Why is Pope Benedict supporting the UN's 'anti-racist' hatefest against Israel?

[reggieM]

Your post was filled with a lack of understanding of Israeli policy and government. No race is above the law in Israel.

I’d say that your post was filled with misunderstanding and misrepresention of what I said. Where did I say that the Hebrew race was “above the law” in Israel? I said that there was racial discrimination. Those of the Jewish race in Israel receive privileges that those of other races do not receive. I can understand why you misrepresented what I said, because you don’t like the truth about the situation.

Judaism is a religion and a race as I’m sure you know but that does not mean others can’t have rights in the country.

Again, you’re arguing against something I did not say. Where did I claim that “others can’t have rights”? The fact is, however, that those of the Hebrew race are granted privileges that those of other races are denied. If you want to argue, then argue that point.

Israel does not discriminate based on race and to insinuate such is an insult to the Israeli people.

You’re very wrong about this, both in the claim that there is no racial discrimination and that I have insulted anyone by speaking the truth.

You can read this clearly in the pro-Israel, Jewish publication Israel Today:

Notwithstanding the abovementioned, the personal definition of the Messianic Jewish community is not yet accepted by many within the Jewish nation and is thoroughly rejected by the different orthodox streams within Judaism. This fact is revealed as it relates to the Law of Return. The “Law of Return” is a secular law, which is the central, legal expression of the nation of Israel as being a nation for all the Jewish people. This law was made in the Knesset on the 5th of July 1950 and it grants every Jew, being secular or religious, the right to immigrate into Israel and to receive an Oleh Certificate, which according to the Law of Citizenship, is an immediate prerequisite before receiving an Israeli citizenship.

In the year 1970 and as a result of two very famous constitutional court decisions, e.g. Roffeisen v. the Minister of Interior and Binymin Shalit v. the Minister of Interior, an amendment was made to the “Law of Return” wherein a definition for a Jew was made which indicates that a Jew is a person born of a Jewish mother, and is not a part of a different religion. Furthermore, after an additional amendment which grants the right of return also to family members of Jews, this right was conditioned to the ones who did not wilfully change their religion. Now, and subsequent to the abovementioned amendment of the “Law of Return”, I wish to review all the court decisions which have determined that a Jew who believes in Yeshua is a part of a different religion, according to the definition given to a Jew in the “Law of Return”; and as a person who wilfully changed his religion according to the section which grants family members of Jews to immigrate into Israel.
israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=182&view=item&idx=1550

By definition, the nation of Israel defines itself as a Jewish nation and it grants privileges to people (The Law of Return as one example) to those of the Jewish race (born of a Jewish mother).

And I think you would want your own self determination if 6,000,000 of your fellows were exterminated…

This comment indicates to me that you know full well that you were not speaking the truth clearly and are trying to get sympathy for the race-oriented policies that you claimed did not exist.

You will notice that I did not argue against this racial policy for the state of Israel. I just questioned if it could be supported in light of modern democracy. But it does your cause no good to deny the truth. Thankfully, many Jews openly admit that the Israeli laws and government policies favor (discriminate towards) one racial group. They defend that for religious reasons. That is honest and direct – those kinds of arguments can be negotiated and discussed. But cover-ups and denials of the facts make true dialogue impossible.

 

[JReducation]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned, the personal definition of the Messianic Jewish community is not yet accepted by many within the Jewish nation and is thoroughly rejected by the different orthodox streams within Judaism. This fact is revealed as it relates to the Law of Return. The “Law of Return” is a secular law, which is the central, legal expression of the nation of Israel as being a nation for all the Jewish people. This law was made in the Knesset on the 5th of July 1950 and it grants every Jew, being secular or religious, the right to immigrate into Israel and to receive an Oleh Certificate, which according to the Law of Citizenship, is an immediate prerequisite before receiving an Israeli citizenship.

