Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".

Fribble - would he be less prosecuted if...

1) he stopped religion bashing.

Funny... anyway, why do you hang around the Religion area like a bad smell?

When am I persicuted?

When i report you? *whistles*

Well I know if in germany their wasn't a hate for Jews beforethey wouldn't have persecuted them in the Nazi Time, but it was not their fauilt in my opinion.
And I guess they would be more liked nowadays if they like shared "their" land with others.

Dudes stop fighting

I have never understood why Jews are hated. Christians and Muslims both have religious links to Jews (people of the book)

Go away! And I hate people who try and hide religious debates under an "ethics" or "taboos" bush. Oh and frodo, you cannot report me for my views, or I would report you for being homophobic! I don't care what the bibles says of that either!

well aren't all three hated? At least by me.
But Muslims are hated to aren't they?
I think Christians just hate everything that is different than them, not all but many in my opinion.

Goddammit can't we keep thit on a decent level

That is untrue. The problem is, a few radical fanatics paint all the church with the "Fanatic nutters who hate everyone and go on crusades"

well I think there are a lot, I mean many of the Conservative even though am with them on financial issues, they have a lot of christian belivers that make politics of hate and discriminate against others. Not in germany though much or in Scotland I think but the US seems kind of that way right now.

Thats just americans for you...

wait do you agree or not? I don't understand your post.
Except if you make fun of americans, I'd go with you on that one.

Im making fun of americans

name one country who willingly would share their land

its not their land dammit.

well they just got returned the land that once were theirs

**** that, I can write a book and say some land was mine and then I go away (persecuted or not doesn't matter) and 2000 years later there are other dudes and I just say yol **** off, and when they don't want to (wonder why)= I get my big brother to telll them to **** the hell off.

it just aint the book man, historically jews lived in that country as rulers and under occupation.......still history stands thats were they lived. And it was taken from them

2000 ****ing years ago by tottally different people,
I live in Franconia I don't claim half of Europe just cause 1000 years ago the franconian empire was spread over Europe, neither are Romans. Or Persiens,

But I agree Jews deserve a country, but not on the cost that another natuion has no place to live anymore.

all countries has an origin, what you qouncered doesnt count, so not letting the Jews have Israel would be the same as stripping the Irish of Ireland

No no no, the its first of all a country they concqered , and second they weren't there for a good 1000 years what makes their claim for that more valueable then the others (what the **** are they called, Palastines or something)

the jews have lived there for a much longer time than 1000 years, they have only been deprived of their ruling of that country by conqering forces. And the people they conqered it to unite the land to one kingdom, very similare to how many nations got its birth

Im not homophobic. What gave you the idea that I was?

well you are saying it is ok for the jews to conquer their land but not for the Romans (or whoever that was) to conquer it thereafter?

it wasnt a nation when the jews gathered it to one kingdom. And jews have lived in that land ever since

The conflict is mainly about the fact that it is both religion's holy land.

actually tree religions wholy land, jews, christians and muslims

Anyway why not share ? Th3e JEws were there first but not for 2000 years and then the others were there for what 500 years more? they have the same right to the land why not share?

the jews have been there the entire time

Yeah the Israel is significant to Christians as well. But we already know it's not going to be a Christian country, although I'm sure they would rather it go to the Jews than the Muslims so they do have special interests in the conflict.

Indeed It is just stupid I say give it to buddhists and the Jews and Muslims can share tibet or something.

see what you get when religion is involved

yeah **** religion

both sides have pople that really destroy all hopes for peace down there. If it aint the terrorist action of the palestinian it is the abuse of military power by the Isralites

well as long as they don't annoy me with that shit I am fine with it

Yeah.. I really can't see the Palestinians doing all this fighting if they didn't believe they were doing it for Allah.

Nah.. what's going on over there is messed up and it needs to end. I mean people here in America talk about drive by shootings everyday.. try having a tank drive down your street.

eeehh Palestinians aint just muslims, there are christian Palestinians as well

I thing they do it cause the jews stole their hime but whatever
this is my 1000post

Really.. do any of the Christian ones blow themselves up in a Diner? (that's not sarcasm I'm seriously asking)

That doesn't matter, I don't think there are a lot of christians though.
But really its not only aout religion, if you had to life like shit for 50 years cause someone decided after 2000 years that your land is actually theres you would be kind of pissed too.

no but they fight for the Palestinian cause to be a sovereign nation

which is quite understandable

well teh chrisitan plaestinians aint that few though, there are around 200.000 of them in Chilie(of all places) alone so they number up when you add them all up

Did not know that.

Palestinians and Jews have historically shared the region and in 1919, signed an agreement with the British to cooperate in the development of separate Arab and Jewish national homelands. The official establishment of Israel in 1947 caused a mass immigration of Jews to the region. This marginalized Palestinian nationals who have since instigated a number of armed conflicts in an attempt to reclaim the region only to lose more territories to Israel.

Interestingly, the Palestinians did not have a problem sharing the region with the Jews until the Jews became the majority. Then they instigated two armed conflicts in an attempt to take land away from the them and both times ended up losing more of their own land in the process. It sounds like sour ****ing grapes to me.

Jews kind of scare me fear

Actly the only reason Hitler hated jews so much is because jesus was jewish.I found that out myself.Even through I am not a prating jew this is a little insulting.JM

oh great the big mystery solved.

The jews got blamed for the state Germany was in after World War I, they were labeled sub humans by the nazi partywho were out to eliminate any political opponents and what the nazis called ethnic traitors. Jews were on top of the list together with communists and Gypsies.
There was a great anti semetic "wind" in Europe and Hitler exploited that for what it was worth. He found a group who would take the attention away from how the nazis worked their way into positions to controll the entire state of Germany, the people were so busy finding things to blame on the jews and communist that the nazis had a free way to everything

Reather or not you want to believe me Finti it is true.They will not teach it in school because some don't believe it.Like you for exsample.JM

it is utterly crap JM, listen to the speeches made by the nazi you know why they targeted the jews and the others. Dont have to teach my what I can hear with my own ears

Give prooof for that JM

if...

you could have more of a life.


get some jewish friends.
you'll see they go wonderfully with ketchup.


...

where the **** is JM? she ****ing never replies when someone has opposing views. It seems like she is allergic to real evidence.

Hitler is a walking contradiction in so many forms, it's not even funny.

Oh well, he's dead now, thank goodness.

Anyways, I like Jews, they write good TV shows.

that indeed is true , but well the brits do too and no one likes them (chill Cinema it was just a joke)

I dont think ive ever read so much BS in one statement - hitler persecutd hem because he used them as scapegoats. when he was a child he was treated by a jewish doctor who he spared from persecution later on- obv being jewish wasnt the reason for persecution. its not like he only persecuted the jews either - he targetted minorities as a whole not just jews. As for this thread, whatever qualities you may associate with jews doesnt give you or anyone else a right to persecute them. They didnt ask to be persecuted. What goes on in the west bank and Ghaza does not define the actions of jews worldwide. there are plnty of decent jews out there just cos u havent made the effort to get to know any of them is not their fault.

I'm fine, I was just stating that amidst speculation that Hitler himself was homosexual, he's an uber-hypocrite.

A politcal genius, but a hypocrite.

Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".

...............................................................................................
so according to this becasue the sterio types that jews are stingy (wich is in itself a steriotype) favor their religeon to be accurate, and also held on tightly to a piece of land that there is historical evidence they had been there centeries ago that thats good reason to throw people into ovens huh? I would hate to see what would happen to me if that was the only critera.

You can tell a thread's going to be a bad thread when it starts with the title "Jews..." and is started by a guy called "fribble".....
Man, (or woman), stop bashing the Jewish ppl.
I HATE anti-Semites.....

this is why i dont post in any religion thread, everybody starts becoming enemies

you dont post in religious threads?, what do you call what you just did then?

my thoughts exactly.

Well could little miss Malfoy please state some references where she found that Hitler killed Jews for that reason?

Bardock, do you have a second account?

well teh first one ain't working no more

it was off topic though, Im not expressing my views or anyhting just stating why i dont like talk about religon

BTW, fribble is a sock. His first account 'Pylons for Braco' got banned.

are you folks for real? I mean you are what you are from birth and after that free will kicks in and eventually shapes the creature you evolve to be. I call this interchange 'suppository thinking' a suppository is either an idea starting with IF or a medication you shove up yer butt 'cuz yer so constipate and full of s -- t you squeak when you walk. Suppository thinking occurs when the 2 conditions come together , and to allieviate the symptoms sufferers engage in a inverse reverse mechanism and start spewing out verbal diarrhea all over the place, instead blasting it out their butt into a crapper. So now this discussion board resembles other discussion boards I checked out where folk don't discuss but play 1-up-manship cutesyness like a dog pissing on a hydrant to announce his presence.

The question that begs to be answered is...what or who is a jew. Jews were twice driven out of Israel into slavery over 2,000 years ago. The owners of these folks were Persians, Huns, Turks, Scythians, Celts who interbred fertile, fecund jewish women just like slave owners bred female african slaves in North, Central, South ama-reeka. The point being folk who don't think they are a jew are a jew and folk who think they are a jew may not be. Check out Brian Sykes' 7 Daughters of Eve when he traces matrilineal mitochondria DNA of folk groups in areas considered caucasian.

What's my point ya might ask-the world has to be the way it is, evil and decadent in order for Armageddon to occur. 666, antichrist, tribulation are the end result of this process. When I read how folk tell God what to do by usurping God's place in the 1st Commandment by playing God with folks' lives, judging folk when only Jesus has that prerogative, putting Israel 1st, ama-reeka 1st they put God in last place and I sure as hell don't wanna be in yer shoes when yer judgement day comes up. You folks think you can lip - flip 1-up Jesus to His face. All these non-productive, self-destructive low-level intellectual input monologs you pass off as a discussion re-inforce why I went into voluntary exile here in Europe. I rubbed elbows with the creme-de-la-creme of the cream of the crud lowest half of the lowest common denominator called my feller ama-reekin's my entire working career. You folks remind me of the retards I encountered 60 years ago who came outta WW2 acting like 'king shit'. They showed them furriners a think or 3 they did, so they thought. We are living with the legacy of 'them folk' yessiree, by this I mean the 2 generations that got even dumber than cannon-fodder category 4 F rejects that produced the present generation submitters to this board are also a part of.

Once the level of interchange reaches a humane level instead of lame robotic cliches I can see hope for this generation, otherwise you folk should do all in yer power to bring on Armageddon, if you prefer bizness as usual.

Originally posted by fribble
Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land". I wonder why his account was restricted...

Originally posted by fribble
Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".


1) How does that fall on every jew?
2) they are the choosen people of "THEIR" good.
3)Again, how does that fall on all jews, Actually the state of israel was founded by zionism.

Originally posted by jake abf
Once the level of interchange reaches a humane level instead of lame robotic cliches I can see hope for this generation, otherwise you folk should do all in yer power to bring on Armageddon, if you prefer bizness as usual.

And what are you doing to hasten armageddon?

The whole conflict was started by the Balfour declaration and a british attempt to divide and conquor the palestinians and the jews after the fall of the ottoman empire in world war I. they promised the same land to two different peoples whom historically had no particular problems with each other and rather functioned as scapegoats for greedy christians when they ran out of pagans and heretics to kill.
The whole basis for some great ethnic hatred was built up by politics and fanatics on both sides (especially an egyptain mother****er that went to school 40 miles north of here in Greeley). Many misguided zionists strayed from the original theory and wanted Israel purely for Jews-people they defined as Jews which usually did not include moderate denominations or eastern european jews. Real antisemitism entered the picture whe many arab leaders, including the uncle of Yassar Arafat pledged to side with hitler if he ever invaded the middle east and pledged to purge their jewish populations. Antisemitism was an import to the middle east and north africa from europe and asia

Originally posted by Bardock42
well I think there are a lot, I mean many of the Conservative even though am with them on financial issues, they have a lot of christian belivers that make politics of hate and discriminate against others. Not in germany though much or in Scotland I think but the US seems kind of that way right now.

I find this extreamly interesting.

When a terrorist attack happens then its ''minority of Muslims which are terrorists'', but for everything else certain Christians do, its ''majority of Christians which are weird/hateful/stupid''.

This is not necesseraly you, its actually a great nhumber of people on this forum.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I find this extreamly interesting.

When a terrorist attack happens then its ''minority of Muslims which are terrorists'', but for everything else certain Christians do, its ''majority of Christians which are weird/hateful/stupid''.

This is not necesseraly you, its actually a great nhumber of people on this forum.

I think for many it is a question of history. In recent times, in terms of terrorist attacks, Islam has really come to the fore - however it is, it seems, accepted that this is the act of an Islamic minority attacking the "western world." When people think of Christianities track record though three things usually pop-up in terms of the harm they caused the world - The Crusades, the Inquisition (and things of that nature - witch trials, heretic suppression etc) and Christian motivated expansion.

Now for those three things it is accepted the majority of the Christian population participated and supported them - though fear and ignorance played a part at times. In this day and age the Christian Church has lost many of its former militant teeth, and operates on a more social/cultural influential level. People still see Christianity, the majority, being anti-gay and anti-women and anti-contraceptive and at times anti-science and so on. Of course it can be said Islam has the same problem (except in certain fields the science part, since ancient Islam was very pro-science, particularly before the Arabs where conquered by the Turks.)

Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

Originally posted by frodo34x
I have never understood why Jews are hated. Christians and Muslims both have religious links to Jews (people of the book)

Because Hitler calls the Jews demons, and wants them all to burn in hell. That's why.

Originally posted by fribble
Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".

This seems like a rather tendentious question. Let me guess, in your mind, the Jews are largely responsible for their own problems?

First, of all, hatred for the Jews predates any of the events you mention in your post. They were generally discriminated against and excluded from owning property in much of medieval and renaissance Europe. (Not to mention, periodically rounded up and slaughtered during eruptions of mass religious hysteria.) Their gravitation towards liquid financial markets, banks, and money lending operations was a direct result of this legal handicap.

By the 19th and 20th century, things were better, but still difficult. Jews were still looked upon with suspicion and often scapegoated for national problems (ie. the Dryfuss Affair).

So, your suggestion that the jews should have been more "generous" during the between the war recession in Germany, is a little confusing. I assume you mean Jewish money lenders should have lowered lending interest rates on the notes they held. And since they didn't, they earned the ire of the German people.

I think your suggestion is wrong because it ignores the fact that Jewish money lending was one of the few legal financial opportunities open to them at the time. It also ignores the hundreds-of-years pre-history of persecution, hatred, and, intolerance the Jews faced. Ask yourself where the "onus" of generosity rested in this particular instance. I don't think the burden laid with the Jews.

I also think you're wrong because you assume all money lenders were Jewish. Weren't their other Teutonic money lenders around? Did they lower their interest rates?

Next point. "Stop calling themselves God's chosen people?" Well, that's what they believe. And they have nearly 4,000 years of written and oral history asserting this claim. What other group of people have been able to maintain a sense of sustained cultural/religious identity for this amount of time in the face of so much opposition? The Jews would cease to be Jews if they gave up this belief. This is an unreasonable expectation on your part.

Final point. "They stopped fighting over their promised land?" Well, their claim to it is older than any other group currently vying for it. Plus, I think they would stop fighting...if all their neighbors stopped launching surprise attacks on their territory and articulated any other sentiment less bellicose than an express desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think for many it is a question of history. In recent times, in terms of terrorist attacks, Islam has really come to the fore - however it is, it seems, accepted that this is the act of an Islamic minority attacking the "western world." When people think of Christianities track record though three things usually pop-up in terms of the harm they caused the world - The Crusades, the Inquisition (and things of that nature - witch trials, heretic suppression etc) and Christian motivated expansion.

Now for those three things it is accepted the majority of the Christian population participated and supported them - though fear and ignorance played a part at times. In this day and age the Christian Church has lost many of its former militant teeth, and operates on a more social/cultural influential level. People still see Christianity, the majority, being anti-gay and anti-women and anti-contraceptive and at times anti-science and so on. Of course it can be said Islam has the same problem (except in certain fields the science part, since ancient Islam was very pro-science, particularly before the Arabs where conquered by the Turks.)

Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

I agree with you, but on top of that, I believe it is geographically as well as histoprically.

West has been affected by Islam only ever so recently, while East has been affected and moulded by it for a very long time.
There is a huge differeing there as well, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Fair? Maybe, maybe not. However there is some validity, from a certain stance, in the claim that Islam has yet to commit something comparable, by ratio, to the Crusades, that its recent excesses are still the stuff of a minority, where as Christianities past has it acting from a majority stance committing atrocities. However I would empathise that it is down to perspective and often context - Christianity also gets more attention in the negative way as it is a part of our culture - something people see and feel they understand. Far fewer people on this, and most other, forums have less experience with Islam then Christianity, and feel more at ease passing judgement on Christians - though there are those who run to the "Islam is evil and we should glass the middle east" mentality, which is just as bad.

Never committed anything comparable to the Crusades? More revisionist history. The Crusades, as misguided as they were in many respects, was a rearguard action. What were the first 300 years of Muslim history other than one series of bloody imperialistic conquests after another? Did you think that Islam spread by peace and love through most of the Middle East and North Africa? Both the Byzantine and Western empires were besieged by militant Islam for centuries before they were finally able to stem the tide. In fact, the Byzantines were eventually conquered in the 13th century.) They weren't besieged by Islam's cultural influence, but by hoards of fanatics with swords. So, I'm sorry but the citing the Crusades as the enduring symbol of the West's guilt before the "Religion of Peace" is a joke.

You're right in pointing to the periodic flowering of independent thought in Muslim controlled areas during this period. In many ways, Muslim culture was superior to the West's at this time. However, also keep in mind, that this flowering was largely due to their possession of the Greeks in translation--something the West didn't acquire until much later on. Plus, the work of Muslim philosophers like Averroes never transformed or impacted Muslim culture like Augustine and Aquinas--unfortunately. It would certainly be a misrepresentation to characterize Muslim culture, at any time, as being radically open to science and open philosophical inquiry.

Impressive Dr Zaius.

justice and the crusades is hard to define. who is the hero? Mehmed II or Vlad Dracula?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Impressive Dr Zaius.

Why thank you, lil bitchiness. I didn't know you cared.

With regards to the first post....

Do not the Christians call themselves "God's Chosen People?"
Why would it be so wrong for the Jewish community to believe that they are "the Chosen People," as do the Muslims, etc.?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I agree with you, but on top of that, I believe it is geographically as well as histoprically.

West has been affected by Islam only ever so recently, while East has been affected and moulded by it for a very long time.
There is a huge differeing there as well, in my opinion.

True, but it is also political/cultural on top of that. Prior to our recent adverse affects with Islam it was portrayed poorly by Christianity - and Christianity has an image problem in the western world for many people. There are those groups who will oppose Christianities claims on almost anything simple because it is a Christian claim.



I love the people who spit our things like "revisionist history" like it is a pox. Heaven forbid modern historians look at new evidence. Heaven forbid historians rework histories to remove the Christian and Eurocentric biases of the past. Heaven forbid historians occasionally look at things from a view - hell, without Runcimen we wouldn't have any real Byzantine history - we would have the histories of English Ivory Tower types told from the divine view of the English king - the Byzantines were greedy and heretical and manipulative etc. Runciman was accused of being a Revisionist originally by people clinging to outdated historical stances - such as yourself, but time and history vindicated him. Why? Because history grows. New evidence comes to light. History can be revised when it is wrong. Study some historiography and then you can attack those who offer a new perspective.



What a joke. The Crusades were a rear guard action? What history book did you get that from? Pick up any number of of history books that don't deal with the idealised, Romantic view (and that is a word I can spit out when I talk of history) and you'll learn the Crusades had a multitude of reasons for each one - that include Christian motivated conquest and forced conversion. That Pope Urban II had visions of a united Christian Empire, and that they had been waiting for something to get their own back against the East Romans for years. You think the Western powers actually cared about the Eastern Orthodox? A joke. The Western powers had just as much to answer for in the death of the East Roman Empire as the Muslims did. More so since it was actually members of the fourth Crusade who sacked Constantinople first and irreparably damaged its ability to defend itself - many years before the Muslims came back to finish the job and make it the jewel in the Turkish empire crown.

And you mix up the periods of Islam - you treat it like a blanket term for all people of that religion. In the point in question here there was more then one nation with "Islam"as the descriptor. Not all of them were bloody conquistadors. In fact it was only with the influx of savage Islamic tribes which overthrew the old Islamic order that Islam turned savage - prior to that they were far more tolerant then any Christian power, and held onto cultural formalities far more similar to the then defunct Greek and Persian powers.



Compared to the Christian powers the Muslim world prior to the Turks was significantly more advanced and dedicated to philosophical pursuits and the sciences then anyone else. Go down to your local university and ask a lecturer about the things the Crusaders brought back with them from the east - the study of medicine, new architecture, improved hygiene, new agricultural techniques etc. All this from Godless heathens they had gone to slaughter. And you are presenting a horribly Renaissances view there - how so much can be attributed to people reading the Classics. I love the Great Romans and Greeks, but I dislike the way people erode the achievements of those that followed by comparing them, or by saying "well, they only really could do that thanks to left over Roman knowledge." The East, both East Roman, Islamic and down into the Asia's was far more vibrant, far more advanced and far more motivated then the quagmire that was the Western kingdoms, and it deserves respect. The Crusades, just or unjust, has no historical comparison to any of the other nations present at the time, or their military actions - and don't bring up jihad, because if you do I will know that you have no idea about its function in the ancient world - the ancient Jihad was in no way an Islamic crusade.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What a joke. The Crusades were a rear guard action? What history book did you get that from? Pick up any number of of history books that don't deal with the idealised, Romantic view (and that is a word I can spit out when I talk of history) and you'll learn the Crusades had a multitude of reasons for each one - that include Christian motivated conquest and forced conversion. That Pope Urban II had visions of a united Christian Empire, and that they had been waiting for something to get their own back against the East Romans for years. You think the Western powers actually cared about the Eastern Orthodox? A joke. The Western powers had just as much to answer for in the death of the East Roman Empire as the Muslims did. More so since it was actually members of the fourth Crusade who sacked Constantinople first and irreparably damaged its ability to defend itself - many years before the Muslims came back to finish the job and make it the jewel in the Turkish empire crown.


Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

Also, do you mean to assert that for its first 300 years, Islam didn't largely proselytize by putting peoples to the sword and conquering foreign peoples? And even though it was sacked by members of the Fourth Crusade first, do you also maintain that Constantinople wasn't eventually conquered and held by Muslim invaders? And, finally, do you deny that Muslim forces besieged parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages and beyond? If so, what was Charles Martel doing in 732 at Tours, holding theological debates with Islamic Holy Men?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

And I would argue that there was a multitude of alternate reasons that in ratio equaled, or surpassed the weight given just to to just nice holy motivations. Plenty of perfectly valid reasons well supported by historical study that cover all the Crusades in one degree of another such as:

Christian conquest: A strong motivation held by the papacy at the declaration of the first Crusade. Pope Urban and his Church saw great potential to unify the Christian world - however, without due provocation it would be hard to motivate the squabbling western powers caught up in fighting each other. He desires his Holy Roman Empire to have the power of kings. The appeal for aid from the East Roman Empire was this motivation, and the answer was not to the wishes of the East Roman leadership - they wanted money to recruit mercenaries and raise their own armies to deal with the Islam nations that had only recently been able to really challange the East Roman Empires military dominance - but of course the ERE was in natural decline. Anyway they did not want armies of western "barbarians" stomping around - but that is what they got. Likewise, these Westerners, for all their claims about saving the Holy Land, got into near violent "debate" about who got to keep the land they "retook" from the Islamics. Land that, by rights, should have gone back to the East Romans, yet the Crusaders and their Church wanted it - hmmm. Yes. Reeks of Christian charity and a wish to simple defend the holy land.

New Land: Plenty of literary evidence supporting this - the common fact of many Crusaders being second, third, fourth sons without land holdings due to rights of inheritance. Plenty of figures rode through the East Roman lands with sole intentions of carving themselves little Empires. Hell, some only became Christian at that point.

Penance: They were told if they died fighting the Islamics they would be forgiven of sins etc - plenty of Crusader infantry were ex-cons used to bolster the rank and file, led to believe they would get the riches of the east, or if that failed and they died they would get to heaven.

Stopping detrimental western infighting: Better, the Church thought, to have the nobility fighting heathens far from the west then have them continue to waste their energy fighting each other.

Certainly there was some of that noble thought of "we are going to put the boot in the Muslims and take back the holy land"- of course despite the fact that by rights the Islamic cultures had far more claim to it then the Western rabble that populated most of the Crusade armies. Of course remembering that the Islamic cultures had held many of the Christian centres for a long time anyway, and had only recently shown religious intolerance by attacking pilgrims and stopping Christian pilgrimages - this being due to the change in the Islamic leadership as I mentioned previously.



Yes, I do assert that it is taken out of context, and not very often of that nature. The first 300 years of the Islamic faith was indeed a period of growth - however the claim they went around slaughtering is wrong. Certain violent Islamic tribes did such things periodically, but the greater Islamic cultures (the Arabs for example) were far more peaceful, and for a time coexisted with the East Roman empire, and were far more Roman in their attitude to non-Islamics (that is accepting them providing one payed their non-Islamic tax) and expansion. It is an outdated notion that portrays the Muslims as bloodthirsty aggressors of the ancient world - certainly when compared to the Roman expansions, or the Romans ways of dealing with rebellion, or the Crusades.

And oh yes, of course, just because the Muslims eventually took the crippled capital of the near dead Eastern Roman Empire makes them so much worse then the East Romans actual ALLIES who sacked and slaughtered their way through the capital of a CHRISTIAN Empire. The Empire romantic history buffs such as yourself claim the Crusaders were there protecting from those monstrous Muslims who were on the verge of dominating the Christian world. The East Roman Empire did far more in having relatively peaceful relationships with the Muslims for a long time and acting as a bulwark against Western Muslim expansion. And they did it diplomatically and economically - only of certain occasions resorting to strategic military action. None of this "kill them all"attitude of the Crusades. It was the Crusaders and the change in the Muslim leadership that killed it - the Crusaders striking the blow that was the beginning of the end, and far more criminal in such an action. Events such as this, the way the Crusades sustained themselves (care to go look up the number of Christian villages, towns and monasteries that suffered rape and pillage at the hands of the armies looking for supplies?), the peasants and Children's crusades (how many children died? Oh yes, and how many were taken into slavery by Christians, or had worse done to them?) and the attacking of Constantinople really kills the concept that the Crusaders were a "reargaurd" adventure made by desperate, fearful people.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, I'm aware that each Crusade had its own unique causes and special motivations, some including personal ambition and greed. However, I think that there is a strong historical argument that one of the overarching causes was fear from years of confronting Muslim conquests and a desire to win back some of the Christian Holy Lands. I do not accept your premise that these motivations were absent.

Also, do you mean to assert that for its first 300 years, Islam didn't largely proselytize by putting peoples to the sword and conquering foreign peoples? And even though it was sacked by members of the Fourth Crusade first, do you also maintain that Constantinople wasn't eventually conquered and held by Muslim invaders? And, finally, do you deny that Muslim forces besieged parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages and beyond? If so, what was Charles Martel doing in 732 at Tours, holding theological debates with Islamic Holy Men?


IRRELEVANT

Whether winning back land or fighting for Faith.....the crusades resulted in the mass slaughter of men, women, and children. Nothing justifies this atrocity.

Your God must be proud.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
IRRELEVANT

Whether winning back land or fighting for Faith.....the crusades resulted in the mass slaughter of men, women, and children. Nothing justifies this atrocity.

Your God must be proud.

You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.

But you're wrong in suggesting that this event doesn't take place within the larger context of prior Muslim injustice and agression.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.

But you're wrong in suggesting that this event doesn't take place within the larger context of prior Muslim injustice and agression.

I never said Muslims weren't responsible.

Both Christians and Muslims have equal share in what happened during the Crusades. Point is both dogmas were destructive, as are most dogmas throughout history.

Either way, Christians are still responsible for the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition, which mainstream Christians happen to so easily excuse themselves going "that was the past....Christianity is different today"...

Point is Religion doesn't work. It hasn't worked for millenia, WTF makes anyone think enforcing religion into politics, authority, and social media is going to work today ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Point is Religion doesn't work. It hasn't worked for millenia, WTF makes anyone think enforcing religion into politics, authority, and social media is going to work today ?

Sweet Christmas! Religion doesn't work? That's one hell of an historical reduction. I'm not even sure in what sense you use the word "work". I assume you mean that religion has never produced anything of value and has only led to violence and moral atrocities. If this is what you mean, you're dead wrong. Your general line of reasoning seems to be that if anyone ever does something wrong in the name of religion, then religion is categorically bad. This is not sound logic. Atheism and Marxism have led to gross, historically unpredented evils. I would certainly put up religion's score card next to secular humanism's any day.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Sweet Christmas! Religion doesn't work? That's one hell of an historical reduction. I'm not even sure in what sense you use the word "work". I assume you mean that religion has never produced anything of value and has only led to violence and moral atrocities. If this is what you mean, you're dead wrong. Your general line of reasoning seems to be that if anyone ever does something wrong in the name of religion, then religion is categorically bad. This is not sound logic. Atheism and Marxism have led to gross, historically unpredented evils. I would certainly put up religion's score card next to secular humanism's any day.



Religion is responsible for more causing Disunity than Unity. The point of religion, in general, is to promote unity and create Peace.

It's sorely failed at that point throughout History.

For thousands of years Religion has been one of the MAJOR justifications for war and slaughter.

So, yes it has sorely failed...

NOW...if the POINT to religion is to promote DISUNITY and HATRED, then I'd budge and say "okay it's working"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Religion is responsible for more causing Disunity than Unity. The point of religion, in general, is to promote unity and create Peace.

It's sorely failed at that point throughout History.

For thousands of years Religion has been one of the MAJOR justifications for war and slaughter.

So, yes it has sorely failed...

NOW...if the POINT to religion is to promote DISUNITY and HATRED, then I'd budge and say "okay it's working"

It requires two for disunity. If it is religion's fault, then it is also those that are not religious' fault. Point of blame cannot be assigned unbiased by a member of either group.

The fact is that people tend toward division. It is not caused by religion, it is caused by people. Typically the intent of religion, any religion, is to unify. People do not unify easily, unless of course there is a common other.

For what it's worth, I've always made this distinction...
Religion: truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending.
Religionism: ego-serving and ultimately self-contradicting.
Problems through the centuries have been caused by religionism.

I understand that for some people there is no distinction, because they see no truth in religion at all (ie, there is no God). That's cool. Many colors make a rainbow.

Originally posted by Mindship
For what it's worth, I've always made this distinction...
Religion: truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending.
Religionism: ego-serving and ultimately self-contradicting.
Problems through the centuries have been caused by religionism.

I understand that for some people there is no distinction, because they see no truth in religion at all (ie, there is no God). That's cool. Many colors make a rainbow.

Good call, Mindship. I like your definition of terms. The ability to make lucid and powerful distinctions is the key to all rational discussion. Kudos to you.

Thanks. Just doing my part to make the world safe for democracy.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.

Hmmm. Hmmmm. The first Crusade. Forgetting about all the rest? The First Crusade should never have happened. The West deserved to loose the Holy land after they got it. That should of been it, but they kept going back. Again. And Again. And you seem to be separating the "Church" from the people back then. In those days the Church was the authority. The Church was the religion. The religion itself was wrong in every sense, warped by the ignorance and fear - it shouldn't be made out the Church was somehow a minority seperate from the religion. Care to think about the period the Crusades covered? They weren't some temporary maddness that quickly passed.



And I say this is a sign of ignorance and once again the acceptance of the Eurocentric view - which does not stand up to the historical research. It shows no knowledge of the Ummayad or Abbasids or Arab empires which were far more tolerant and enlightened then any western power at the time. The Ummayad originally had huge non-Muslim/Islamic populations - who converted by choice. There is no evidence of some evil forced conversion - nothing to rival or even come close to Christian actions following its declaration of State religion of Rome and so on. Things only changed with the influx of newly converted Islamic tribes - the Turks. And even then things were far from the massive injustices and aggressions you seem to be making out.

Nothing in the Islamic history up to the Crusades comes close to the tyranny, cruelty and injustices perpetuated by the Crusaders against both Christians and non-Christians alike. And it is disingenuous and erroneous to try and slide some sort of moral measure up to them "The Crusades were wrong, but only in context of the Muslim wrongs!"



Care to tell us what Atheists have done that put them up the atrocities committed in the name of religions - like Christianity and Islam? Last I remember Atheism has no history as an ideology that demanded things like the conversion of believers and non-believers alike, or religiously motivated wars, or the suppression of science or anything like that.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Care to tell us what Atheists have done that put them up the atrocities committed in the name of religions - like Christianity and Islam? Last I remember Atheism has no history as an ideology that demanded things like the conversion of believers and non-believers alike, or religiously motivated wars, or the suppression of science or anything like that.

Try all of the various statisms of the twentieth century. Yes, atheism in this form did demand ideological adherence and committed atrocities against non-conformers. Poland, a U.S.S.R. satellite after WWII, was forced to sit by and see the Catholic Church essentially outlawed. Seminarians studied at risk of imprisonment or death. Unrepentant and outspoken Catholics were killed by the state. The same environment applied to most of the states within the Soviet sphere of influence.

In a Nazi Germany, another state-instituted atheism, science was turned into a kook factory. Nazi theories of race, sociology, and even physics were promulgated. Jewish scientists were largely forced to flee for their lives. Even in the Soviet Union, science was hemmed in by the ideology of the state, which did not allow the expression of theories at variance with the prevalent interpretation of Marxism.

The French Revolution. Priests and nuns were rounded up several times en masse and executed to help issue in the new "purely rational" order.

I bring up the plight of the Church in these scenarios because it underscores the particular animosity of these regimes to the institutions of religion. Why this desire to expunge the Church, if the absolute state didn't depend upon a competing and incompatible creed of atheism?

marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.

Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was a major obstacle in the path of his material dialetic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.

Oh yes, Bertrand Russell. I actually respect a majority of his work. What of him? I'm not arguing that all atheists are dictators. I'm merely pointing out that the belief in atheism, tied to grand "rational", social engineering schemes, has more often than not led to abject misery. I point this out to counter the accusation that atheism is "innocent" in a political context. It's not. If Christianity can be implicated in historical crimes perpetrated by men claiming they act in the name of God, so can a Communist dictator who claims he acts in the best interests of mankind by wiping out religion and its adherents.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.

never lead to attrocites?
um, Angola, Iraq, former Yugoslavia...etc. not to mention the most infamous case-
"Democratic Kampuchea"

"now you can go where people are one,
now you can go where they get things done
what you need my son
is a holiday in cambodia, it's tough kid but it's life.
holiday in cambodia, don't forget to pack a wife....."

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Try all of the various statisms of the twentieth century. Yes, atheism in this form did demand ideological adherence and committed atrocities against non-conformers. Poland, a U.S.S.R. satellite after WWII, was forced to sit by and see the Catholic Church essentially outlawed. Seminarians studied at risk of imprisonment or death. Unrepentant and outspoken Catholics were killed by the state. The same environment applied to most of the states within the Soviet sphere of influence.

In a Nazi Germany, another state-instituted atheism, science was turned into a kook factory. Nazi theories of race, sociology, and even physics were promulgated. Jewish scientists were largely forced to flee for their lives. Even in the Soviet Union, science was hemmed in by the ideology of the state, which did not allow the expression of theories at variance with the prevalent interpretation of Marxism.

The French Revolution. Priests and nuns were rounded up several times en masse and executed to help issue in the new "purely rational" order.

I bring up the plight of the Church in these scenarios because it underscores the particular animosity of these regimes to the institutions of religion. Why this desire to expunge the Church, if the absolute state didn't depend upon a competing and incompatible creed of atheism?

Really it sounds like, to me, that you are linking atheism to political/social ideologies and their atrocities. Nazi Germany? It was the antisemitic policies of the regime that were to blame for the persecution of the Jews, not the atheistic leanings of the Nazis. They weren't going about saying "Lets kill Jews because we are atheists" - likewise, you forget the persecution here of Marxists, different socialists, disabled, as well as other racial groups. There is no clear link between atheism and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Or are you saying if the Nazis had been Catholic then they wouldn't have done what they did?

And the French Revolution - so priests and nuns got persecuted? I mean, sure, clearly that reveals the truth - it wasn't a class war at all, it was purely atheists getting their own back. You don't think it might have had anything to do with the Church's support of the monarchy? The fact the Church was tremendously wealthy? The fact they had a well known history of lending money to those who couldn't always pay it back? Everyone got persecuted - including the poor eventually. Just because some priests and nuns lost their heads doesn't some how mean the whole event was some sort of super atheist plot.

And sure - same with Communist nations. However the reason the Church was often outlawed was because it demanded a persons loyalties lie in places other then the state. They were shut down because they challenged state authority. It was political - not atheistic. None of these show atrocities being committed in the name of atheism. In the name of Fascism, in the Name of Stalanism or in the Name of God and Christianity. Or for Allah and Islam. Or In the Name of Mob Rule. None of them carried banners going "Kill all for we are Atheists."

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
None of these show atrocities being committed in the name of atheism. In the name of Fascism, in the Name of Stalanism or in the Name of God and Christianity. Or for Allah and Islam. Or In the Name of Mob Rule. None of them carried banners going "Kill all for we are Atheists."

Didn't have to. Everyone in the gulags and in front of the firing squads knew what the message was.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Didn't have to. Everyone in the gulags and in front of the firing squads knew what the message was.

A ridiculous claim. Atheism has never been used as an ideology opening to persecute such as Christianity, Islam, Stalanism, Fascism, racism etc have been. In all the examples given there are far more predominate reasons for the persecution and oppression then Atheism. And in all you examples you leave out the masses of people whose deaths and suffering have absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. You trying to add Atheism to the defining ideology of these tyrannies does not stand up to scrutiny. Political and racist reasons stand for the persecutions, not atheistic motivations.

Yet still there are plenty of cases where people have been persecuted in your Church's history for being Atheists. As a declared "in the name of" action, that can not be debated away. That a person is an atheistic while committing crimes in the name of fascism does not somehow damn atheism. Just as the fact a person can speak latin while committing an atrocity does not somehow make Latanism somehow relevant for why he is doing it. The Nazis persecuted in accordance with the Nazi doctrine, not an atheistic one.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A ridiculous claim. Atheism has never been used as an ideology opening to persecute such as Christianity, Islam, Stalanism, Fascism, racism etc have been. In all the examples given there are far more predominate reasons for the persecution and oppression then Atheism. And in all you examples you leave out the masses of people whose deaths and suffering have absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. You trying to add Atheism to the defining ideology of these tyrannies does not stand up to scrutiny. Political and racist reasons stand for the persecutions, not atheistic motivations.

Yet still there are plenty of cases where people have been persecuted in your Church's history for being Atheists. As a declared "in the name of" action, that can not be debated away. That a person is an atheistic while committing crimes in the name of fascism does not somehow damn atheism. Just as the fact a person can speak latin while committing an atrocity does not somehow make Latanism somehow relevant for why he is doing it. The Nazis persecuted in accordance with the Nazi doctrine, not an atheistic one.


Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was an obstacle to be overcome by a material dialectic. His real world successors followed the brutal logic of this idea by "helping" religion die out.

By the way, I'm not arguing that all atheists are dictators. I'm merely pointing out that the belief in atheism, tied to all of the twentieth centuries' "rational", social engineering schemes, has more often than not led to abject misery. I point this out to counter the assertion that atheism is "innocent" in a political context. It's not. If Christianity can be implicated in historical crimes perpetrated by men claiming they act in the name of God, so can a Communist dictator who claims he acts in the best interests of mankind by wiping out religion and its adherents.

You're right in pointing out that not everyone crushed underneath the heal of the various twentieth century dictators was done so explicitly because of their faith, but their were plenty that were. Ask the Poles, the Ukrainians, and others how the Communist state felt about their religious faith.

Also, I thought you were a Muslim. Are you a Marxist-leaning Muslim?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was an obstacle to be overcome by a material dialectic. His real world successors followed the brutal logic of this idea by "helping" religion die out.

Central tenant? I have read the manifesto, I know the parts dealing with it, and Atheism is far from a central tenant in what is primarily an economic political ideology. Atheism in relation to Marxist policy is once again political in nature - freeing the population from the addiction to the promises of Church's so that people could turn their efforts to working for the greater good. Political - Marxism was incompatible with people having a something challenging state unity. It would, you will find, have been equally down on cultural movements that led people away from state loyalty. Or philosophical ones. It simply materialised that Marx made reference to religion, due to the context and time he and Engals were writing the Manifesto.



Atheists have done bad things. Theists have done bad things. The difference usually as their is a declared, ideologically motivated reason for these bad things. In the case of the Theists it their religion - whatever it may be. However in the case of the Atheists it is almost always due to something like Fascism/Nazism or Communism or so on. Never to a single, pure, ideology motivated by Atheism. And as I have already mentioned often when religion comes up it is primarily of political consideration. Prior to WWII Germans started persecuting Catholics due to the political disruption they were causing and the influence they still had over the population. Atheism in this case was born out of political need - we have religious men challenging our authority. The answer? Ban religion. Not the other way around - We are Atheists, let us ban religion. It is quite likely if the Catholics hadn't been so disruptive the Nazi regime would have passed them over for far longer.



Yes. Not everyone crushed was because of religious leanings. In fact the vast majority crushed were crushed for reasons totally unconnceted to religion. And even those that were can have their persecutions traced back to political/strategic reasoning.



No. I am borderline agnostic/atheistic. If I ever followed a religion I suspect, from the way I think and feel it would likely be Buddhism (though I have a fondness for Hinuism as well.) At the moment though? As to my political leanings, well I have a certain admiration for parts of Socialism, and Marxism, even though I am aware at the vast unlikelihood of Marxism ever turning out well. Far better not to have it, then have it going wrong. However, doesn't mean I can't say certain of its values are worth pursuing.

Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.
And this is why you are one of my favourite people on this forum. You ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO DISCUSSIONS with either a scholarly or rational/logical viewpoint without attacking others. Kudos to you.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No. I am borderline agnostic/atheistic. If I ever followed a religion I suspect, from the way I think and feel it would likely be Buddhism (though I have a fondness for Hinuism as well.) At the moment though? As to my political leanings, well I have a certain admiration for parts of Socialism, and Marxism, even though I am aware at the vast unlikelihood of Marxism ever turning out well. Far better not to have it, then have it going wrong. However, doesn't mean I can't say certain of its values are worth pursuing.

Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.

Well, that's as honest a statement and self-evaluation as I could have asked for. I have no problem with someone entertaining thoughts different from my own, as long as they are able to admit the accompanying problems and difficulties.

Christianity has certainly not always comported itself well when vested with temporal power. In fact, I'm grateful that the Catholic Church has long since divested itself of such offices. Better to be weak in material terms and remain truth-serving than politically powerful and self-serving.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Well, that's as honest a statement and self-evaluation as I could have asked for. I have no problem with someone entertaining thoughts different from my own, as long as they are able to admit the accompanying problems and difficulties.

Christianity has certainly not always comported itself well when vested with temporal power. In fact, I'm grateful that the Catholic Church has long since divested itself of such offices. Better to be weak in material terms and remain truth-serving than politically powerful and self-serving.

I think Religion should be something people keep on a personal level, rather than invite it to politics.

You have every right to suggest I live a different way, and tell me what you're beleifs are. But for you to try to change the way I live my life by making laws that limit my freedom, and center around your idealogy is plain wrong.

Originally posted by fribble
Would they be so persicuted if...
1) They were more generous during the recession period in Germany.
2) They stopped calling themselves "God's chosen People"
3) they stopped fighting over their "promised land".


Yeah, maybe.

Or if Isreal started acting like a STATE.

Those damn Jews.....

Jews Exist.

Where?

In your pants.

*checks* uhhh Nope.....If they don't pay rent, they don't stay!!

There must be other ways to pay thatn money.