From: Ellen K. 

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:58:26 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>Just a couple of minor nits.
>
>The Kibbutz experiment was not a successful experiment in socialism, and has
>fallen into disfavor in Israel, isn't that true?
At the individual kibbutz level it was successful in the beginning. Today
people no longer subscribe to the ideology, therefore today's kibbutzim are
nothing like the original ones, so in that sense, yes, it failed.  You
won't find anyone today who is willing to have his/her children live with
and be raised by people appointed as child-raisers instead of the parents,
and not to have any money of his/her own.  (One of my cousins went to live
on a kibbutz for awhile many years ago and when she needed underwear we had
to buy it here and send it to her as a gift!)

>Socialism isn't the
>government taking from the rich and giving to the poor at the point of a
>gun.  Its government using guns to make everyone equally poor, except for
>the government elite and their buddies.
Yes, that's a better description.  But my point was that the Jewish
socialist movement represented a secularization of (and drastic change to)
the Jewish religious principle that a person has a responsibility to help
the less fortunate.  The religious principle places a moral responsibility
on the individual, the secular version takes away moral responsibility from
the individual and instead imposes government coercion.

>
>In general your explanation was enlightening, but I think it does give short
>shrift to the level of religious involvement in official state functions and
>laws.
The main area of law in which religious law was allowed to prevail was
personal status, i.e. marriage and divorce.  It was also allowed for
religious girls not to have to serve in the army.

>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".   Considering the Jews' history of
being given
the choice to convert or be killed, banning proselytization is completely
logical and appropriate.  It should be noted also that all religions are
allowed to be freely practiced in Israel, unlike other middle Eastern
countries like Saudi Arabia.

>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