Democracy Versus Judaism: The Real Challenge

Question:

Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence.

That is entirely false. Hitler was 100% atheist, and considered the very idea of God to be a vile jewish invention. Considering the idea of religeon to be important for the lowly masses, he planned to reintroduce German paganism as opposed to jew-inspired Christianity. Greg Kosinovsky

Response:

Re: Democracy Versus Judaism: The Real Challenge Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence. That is entirely false. Hitler was 100% atheist, and considered the very idea of God to be a vile jewish invention. Considering the idea of religeon to be important for the lowly masses, he planned to reintroduce German paganism as opposed to jew-inspired Christianity.

Erm…. The talk.atheism FAQ says Hitler was a christian. I’ll check & return to this. Greg Kosinovsky

– GT — http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064

Response:

Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence. That is entirely false. Hitler was 100% atheist… Erm…. The talk.atheism FAQ says Hitler was a christian. I’ll check & return to this.

Bwhahaha! George is using a Usenet FAQ as a reference. I’ve really got to hand it to you, George. You really know how to research something! Bobbi — Roberta Hatch ‘65 Panhead Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before you attack the "Pink Swastika" which meticulously documents the connection between the Nazi party and the pedarests why don’t you read the book? Or would you rather burn the book? http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, : historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral : climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany : and Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s, and that of our own time. It : has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of : permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is : shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. : : Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . .

Noah…I am taking a Holocaust course in the hope that if we examine the Holocaust from a perspective of pejudice etc. then maybe more people won’t let it happen..jo

Response:

[intelligent reply snipped to save space]

Thanks for your attribution of intelligence, but since I did not write the below, it might have been more appropriate to have snipped all reference to me. The person you are responding to in most of the post was also the person I was responding to. Huh???? So democracy is bad becasue it can be misued? In a democracy the majority does NOT determine "who is right". One of the cornerstones of democracy is one’s civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and many others, such as the freedom to express one’s opinion and freedom of movement, etc.). The reason that the majority rules in a democracy is to PROTECT those rights and not have one (or a few) people violate the rights of others, as so often happend. But in a democracy the majority has NO right to hard even one person’s civil liberties or natural rights without due process of law, and does NOT have the right to pass any laws it wishes. In a real democracy, even if most people WANT a tyranny and elect pro-tyranny absolute majority, then this congress has NO rights to trample the rights of individuals, any more than a liberal congress has.

I don’t have any problem with this (the original poster might). There is a theoretical problem about what ground you have to arrange the system in this way, where your defence is not theological. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide much of a theoretical justification for minority rights, and "natural rights" systems of thought also fudge the issue. Have you ever read Ursala Le Guin’s Those who walk away from Omalas (which in turn is a dramatisation of the dilema outlined by Dostoyefsky (sp – I don’t have my library here, and I have no clue how to spell his name without it?)). What if incredible happiness of the general populance could be achieved by the constant torture of a small child. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. Could be. Probably not. the reason was that hitler was a rabid anti-semite and a "social darwinist" that considered jews to be keinmensch (non-human).

Yes – but that still begs the further question Why? Why focus on the Jews? – a clearly lot has to do with Christianity and its relationship to Judaism, – but the Nazis certainly claimed that one of the evils that Jews had perpetrated was this notion of G-d, which had kept the German people from achieving "supermench" status. Removed, no. There needs to be a SEPARATION between church and state (er… synagogue and state, i guess, in this case). The moment we staret passing laws that are held by a minority but are the "will of the people" or "the will of God" we will become a banana republic dictatorship, like so many contries.

Actually, why don’t we turn to something that is increasingly looking like a reality in our lifetimes – and that is that the religious population of the State of Israel will be a majority of the populance. Already that is nearly the case in Jerusalem, and the birth rates are so disparate that it something that, barring any major upheavals, can be predicted within the next couple of generations. Already it is interesting to note that the request to close Bar Ilan street was not made on halachic grounds, but on democratic (rights of majority of residents to have the quality of life they desire). Right; it is based on the prejudices that ‘all men are created equal’, that they are endorsed with ‘certain inalianable rights’ (such as liberty, that is here violated), that freedom of speech, expression, etc. are important, that basic rights of all people must be protected regardeless of race, color or creed…

The point I thought (or maybe hoped) the original poster was making was that – if one has a belief in G-d, then the idea that all men (and women) are created equal is rooted in the idea that all men and women are created in the image of G-d – btzelem Elokim. And that without such an underlying belief, the belief in "all men are created equal" is just a prejudice. A good healthy prejudice, and one I am glad you hold (and one that to me in fact indicates a form of belief in the divine, despite your protestations) – but that on its face it is merely a prejudice. A system of govenment that does not respecxt these rights is NOT a democracy, regardless of whether it was a majority or minority that ruled to expell the arabs, the same way that it does not matter one bit whether it was the majority of the Germans (as was the case) or only Hitler that wanted the jews done away with.

Actually, in political terms, I think it is more correct to say that what you (and I) are advocating is a constitutional democracy. ie a democracy governed by the rule of law (whether that constitution be written or unwritten) and basic fundamental norms. We disagree about some of those fundamental norms – I for example, do not see England as a banana republic, despite the fact that there is no separation of Church and State, and in fact, the Head of the Government is also the Head of the Anglican (official State) Church. You, presumably, would disagree. I see those fundamental norms as sourced within religion, you do not. The truth is that you would probably live within my system in the same way that I have lived within the American one, which has constitutional laws with which I disagree. I find numbers of them morally wrong. To take a classic example, I think that the extreme verbal violance that permitted in the name of "free speech" is abhorant and oppressive. I also know that while, in Australia where I grew up, if I heard somebody yelling racial abuse I could have them brought before a court of law, in America, i have to live with seeing what I may consider to be an oppression of a helpless minority. I object far more severely to this situation than to the situation that used to prevail in Australia where shops etc were not permitted by law to open on a Sunday because that was the Christian Sabbath – even though, as a Sabbath observing Jew, it more severely curtailed my ability to live my life than the the former does, and know that it hit the pockets of numbers of other Sabbath observing Jews. But I had a basic respect for those for whom the Australian legislation was important, and their needs, even though it curtailed my lifestyle. I do not have similar sympathy for those who are endulging in their "right of free speech" in the American context in the manner described, even though it may have curtailed *my* lifestyle not one whit. Regards Chana

Response:

I don’t have any problem with this (the original poster might). There is a theoretical problem about what ground you have to arrange the system in this way, where your defence is not theological.

Dostoyevsky said, "if there is no god, everything is allowed" – which expressed his fear that morality (and political justice) must be based on theology in order to ground it in a firm way and give it deontological power. But I, for one, disagree strongly that thius is necessary. however, that is a different discussion. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide much of a theoretical justification for minority rights, and "natural rights" systems of thought also fudge the issue.

However, one does not have to be a utalitarian OR a theologician. I am neither, for example, and have, I believe, good reasons too; but it would take many pages to show why, and this is slightly off topic in this post. I suppose that you do think that one needs to base natural rights in some way on god’s will (whatever THAT may be). As someone (Voltaire?) once said, "if there was no God, we would have to invent him". What if incredible happiness of the general populance could be achieved by the constant torture of a small child.

The utilitarian answer would be that this is forbidden EVEN ON UTILITARIAN GROUNDS, brcause any society that has children tortured has a problem that one is never sure if one’s child will not be tortured and that "reduces the utility". This is a very crude presentation, but Utilitarians DO have answers to these kind of conflicts. Probably not. the reason was that hitler was a rabid anti-semite and a "social darwinist" that considered jews to be keinmensch (non-human). Yes – but that still begs the further question Why? Why focus on the Jews? – a clearly lot has to do with Christianity and its relationship to Judaism, – but the Nazis certainly claimed that one of the evils that Jews had perpetrated was this notion of G-d, which had kept the German people from achieving "supermench" status.

Perhaps; I really don’t think we disagree here too much. Hitler hated the jews; what excuse he formally had to kill them all – racial or theological – is not that important. Already it is interesting to note that the request to close Bar Ilan street was not made on halachic grounds, but on democratic (rights of majority of residents to have the quality of life they desire).

That is, frankly, an old tactic. these claims of the orthodox mean nothing, becasue these are rhetorical claims that show no commitment whatsoever to any democratic principle, specifically, the rights of other that disagree with them. I’ve seen it before: 1. When the ultra-orthodox are a minoroity in a city, they demand that the street will be closed on Saturdays becasue "this is a democracy, and in a democracy a minority has rights too". 2. when they are about equal, they demand that the street will be closed becasue "it is not as if we are a small moinority, we have political power and demand to close the street"; and a refusal is "racism against the religious". 3. When they are a ,majority, like in this case, all of a sudden the "rights of the minority in a democracy" go out the window, and they demand to close the street becasue "this is a democracy, and in a democracy the majority rules"… Mind you, I am NOT saying that you cannot be democratic and religious; far from it. but those claims by the ultra-orthodox do notmean that they are democratic! The point I thought (or maybe hoped) the original poster was making was that – if one has a belief in G-d, then the idea that all men (and women) are created equal is rooted in the idea that all men and women are created in the image of G-d – btzelem Elokim. And that without such an underlying belief, the belief in "all men are created equal" is just a prejudice.

