Destiny

[Tao_Equus]

Henry Kissenger is amongst the most evil men still alive today. Author of Limited tactical nuclear war, key policy maker behind Nixon. Architecht of Operation Menu, the carpet bombing of Neutral Cambodia that took a million lives, involved in the masterminding of the Cypress situation, key backer of Pinochet in Chile, wanted for his involvement in political kidnappings and assisinations in most South American nations after Operation Condor. And yet the guy gets a nobel peace prize..... its sick....truly sick.

Today he is low profile but there is plenty of anecdotal eveidence to support the contention that he is still the puppet master in chief behind the White House. Many of his protege's and henchman are still in power or were recently, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeldt and the Bush family itself.
His involement in the american 'dumb down' propoganda is undoubtable and he sits on the board of Hollinger and has his puppets throughout the american media machine. He is a key 'unpaid' policy maker over the Iraqi invasion and has been present at most meetings before and since the invasion. His business empire is vast and he serves on the boards of large companies the world over.

This only scratches the surface.

His most famous quote is probably "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac"

This guy by his policy and orders probably the biggest mass-murderer alive today.

[Postmaster]

America has one of the greatest constitutions in the world. Just ashame its the most corrupt administration in the world.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by InLove

But I truly think that much of the suffering and uncertainty could be alleviated if we didn’t spend so much time arguing over whose version is right.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i disagree. we could alleviate the suffering and uncertainty by getting together and removing injustice and ending war and curing cancer and all these things, by *human action* - what are we waiting for? then we could happily continue arguing about the meaning of Texts. perhaps G!D might approve of such a course of action.

Hi bananabrain. Shalom.

I think that in essence, we are actually saying the same thing. Perhaps my thought would have been clearer if I had used a word like “warring” instead of “arguing”. It’s just that all too often, a little argument leads to a big war! I’m not knocking the benefits of earnest discussion over the meaning of Scripture—if I was, I probably wouldn’t be here participating in these forums. Like you (and I think the rest of the contributors to this thread so far), I say that it is up to us to take action in the face of adversity. And personally, I don’t believe that we must give up on our respective Traditions in order for this to happen. In fact, it should be from our faith that honorable and charitable human action should flow. And from what I see, this is often what does happen. The flipside of this, of course, is when we get so bogged down in the theological details that we start spending all our time and energy attempting to prove or defend our philosophies (religious or not, actually), that we neglect to get on with the business of doing what good we can for each other. I must sadly admit that Christianity is one of the biggest offenders in this area, but it certainly is not the only institution that stumbles in this way.

To everyone here, I realize the conversation on this thread has taken on some shading that wasn’t here before I left for the long weekend, but I did promise to come back and address some observations. I’ll continue scrolling back through, since I think there were some other comments to which I'd like to respond. (Keep in mind that I am a slowpoke sometimes. )


InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Hi All--

Another clarification about something I said...<sigh>

I wrote:

I must sadly admit that Christianity is one of the biggest offenders in this area, but it certainly is not the only institution that stumbles in this way.

I do realize that traditions and concepts in themselves don't stumble. Individuals do. (I just thought I'd say that before someone else points it out. Yup. Language can distract us too, ya know. )

InPeace,
InLove

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

When did I liken your thoughts to the ideaology of C18? No, not by implication or otherwise. It was you that did so to me.

who the heck is talking about C18? when did i mention C18? you were the first to use the word "fascist", not me, in this sentence:

PS, I sort of resent being called a warmed up facist.[sic] I am anything but.

i then reacted to your use of the word "fascist" by telling you that this statement, again of *yours*:

And this is the nub of it, the churches, mosques and synagogues of the world are full to overspilling with hypocracy[sic]

you are, in this statement, lumping all abrahamic believers into one boat. you are treating us all the same. you are ascribing views to me that i do not hold and you are nonetheless condemning me for them. i consider that highly problematic. in fact, to condemnation and scapegoating of a group of people by their group identity is the sort of thing that i consider *fascistic*, hence my comment. what i do *not* mean is that it has necessarily got anything to do with neo-nazis - many groups have been fascist without being nazis, like the italian and spanish fascists and the baath party. hence, i can call something fascistic without implying any connection with C18 (of all groups!) - that would be like saying that i was anti-zionist because satmar chasidim are anti-zionist and we're all religious jews. i think you probably get my point, so perhaps we could dispense with the name-calling now.

now, to the actual point:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what exactly is your point here? that jews are not immune to being chauvinistic, greedy and corrupt?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Exactly that.

well, i think you win the Mr Bleeding Obvious Prize. i'd like to see an ethnic/religious group that you couldn't say exactly the same about. i've never claimed that jews are better than anybody else - only that we ought to aspire to be better than we generally are, because we are so Commanded. i wouldn't have thought that that was controversial, but you never know.

I can easilly compile a list of high profile people who are Jewish.

you could do the same with greeks - i'm sure postmaster will oblige us if he feels like it.

People that excrsise great power in the world, are in effect unaccoutable to anyone and are most definitely corrupt and see nepotism as their right. One in the news at the moment, Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraqi invasion and sacked from the World Bank for.......yes nepotism.

yes, that's right, getting his girlfriend (who's an arab, incidentally) a better job. seeing as he's just been forced to resign and been publicly savaged and disgraced i'd say that he had been made fairly accountable.

In fact looking closely there are an inordinate number of Jews in high power postions in the US, UK and elsewhere given population demographics. I dont claim some semetic conspiracy nor brand all Jews with one mark. But it is undeniable that there is a powerful elite there and many of them, most of them, are Jews.

unfortunately, t_e, this is a rather tendentious statement. what do you mean, "most"? who's counted them? who's gone round checking whether they're jewish or not? how do you define whether someone is in a "high power position" or part of the "elite"? are you saying that jews should be subject to some sort of ethnic employment quota? because that used to be the case, you know. i mean, seriously, mate, you must understand how silly this statement actually is.

Do I believe this to be because of their religion? No of course I don't.

then what's your point?

Alan Greenspan may criticise other jews, I dont know, but I know he was the architect of Black Friday and the Dot Com bubble in which joe-punter shareholders were ripped off to the tune of billions. His history leads right back to the Kissinger gang. So if this guy be a hero....well i dont think much of your choices.

i never said he was a hero, i chose him as an example of someone extremely influential who also happened to be jewish. and how, exactly was he the "architect" of black friday and the dotcom bubble? i presume you mean that he said things to try and calm down overvalued markets. but wasn't that his job? he wasn't actually controlling the markets (they are by definition free, unless you are suggesting otherwise and know something about capital markets that i don't) then surely it is the markets themselves which overvalue things? if joe-punter wants to invest his savings into plastic-knockers.com instead of buying a house, how is that greenspan's fault when he says that the market is "irrationally exuberant" (i believe that was the phrase) and prophesies a crash to come? plenty of other non-jewish central bankers said the same thing. so what exactly are you accusing him of?

I make no secret of my dislike of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. This dislike is on humanitarian grounds and nothing else.

who's talking about israel and the palestinians? not me.

I am troubled by the foreign policy of the Republican party leadership in the US, which is disproportionately heavy with Jewish policy makers. Again this is on humanitarian grounds.

really? because you do presumably know that most jews actually vote democrat - and have always done. look it up.

If you read back over what I was saying I never at any stage singled out the Jews as a special case.

and that's kind of what i objected to. i object to you putting all jews, christians and muslims together in a big, convenient sack to hit with a stick. as you yourself put it:

The point I originaly attempted to make was that religions are easy meat for the the power hungry. And I dont mean money hungry tho that does factor in too usually. I make no distinction between the religions in this regard. Further I contended that the nature of organised faith facilitates the manipulation of the masses, to hold power, and that this is no accident.

now, it may suit you rhetorically speaking but it ought to be obvious that any argument which relies on lumping me in with jerry falwell and mahmoud ahmedinejad is frankly rather an absurd generalisation and deserves to be punctured.

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I'm sure Bananabrain can tell you that Jews would snob other Jews that are not even in the same class too.

oh, hell yeah. you should meet my in-laws. or not.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[wil]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

unfortunately, t_e, this is a rather tendentious statement. what do you mean, "most"? who's counted them? who's gone round checking whether they're jewish or not? how do you define whether someone is in a "high power position" or part of the "elite"? are you saying that jews should be subject to some sort of ethnic employment quota? because that used to be the case, you know. i mean, seriously, mate, you must understand how silly this statement actually is.

I think it is a given that Jews occupy positions of power in many locations...and I'm not saying that is wrong. They are there because they are educated and have been groomed for these positions... compare the number of jewish nobel prize winners to the number of Jews in the world....compare the numbers in the US to the numbers in the Senate and Congress....look at the numbers of CEO's and CFO's.

Not destiny...training...overall your people raise your children right. They are raised with their heritage, the stories of the struggle, the stories of the successes and the failures, the stories of ruling nations and slavery, the stories of good compassionate rulers and kings who didn't deserve it and lost out...they are raised to study, not only the language of their country, but the language of their people, so they can find like minds in any country they go in, it is an incredible tool. They are also taught and trained in entrepreneurship, the pros and cons of ownership, employer, employee, salary, commision and hourly compensation.

None of this is negative....but it explains not only why Jews are disproportionately in positions of power and wealth....I'm not saying that as a people they own everything and run everything...but Jews do own and run a larger percentage of the world than they are in the world....of course their are families like the Rockefellors, Heinzes, Kennedy's, etc..that do the same thing...

[Tao_Equus]

bananabrain: who the heck is talking about C18? when did i mention C18? you were the first to use the word "fascist", not me....

Here

Bananabrain: your argument seems to me to be a sort of warmed-over C18th anti-clerical straw man which doesn't actually seem to reflect the reality i live in.

Sometimes there is place to be highly specific and other times generalisations serve a purpose too. I am sorry that you are so sensitive to the generalisations I made but I stand by them. Sure some or maybe all of what I said is obvious but often it is the obvious we miss. You dont like me lumping in Judaism with the other two Abrahamics and all I can say is tough doo-doo, because I do and will continue to do so when I excersise my freedom to make my point, no-matter how obvious it is to you. Your aggressive nature does not intimidate me. I was making a point on the nature of these religions as a whole that despite your personal objections I stand by. Each of them does give its followers a sense of supremacy over the others and one could say your attitute backs up that claim. You dont want lumped in because whether you care to admit it or not you see your take on Judaism as superior to the others. So rant on, try to belittle and to re-define but truth is you only highlight my truths.

TE

[juantoo3]

Ummm, Tao? "C18th" is bananabrain's usual way of noting centuries...C18th would translate 18th century, AD.

Now back the regularly scheduled discussion.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Ummm, Tao? "C18th" is bananabrain's usual way of noting centuries...C18th would translate 18th century, AD.

Now back the regularly scheduled discussion.

lol well C18 is common name here for Combat18 a neo-nazi fascist group. Seems there has been a misunderstanding. My appologies.

[bananabrain]

oh, *that* C18. gotcha. deary me. presumably you're satisfied that i'm not flinging around accusations of anti-semitism - such is not my custom or preference. i prefer free speech, the freer the better.

I am sorry that you are so sensitive to the generalisations I made but I stand by them.

i am more than happy for you to generalise if you can justify your generalisation. in this case, i don't believe you can.

You don't like me lumping in Judaism with the other two Abrahamics and all I can say is tough doo-doo, because I do and will continue to do so when I exercise my freedom to make my point, no-matter how obvious it is to you.

i just wanted to clarify that it *was* your point rather than assuming it.

so basically, as i've said before, that lumps me in with pat buchanan, moqtada al-sadr and meir kahane and *you don't see a problem with that*? you don't see a *difference*? you can't see that that's a problem? you can't see how un-conducive to frank, serious and open discussion it is if you impute ideas and positions to me that i do not hold? fine, well, in that case you won't object to my freedom to be of the opinion that you believe, as some anti-religious people do, that the bible should be banned and burnt. yes you do! don't try to weasel out of it now, because i have lumped you in with another group and my word is final.

