From: Ellen K. 

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:16:44 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:39g6p1djpihej0jingig7jb6nnmon89orb{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:58:26 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>>  wrote in message
:
>>
>> >Israel has free speech unless you speak to someone about another
>> >religion.  That's a free speech restriction based solely upon religious
>> >beliefs being voted into law.
>
>> Let's be honest here.  There is no ban on "speaking to someone about
>> another religion", for example in a course on comparative
religions etc.
>> Proselytization is not at all the same thing as "speaking to someone
>> about another religion".
>
>Sure it is.  Its the same thing, and defining the line where it begins is
>very arbitrary and capricious.  It is so vague and capricious that a
>potential offender has no way of knowing how not to violate the law, other
>than by staying completely silent.
>
>Its a restriction on free speech AND the free exercise of religion.

Israel is a democracy.  As such it is allowed to make its own laws, it
doesn't have to have laws that match those of the US.  When I lived in
Germany, it was required to list one's religious affiliation on the
document one was required to file listing one's residence so that
Kirchensteuer ("church tax") could be withheld from one's
paycheck. That wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. either, but so far I have
never heard anyone complain that because of this Germany doesn't have free
exercise of religion, or that being required to disclose one's place of
residence is an invasion of privacy.   In the U.S. people find it
offensive to see female breasts uncovered, so magazines with uncovered
female breasts on the cover are not allowed to be displayed; in Europe
mainstream magazines have such covers.   Do you consider the US ban a
restriction on free speech?   Jewish people, whether or not religious,
find it offensive to be proselytized because of our history (not that we
think people will come make an inquisition in Israel today), therefore in
Israel proselytization is illegal.  The line is much brighter than your
post implies, and without this law Israel would be inundated by
missionaries invading everyone's privacy and allowing people no peace. For
example, a conversation such as the one we recently had here is simply a
conversation.  People going door to door or targeting schools or public
events with pamphlets etc is proselytizing.

>
>> Considering the Jews' history of being given
>> the choice to convert or be killed, banning proselytization is
>> completely logical and appropriate.
>
>That's a cannard and not the reason for the law.  The Israelis aren't afraid
>of a new inquisition taking place in the land of Israel.  They are afraid
>that their beliefs might not stand up to exposure to others beliefs.  I
>don't see any other way of interpreting this particular law(s).   In the
>land of Israel there is a lot of history of Christians being murdered for
>their beliefs, for being idolators, etc. and it is this kind of persecution
>of Christians and their beliefs that is the real foundation for this
>particular law.
>
From what source do you derive the "information" that Israelis
"are afraid that their beliefs might not stand up to exposure to
others beliefs"?   If this were the case, other religions would not be
allowed
to be publically practiced and comparative religion would not be allowed to
be taught in schools or universities, but there are no such restrictions.  
The only restriction is on people engaging in active
proselytization.

>>  It should be noted also that all
>> religions are allowed to be freely practiced in Israel, unlike other
>> middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia.
>
>Yes that is true, and don't mistake my complaints above as my being
>anti-Israel.  I'm definitely not.  I'm just trying to say that Israel's
>democracy, which is far better and light years more fair to all than any
>surrounding government in the middle east, isn't perfect and has a lot more
>mixing of religious leaders and state religion in its laws and politics than
>in the USA.  The ACLU throws up if a school kid has a bible with him in the
>cafeteria.  In Israel religious instruction is part of the public school
>system isn't it?
No.  In the secular schools the Torah is taught as cultural heritage. Only
in the religious schools is it taught as religion.  The secularists are
pretty militant about their secularism, although proud to be members of the
Jewish people.

>In Israel, the church controls the political institutions
>that sanction marriage and determine who is a Jew with a right to
>citizenship, etc.
If that were the case, the large percentage of Russians who immigrated
together with Russian Jews but are not halachically Jewish would not be in
Israel.  There were also halachic (Jewish legal) questions about the status
of the Ethiopian Jews, but despite this the state spent millions of dollars
bringing them out of Ethiopia.

>It would be like Jerry Falwell being in charge of
>determining who can get married and who can be a citizen in this country.
>The religious in Israel is so intertwined with the state that it seems to me
>aid to Israel is in fact aid to a religious organization that is forbidden
>by USA separation of church and state principles as they are advocated by
>the ACLU and like organizations.
Now you are a fan of the ACLU?   That's pretty interesting.

First of all, there is no requirement to be Jewish in order to be a citizen
of Israel.  Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, including some members of
the Knesset.   Offering automatic citizenship to any Jew is
not the same as saying ONLY Jews can be citizens.

Presumably you oppose legalizing same-sex marriage in the US?  Those who
favor it say opposition to it is religiously based and therefore
inappropriate if we are supposed to have separation of church and state. Is
 religiously-based legislation only acceptable if the religion it's based
on is yours?
>
>I'm not against aid to Israel with the above statement.  I'd just like to
>see the ACLU stop opposing a few million of government dollars to religious
>schools and faith based social service organizations, or for them to show
>appropriately more concern about the 11 Billion dollars that goes each year
>to a religious, faith based organization, known as the state of Israel.  I'd
>like to see the ACLU promote tolerance by minorities for the beliefs of the
>majority just as hard as they promote tolerance by the majority for the
>beliefs of minorities.

Personally I can't stand the ACLU.  Once upon a time they had principles
which I could respect even if I strongly disliked the results, but no more.
  Now they just predictably come down on the side of anything that
will promote degradation and chaos.

By the way, I agree that faith-based organizations should be eligible for
government dollars at least for non-religious activities, for example
providing special facilities for disabled children in religious schools,
supporting programs that feed and shelter the homeless, etc.

>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >The religious Jews and orthodoxy in Israel
>> >participate in parliament and the creation of the laws of Israel and are
>> >deeply intertwined with the kind of laws made.  So intertwined that I
>don't
>> >think Israel can properly be called a secular state.
>> The state is secular.  The fact that people run for office on a
>> religious platform and get elected, just means it's a democracy.
>> People also run for office on other platforms and get elected.
>>
>> >
>> >Gary
>> >
>> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> >news:q2p5p15kdj1m49r29frchbe9hk5rt1boaa{at}4ax.com...
>> >> You are mixing up a lot of different things.
>> >>
>> >> A Jewish PERSON is anyone born of a Jewish mother or who converts
>> >> according to Jewish law (which means an
"Orthodox" conversion).  Jewish
>> >> LAW is established in the Talmud and codes.
>> >>
>> >> Many Jewish PEOPLE do not adhere to Jewish LAW in their
daily lives.
>> >> I'm sure everyone here knows Jews who do not observe the
Sabbath or the
>> >> dietary laws.  The "reform" and
"conservative" movements, while
>> >> comprised of Jewish PEOPLE, have instituted many
practices that are not
>> >> in accordance with Jewish LAW.  To cite a non-political
example, they
>> >> use musical instruments in their Sabbath services.
>> >>
>> >> To LIVE in the land of Israel is part of normative
Judaism.   However,
>> >> the establishment of a STATE in the land of Israel is expected by
>> >> normative Judaism to be brought about by the messiah, not
by secular
>> >> powers.
>> >>
>> >> The present state of Israel is a secular state,
established by the UN.
>> >> G-d is not even mentioned in the national anthem.  In
fact there were
>> >> protests in the Orthodox communities at the time the
secular state was
>> >> under consideration, on the grounds that while every Jew
who could do
>so
>> >> should LIVE in the land of Israel, there should not be a
Jewish STATE
>> >> until the coming of the messiah.  While today the general
position in
>> >> the Orthodox community is that since the state does exist
it should be
>> >> recognized and supported, there are still groups who,
although large
>> >> numbers of their members live in the land of Israel, do
not support the
>> >> secular state and their members who live there refrain
from voting in
>> >> Israeli elections.
>> >>
>> >> Zionism per se was a secular movement, part of the same
phenomenon that
>> >> resulted in the Jewish socialist movement --  a secularization of
>> >> selected Jewish religious ideas but without the religion.
 Normative
>> >> Judaism says live in the land of Israel, Zionism says establish a
>> >> secular state in the land of Israel.  Normative Judaism
says a person
>> >> has a duty to help the less fortunate, socialism says
make a government
>> >> that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. 
(Actually the early
>> >> kibbutzim were probably the only place socialism ever
actually worked,
>> >> due to the fact that the residents were there by
idealistic choice.)
>> >>
>> >> From a secular political standpoint, the establishment of
a state where
>> >> Jews could be guaranteed entry was unfortunately proven
necessary by
>the
>> >> Holocaust.  Even the United States turned away refugees fleeing the
>> >> Nazis.  In view of the fact that the people who are today screaming
>that
>> >> the Jews took away the "Palestinians'" (in
quotes because there were no
>> >> "Palestinians" then) land did not scream when
Hitler was exterminating
>> >> 6,000,000 Jews, it's difficult to attribute their current
position to
>> >> humanitarianism.
>> >>
>> >> Another inconsistency (to be polite) in the statements of the
>> >> anti-Israel people is that these are the same people who
would rightly
>> >> say it is wrong to have residency restrictions based on race or
>> >> religion, e.g. preventing black people from living in certain
>> >> neighborhoods, but support the position that no Jews
should be living
>in
>> >> the land of Israel.   Why is "no blacks
allowed" wrong, but "Judenrein"
>> >> right?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:03:44 +0000, Adam
>> >> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
>> >> message :
>> >>
>> >> >Ellen K. wrote:
>> >> >> How did you get to be so filled with hate?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That is the question I have been asking you for most
of this thread.
>> >> >
>> >> >On what grounds did jewish people think that they had
the right to
>> >> >forcibly drive people out of their homes, take their
land  & create
>war,
>> >> >death & destruction on a large scale?
>> >> >
>> >> >That the land was given to them by God?
>> >> >
>> >> >To quote just one of your mails:
>> >> >
>> >> >"One crazy person doing something and
attributing it to his religion
>is
>> >> >clearly one crazy person.
>> >> >
>> >> >Multiple official representatives of a religion, all
saying the same
>> >> >thing and attributing it to their religion, is a
strong indication
>that
>> >> >the religion in question can legitimately be
interpreted in accordance
>> >> >with their statements."
>> >> >
>> >> >So this was clearly not the action of one crazy person but that
>multiple
>> >> >official repesentatives were all saying the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or are you saying the whole thing was a purely
nationalist struggle
>for
>> >> >survival with no religious element?
>> >> >
>> >> >Adam
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:35:24 +0000, Adam
>> >> >>
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote in
>> >> >> message :
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Zionism is a straightforward land theft with
>> >> >>>violence & menaces & terror on behalf
of all jews.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5