I think you are wqrong in this interpretation of what the original poster said… A good healthy prejudice, and one I am glad you hold (and one that to me in fact indicates a form of belief in the divine, despite your protestations) – but that on its face it is merely a prejudice.

Is any belief in an ethics that does not rely on God ‘prejudice’ without god? I strongly disagree. A system of govenment that does not respecxt these rights is NOT a democracy, regardless of whether it was a majority or minority that ruled to expell the arabs, the same way that it does not matter one bit whether it was the majority of the Germans (as was the case) or only Hitler that wanted the jews done away with. Actually, in political terms, I think it is more correct to say that what you (and I) are advocating is a constitutional democracy. ie a democracy governed by the rule of law (whether that constitution be written or unwritten) and basic fundamental norms.

Exactly. We disagree about some of those fundamental norms – I for example, do not see England as a banana republic, despite the fact that there is no separation of Church and State, and in fact, the Head of the Government is also the Head of the Anglican (official State) Church. You, presumably, would disagree.

I won’t, of course. The analogy fails becasue the official head of state and church – the queen of england – is a figurehead, that has no political power. It WOULD be a banana republic if the prime minister would beal so the head of the church! and, indeed, as long as england was a real monarchy, with kings who not only reigned but ruled, it could not be described as a democracy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I see those fundamental norms as sourced within religion, you do not. The truth is that you would probably live within my system in the same way that I have lived within the American one, which has constitutional laws with which I disagree. I find numbers of them morally wrong. To take a classic example, I think that the extreme verbal violance that permitted in the name of "free speech" is abhorant and oppressive. I also know that while, in Australia where I grew up, if I heard somebody yelling racial abuse I could have them brought before a court of law, in America, i have to live with seeing what I may consider to be an oppression of a helpless minority. I object far more severely to this situation than to the situation that used to prevail in Australia where shops etc were not permitted by law to open on a Sunday because that was the Christian Sabbath – even though, as a Sabbath observing Jew, it more severely curtailed my ability to live my life than the the former does, and know that it hit the pockets of numbers of other Sabbath observing Jews. But I had a basic respect for those for whom the Australian legislation was important, and their needs, even though it curtailed my lifestyle. I do not have similar sympathy for those who are endulging in their "right of free speech" in the American context in the manner described, even though it may have curtailed *my* lifestyle not one whit. Regards Chana

I agree with most of what you said, and have no doubt that many hilonim in israrel would not mind closing the shoips on saturday – if they knew that this is respected by the ultra-orthodox community. however, this is not the case. The ultra-orthodox tactic in Israel is "take and emand more". If we agree to close the shops on saturday, there will next be a demand that all jews will wear a kippah in public (after all, that probably inconviniences less that closing shops for a whole day, so why not be nice to our tradition?), that prayer will be made part of the school corriculum (after all, it is a bad thing that these kids know nothing about their heritage), … and so on and so forth. The end result of this attempt to enforce one’s religious beliefs on others in the guise of "democratic rights" leads eventually to a much greater anatagonism about anything jewish from the hiloni side – since it is linked automatically to the excesses of the ultra-orthodox. That’s a pity! — Avital Pilpel. The majority is never right. -Lazarus Long

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Already it is interesting to note that the request to close Bar Ilan street was not made on halachic grounds, but on democratic (rights of majority of residents to have the quality of life they desire). That is, frankly, an old tactic. these claims of the orthodox mean nothing, becasue these are rhetorical claims that show no commitment whatsoever to any democratic principle, specifically, the rights of other that disagree with them. I’ve seen it before: 1. When the ultra-orthodox are a minoroity in a city, they demand that the street will be closed on Saturdays becasue "this is a democracy, and in a democracy a minority has rights too". 2. when they are about equal, they demand that the street will be closed becasue "it is not as if we are a small moinority, we have political power and demand to close the street"; and a refusal is "racism against the religious". 3. When they are a ,majority, like in this case, all of a sudden the "rights of the minority in a democracy" go out the window, and they demand to close the street becasue "this is a democracy, and in a democracy the majority rules"… Mind you, I am NOT saying that you cannot be democratic and religious; far from it. but those claims by the ultra-orthodox do notmean that they are democratic!

Actually, what you have outlined above seems to me to be a very sophisticated use of democracy. Again, I suppose, there are two ways of viewing democracy – as a believer, which you clearly are, and as a functional system – "the worst possible system, except for all the others". You object to the above uses of the mechanisms and language of democracy, because they are not "believers" in the system. I have some sympathy for this view, but the reality is that the vast majority of people living within a democracy are not believers. The functional view is that the reason democracy "works" is the same way a court system "works". The argument is that a court is not actually about some noble "principles of justice", it is about preventing the emotions of revenge that beat in every human breast from spiralling society into chaos by finding some mechanism by which they can simulatneously have an outlet and yet be controlled. The same is said to be the value of democracy, in allowing for political struggle, and lobbying etc and the jousting of political streams, without needing to kill the last king to put in the next. The strength and value of a democractic system is thus that Shimon Peres left office and Netanyahu is now in, without civil war. Similarly the constant buffetting of political desires and expectations is what demonstrates the robustness of the system (and certainly parliamentary democracy has proved to be an extremely robust system – although Presidential democracies, with the one notable exception of the US, have proved to be rather less stable). In this view the issue is all about realpolitik. Whether one is a "believer" in the idea of constitutional democracy is frequently quite evident, but is found on all sides of the religious divide. This is because the classic evidence of belief is restraint where it would be of individual benefit to act. Thus just as, religious Jews restrain from actions that would damage the sabbath, believers in democracy and the rights of man excercise restraint in the protection of their beliefs. To take the case of your politician – there are clearly two types – the one who will act for his own personal advantage, regardless whether or not it is in consonence with his beliefs. So that, for example, some labour party members will attack *anything* said by the Likud, whether or not it happens to be something with which they would otherwise agree, simply because the Labour party is the *other* who needs to be defeated, or alternatively there is the politician who will only attack or argue against something that is a genuine difference of principle between them. The restrain from attack in the other circumstance because of their belief in principles that make such an action inappropriate. Likewise there are two types who post from a secular Israeli perspective on this board. The one is determined to attack Orthodoxy at all cost, including setting up straw men, and running ridiculous arguments that have no relation to the real views of the people they are attacking. Their understanding is that it is important to "defeat" the enemy idea, and all’s fair in love and war. They no more believe in constitutional democracy than those you cite above, who "use" the language in order to achieve victory for their particular religious idea. On the other hand, there are others who refuse to distort the views of others in this way, because they genuinely believe in the dignity of man and the right of freedom of expression and religious worship etc. This means that certain types of arguments are out of bounds – even if it would help bring the Orthodox world into disrepute and would thereby "help" their cause. I’m afraid that the believers are, relatively, few and far between. If you demand that only believers participate in democracy, you rule out most of your politicians on either side, and many secular Israelis as well. If you are happy to allow a system whereby the various factions and lobby groups are forced to play by the rules, knowing that each and every one will seek to use them to their own ends, trusting the robustness of the system to protect it, then there is nothing at all wrong with the rhetoric you articulated above. It is not different from the rhetoric that comes from all sides – except perhaps that is demonstrates and extremely sophisticated grasp of the language and nature of democracy. Is any belief in an ethics that does not rely on God ‘prejudice’ without god? I strongly disagree.

This leads us back to the matters you felt were off point and were at the top of your post. I tend to side somewhat with Doystoyefsky – not that everything without G-d is necessarily permissible (I believe that most human beings have been too "wired" for aspects of goodness than that), but that the apologetics involved in justifying one’s prejudice towards goodness are just that, apologetics. We disagree about some of those fundamental norms – I for example, do not see England as a banana republic, despite the fact that there is no separation of Church and State, and in fact, the Head of the Government is also the Head of the Anglican (official State) Church. You, presumably, would disagree. I won’t, of course. The analogy fails becasue the official head of state and church – the queen of england – is a figurehead, that has no political power.

Figureheads are important. Think of what it would mean if an Arab were to be Israeli president. It WOULD be a banana republic if the prime minister would beal so the head of the church! and, indeed, as long as england was a real monarchy, with kings who not only reigned but ruled, it could not be described as a democracy.

