Israelites there to get clobbered; and then those leavers were expecting to go back to their homes after Israel would have been defeated. But that did not happen.

[w***@gmail.com]

I understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work (nor does anybody else).

Simplified: Think of a diode. All diodes have a forward resistance and also a reverse resistance. In transistors that reverse resistance can be changed by a current flowing in from the third terminal.

[billbowden]

Post by w***@gmail.com

I understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work
(nor does anybody else).

Simplified: Think of a diode. All diodes have a forward resistance and
also a reverse resistance. In transistors that reverse resistance can be
changed by a current flowing in from the third terminal.

Yes, understood. But what is a current? Well, they say current is the rate
of flow of electric charge expressed in Coulombs per second. So, what is a
Coulomb? and they say it's 6.25 times 10^18 electrons and a flow of one
Coulomb per second is called 1 Ampere.. So, what is an electron? Ever seen
one?

But actually, there can be positive or negative Coulombs, where electrons
are missing in one case and over populated in the other. I never figured
out what happens when one positive Coulomb collides with one negative
Coulomb. It's all magic.




.

[islander]

Post by billbowden

Post by w***@gmail.com

I understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work
(nor does anybody else).

Simplified: Think of a diode. All diodes have a forward resistance and
also a reverse resistance. In transistors that reverse resistance can be
changed by a current flowing in from the third terminal.

Yes, understood. But what is a current? Well, they say current is the rate
of flow of electric charge expressed in Coulombs per second. So, what is a
Coulomb? and they say it's 6.25 times 10^18 electrons and a flow of one
Coulomb per second is called 1 Ampere.. So, what is an electron? Ever seen
one?
But actually, there can be positive or negative Coulombs, where electrons
are missing in one case and over populated in the other. I never figured
out what happens when one positive Coulomb collides with one negative
Coulomb. It's all magic.

Magic to you, perhaps. Otherwise, the science is pretty well understood.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by billbowden

Post by w***@gmail.com

I understand how to use transistors, but I don't understand how they work
(nor does anybody else).

Simplified: Think of a diode. All diodes have a forward resistance and
also a reverse resistance. In transistors that reverse resistance can be
changed by a current flowing in from the third terminal.

Yes, understood. But what is a current? Well, they say current is the rate
of flow of electric charge expressed in Coulombs per second. So, what is a
Coulomb? and they say it's 6.25 times 10^18 electrons and a flow of one
Coulomb per second is called 1 Ampere.. So, what is an electron? Ever seen
one?
But actually, there can be positive or negative Coulombs, where electrons
are missing in one case and over populated in the other. I never figured
out what happens when one positive Coulomb collides with one negative
Coulomb. It's all magic.

Magic to you, perhaps. Otherwise, the science is pretty well understood.

Yes, well understood. Settled science. Very calming and reassuring
when things are well understood. Understanding it all makes us our own
Gods of the universe. Hallelujah! But just one thing. Is an electron a
particle or a wave? Oh, and when electrons exhibit that quantum
entanglement thing, what in the Hell is actually going on?