Winston Smith
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 915
- Reaction score
- 204
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha'Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book's contents as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews (with Video) | World | AlterNet
Moderator's Warning: |
In January, Shapira was briefly detained by the Israeli police, while two leading rabbis who endorsed the book, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, were summoned to interrogations by the Shabak. However, the rabbis refused to appear at the interrogations, essentially thumbing their noses at the state and its laws. And the government did nothing. The episode raised grave questions about the willingness of the Israeli government to confront the ferociously racist swathe of the country's rabbinate. "Something like this has never happened before, even though it seems as if everything possible has already happened," Israeli commentator Yossi Sarid remarked with astonishment. "Two rabbis [were] summoned to a police investigation, and announc[ed] that they will not go. Even settlers are kind enough to turn up."
Is Judaism a religion of peace? If so, how do you explain this?
Inspired by Republic_Of_Public's thread about Islam: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n-away-damning-government-research-paper.html
Is Judaism a religion of peace? If so, how do you explain this? How is it different from the Islamist philosophy of jihad?
The premise of this thread is just as absurd as a thread attacking Islam in the same manner. Religion's don't cause problems. Those who are extremists and behave in extreme ways because of their religion cause problems. Why most people can't grasp this simple concept is beyond me.
Yes, Judaism is peaceful.
Religion's don't cause problems.
That is just a ridiculous notion. A religion's tenets inevitably impact the behavior of its adherents. Sure, the people ultimately decide but when their decision is informed by their religion suggesting the religion is not in some way a cause of that behavior is just choosing a lie because it is more comforting.
Judaism is unconcerned with expansion but it is not peaceful. From Joshua to the Maccabees the idea of violence as a solution has been strongly endorsed in the Jewish faith. Calling that a peaceful religion is just factually wrong.
Wrong again. You do not seem to understand the difference between an idea and behavior. A religion presents an idea. The fact that not all people respond to that idea in the same way demonstrates that the religion is not the issue, but how the individual interprets that religion is the issue.
A religion presents a belief. Beliefs are harder to change than ideas.
Very true, but how shady is that line between idea and belief? How many corpses are buried between Berlin and Cambodia thanks to Stalin and Mao's beliefs, which were facilitated by Marx' idea? Or were Stalin and Mao still running off the idea? Analysts have described communism as a godless religion. Marx's idea was highly impractical and will never be a reality in anything bigger than a small community. Islam may be the same thing in this world because it too is impractical as government in a world where civilizations clash constantly. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism doesn't have this potential to clash (unless as the object of scapegoating), which places it into that "peaceful" category more so than the other two.
There are Jewish beliefs that will cause major violence eventually. If and when they rebuild the Temple on the Mount, it will be as a result of major violence or will be the direct cause of major violence. When I say major violence, I mean it will probably be violence of the like we have never seen before. Communism can't touch that. They don't have the belief that this one little parcel of land will bring them their Messiah and eternal salvation.
Quite obviously, the erecting of a building is not a violent act. The only violence in such a case would come from those whose hatreds drive them to such, so you have effectively transferred the responsibility for the violence away from the perpetrators of such and on to the targets.
There are Jewish beliefs that will cause major violence eventually. If and when they rebuild the Temple on the Mount, it will be as a result of major violence or will be the direct cause of major violence. When I say major violence, I mean it will probably be violence of the like we have never seen before. Communism can't touch that. They don't have the belief that this one little parcel of land will bring them their Messiah and eternal salvation.
This is assuming that they didn't obtain the land violently. Most likely, they will.
If I make the decision to sleep with someone's wife, I do so understanding that her husband may commit violence against me. Even though I made no commitment to him, he will attack me. I have to take responsibility knowing that my non-violent actions provoked violent actions. The difference is you probably understand the motivation behind the husband's action a little better. This doesn't absolve the party committing violence. But I can't exactly plead innocence either.
This is assuming that they didn't obtain the land violently. Most likely, they will.
If I make the decision to sleep with someone's wife, I do so understanding that her husband may commit violence against me. Even though I made no commitment to him, he will attack me. I have to take responsibility knowing that my non-violent actions provoked violent actions. The difference is you probably understand the motivation behind the husband's action a little better. This doesn't absolve the party committing violence. But I can't exactly plead innocence either.
A religion presents a belief. Beliefs are harder to change than ideas.
This is assuming that they didn't obtain the land violently. Most likely, they will.
If I make the decision to sleep with someone's wife, I do so understanding that her husband may commit violence against me. Even though I made no commitment to him, he will attack me. I have to take responsibility knowing that my non-violent actions provoked violent actions. The difference is you probably understand the motivation behind the husband's action a little better. This doesn't absolve the party committing violence. But I can't exactly plead innocence either.
Such sophistry.You must not understand that the Dome of The Rock was not only built upon the site of the Jewish temple, but chosen specifically for that reason.
I find it odd that in your Arabized view of the world that you blame only the Jews for the violence Arabs wage against them, when the entire pattern of aggressive Arab conquest exhibits so very clearly the actions you decry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?