No, but there are other aspects that also make it a Christian country (leaving aside the complete absence of public transport, movie theatres etc on Christmas day). I am not sure of the situation here – but in Australia, when they were having the debate on Women priests in the Anglican church, it became apparent that the Anglican Church in the various states of Australia has its own Parliamentary Act, which sets up the synods and the anglican court systems etc etc. This I am sure is copied from England, which is a far more Anglican country. The proof of this is that numbers of the Archbishops are chosen by the Prime MInister (Maggie Thatcher was regarded as having felt that one of her most serious mistakes was in her selection of the Archbishop of Cantabury – the next, under the Queen, in status in the Church). Likewise many of the free government schools, completely funded by the State are Anglican, a position that does not exist with other religions. This in many ways parallels the melachti dati system in Israel (the Chief Rabbi system is technically more independant of the State than the Archbiship of Cantabury). Somebody who is more knowledgeable about the House of Lords than I am can no doubt contribute more – but I am distinctly under the impression that the House of Lords does not only seat lords temporal, but also lords spiritual (the traditional division between Barons and Bishops). Being a member of the House of Lords gives the right of a vote (and that can mean a veto) on every piece of legislation for governing the land. It is only as the country as a whole has become less and less religious, that there has been a move to open shops on Sunday, be able to get a drink on Sunday etc etc. I doubt very much that it would have been done had there remained a significant and vocal minority opposed. But I do not think that England was any less a democracy 50 years ago, when such a minority/majority existed, and such laws were enforced. The English model, which the Israeli one more closely resembles than the American, never had the concept of a separation of church and state, and certainly never sought to put it into practice. The Australian constitution enshrines the right of other religions to worship as they wish without discrimination, but did not seek to establish the American form of separation. The English never even when that far, their provisions allowing freedom of other religions without discrimination are merely statutory. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I agree with most of what you said, and have no doubt that many hilonim in israrel would not mind closing the shoips on saturday – if they knew that this is respected by the ultra-orthodox community. however, this is not the case. The ultra-orthodox tactic in Israel is "take and emand more". If we agree to close the shops on

Response:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [intelligent reply snipped to save space] Thanks for your attribution of intelligence, but since I did not write the below, it might have been more appropriate to have snipped all reference to me. The person you are responding to in most of the post was also the person I was responding to. Huh???? So democracy is bad becasue it can be misued? In a democracy the majority does NOT determine "who is right". One of the cornerstones of democracy is one’s civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and many others, such as the freedom to express one’s opinion and freedom of movement, etc.). The reason that the majority rules in a democracy is to PROTECT those rights and not have one (or a few) people violate the rights of others, as so often happend. But in a democracy the majority has NO right to hard even one person’s civil liberties or natural rights without due process of law, and does NOT have the right to pass any laws it wishes. In a real democracy, even if most people WANT a tyranny and elect pro-tyranny absolute majority, then this congress has NO rights to trample the rights of individuals, any more than a liberal congress has. I don’t have any problem with this (the original poster might). There is a theoretical problem about what ground you have to arrange the system in this way, where your defence is not theological. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide much of a theoretical justification for minority rights, and "natural rights" systems of thought also fudge the issue. Have you ever read Ursala Le Guin’s Those who walk away from Omalas (which in turn is a dramatisation of the dilema outlined by Dostoyefsky (sp – I don’t have my library here, and I have no clue how to spell his name without it?)). What if incredible happiness of the general populance could be achieved by the constant torture of a small child. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. Could be. Probably not. the reason was that hitler was a rabid anti-semite and a "social darwinist" that considered jews to be keinmensch (non-human). Yes – but that still begs the further question Why? Why focus on the Jews? – a clearly lot has to do with Christianity and its relationship to Judaism, – but the Nazis certainly claimed that one of the evils that Jews had perpetrated was this notion of G-d, which had kept the German people from achieving "supermench" status. Removed, no. There needs to be a SEPARATION between church and state (er… synagogue and state, i guess, in this case). The moment we staret passing laws that are held by a minority but are the "will of the people" or "the will of God" we will become a banana republic dictatorship, like so many contries. Actually, why don’t we turn to something that is increasingly looking like a reality in our lifetimes – and that is that the religious population of the State of Israel will be a majority of the populance. Already that is nearly the case in Jerusalem, and the birth rates are so disparate that it something that, barring any major upheavals, can be predicted within the next couple of generations. Already it is interesting to note that the request to close Bar Ilan street was not made on halachic grounds, but on democratic (rights of majority of residents to have the quality of life they desire). Right; it is based on the prejudices that ‘all men are created equal’, that they are endorsed with ‘certain inalianable rights’ (such as liberty, that is here violated), that freedom of speech, expression, etc. are important, that basic rights of all people must be protected regardeless of race, color or creed… The point I thought (or maybe hoped) the original poster was making was that – if one has a belief in G-d, then the idea that all men (and women) are created equal is rooted in the idea that all men and women are created in the image of G-d – btzelem Elokim. And that without such an underlying belief, the belief in "all men are created equal" is just a prejudice. A good healthy prejudice, and one I am glad you hold (and one that to me in fact indicates a form of belief in the divine, despite your protestations) – but that on its face it is merely a prejudice. A system of govenment that does not respecxt these rights is NOT a democracy, regardless of whether it was a majority or minority that ruled to expell the arabs, the same way that it does not matter one bit whether it was the majority of the Germans (as was the case) or only Hitler that wanted the jews done away with. Actually, in political terms, I think it is more correct to say that what you (and I) are advocating is a constitutional democracy. ie a democracy governed by the rule of law (whether that constitution be written or unwritten) and basic fundamental norms. We disagree about some of those fundamental norms – I for example, do not see England as a banana republic, despite the fact that there is no separation of Church and State, and in fact, the Head of the Government is also the Head of the Anglican (official State) Church. You, presumably, would disagree. I see those fundamental norms as sourced within religion, you do not. The truth is that you would probably live within my system in the same way that I have lived within the American one, which has constitutional laws with which I disagree. I find numbers of them morally wrong. To take a classic example, I think that the extreme verbal violance that permitted in the name of "free speech" is abhorant and oppressive. I also know that while, in Australia where I grew up, if I heard somebody yelling racial abuse I could have them brought before a court of law, in America, i have to live with seeing what I may consider to be an oppression of a helpless minority. I object far more severely to this situation than to the situation that used to prevail in Australia where shops etc were not permitted by law to open on a Sunday because that was the Christian Sabbath – even though, as a Sabbath observing Jew, it more severely curtailed my ability to live my life than the the former does, and know that it hit the pockets of numbers of other Sabbath observing Jews. But I had a basic respect for those for whom the Australian legislation was important, and their needs, even though it curtailed my lifestyle. I do not have similar sympathy for those who are endulging in their "right of free speech" in the American context in the manner described, even though it may have curtailed *my* lifestyle not one whit. Regards Chana

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="JUDG0ACT.397" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="JUDG0ACT.397" "JUDICIAL ACTIVITY" OPPOSITION; -YES and NOT. -the people opinion on this conception. I believe the discussion on the "judicial activity" conception has a public interest for problems of human right defence in our country. But the discussion on problematic propositions detached from facts will cause mistakes in the theoretical research and will cause wrong consequences, wrong conceptions, harmful for people, contrasting to our Human Rights condition and opposite to our Human Respect Law . I want explain the facts of the precedents happened with me; I believe publication of facts sometimes happen in our court will help prevent big mistakes in this discussion. The evidences will not unable turning discussion in demagogue casuistry. The facts pointed: a citizen sometimes is helpless against abuse. Of course our establishment will not be satisfied with my assertion, but I hope that my story will arise public interest in discussing problems and effect revision of false postulates and effect changes in the blunder perceptions. My purpose is examining the perception of "judicial activity" with the facts of our life and the relations with democratic principles and human rights defense conceptions and justice. A few words on my impression of the "judicial activity" perception: One of our scientists had the idea of judicial activity’s right; he explains that the Israel court is independent of political administration; than if the judge see the lawgiver get a wrong law, then for human right sentry a judge has the authority of judgement against the law, (even the judge consider opposite to parliament). Really this casuistry permit to judge free to do arbitrary decree. What happens in practice you see in my and other citizens causes. If the abuse is possible now against me, tomorrow it will happen with You or with other citizen; it is a public danger. The perception that the Israel court is independent from political administration is very impressive but not exactly. Let’s remember that over half of our parliament members are lawyers with corporate interest, mentality, dependence. The commission for judge nomination consists of advocates only. In the press were publications of existing protection by judge’s nominations. There have been precedents of corruption. All agree -that a judge is a human being only. Not any Angel. I mind that the

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence. That is entirely false. Hitler was 100% atheist… Erm…. The talk.atheism FAQ says Hitler was a christian. I’ll check & return to this. Bwhahaha! George is using a Usenet FAQ as a reference. hitler was born a christian, of course.

sssomttimesss mmyyy tttyyppposss aammmmaaazzze eevveenn mmeee… — Avital Pilpel. The majority is never right. -Lazarus Long

Response:

Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence. That is entirely false. Hitler was 100% atheist, and considered the very idea of God to be a vile jewish invention. Considering the idea of religeon to be important for the lowly masses, he planned to reintroduce German paganism as opposed to jew-inspired Christianity. Erm…. The talk.atheism FAQ says Hitler was a christian. I’ll check & return to this.