In the year 1970 and as a result of two very famous constitutional court decisions, e.g. Roffeisen v. the Minister of Interior and Binymin Shalit v. the Minister of Interior, an amendment was made to the “Law of Return” wherein a definition for a Jew was made which indicates that a Jew is a person born of a Jewish mother, and is not a part of a different religion. Furthermore, after an additional amendment which grants the right of return also to family members of Jews, this right was conditioned to the ones who did not wilfully change their religion. Now, and subsequent to the abovementioned amendment of the “Law of Return”, I wish to review all the court decisions which have determined that a Jew who believes in Yeshua is a part of a different religion, according to the definition given to a Jew in the “Law of Return”; and as a person who wilfully changed his religion according to the section which grants family members of Jews to immigrate into Israel.
israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=182&view=item&idx=1550

By definition, the nation of Israel defines itself as a Jewish nation and it grants privileges to people (The Law of Return as one example) to those of the Jewish race (born of a Jewish mother).

The Law of Return does exist and it was supported by the Vatican, because it provided a safe haven for the millions of Jews who were homeless after WW II. The future Pope John XXIII was one of the diplomats who worked with the US, UK and Israel to fashion it. The idea of the law is to give immediate citizenship to any Jew coming from abroad. At the time the law was created these people were homeless and in dager of rising Communism that followed WW II. In other words, the danger was not over.

But Jews of other faiths, as well as the Palestinians who lived within the State of Israel were allowed Jewish citizenship with all the rights that come with it. There has always been a small but vociferous orthodox Jewish enclave that would like to see Israel become a theocratic state. The government has always had to deal with them and yield to them on certain points such as giving them seats in parliament and so forth to appease them.

None of the above is the same as constitutional racial discrimination. To begin with, Jews are not a race. They are an ethnic group and a faith community. There are many other people living in Israel who are neither Jewish nor Israeli.

I do understand how this may look like organized racial discrimination.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[reggieM]

The Law of Return does exist …

Yes, it gives preferential treatment to people of the Jewish race/ethnicity. Nowhere did I argue against that policy. I’m just stating the facts.

To begin with, Jews are not a race.

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the Jewish race quite frequently:

newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm

Additionally, many rabbi’s refer to the Jewish or Hebrew race also. It is commonly understood that there is a Jewish race and that has been a common understanding among Jews and gentiles for a long time.

They are an ethnic group and a faith community.

I wouldn’t say that they are one faith community since people of extremely diverse beliefs consider themselves to be “Jews” and there is no central authority that is recognized as the final arbiter of that.

There are many other people living in Israel who are neither Jewish nor Israeli.

This point strikes me as irrelevant and arguing something that was never questioned – or in other words, you’re overly defensive. It makes it seem like you’re promoting something and not merely looking at the facts objectively.

I do understand how this may look like organized racial discrimination.

Well, we could call it “ethnic discrimination” and I think that is a fact. The law does discriminate on that basis.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, it gives preferential treatment to people of the Jewish race/ethnicity. Nowhere did I argue against that policy. I’m just stating the facts.

I was not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing.

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the Jewish race quite frequently:

newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm

Additionally, many rabbi’s refer to the Jewish or Hebrew race also. It is commonly understood that there is a Jewish race and that has been a common understanding among Jews and gentiles for a long time.

The term race in this context is not being used in the biological sense. It’s an anthropological use to mean the Race of Abraham.

I wouldn’t say that they are one faith community since people of extremely diverse beliefs consider themselves to be “Jews” and there is no central authority that is recognized as the final arbiter of that.

The Catholic Church recognizes them as a faith community, especially John Paul II and Benedict XVI. A central government is not necessary for a faith community. It is necessary for a Church. They are not a Church. They are also an ethnic group, even if they are atheists, because they do have their culture.

This point strikes me as irrelevant and arguing something that was never questioned – or in other words, you’re overly defensive. It makes it seem like you’re promoting something and not merely looking at the facts objectively.

I’m not being overly defensive. I’m just stating something that many people may not know.

Well, we could call it “ethnic discrimination” and I think that is a fact. The law does discriminate on that basis.

The difference between this law and other laws is that it was meant to give people a homeland, not to exclude others. Many Christian Jews were able to return to Israel, but not under the Law of Return. They applied for citizenship like other people do in other countries.

There is a famous case of a Carmelite friar named Brother Joseph. He was a Jew who converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite brother. He tried to return to Israel under the Law of Return. He was told by the consulate general that he could not return as a Jew, because he was a convert to Christianity. But he could ask for Israeli citizenship. He did and it was granted. I’m not sure if he’s alive or not.

Discrimination would be to deny him the opportunity to return to Israel because he is considered a heretic by the Jewish faith. Discrimination would be to deny Christians citizenship or the right to live and worship in Jerusalem. We know that this is not the case. The Orthodox and the Franciscans have an open invitation from the Israeli government to enter Israel and serve the Christians there. They have had control over the Christian sites in Israel.

Discrimination would be what one would find in places such as North Korea, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, many of the Arab countries.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[reggieM]

Discrimination would be to deny Christians citizenship or the right to live and worship in Jerusalem. We know that this is not the case.

I respect your opinion and I don’t want to belabor this with long arguments. Personally, though I don’t think you’re considering numerous cases where the Law of Return serves as a means of discrimination against people on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

From the Israel Today page I posted earlier (pro-Israel, Jewish site):

israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=182&view=item&idx=1550

The first court decision which I will briefly review is in regards to Hatshins v. the Minister of Interior. This court decision deals with a family, belonging to the Christian religion, who decided to convert to Judaism in order to immigrate into Israel, by virtue of the “Law of Return”, and to establish a congregation to teach Jews that it is possible to both believe in Yeshua and to remain Jewish. Immediately, when their plot was discovered, their conversion was cancelled, along with their right to immigrate into Israel. Justice Berenzon wrote words in his decision that echo in all the similar court decisions which were made after this particular one, and they are: “Concerning Yeshuim who are considered and recognized as Jews, we have never yet heard of. This is absolutely unacceptable…ask any Jew on the street if this phenomena is probable and their definite answer will be: ‘no’.”

Two years after this an additional case had transpired in Dorflinger v. the Minister of Interior. This case was in connection with a Jewess named Ester Dorflinger. Her request to immigrate into Israel and to receive an Israeli citizenship as a Jew was rejected, since the Ministery of Interior decided that she is part of a different religion. Ms. Dorflinger fervently insisted that there is no contradiction between the fact that she is Jewish and the fact that she believes that Yeshua is the Messiah. However, to the regret of the members of the Messianic Jewish community, she did not succeed in convincing the judges. In the wording of Justice Victon: “She has raised many extended and tortuous claims as to the possible link of a Jew believing in Yeshu(a) as the Messiah, as if we are living today in the beginning of the first century, and as if since then nothing has transpired as it relates to different religious structures that have been established and that have disconnected themselves from Judaism, and for all those who choose to join those different paths.”

After very solid and broad precedents had already been determined, as it is related to Jews who believe in Yeshua, an additional court decision was made. In Beresford v. the Minister of Interior, a Messianic Jewish family attempted to immigrate into Israel by virtue of the “Law of Return” and was denied of this right. In spite of the fact that this issue had already been settled and very negative precedents had already been determined, this family decided to appeal before the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice against the governmental decision that had been made concerning their steps toward immigration. In a court decision that is spread over tens of pages given by Justice Elon (an obvious Religious Judge) **it was unquestionably determined that any Jew who believes in Yeshua in any shape or form and/or any Messianic Jew is part of a different religion **and has decided to wilfully change his/her own religion.

In a very short period after this, an additional court decision was made in Kendel v. the Minister of Interior wherein the Beresford family, along with several other families who belong to the Messianic Jewish community, appealed before the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice, claiming that they are now inactive in Messianic Jewish activity and that a separation needs to be made between their inner beliefs and their external activities. Justice Netanyahu rejected their claims. As it relates to the other families, Justice Netanyahu also rejected their appeal for different reasons that are needless to review at this point. The last and final court decision was made in 1995 in David Yochanan v. the Minister of Interior. In a very short paragraph written by Justice Aharon Barak, David Yochann, **who did not even have any documentation to prove that he was Jewish, was denied any right to immigrate into Israel **as he claimed to be a Messianic Jew.

 

[MDK]

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle…I think the pope is hoping to help find common ground for building pece

The truth is rarely in the middle when talking about the Catholic Church discussions with non-Catholics. The truth is typically nowhere near the middle. Non-Catholics are surprised by truth when (and if) the ever learn it.

 

[garysibio]

The Vatican is also a sovereign nation…It has the oldest diplomatic service in the world…They need to be able to approach nations about the treatment of Catholics within thier borders …Think of the persecution going on now in India, of Catholics

We live in an ever shrinking global world…The Vatican needs contacts to help them get into countries to offer aid in times of natural disasters…It has a lot more influence than people think, and it uses it to do what Christ demands of us all…to be our brothers keeper

Again, what positive thing has the UN accomplished. If a country is mistreating anyone within its borders, do you really think they are going to stop because the Vatican went to them in the UN? Vatican participation gives a stamp of approval to all of the nonsense that goes on there.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

The Catholic Church has never said that it is the Kingdom of God on earth. The Church has said that its mission is to proclaim the Kingdome of God. Christology tells us that Jesus is the Kingdom of God. The Church proclaims Christ to the world.

Wrong. Read your catechism:

784 On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people’s unique, priestly vocation: “Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people ‘a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.’ The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood.”

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

1691 “Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.”

The Church is the kingdom. Jesus is the King, not the kingdom. By promoting the king, we bring people into His kingdom.

I’m not sure I understand if you’re asking why we need the Vatican or why the Vatican has to be the voice of the Church. I’m a little confused here. In any case, the Vatican is the seat of the Church. It is the official voice of the Church. It is also a sovereign nation. It has a right to be present among other nations. This particular nation has a mission, to proclaim Christ. You do not stop because others are not listening. You keep trying, even though it may be a gentle reminder.

Neither. I’m asking why we need the UN. It’s useless.

The Church believes in the mission of the United Nations, even though those who are at the UN do not fulfill that mission, the mission continues to be a valid one. The Church reminds them of this. She serves as the voice of conscience.

Right. That’s why the UN is so busy promoting the rights of the unborn or in defending the family. Exactly which UN are you talking about because I don’t see what you are talking about.

Gary

 

[redrosetea]

Again, what positive thing has the UN accomplished. If a country is mistreating anyone within its borders, do you really think they are going to stop because the Vatican went to them in the UN? Vatican participation gives a stamp of approval to all of the nonsense that goes on there.

Gary

It is the only tool we have besides prayer…I recall a big new Catholic church that was built in Bahrain, which had never had a Catholic church, ever…The Saudies are talking about also letting one be built there…It’s better to light one candle than to curse the world of darkness

It gives nothing of the sort …It simply listens to everyone…I understand you don’t like the UN, , but the Vatican is no ones patsy, neither is the Pope

 

[Denversdad]

Whenever I see Israel’s establishment questioned and often condemned as a religious/cultural nation, I can’t help but wonder why Pakistan’s creation, is given a pass. It was cut out of India to form, for all intents and purposes, an Islamic state, at roughly the same time as Israel. Israel doesn’t seem to go after anyone unless it’s attacked. Given the history of tyranny against them, it seems a reasonable response.

The Jews continue the destiny of hardship prophesied in the OT, they deserve prayers, not condemnation.

 

[Strider]

This just in, the proper response from the Vatican:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2677

 

[NewYorker]

Whenever I see Israel’s establishment questioned and often condemned as a religious/cultural nation, I can’t help but wonder why Pakistan’s creation, is given a pass. It was cut out of India to form, for all intents and purposes, an Islamic state, at roughly the same time as Israel. Israel doesn’t seem to go after anyone unless it’s attacked. Given the history of tyranny against them, it seems a reasonable response.

The Jews continue the destiny of hardship prophesied in the OT, they deserve prayers, not condemnation.

Didn’t the Jews attack the British to drive them out of Palestine so Israel could be created?

 

[SHANTARAM]

Didn’t the Jews attack the British to drive them out of Palestine so Israel could be created?

No attack, you are thinking of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

 

[NewYorker]

No.

I am talking of things such as the 22 July 1946 King David’s Hotel bombing where the Jewish right wing movement, Irgun bombed the central offices of the British mandate in Palestine killing 91 and wounding 46.

Or when they Lehi, another Zionest movement assasinated Lord Moyna, a British Secretary of State for the Middle East on 6 November 1944.

And the Sergeants affair when in July 1946 the Irgun kidnapped and executed two British army sergeants serving in Palestine.

Or the Night of the Trains on 1 November 1945 when the Jewish Resistance Movement sabotaged 153 points, mainly junctions and bridges in the British rail system in Palestine. That same night they sunk three British gunboats and raided a railroad station blowing up three trains.

Or the Night of the Bridgesm on 16 July 1946 when the Haganah blew up eleven bridges to disrupt transportation in Palestine.

There are many more incidents of course.

 

[Denversdad]

Didn’t the Jews attack the British to drive them out of Palestine so Israel could be created?

I guess you didn’t read my post or you wanted to shift my point. But to respond to your point, Israel struggled for freedom, so did Pakistan. Pakistan, believe it or not, didn’t obtain its independence by a letter writing campaign. Both have a lot in common as far as religious-cultural identification, but nobody is calling for Pakistan to be driven back to the sea, and nobody is condemning Pakistan for the safe haven it lends terrorists. Pakistan has engaged of plenty of conflicts with India, but the UN isn’t screeching about them.

I go back to the point that Israel has attempted peaceful solutions since its independence, despite the will of its neighbors to provoke and threaten.

 

[NewYorker]

Isn’t it easy to fight conventional wars and decry terrorism after you have used terrorism to found a state and build an army?

It is easy to want peace once you have used such methods to get what you want?

So what you are saying is struggling for freedom justifies bombings and assassination?

 

[JReducation]

Wrong. Read your catechism:

784 On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people’s unique, priestly vocation: “Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people ‘a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.’ The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood.”

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

1691 “Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.”

The Church is the kingdom. Jesus is the King, not the kingdom. By promoting the king, we bring people into His kingdom.

Bold is mine. Your conclusion of the above citation is inconsistent with
Christological theology. The citation talks about a priestly people and a kingly people, because they belong to the body of Christ who is the King. Christology also teaches us that Christ speaks of the Kingdom of God referring to himself, as outlined in John’s Gospel. “The Kingdom of God is at hand” and “The blind see, the deaf hear, etc” Jesus refers to himself as the coming Kingdom. Check the Fathers of the Church.

Neither. I’m asking why we need the UN. It’s useless.

Pope Benedict’s address to the United Nations last year and your opinion are at odds with each other. You can take his position that the UN is necessary and that it has to clean up its act and work according to its mission or you can dismiss both the UN and the Pope’s faith in it. No one can force you to do either, nor does anyone want to do so.

Right. That’s why the UN is so busy promoting the rights of the unborn or in defending the family.

And you think that the Holy Father does not know this? Thjis is why he has assigned a permanent commision made up of brothers and sisters from the Secular Franciscan Order to the United Nations. They are the official voice of the Church on these matters. Whether the delegates to the UN want to hear them or not, their presence there is important to the Church. The Church would rather have them there than to give up on the UN. She invests millions of dollars a year to support the Franciscan delegation to the UN. Again, no one is obliged to agree with the Holhy See on this, except the Franciscans who have been ordered under holy obedience to take up this mission and remain there. Everyone else can support it or ignore it.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Swan]

Isn’t it easy to fight conventional wars and decry terrorism after you have used terrorism to found a state and build an army?

It is easy to want peace once you have used such methods to get what you want?

So what you are saying is struggling for freedom justifies bombings and assassination?

Excellent points!

 

[Denversdad]

Isn’t it easy to fight conventional wars and decry terrorism after you have used terrorism to found a state and build an army?

It is easy to want peace once you have used such methods to get what you want?

So what you are saying is struggling for freedom justifies bombings and assassination?

No, I’m saying you have proved my point in spades. Twist my words anyway it suits you. You continue to demonize Israel and ignore historical perspective and the simultaneous emergence of other religious-culture specific states.

A bomb throwing, anti Semitic tactic. I won’t buy into it, and I won’t respond to you again.

I’m sure the Vatican has a good reason for remaining present during the rant by the democracy killing, Jew hating madman from Iran. It’s a game of chess and they know the strategy that works for them.

 

[NM2]

Why is the Vatican involved with the UN? Probably the same reason Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes.