M
- Status
M
Muzhik
Guest
AARRGGHHH! I can see this from so many sides, it makes my head spin! 
To begin with, he’s right. Explicitly defining Israel as a Jewish state discriminates against non-Jews. I also think he is completely wrong, in that he’s applying a double standard to Israel that the world doesn’t apply to other countries. No one seems to have a problem with certain states being officially defined as “Islamic”. We may complain about how they treat Christians in those countries, but no one seems compelled to introduce resolutions to the UN calling them “racist” or “intolerant” for doing so. Frankly, I would feel safer practicing my Christianity in Israel than I would in Jordan.
When the 13 colonies were first formed, every single colony except for two had rules prohibiting Jews, Catholics, Mohammedans, or Infidels (i.e., atheists) from holding public office. The two exceptions were Pennsylvania, which was formed as a Quaker refuge, and Maryland, which was to be a Catholic refuge. Both colonies maintained their refuge status for about 50 years. As soon as the Protestants (in Maryland) or the non-Quakers (in Pennsylvania) became the majority, those same religious rules were imposed. Each colony also had an official church supported by the colony. The Constitutional non-establishment clause wasn’t to keep public officials from practicing or promoting their faith; it was because the states could not decide which Protestant religion would be the national religion, so they left it up to the individual states.
I’m afraid that if Israel is forced to renounce it’s identity as a Jewish state, then sometime in the future, non-Jews will be in the majority, and Jews will be forced to leave the land that was to be their refuge: a place where no one was supposed to force them to leave.
The problem that the good Patriarch has is that most of the Christians in Israel and Judea and Samaria are Palestinian. Since they’re Palestinian, they’re subject to travel restrictions. I’m sorry, but so long as rockets keep getting fired from Gaza into Israel, I think Israel is perfectly justified in limiting travel.
To begin with, he’s right. Explicitly defining Israel as a Jewish state discriminates against non-Jews. I also think he is completely wrong, in that he’s applying a double standard to Israel that the world doesn’t apply to other countries. No one seems to have a problem with certain states being officially defined as “Islamic”. We may complain about how they treat Christians in those countries, but no one seems compelled to introduce resolutions to the UN calling them “racist” or “intolerant” for doing so. Frankly, I would feel safer practicing my Christianity in Israel than I would in Jordan.
When the 13 colonies were first formed, every single colony except for two had rules prohibiting Jews, Catholics, Mohammedans, or Infidels (i.e., atheists) from holding public office. The two exceptions were Pennsylvania, which was formed as a Quaker refuge, and Maryland, which was to be a Catholic refuge. Both colonies maintained their refuge status for about 50 years. As soon as the Protestants (in Maryland) or the non-Quakers (in Pennsylvania) became the majority, those same religious rules were imposed. Each colony also had an official church supported by the colony. The Constitutional non-establishment clause wasn’t to keep public officials from practicing or promoting their faith; it was because the states could not decide which Protestant religion would be the national religion, so they left it up to the individual states.
I’m afraid that if Israel is forced to renounce it’s identity as a Jewish state, then sometime in the future, non-Jews will be in the majority, and Jews will be forced to leave the land that was to be their refuge: a place where no one was supposed to force them to leave.
The problem that the good Patriarch has is that most of the Christians in Israel and Judea and Samaria are Palestinian. Since they’re Palestinian, they’re subject to travel restrictions. I’m sorry, but so long as rockets keep getting fired from Gaza into Israel, I think Israel is perfectly justified in limiting travel.
L
Lev23
Guest
Do Israeli leaders tell the pope to give Vatican city back to Italy?
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
Didn’t the Italians actually take the land called the Papal States first?
M
Muzhik
Guest
No, but then Mussolini paid the Church for the land that was seized during the unification of Italy. The Church got to keep Vatican City and some other properties outside of Rome. They even kept the receipt!
So the Church has proof of ownership of the Vatican. It looks like the Palestinians are saying that the Jews lost the deed to the Holy Land during one of their moves (I know the feeling – trust me) and the Palestinians don’t care how many electric bills and phone records the Jews have to prove that they lived there.
B
bones_IV
Guest
AARRGGHHH! I can see this from so many sides, it makes my head spin!