Yep, and alt.talk.hatfield probably has in its FAQ that Hitler was a real McCoy! Greg Kosinovsky

Response:

hitler was born a christian, of course.

Yes, and Trotsky was born a jew. The anti-semites use this fact to this day as "proof" that communism was a "jewish" or even "judaic" conspiracy. he rarely used god in his spppeches – until the war started to turn against him; and the worse it got for him, the more he attributed "certain final victory" to "the guiding hand of providence" and "my sacred mission", etc.

When Stalin finally had awoken from drunken stupor a couple of weeks after Hitler’s attack, he addressed the Soviet people as "dear brothers and sisters". Naturally this reflects his true feelings towards them. It is a well known fact that the most Godless scoundrel envokes the name of God in desperate moments. To present this as evidence of scoundrel’s religiosity is most disingenuous. Greg Kosinovsky

Response:

hitler was born a christian, of course. he rarely used god in his spppeches – until the war started to turn against him; and the worse it got for him, the more he attributed "certain final victory" to "the guiding hand of providence" and "my sacred mission", etc. — Avital Pilpel. The majority is never right. -Lazarus Long

Response:

Before you attack the "Pink Swastika" which meticulously documents the connection between the Nazi party and the pedarests why don’t you read the book? Or would you rather burn the book? http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, : historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral : climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany : and Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s, and that of our own time. It : has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of : permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is : shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. : : Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . .

Response:

In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.970306111855.16823Q- Democracy Versus Judaism (Ethical Monotheism) The Real Challenge (For not only Israel, but America) Our Father Abraham was called Avraham ha Ivri." "Ivri" comes from the Hebrew word eiver meaning the bank or side of a river. The reason he was given that name, our rabbis tell us, is because Abraham stood alone on one side of the river, and the entire world stood on the other side. In other words, although he was all alone with his faith in the One God, our father, Abraham, refused to acept the opinion of the rest of the world, much less the majority. The example set by the founding father of Judaism is one that we have always been called upon to follow, in every generation, including the one in which we live today.

This is a nice drash, but it rather contradicts the halacha – "achrei rabbim le hattos" – ie follow the majority, as understood by our great halachic sages: To quote the Rashba: "The agreement of the of the inhabitants [benei medina] has the force of law [din]; whenever a majority adopts an enactment upon which they have agreed, the views of the minority are disregarded because the majority of every town have the same relation to the minority as the Great Court [bet din gadol] has to all of Israel. Any enactment they adopt is valid, and whoever violates it, is subject to sanctions …" [responsa of the Rashba V #126] "I every community, the minority are subject to the will of the majority, they must conduct their affairs under the majority’s rules. The relation of the minority to the general population of their town is the same as that of all Israel to the High Court or the King; and this is so whether or not they were actually present" [Responsa of the Rashba III #411] So rather than incompatibility of democracy with halacha, democracy is a part of halacha, and obeying the rulings of the majority are part of the halachic obligation. Yes this obligation has limits – just as, for example, the observance of the Sabbath has limits in that it must not be kept if it would endanger a human life, so there are circumstances when one must not follow the majority, and there are circumstances when the minority must be protected. But the basic halachic starting point is that the majority must be followed unless and until one of those exceptions occur. And in all cases, the majority must be respected – even in those limited cases where one is forbidden to act at their command. Back in Egypt Pharoah said to Moses, (Exodus 5:2), "Who is the L-rd that I should obey His voice…?" "I know not the L-rd…" This was the challenge which began all of the oppression of the Jewish people. To this day, it is this challenge which forms the basis for which G-d’s chosen nation exists.

Agreed. But one has to follow Hashem in all the intricacy of his laws, and not reject those that go against one’s nationalist idealogy. The Holocaust, as every other persecution of the Jewish People throughout the centuries, occurred as a result of an effort at world domination by evil people. The rules stood in the way of those who chose to create their own morality.

Agreed. Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis.

Part of the rules of halachic democracy is that you cannot discriminate against the minority – eg singling out Jews for discriminatory treatment. Such a rule by the majority is invalid, notwithstanding the general respect for majority rule, as indicated above. No, halachic democracy is not the same as pure majority rule – it has inbuilt safeguards for minorities. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d.

Could be. While the facade of "democarcy" and "freedom of expression" are

Likewise, halachic freedom of expression is not the same as the American variety – in which anything offensive goes. You are not free to make unnecessary derogatory remarks, and certainly not of the type that causes offence – *unless* it is necessary for certain limited purposes – ie to prevent somebody from suffering harm. Thus you are permitted to make certain limited remarks to an individual considering someone as a marriage partner, or as a business partner, to prevent that person from becoming involved with a crook or worse. But there needs to be a *need to know*. No need to know, no reason for gratuitous remarks. held up as sacred justification for such repugnant behavior, clearly, we have come to a red line which must be held up for all to see. Although the United States was certainly founded upon concepts of biblical morality which are openly being threatened today, how much more so is the Jewish State?

Agreed. There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority.

No, they mustn’t. But the majority can rule that – for example, the Rambam’s views are to be followed throughout the community, save for a couple of specific matters, where the views of another Rav are to be followed [eg Tudela]. So that, where there is a machlokus of poskim, the community can rule to follow one posek, – and everybody is obligated to follow that posek, even though they might otherwise have followed a different posek. The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism, a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices.

Response:

[intelligent reply snipped to save space] Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis.

Huh???? So democracy is bad becasue it can be misued? In a democracy the majority does NOT determine "who is right". One of the cornerstones of democracy is one’s civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and many others, such as the freedom to express one’s opinion and freedom of movement, etc.). The reason that the majority rules in a democracy is to PROTECT those rights and not have one (or a few) people violate the rights of others, as so often happend. But in a democracy the majority has NO right to hard even one person’s civil liberties or natural rights without due process of law, and does NOT have the right to pass any laws it wishes. In a real democracy, even if most people WANT a tyranny and elect pro-tyranny absolute majority, then this congress has NO rights to trample the rights of individuals, any more than a liberal congress has. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. Could be.

Probably not. the reason was that hitler was a rabid anti-semite and a "social darwinist" that considered jews to be keinmensch (non-human). There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority.

Don’t be a jerk. This memeber of the knesset meant something completly different than what you think – he meant that he has a strong suspicion that those who tell us what laws GOD wants and what laws are HIS will are actually working for an absentee boss… that this claim of "God’s wil" is nothing more than a cynical attempt to get illegitimate power. Hitler, too, by the way, considered himself god-sent and a meseenger of providence. So did the spanish inquisition… Quite simply put, if GOD told me what he wanted, I would comply. If someone tells me what HE says God wants, sorry. Besides, what if you are an atheist and think that there is no god, like me? How about MY rights in your ‘halachitic democracy’? The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism,

Removed, no. There needs to be a SEPARATION between church and state (er… synagogue and state, i guess, in this case). The moment we staret passing laws that are held by a minority but are the "will of the people" or "the will of God" we will become a banana republic dictatorship, like so many contries. a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices.

Right; it is based on the prejudices that ‘all men are created equal’, that they are endorsed with ‘certain inalianable rights’ (such as liberty, that is here violated), that freedom of speech, expression, etc. are important, that basic rights of all people must be protected regardeless of race, color or creed… Gee, what a bunch of prejudiced people! I guess i join them in my stupid insistence on those rights. A system of govenment that does not respecxt these rights is NOT a democracy, regardless of whether it was a majority or minority that ruled to expell the arabs, the same way that it does not matter one bit whether it was the majority of the Germans (as was the case) or only Hitler that wanted the jews done away with. — Avital Pilpel. The majority is never right. -Lazarus Long

Response:

The status of Gerei toshav in the time that the Yovel is operating is conferred on those non-Jews in Israel who are willing to accept the seven noachide laws in front of a beis din. In our times, when the Yovel is not operating, the beis din does not operate either, and the status of Gerei Toshav is conferred automatically on those non-Jews who keept the seven noachide laws. This includes all Arabs. That’s not what Rambam says. The status of Ger Toshav is linked to the Yovel, and does not exist now.