I was making a point on the nature of these religions as a whole that despite your personal objections I stand by. Each of them does give its followers a sense of supremacy over the others and one could say your attitude backs up that claim.

firstly, my point is that claims of supremacy are invariably drawn from texts and theology - if judaism was supremacist, it would seek to convince other people that it was the One True Faith and it does not do so. i quote: "the righteous among the [non-jewish] nations have a portion in the World to Come". i also point to the noahide laws, most if not all of which you will undoubtedly keep by default, since they are universal. as a non-jew, you are held to a less rigorous standard than i. this does not make me better than you. it means it is harder for me to qualify for my portion in the World to Come than it is for you because i happened to be born into this group. lucky you, i say.

whether you care to admit it or not you see your take on Judaism as superior to the others.

secondly, i strongly refute your statement that you know whether i have a "sense of supremacy". you have no way of knowing how i feel and i don't feel that i have said anything here which would give you cause to back that up. feel free to post a quote that i have written from elsewhere if you feel this is an unwarranted claim, otherwise you are simply putting words in my mouth in order to bolster what i consider to be an ignorant generalisation. now undoubtedly quite a few of my co-religionists feel this way, i am sure, but one of the things about engaging in interfaith dialogue is that you have to recognise such things, know where they come from and overcome them if they are problematic. i haven't come across anything in the actual religious texts that says we're superior, otherwise it would make no sense for us to ban evangelising. your argument quite simply doesn't make sense. it is illogical and internally inconsistent and it demeans you to make it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Postmaster]

Just on that last part I'd say Bananabrain is a very religious tolorant/understanding person.

I have a question, in Judaism is it assumed or in scripture that Jewish people are Gods "chosen" people? Also how does the prophecy of the return to the promise land play on Jewish peoples thinking in the Isreal Palestine conflict?

[Postmaster]

I found this, it's an interesting take on things
Rabbi Goldstein gives a historic overview of Zionism

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I have a question, in Judaism is it assumed or in scripture that Jewish people are Gods "chosen" people?

we are described in various places as the people who were *chosen to receive the Torah*. this describes a historical situation, ie something that happened to us and does not necessarily imply any other form of chosenness. the oft-quoted phrase "the chosen people" is a *mistranslation* (from the KJV) of a phrase which is highly idiomatic, but is more properly understood as "precious" rather than "chosen". unfortunately people don't know hebrew and they rarely check. this includes jews unfortunately, many of whom assume that "chosenness" has the connotations for us as it would do in english.

Also how does the prophecy of the return to the promise land play on Jewish peoples thinking in the Israel Palestine conflict?

in many ways. some people think it is part of the messianic dream and some people take a highly religious view of the *state* of israel - both pro and contra. it very much depends on what one's take on zionism is and the degree to whether it is a religious or anti-religious or secular or historical or academic or mystical or philosophical or ethno-centric or political or simply experiential point of view. to understand this is to understand all the different strands of zionism.

I found this, it's an interesting take on things
Rabbi Goldstein gives a historic overview of Zionism

this is a case in point. this rabbi goldstein is one of the leading lights of neturei karta ( Neturei Karta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) a fanatical fringe group of ultra-orthodox anti-zionists who are widely reviled and condemned by the rest of the jewish world, given their unpleasant habits of cosying up with the likes of mahmoud ahmedinejad, abu hamza and others. there are a couple of thousand of them but their tactic is to talk about "religious judaism" and "judaism" as if they were its sole representatives, which, from their PoV, they are. but nobody else agrees. i would ignore anything this bigot has to say. he is no respecter of history and thinks, among other things, that the holocaust happened as a punishment for people not being religious (by which he means not wearing black hats and having big beards and so on, just like him) - i detest him and his underhand, lying methods. they are very popular with islamic fundamentalists because they can point at them and say "look, you see, these are the real jews and they hate israel." it disgusts me and everyone i know.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Postmaster]

Thanks

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

oh, *that* C18. gotcha. deary me. presumably you're satisfied that i'm not flinging around accusations of anti-semitism - such is not my custom or preference. i prefer free speech, the freer the better.

Well I do now!! I did find it a little odd coming from you to be honest, thats why I reacted to it. My sincere appologies for my misunderstanding.

so basically, as i've said before, that lumps me in with pat buchanan, moqtada al-sadr and meir kahane and *you don't see a problem with that*?

No that was not my point at all, I was not talking individuals but refering to the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. And I do not restrict it to them either, I was only using them to illustrate my contention that religions themselves are the problem just by their existence.

....you don't see a *difference*? you can't see that that's a problem? you can't see how un-conducive to frank, serious and open discussion it is if you impute ideas and positions to me that i do not hold? fine, well, in that case you won't object to my freedom to be of the opinion that you believe, as some anti-religious people do, that the bible should be banned and burnt. yes you do! don't try to weasel out of it now, because i have lumped you in with another group and my word is final.

Well now that you mention it.....what a fine idea!!! Why did'nt I think of it!!
I cant speak for the Tanakh and Talmund or the Torah ,through sheer ignorance as to their content, but I feel mankind could do a lot worse than to rip up the Bible and Qu'ran and start again. To my mind they are corrupted by centuries of political meddling. Not saying that many people do not find comfort, hope or solace in them but by and large they have become more tools of division than unity.

firstly, my point is that claims of supremacy are invariably drawn from texts and theology - if judaism was supremacist, it would seek to convince other people that it was the One True Faith and it does not do so. i quote: "the righteous among the [non-jewish] nations have a portion in the World to Come". i also point to the noahide laws, most if not all of which you will undoubtedly keep by default, since they are universal. as a non-jew, you are held to a less rigorous standard than i. this does not make me better than you. it means it is harder for me to qualify for my portion in the World to Come than it is for you because i happened to be born into this group. lucky you, i say.

secondly, i strongly refute your statement that you know whether i have a "sense of supremacy". you have no way of knowing how i feel and i don't feel that i have said anything here which would give you cause to back that up. feel free to post a quote that i have written from elsewhere if you feel this is an unwarranted claim, otherwise you are simply putting words in my mouth in order to bolster what i consider to be an ignorant generalisation. now undoubtedly quite a few of my co-religionists feel this way, i am sure, but one of the things about engaging in interfaith dialogue is that you have to recognise such things, know where they come from and overcome them if they are problematic. i haven't come across anything in the actual religious texts that says we're superior, otherwise it would make no sense for us to ban evangelising. your argument quite simply doesn't make sense. it is illogical and internally inconsistent and it demeans you to make it.

I understand and agree with what you are saying in that from "your" perspective it is not. Even if 99% of Jews were echoing your veiws and the other 1% were crazy fringe radicals not worth listening to, other groups will still veiw Judaism as supremacist for a few of your customs appear to be exclusively for Jews. You cannot truly become a Jew, for example, you must have a Jewish mother to be a 'true' Jew. (i am aware conversion to Judaism is possible). And, despite your clarification of what "chosen people" really means which I do not dispute, it is still picked up by many to be a supremacist line. So the overal perception of non-Jews is that it does have supremacy built into its core. The truth is actually irrellevant to my point. It is the perception that counts in how one group veiws another. And how certain leaders are more than happy to harnass this to their advantage.

Maybe I can be illogical and inconsistant but my thoughts on faith are not fully formed and my detailed knowledge....well it isn't . However I do not think that I have ever claimed to be a theologian. I dont believe in the monotheistic, anthropocentric all seeing divinity of the big 3. The various tomes are to me just old books heavily influenced by the politics of times passed. And I most certainly dont believe in concepts of salvation and damnation. These 2 seem to me to be at the core of the 3 religions we discuss at present. And I believe it is these two notions that cause all the hatred and division. This is my perception as someone raised without religion but who has had mystical experiences. And does, in perhaps a wider sense than some might find acceptable, believe there is some creative force behind all things.

When you do notice that I make little sense I am happy that I can count on you and others here to point it out. I'm not here to score brownie points over anyone and if I cant learn from the people here I cant learn anywhere.

Regards

TE