To begin with, he’s right. Explicitly defining Israel as a Jewish state discriminates against non-Jews. I also think he is completely wrong, in that he’s applying a double standard to Israel that the world doesn’t apply to other countries. No one seems to have a problem with certain states being officially defined as “Islamic”. We may complain about how they treat Christians in those countries, but no one seems compelled to introduce resolutions to the UN calling them “racist” or “intolerant” for doing so. Frankly, I would feel safer practicing my Christianity in Israel than I would in Jordan.
When the 13 colonies were first formed, every single colony except for two had rules prohibiting Jews, Catholics, Mohammedans, or Infidels (i.e., atheists) from holding public office. The two exceptions were Pennsylvania, which was formed as a Quaker refuge, and Maryland, which was to be a Catholic refuge. Both colonies maintained their refuge status for about 50 years. As soon as the Protestants (in Maryland) or the non-Quakers (in Pennsylvania) became the majority, those same religious rules were imposed. Each colony also had an official church supported by the colony. The Constitutional non-establishment clause wasn’t to keep public officials from practicing or promoting their faith; it was because the states could not decide which Protestant religion would be the national religion, so they left it up to the individual states.
I’m afraid that if Israel is forced to renounce it’s identity as a Jewish state, then sometime in the future, non-Jews will be in the majority, and Jews will be forced to leave the land that was to be their refuge: a place where no one was supposed to force them to leave.
The problem that the good Patriarch has is that most of the Christians in Israel and Judea and Samaria are Palestinian. Since they’re Palestinian, they’re subject to travel restrictions. I’m sorry, but so long as rockets keep getting fired from Gaza into Israel, I think Israel is perfectly justified in limiting travel.
I refuse to support the state of Israel cause they treat the Palestinians like dogs. Not to mention in Palestine the treatment of Christians is even worse. The problem with our society is lack of reliance on God’s providence.
R
roanoker
Guest
Look, Bones, it’s not the Israelis that keep blowing up innocent Palestinian women and children, it’s the Palestinians that keep blowing up Israeli women and children! And for decades and decades! You have been a sucker for blatant propaganda. I believe that scripture tells us that we should support Israel. And I do.
D
Deacon2006
Guest
Christians are called to support the each other and the Church, that is clearly scriptural.
God Bless
God Bless
L
Lev23
Guest
And Israel has the proof of ownership of the land in the scriptures. In fact, God says in his prophecy that he will and is bringing them back out of all nations to resettle the land for one purpose only-for them to repent and turn back to him and him only. And this will come into fulfillment when Jesus comes back. I don’t care who calls themselves a believer in scripture, to deny this biblical truth is to try to pull the rug out on Gods prophecy, who is batting a 1.000 with his prophecy. All glory and praise to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
And to think, this “leader” Sabbah, who is supposed to be knowledgable in God’s word, is denying what God spoke and is working against it. This leader seeks for temporal earthly peace. He would rather see the Jews dispersed and the “Holy Land” run by Islam.
This Catholic leader has just joined those in the world that would rather denounce, debunk, and make whoever disbelieve that God would take these people, undeserving of such promises, and to take them out from the world where they profaned his holy name, and bring them back in their land, not for the peoples of Israel sake, but for Gods name sake. This leader has just joined those in the world that would rather teach the Israelites themselves that they are of no prophetic biblical signifigance, and they must follow the ways of world or be punished worldly rather than to teach them to show the Israelites from their scriptures what God has done for them and that they all need to repent and turn to God to see who he really is.
L
Lev23
Guest
There is a remant of Israel in the Church also. A call to support them in earthly things and spiritual thing can also in found in scripture.
B
bones_IV
Guest
I don’t take sides in situations like this. Like the Vatican I take neutrality.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
So it has always been the Palestinians fault?
The Jewish people where always peaceful? They did not massacre anybody? They where never terrorists? They never drove people from their homes, demolished them and built settlements on the ruins?? These things are not propaganda they are history!
P
planter654
Guest
On another site I was told the Vatican is not owned by the church it is loaned to them? Hello now I am confused.
God Bless
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
J
jj2011
Guest
The Vatican is a sovereign state. Before 1870 the Papal States were also sovereign, just like any other country, before Illuminist revolutionaries took Rome.
W
Wolseley
Guest
It’s not the Palestinians who keep the Israelis penned up in nasty, overcrowded ghettos like the Gaza Strip, either. Maybe if the Israelis treated the Palestinians better, the Palestinians wouldn’t feel the need to blow up Israelis.
On the other hand, there are claims and counter-claims on that tiny chunk of property that go all the way back to the Cretaceous Era, and it’ll never be sorted out.
Myself, I personally wouldn’t live in that area of the world if it was given to me, lock, stock, and land mines.
M
Muzhik
Guest
Hey, I’m not saying that a lot of Jews won’t have to pay for not heeding the commands in Leviticus about how to treat the alien in your land, etc. But the landlord (and believe me – Israel is G_D’s land – He’s just letting people live there) has already evicted them a couple of times for not obeying the terms of the lease. We know this time the Jews are here to stay – the Landlord has said so. We need to adapt to what the Landlord says, not the other way around.
B
brockmac
Guest
It appears to me that this thread is vearing off track. Unless I misunderstood the title of the initial post, this thread is to discuss the comments by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem relating to Israel’s designation as a “Jewish State” as opposed to digging up all of the acts of violence committed by both sides of this conflict.
As far as Israel discriminating against Christians, while they may impose the same kinds of restrictions on Palestinian Christians that they do on Palestinian Moslems, this is not religious descrimination, but ethnic discrimination. In this thread, I will refrain from discussing whether or not these restrictions are warranted or justified as it is not the purpose of this thread.
I am not aware of any stories relating to the hampering of Christian pilgrimages or religious ceremonies at the Christian holy sites in Israel. Given the current state of Islam, particularly the intolerance in Islamic countries for other faiths, I am not sure that this same courtesy would be afforded Christians were these sites under control of an Islamic rather than Jewish state.
While I don’t feel that any state should force anyone to worship in a particular way, I don’t see a problem with a government formally acknowledging and honoring the historical faith of its people. I will even go so far as to say that civil law can and in some cases should reflect the religious values and traditions of the people it is written to govern, provided that no one is coerced to adopt a particular religion.
In closing, I will ask that during this season when we prepare to celebrate the birth of the Saviour and hope for His return, you join me in praying for peace in the land where He was born, lived, died and rose.
As far as Israel discriminating against Christians, while they may impose the same kinds of restrictions on Palestinian Christians that they do on Palestinian Moslems, this is not religious descrimination, but ethnic discrimination. In this thread, I will refrain from discussing whether or not these restrictions are warranted or justified as it is not the purpose of this thread.
I am not aware of any stories relating to the hampering of Christian pilgrimages or religious ceremonies at the Christian holy sites in Israel. Given the current state of Islam, particularly the intolerance in Islamic countries for other faiths, I am not sure that this same courtesy would be afforded Christians were these sites under control of an Islamic rather than Jewish state.
While I don’t feel that any state should force anyone to worship in a particular way, I don’t see a problem with a government formally acknowledging and honoring the historical faith of its people. I will even go so far as to say that civil law can and in some cases should reflect the religious values and traditions of the people it is written to govern, provided that no one is coerced to adopt a particular religion.
In closing, I will ask that during this season when we prepare to celebrate the birth of the Saviour and hope for His return, you join me in praying for peace in the land where He was born, lived, died and rose.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
M
Muzhik
Guest
Again, this isn’t a case of the completely righteous against the craven evil. I do believe that when weighed in the balance, the actions of the Palestinians show far greater evil than the actions of the Israelis.
“History” so often is a matter of interpretation. One of the charges made against the Zionists is that they “stole the land” from the Arabs already living there. What happened is that during the time the British effectively controlled/operated Palestine during the time of the Ottoman Empire, and during the British Mandate, it was illegal for Arabs to sell land to the Jews. This was to avoid problems with the Arab powers based in Syria. These same Syrian-based Arab landowners, who lobbied so hard against selling any land to Jews, would then sell their land to the Jews at greatly inflated prices so they could get the money needed to invest in the growing citrus market in Egypt. Since these land sales were illegal, they often were not registered with the authorities. So we have far too many cases where the Jews bought and paid for the land and have the deed to prove it, yet officially they don’t own the land because the sale was never registered.
Then there’s the problem of the Arabs who lived on the land as tenant farmers, suddenly learning that they land they’d been renting and farming for generations suddenly belonged to some Jews who were building their own farms (and doing a better job ot it). Of course, these Syrian landowners were prompt in letting these farmers know who the new landowners were, and that any rents paid after the sale would be returned to the farmers. As the Jews began to heal the land and industry prospered, Arabs started coming in to Palestine to work, especially since the Jews paid much better than other Arabs.
As for demolishing homes, etc., would you object if the officials in your city demolished the crack house down the street, evicting the people who lived there? Sometimes that’s the only way to make a neighborhood safer.
- Status