That is not the understanding of Rav Hertzog (and others I believe, but since I have him in front of me, and he is usually at least one of those cited today, lets stick to him). He quotes the Rambam, and the Yerushalmi. He also brings the Rivad on that Rambam, who disagrees, and the Kesef Mishna who states that in fact the Rambam agrees with the Ra’avad - and poskens accordingly. Thus we have, at worst, a Rambam versus Ra’avad plus Shulchan Aruch divide – so you can understand Rav Hertzog’s position – which is, as I have stated above – that what is linked to the Yovel is the acceptance before a Beis Din, but the status continues, and happens automatically bezman haze. Note that he also provides a rationale for this – in that, the acceptance before a beis din is necessary in a time when kedushat ha-aretz is d’orisa, but not required at a time when kedushat ha-aretz is only d’rabbanan. In addition, a ger toshav is not a citizen. The whole point is that he is a resident alien, living in Israel by the good graces of the Jewish people. This clearly does not cover the case of Israeli Arabs.

a)it does cover the Israeli Arabs – ask poskened by Rav Hertzog et al. b)there is no concept of ‘citizenship’ in halacha in that sense. A ger toshav is a non-Jew who has the *right* to live in the Land of Israel. Probably legal resident is closer, – it does not have to do with "good graces". I seem to have confused a whole bunch of people with my reference to citzenship. I was not saying that citzenship is a halachic category – what I was pointing out was that citizenship was evidence of an attitude that was claimed did not exist, ie that the declaration of citzenship negatived a claim of hostility to Jewish settlement that was claimed by one poster to prevent the otherwise eligible from attaining the status of Ger Toshav. But in terms of "good graces" – lets start from the begining: There are three key pasukim in relation to a Ger Toshav: Vaikra 25:36 "And if your brother grows poor and his portion fails with you, then you shall strengthen him, ger v’toshav, that he may live with you" and D’varim 24:14 Thou shall not opress the hired servant whether he be of thy brothers or of the strangers in thy land within they gates…" Dvarim 23:!7 "He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose, in one of your gates which seems good to him, you shall not oppress him". And the Sifrei says there: "In the place that he shall choose – in the place from which he can earn a living" "Good for him" – from a bad place to a good place" "You shall not opress him – this is the oppression of words [onat d'varim". Note that because of these it has been claimed that that the prohibition on oppressing the ger toshav, as with the ger tzedek, is extremely severe, because there is in it the violation of three negative commandments. And the Rambam writes (Hilchos Melachim Perek 10 Halacha 12), that it was encumbant to act with him "with derech eretz and gimilut chassidim like a Jew" for behold we are commanded to sustain him. And the Baal Hachinuch comments that the reason the Torah has to stress this so many times and so emphatically is to "remind us of the great pain that is to any man who finds himself in the midst of strangers" (Chinuch Mirzvah 431). Thus, rather than good graces, the position of the Ger Toshav is one of right - right to live where he chooses, right to work where he pleases, right to be sustained among the poor and needy of Jews. It was because of these kinds of rights that articles have been written in halachic journals arguing that - for example, it is halachically forbidden, at times of high unemployment, such as during the height of the Soviet aliya, to sack Arab workers in order to give jobs to new olim (Or HaMizrach - Nissan-Tamuz, 1991 "Jewish labour in our day in the light of the halacha") -- Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne

Regards Chana

Response:

That's not what Rambam says. The status of Ger Toshav is linked to the Yovel, and does not exist now. In addition, a ger toshav is not a citizen. The whole point is that he is a resident alien, living in Israel by the good graces of the Jewish people. This clearly does not cover the case of Israeli Arabs. -- Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne

Response:

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970310162355.17417B- writes The issue of Arabs who refused, or would have refused, had it been on offer, the offer of Israeli citizenship is obviously a different one. No such offer was generally made, so the question is moot. The offer was made to Arab residents of Jerusalem, but only a small minority accepted it. Not all non-Arab residents of Israel (e.g. Christian clergy) asked for Israeli citizenship. Is non-acceptance of Israeli citizenship proof of antagonism to the State?

I don't think so necessarily (it would depend on the context). For example, I doubt that I would accept English citizenship were it on offer, because by doing so I would lose my Australian citzenship, which I would rather not do. I do not think that indicates that I am hostile to England, which is the country I am currently living in. On the other hand, there are circumstances were a refusal of citizenship might be done because one does not recognise the legitimacy of the State offering. Rather i was trying to point out that acceptance of Israeli citizenship clearly constituted acceptance of the presence of Jews and their right to live in Israel, acceptance of the rule of law in the country etc. The post I responded to said that the Arabs were potential gerei toshav and that they were not because they rejected the existance of the Jewish State - and what i was pointing out was that Arabs who had accepted Israeli citzenship were therefore unquestionably in the category of actual gerei toshav. In any event, one of the many halachas purtaining to how one is required to treat Gerei toshav, includes onat devarim, not oppressing them with words. The implication, as from your post, that *all* Arabs, including law abiding Israeli citizens, are in a state of war with Israel, clearly constitutes onat devarim. It is important that this be recognised, and that, at the very least, your comments be modified to only discuss non-Israeli Arabs (who are not Jordanians, or possibly Egyptians etc etc) I am amused that Chana considers acceptance of Israeli citizenship by a non-Jew - a purely secular matter -

From a halachic point of view does not separate between 'Church and State' in the way that Christianity does, and therefore the concept of secular as opposed to religious, is not simple. As I pointed out in other parts of my earlier post, obeying the law and the enactments of the majority are religious principles within halacha. The status of Gerei toshav in the time that the Yovel is operating is conferred on those non-Jews in Israel who are willing to accept the seven noachide laws in front of a beis din. In our times, when the Yovel is not operating, the beis din does not operate either, and the status of Gerei Toshav is conferred automatically on those non-Jews who keept the seven noachide laws. This includes all Arabs. It is sometimes argued that there is a further implied test - that being that the people must be willing to accept living in the midst of a polity of Jews, ie not to be treating a political entity of Jews as an enemy. Israeli citizenship is about as clearcut a positive answer as you can get to this argument. You can argue about whether this second limb is required. The fellow whose post i was responding to, argued in this vein. I am just point out a clear unequivocal minimum position. to be a means of attaining the halakhic status of "ger toshav", and with it the privilege of not being subject to verbal abuse ("ona`at dvarim").

I'm not suggesting that you ought to go around abusing anyone. But one is violating several explicit Torah prohibitions if one subjects a Ger Toshav to verbal abuse (verbal oppression is probably a better translation, because it conveys the sense better, it is a fair bit wider than mere verbal abuse), and considering the extent of it that we see on this newsgroup - if at the very least that was stopped, we would be getting somewhere. My amusement is tempered when I call to mind the recent municipal elections in France, where Le Pen's doctrine, that it is illegal to abuse citizens but foreign residents are fair game, has become so popular.

The issue is a little different to what i am suggesting. The foreign residents in France would dearly love to have citzenship - it is the government that won't give it to them. If citizenship were open to all who desired it, I think we might have a slightly different attitude to a suggestion that one could only abuse those who refused citzenship (even if they are people like me, who are living off the fat of the land but not contributing my vote). The horror of Le Pen is that he is not prepared to accept those who want to be accepted. That is why I don't think that you can prove that because somebody does *not* have citzenship they do not fit within the category - what you can say, point blank, is that somebody who does, does. How about this Amitai - somebody whom has not demonstated his/her rejection of the State and its law but not made a positive commitment either s is a safek Ger Toshav, and safek d'orisa l'chumra. Does that help? Amitai

Chana

Response:

I am in sympathy with much of wht Chana wrote below, but would like to make two brief comments. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - writes Agreed, they are being inconsistent. If they followed halacha, they certainly would have a justification. After all, Rav Hertzog, and many others, have held that the Arabs constitute gerei toshav - and therefore the halacha prohibits their forceable removal. And this is despite any vote of the majority to the contrary ie it fits squarely within one of the exceptions to the following of majority rule. Arabs potentially constitute gerei toshav - if they accept the presence of Jews and allow Jews to live in peace. Agreed. That is not what happened. That is what happened with regard to Israeli Arabs, who accepted Israeli citizenship, and the obligations that go along with it. That brings them into the category of Gerei toshav. If an individual person among them then decides to then disobey the law, he or she is in the same position as a Jew who decides to disobey the law, they can be punished with the full force of the law, but that is true of any one who then behaves in a criminal way, it has nothing to do with the other members of his community. The issue of Arabs who refused, or would have refused, had it been on offer, the offer of Israeli citizenship is obviously a different one. No such offer was generally made, so the question is moot.

The offer was made to Arab residents of Jerusalem, but only a small minority accepted it. Not all non-Arab residents of Israel (e.g. Christian clergy) asked for Israeli citizenship. Is non-acceptance of Israeli citizenship proof of antagonism to the State? - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - But it is, after all, arguable that Oslo constituted the acceptance that you mention above (it appears to have been accepted by successive governments that it does). And the issue of what can be done, even in a state of outright war, according to the halacha is, in and of itself, limited in fundamental ways that are, strangely enough closer to the views of Meretz on the subject than they are to the standard non religious right wing position. In any event, one of the many halachas purtaining to how one is required to treat Gerei toshav, includes onat devarim, not oppressing them with words. The implication, as from your post, that *all* Arabs, including law abiding Israeli citizens, are in a state of war with Israel, clearly constitutes onat devarim. It is important that this be recognised, and that, at the very least, your comments be modified to only discuss non-Israeli Arabs (who are not Jordanians, or possibly Egyptians etc etc)

I am amused that Chana considers acceptance of Israeli citizenship by a non-Jew - a purely secular matter - to be a means of attaining the halakhic status of "ger toshav", and with it the privilege of not being subject to verbal abuse ("ona`at dvarim"). My amusement is tempered when I call to mind the recent municipal elections in France, where Le Pen's doctrine, that it is illegal to abuse citizens but foreign residents are fair game, has become so popular. Amitai | Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology | | http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi | | | | "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 | - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Regards Chana

Response:

Agreed, they are being inconsistent. If they followed halacha, they certainly would have a justification. After all, Rav Hertzog, and many others, have held that the Arabs constitute gerei toshav - and therefore the halacha prohibits their forceable removal. And this is despite any vote of the majority to the contrary ie it fits squarely within one of the exceptions to the following of majority rule. Arabs potentially constitute gerei toshav - if they accept the presence of Jews and allow Jews to live in peace. That is not what happened. Instead, Arabs supported the expuslsion of Jews, the exclusion of Jews from Arab controlled areas, and the extermination of the Jewish People. So by Halakha, they can be considered to have removed themselves from the definition "gerei toshav" and placed themselves into the definition "evenmy of Israel" amd as such Israel could have removed them from the land. MAY THE ARABS BE TREATED AS THEY HAD PLANNED TO TREAT THE JEWS.

Response:

writes - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Agreed, they are being inconsistent. If they followed halacha, they certainly would have a justification. After all, Rav Hertzog, and many others, have held that the Arabs constitute gerei toshav - and therefore the halacha prohibits their forceable removal. And this is despite any vote of the majority to the contrary ie it fits squarely within one of the exceptions to the following of majority rule. Arabs potentially constitute gerei toshav - if they accept the presence of Jews and allow Jews to live in peace.

Agreed. That is not what happened.

That is what happened with regard to Israeli Arabs, who accepted Israeli citizenship, and the obligations that go along with it. That brings them into the category of Gerei toshav. If an individual person among them then decides to then disobey the law, he or she is in the same position as a Jew who decides to disobey the law, they can be punished with the full force of the law, but that is true of any one who then behaves in a criminal way, it has nothing to do with the other members of his community. The issue of Arabs who refused, or would have refused, had it been on offer, the offer of Israeli citizenship is obviously a different one. No such offer was generally made, so the question is moot. But it is, after all, arguable that Oslo constituted the acceptance that you mention above (it appears to have been accepted by successive governments that it does). And the issue of what can be done, even in a state of outright war, according to the halacha is, in and of itself, limited in fundamental ways that are, strangely enough closer to the views of Meretz on the subject than they are to the standard non religious right wing position. In any event, one of the many halachas purtaining to how one is required to treat Gerei toshav, includes onat devarim, not oppressing them with words. The implication, as from your post, that *all* Arabs, including law abiding Israeli citizens, are in a state of war with Israel, clearly constitutes onat devarim. It is important that this be recognised, and that, at the very least, your comments be modified to only discuss non-Israeli Arabs (who are not Jordanians, or possibly Egyptians etc etc) Regards Chana

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - A Voice From Hebron B"H Gary M. Cooperberg The Jewish Press, Week of January 12 to January 18, 1996 Democracy Versus Judaism (Ethical Monotheism) The Real Challenge (For not only Israel, but America) Our Father Abraham was called Avraham ha Ivri." "Ivri" comes from the Hebrew word eiver meaning the bank or side of a river. The reason he was given that name, our rabbis tell us, is because Abraham stood alone on one side of the river, and the entire world stood on the other side. In other words, although he was all alone with his faith in the One God, our father, Abraham, refused to acept the opinion of the rest of the world, much less the majority. The example set by the founding father of Judaism is one that we have always been called upon to follow, in every generation, including the one in which we live today. Back in Egypt Pharoah said to Moses, (Exodus 5:2), "Who is the L-rd that I should obey His voice...?" "I know not the L-rd..." This was the challenge which began all of the oppression of the Jewish people. To this day, it is this challenge which forms the basis for which G-d's chosen nation exists. The Holocaust, as every other persecution of the Jewish People throughout the centuries, occurred as a result of an effort at world domination by evil people. The rules stood in the way of those who chose to create their own morality. Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. I just finished reading a book which I really didn't want to read. Its very title, The Pink Swastika: A Study of Homosexuality In the Nazis Party, was so repugnant to me that I wanted nothing to do with it. But its co-author, Kevin Abrams, who lives in Israel with his family, convinced me of the importance of this very readable 200-page volume. I am now grateful to Kevin for his persistence. While at least three quarters of the book is devoted to historical facts about how the Nazi leadership was immersed in sexual perversion and occult customs, and how deeply entrenched the Weimar Republic became in deviant behavior even before the emergence of the Nazi party, what is most compelling is the last part of the book. For one who has lived outside of the United States for over 14 years, I was totally stunned to read how pervasive the "gay rights" movement has become. What began as a seemingly innocent effort toward "freedom of choice," is rapidly developing into a political movement, employing violence to achieve domination. The parallel to what happened in Germany is terrifying. Without going into the gory details, a simple but clear generality can and must be stated. Overt deviant sexual behavior is the most blatant and powerful method to demonstrate contempt for G-d. The Nazi quest for world domination immediately recognized Bibilical morality as its enemy. As such it flaunted and exalted the most abominable, hedonistic behavior possible which eventually led to the attempted annihilation of the People of G-d. Today, we find ourselves in a state of moral upheaval which, once again, challenges the legitimacy of Biblical truth. Today, the so- called "gay rights" movement and all of its offshoots present a clear and present danger of, once again, exploiting democaracy as a means to destroying morality and G-dliness. Even in the Jewish state today, we see the emergence of political efforts to legitimze sexual deviance. Israel television bases most of its commercials upon blatantly sexual themes, the anti-Aids campaign has found fertile ground in the Knesset for suggesting to our youth that defiance of authority and sexual promiscuity are acceptable standards of behavior. Knesset Member Yael Dayan, daughter of the famed Gneral Moshe Dayan, unabashedly stated her blasphemous assertion that King David was the homosexual lover of King Saul's son Jonathan; and the Supreme Court in Israel has already upheld the concept of gay partners as a legitimate familial relationship. While the facade of "democarcy" and "freedom of expression" are held up as sacred justification for such repugnant behavior, clearly, we have come to a red line which must be held up for all to see. Although the United States was certainly founded upon concepts of biblical morality which are openly being threatened today, how much more so is the Jewish State? There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority. It is this very demand which is at the center of the controversy which plagues us today. It is not Arabs who pose the greatest danger to the Jewish State today, nor is it the risk of losing American support. The real challenge which threatens us is whether the Jewish State can remain faithful to the Jewish G-d. It is precisely on moral issues, such as recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate "alternate life style," that our existence is threatened. Once you throw G-d out of the picture, there is nothing left upon which to base a stable system of morality, much less a Jewish State. The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism, a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices. The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany and Europe during the 1930's and 40's, and that of our own time. It has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . . <http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hank Roth's PNEWS CONFERENCES: [*NOT* NECESSARILY politically correct] Political views with an emphasis on JUSTICE and TRUTH. PNEWS is a Zionist educational forum and depository for articles and essays covering a wide variety of topics from across the political spectrum. PNEWS encourages "oppositionalism" and "duality of opinion" for _internal_ discussion purposes. [1,500+subscribers] To subscribe to PNEWS-L send request to: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PAIN FORUM: For all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political, HEALTH & health-politics for physicians and patients and all interested parties. Everyone is confronted with pain at one time or another in their lives. This is an educational forum. The primarily criteria for PAIN is to correctly inform. There are physicians and other heath care providers on-line to answer your questions. [1,300+ subscribers] SEND:"SUBSCRIBE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Opportunities on the InterNUT? WATCH OUT! ** the CRYPT! ** DISCUSSION DIGESTS ** articles from the ARCHIVES ** "letter to the *SPAM* Police" ** including Hank Roth’s bio w/pictures. ** SEE "No Gimps Allowed" [Rick's law suit] ** MLM Virus Alert! ** Ocala page http://www.applicom.com/pnews/

YOU COULD EQUALLY ARGUE THAT AS IT SAIS IN THE TORAH ALL THE AGONY AND PERSECUTION, WAS BECUASE THE JEWS FAILED TO OBEY GOD. IF YOU REALLY LOOK AROUND MORALITY RELIGION DOESN’T EXIST IN MOST WESTERN JEWS ONLY "ETHNIC" NATIONALISM DOES.

Response:

Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII A Voice From Hebron B"H Gary M. Cooperberg The Jewish Press, Week of January 12 to January 18, 1996 Democracy Versus Judaism (Ethical Monotheism) The Real Challenge (For not only Israel, but America) Our Father Abraham was called Avraham ha Ivri." "Ivri" comes from the Hebrew word eiver meaning the bank or side of a river. The reason he was given that name, our rabbis tell us, is because Abraham stood alone on one side of the river, and the entire world stood on the other side. In other words, although he was all alone with his faith in the One God, our father, Abraham, refused to acept the opinion of the rest of the world, much less the majority. The example set by the founding father of Judaism is one that we have always been called upon to follow, in every generation, including the one in which we live today. Back in Egypt Pharoah said to Moses, (Exodus 5:2), "Who is the L-rd that I should obey His voice…?" "I know not the L-rd…" This was the challenge which began all of the oppression of the Jewish people. To this day, it is this challenge which forms the basis for which G-d’s chosen nation exists. The Holocaust, as every other persecution of the Jewish People throughout the centuries, occurred as a result of an effort at world domination by evil people. The rules stood in the way of those who chose to create their own morality. Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. I just finished reading a book which I really didn’t want to read. Its very title, The Pink Swastika: A Study of Homosexuality In the Nazis Party, was so repugnant to me that I wanted nothing to do with it. But its co-author, Kevin Abrams, who lives in Israel with his family, convinced me of the importance of this very readable 200-page volume. I am now grateful to Kevin for his persistence. While at least three quarters of the book is devoted to historical facts about how the Nazi leadership was immersed in sexual perversion and occult customs, and how deeply entrenched the Weimar Republic became in deviant behavior even before the emergence of the Nazi party, what is most compelling is the last part of the book. For one who has lived outside of the United States for over 14 years, I was totally stunned to read how pervasive the "gay rights" movement has become. What began as a seemingly innocent effort toward "freedom of choice," is rapidly developing into a political movement, employing violence to achieve domination. The parallel to what happened in Germany is terrifying. Without going into the gory details, a simple but clear generality can and must be stated. Overt deviant sexual behavior is the most blatant and powerful method to demonstrate contempt for G-d. The Nazi quest for world domination immediately recognized Bibilical morality as its enemy. As such it flaunted and exalted the most abominable, hedonistic behavior possible which eventually led to the attempted annihilation of the People of G-d. Today, we find ourselves in a state of moral upheaval which, once again, challenges the legitimacy of Biblical truth. Today, the so- called "gay rights" movement and all of its offshoots present a clear and present danger of, once again, exploiting democaracy as a means to destroying morality and G-dliness. Even in the Jewish state today, we see the emergence of political efforts to legitimze sexual deviance. Israel television bases most of its commercials upon blatantly sexual themes, the anti-Aids campaign has found fertile ground in the Knesset for suggesting to our youth that defiance of authority and sexual promiscuity are acceptable standards of behavior. Knesset Member Yael Dayan, daughter of the famed Gneral Moshe Dayan, unabashedly stated her blasphemous assertion that King David was the homosexual lover of King Saul’s son Jonathan; and the Supreme Court in Israel has already upheld the concept of gay partners as a legitimate familial relationship. While the facade of "democarcy" and "freedom of expression" are held up as sacred justification for such repugnant behavior, clearly, we have come to a red line which must be held up for all to see. Although the United States was certainly founded upon concepts of biblical morality which are openly being threatened today, how much more so is the Jewish State? There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority. It is this very demand which is at the center of the controversy which plagues us today. It is not Arabs who pose the greatest danger to the Jewish State today, nor is it the risk of losing American support. The real challenge which threatens us is whether the Jewish State can remain faithful to the Jewish G-d. It is precisely on moral issues, such as recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate "alternate life style," that our existence is threatened. Once you throw G-d out of the picture, there is nothing left upon which to base a stable system of morality, much less a Jewish State. The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism, a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices. The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany and Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s, and that of our own time. It has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . . <http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hank Roth’s PNEWS CONFERENCES: [*NOT* NECESSARILY politically correct] Political views with an emphasis on JUSTICE and TRUTH. PNEWS is a Zionist educational forum and depository for articles and essays covering a wide variety of topics from across the political spectrum. PNEWS encourages "oppositionalism" and "duality of opinion" for _internal_ discussion purposes. [1,500+subscribers] To subscribe to PNEWS-L send request to: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PAIN FORUM: For all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political, HEALTH & health-politics for physicians and patients and all interested parties. Everyone is confronted with pain at one time or another in their lives. This is an educational forum. The primarily criteria for PAIN is to correctly inform. There are physicians and other heath care providers on-line to answer your questions. [1,300+ subscribers] SEND:"SUBSCRIBE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Opportunities on the InterNUT? WATCH OUT! ** the CRYPT! ** DISCUSSION DIGESTS ** articles from the ARCHIVES ** "letter to the *SPAM* Police" ** including Hank Roth’s bio w/pictures. ** SEE "No Gimps Allowed" [Rick's law suit] ** MLM Virus Alert! ** Ocala page http://www.applicom.com/pnews/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A Voice From Hebron B"H Gary M. Cooperberg The Jewish Press, Week of January 12 to January 18, 1996 Democracy Versus Judaism (Ethical Monotheism) The Real Challenge (For not only Israel, but America) Our Father Abraham was called Avraham ha Ivri." "Ivri" comes from the Hebrew word eiver meaning the bank or side of a river. The reason he was given that name, our rabbis tell us, is because Abraham stood alone on one side of the river, and the entire world stood on the other side. In other words, although he was all alone with his faith in the One God, our father, Abraham, refused to acept the opinion of the rest of the world, much less the majority. The example set by the founding father of Judaism is one that we have always been called upon to follow, in every generation, including the one in which we live today. Back in Egypt Pharoah said to Moses, (Exodus 5:2), "Who is the L-rd that I should obey His voice…?" "I know not the L-rd…" This was the challenge which began all of the oppression of the Jewish people. To this day, it is this challenge which forms the basis for which G-d’s chosen nation exists. The Holocaust, as every other persecution of the Jewish People throughout the centuries, occurred as a result of an effort at world domination by evil people. The rules stood in the way of those who chose to create their own morality. Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. I just finished reading a book which I really didn’t want to read. Its very title, The Pink Swastika: A Study of Homosexuality In the Nazis Party, was so repugnant to me that I wanted nothing to do with it. But its co-author, Kevin Abrams, who lives in Israel with his family, convinced me of the importance of this very readable 200-page volume. I am now grateful to Kevin for his persistence. While at least three quarters of the book is devoted to historical facts about how the Nazi leadership was immersed in sexual perversion and occult customs, and how deeply entrenched the Weimar Republic became in deviant behavior even before the emergence of the Nazi party, what is most compelling is the last part of the book. For one who has lived outside of the United States for over 14 years, I was totally stunned to read how pervasive the "gay rights" movement has become. What began as a seemingly innocent effort toward "freedom of choice," is rapidly developing into a political movement, employing violence to achieve domination. The parallel to what happened in Germany is terrifying. Without going into the gory details, a simple but clear generality can and must be stated. Overt deviant sexual behavior is the most blatant and powerful method to demonstrate contempt for G-d. The Nazi quest for world domination immediately recognized Bibilical morality as its enemy. As such it flaunted and exalted the most abominable, hedonistic behavior possible which eventually led to the attempted annihilation of the People of G-d. Today, we find ourselves in a state of moral upheaval which, once again, challenges the legitimacy of Biblical truth. Today, the so- called "gay rights" movement and all of its offshoots present a clear and present danger of, once again, exploiting democaracy as a means to destroying morality and G-dliness. Even in the Jewish state today, we see the emergence of political efforts to legitimze sexual deviance. Israel television bases most of its commercials upon blatantly sexual themes, the anti-Aids campaign has found fertile ground in the Knesset for suggesting to our youth that defiance of authority and sexual promiscuity are acceptable standards of behavior. Knesset Member Yael Dayan, daughter of the famed Gneral Moshe Dayan, unabashedly stated her blasphemous assertion that King David was the homosexual lover of King Saul’s son Jonathan; and the Supreme Court in Israel has already upheld the concept of gay partners as a legitimate familial relationship. While the facade of "democarcy" and "freedom of expression" are held up as sacred justification for such repugnant behavior, clearly, we have come to a red line which must be held up for all to see. Although the United States was certainly founded upon concepts of biblical morality which are openly being threatened today, how much more so is the Jewish State? There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority. It is this very demand which is at the center of the controversy which plagues us today. It is not Arabs who pose the greatest danger to the Jewish State today, nor is it the risk of losing American support. The real challenge which threatens us is whether the Jewish State can remain faithful to the Jewish G-d. It is precisely on moral issues, such as recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate "alternate life style," that our existence is threatened. Once you throw G-d out of the picture, there is nothing left upon which to base a stable system of morality, much less a Jewish State. The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism, a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices. The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany and Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s, and that of our own time. It has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . . <http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hank Roth’s PNEWS CONFERENCES: [*NOT* NECESSARILY politically correct] Political views with an emphasis on JUSTICE and TRUTH. PNEWS is a Zionist educational forum and depository for articles and essays covering a wide variety of topics from across the political spectrum. PNEWS encourages "oppositionalism" and "duality of opinion" for _internal_ discussion purposes. [1,500+subscribers] To subscribe to PNEWS-L send request to: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PAIN FORUM: For all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political, HEALTH & health-politics for physicians and patients and all interested parties. Everyone is confronted with pain at one time or another in their lives. This is an educational forum. The primarily criteria for PAIN is to correctly inform. There are physicians and other heath care providers on-line to answer your questions. [1,300+ subscribers] SEND:"SUBSCRIBE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Opportunities on the InterNUT? WATCH OUT! ** the CRYPT! ** DISCUSSION DIGESTS ** articles from the ARCHIVES ** "letter to the *SPAM* Police" ** including Hank Roth’s bio w/pictures. ** SEE "No Gimps Allowed" [Rick's law suit] ** MLM Virus Alert! ** Ocala page http://www.applicom.com/pnews/

YOU COULD EQUALLY ARGUE THAT AS IT SAIS IN THE TORAH ALL THE AGONY AND PERSECUTION, WAS BECUASE THE JEWS FAILED TO OBEY GOD. IF YOU REALLY LOOK AROUND MORALITY RELIGION DOESN’T EXISTS IN MOST WESTERN JEWS ONLY "ETHNIC" NATIONALISM DOES.

Response:

A Voice From Hebron B"H Gary M. Cooperberg The Jewish Press, Week of January 12 to January 18, 1996 Democracy Versus Judaism (Ethical Monotheism) The Real Challenge (For not only Israel, but America) Our Father Abraham was called Avraham ha Ivri." "Ivri" comes from the Hebrew word eiver meaning the bank or side of a river. The reason he was given that name, our rabbis tell us, is because Abraham stood alone on one side of the river, and the entire world stood on the other side. In other words, although he was all alone with his faith in the One God, our father, Abraham, refused to acept the opinion of the rest of the world, much less the majority. The example set by the founding father of Judaism is one that we have always been called upon to follow, in every generation, including the one in which we live today. Back in Egypt Pharoah said to Moses, (Exodus 5:2), "Who is the L-rd that I should obey His voice…?" "I know not the L-rd…" This was the challenge which began all of the oppression of the Jewish people. To this day, it is this challenge which forms the basis for which G-d’s chosen nation exists. The Holocaust, as every other persecution of the Jewish People throughout the centuries, occurred as a result of an effort at world domination by evil people. The rules stood in the way of those who chose to create their own morality. Democracy, with its assertion that the majority automatically knows what is right, was used as a tool to enable the Nazis to gain power. A humiliated and impoverished nation was promised regained pride and economic recovery if they would accept the "new morality" of the Nazis. The reason that Jews were singled out for extermination was because they represent the concept of the eternal morality of G-d. I just finished reading a book which I really didn’t want to read. Its very title, The Pink Swastika: A Study of Homosexuality In the Nazis Party, was so repugnant to me that I wanted nothing to do with it. But its co-author, Kevin Abrams, who lives in Israel with his family, convinced me of the importance of this very readable 200-page volume. I am now grateful to Kevin for his persistence. While at least three quarters of the book is devoted to historical facts about how the Nazi leadership was immersed in sexual perversion and occult customs, and how deeply entrenched the Weimar Republic became in deviant behavior even before the emergence of the Nazi party, what is most compelling is the last part of the book. For one who has lived outside of the United States for over 14 years, I was totally stunned to read how pervasive the "gay rights" movement has become. What began as a seemingly innocent effort toward "freedom of choice," is rapidly developing into a political movement, employing violence to achieve domination. The parallel to what happened in Germany is terrifying. Without going into the gory details, a simple but clear generality can and must be stated. Overt deviant sexual behavior is the most blatant and powerful method to demonstrate contempt for G-d. The Nazi quest for world domination immediately recognized Bibilical morality as its enemy. As such it flaunted and exalted the most abominable, hedonistic behavior possible which eventually led to the attempted annihilation of the People of G-d. Today, we find ourselves in a state of moral upheaval which, once again, challenges the legitimacy of Biblical truth. Today, the so- called "gay rights" movement and all of its offshoots present a clear and present danger of, once again, exploiting democaracy as a means to destroying morality and G-dliness. Even in the Jewish state today, we see the emergence of political efforts to legitimze sexual deviance. Israel television bases most of its commercials upon blatantly sexual themes, the anti-Aids campaign has found fertile ground in the Knesset for suggesting to our youth that defiance of authority and sexual promiscuity are acceptable standards of behavior. Knesset Member Yael Dayan, daughter of the famed Gneral Moshe Dayan, unabashedly stated her blasphemous assertion that King David was the homosexual lover of King Saul’s son Jonathan; and the Supreme Court in Israel has already upheld the concept of gay partners as a legitimate familial relationship. While the facade of "democarcy" and "freedom of expression" are held up as sacred justification for such repugnant behavior, clearly, we have come to a red line which must be held up for all to see. Although the United States was certainly founded upon concepts of biblical morality which are openly being threatened today, how much more so is the Jewish State? There was no more classic presentation of this dilemma than that portrayed by a demand recently voiced by a leftist member of Knesset who brazenly insisted that, should there be a conflict between a commandement of G-d and a secular law passed by marjoity rule, all must submit to the will of the majority. It is this very demand which is at the center of the controversy which plagues us today. It is not Arabs who pose the greatest danger to the Jewish State today, nor is it the risk of losing American support. The real challenge which threatens us is whether the Jewish State can remain faithful to the Jewish G-d. It is precisely on moral issues, such as recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate "alternate life style," that our existence is threatened. Once you throw G-d out of the picture, there is nothing left upon which to base a stable system of morality, much less a Jewish State. The same atheistic leftists, Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, who insist that Jews must be removed from parts of the Jewish State because democracy has more sanctity than either nationalism or Judaism, a few short years ago announced that should a majority in Israel rule that Arabs be removed from Israel they would defy the law and try to prevent it. To them such a move is in violation of "natural law," a concept which they most certainly cannot honestly explain because it is based upon their own personal prejudices. The Pink Swastika by Kevin Abrams and Scott Lively, is a timely, historical text which points out frightening similarities between the moral climate leading up to the period of darkness which enveloped Germany and Europe during the 1930’s and 40’s, and that of our own time. It has an urgent warning for all of mankind, not to make the mistake of permitting a false morality, based upon a democarcy which is shaped by manipulators of evil to usurp the eternal morality of G-d. Read The Pink Swastika on-line at . . . . . <http://www.earthlink.net/~lively/ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hank Roth’s PNEWS CONFERENCES: [*NOT* NECESSARILY politically correct] Political views with an emphasis on JUSTICE and TRUTH. PNEWS is a Zionist educational forum and depository for articles and essays covering a wide variety of topics from across the political spectrum. PNEWS encourages "oppositionalism" and "duality of opinion" for _internal_ discussion purposes. [1,500+subscribers] To subscribe to PNEWS-L send request to: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PAIN FORUM: For all aspects of chronic pain; physical & political, HEALTH & health-politics for physicians and patients and all interested parties. Everyone is confronted with pain at one time or another in their lives. This is an educational forum. The primarily criteria for PAIN is to correctly inform. There are physicians and other heath care providers on-line to answer your questions. [1,300+ subscribers] SEND:"SUBSCRIBE @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Opportunities on the InterNUT? WATCH OUT! ** the CRYPT! ** DISCUSSION DIGESTS ** articles from the ARCHIVES ** "letter to the *SPAM* Police" ** including Hank Roth’s bio w/pictures. ** SEE "No Gimps Allowed" [Rick's law suit] ** MLM Virus Alert! ** Ocala page http://www.applicom.com/pnews/

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism