Saturday, April 17, 2010

Advertising Standards Authority bans Wailing Wall from Israel advertisements

It is the holiest site in Judaism; the most familiar view of Jerusalem. It is how every tourist imagines the Western Wall (the ‘Kotel’ or ‘Wailing Wall’), with the gleaming gold of the Dome of the Rock perched above it. It lures them to pilgrimage to ‘The Holy Land’, to the centre of the three great Abrahamic faiths.

But this image of Jerusalem is now banned in the UK. Never again can it be used to promote a holiday to Israel.

Yes, the ASA have instructed the Israeli Government Tourist Office that they may no longer use the image in their promotional literature.

There were no scantily-clad children inadvertently featured; no topless women; no racially-offensive language; no incitement to ‘religious hatred’; no plumes of smoke from cancer-inducing cigarettes; no glorification of mephedrone or other illicit activity.

There was simply the Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the blue sky.

But the picture was accompanied by the words: ‘You can travel the entire length of Israel in six hours… Imagine what can experience in four days’.

The ASA have judged this to be ‘misleading’ and a breach of their ‘truthfulness guidelines’: Temple Mount is not in Israel, you see: it is in East Jerusalem, which constitutes part of the Palestinian-run West Bank and therefore part of the ‘Occupied Territories’.

And how many complaints did the ASA receive about this ‘misleading’ advertisement?

Ten thousand?

Five hundred?


Just one.

Yes, that’s right. They receive one solitary complaint, and acted ferociously to ensure that it can never ‘mislead’ the unsuspecting British public again.

And so the delegitimisation of the State of Israel continues apace.

Cranmer is pleased to publish this letter from the director of the Christian Friends of Israel to the Advertising Standards Authority:

Dear Sirs,

I write on behalf of the Trustees and 10,000 members of this registered charity to protest in the strongest terms against your ruling that the Western Wall cannot be shown in Israel tourist advertisements. There are few places on earth where the purchase of real estate is recorded for thousands of years. Of these few, the single most significant and iconic is undoubtedly the Temple in Jerusalem. In the Bible - the sacred text of two world religions - 2 Samuel 24 records the purchase of the site - the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite - for fifty shekels of silver. 2 Chronicles 3 verse 1 links this site with the construction of Solomon's Temple. This is the geographical focus of the family of Israel throughout the world, the resting place of the God of Israel celebrated in Psalm 132, and the place to which the prophets of Israel looked in the messianic age to come (Isaiah 62).

Tourists to Israel whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim are drawn to this iconic site which is celebrated hundreds of times in the biblical texts of Israel. In book publishing, the Western Wall is the picture most associated with Israel and is indeed on the cover of two of our own publications. While part of Jerusalem was for a short time under Jordanian control from 1948-1967 it was closed to Jewish worshippers but subsequently under Israeli control access to the holy sites is open to all faith communities. As a students of Hebrew in Jerusalem twenty years ago, (and employers of Christian Jewish and Muslim staff), my wife and I counted it as the highest of privileges to accompany international visitors and Jews returning to Israel to the Western Wall. Whatever form of administration is negotiated in the future there is no question of Israel relinquishing its historic heritage in the holy basin.

The Board of Trustees of this international organisation will await your response at our next Board meeting on Monday 19th April.

Yours sincerely

Geoffrey Smith
Christian Friends of Israel

It may be observed that it is the judgement of the ASA which is far more ‘misleading’:

While the Western Wall is officially over the “Green Line” established in the Old City of Jerusalem after the 1967 War, it is at the outer perimeter of the old Jewish Quarter of the City — a quarter that the Jordanian army took over in the 1948 War of Independence and razed to the ground. In other words, there is not a single building in the old Jewish Quarter which has not been rebuilt in the last 50 years, since Israel regained the City.

While the Dome of the Rock (or the Al Aqsa Mosque) may be the oldest Islamic structure in the world, and was indeed built in the seventh century, it was built intentionally on the remains of the Jewish Temple the Romans had destroyed in the 1st century. The Western Wall is the last remnant of that Temple, and is at least 1,000 years older than Al Aqsa. It is, without question, the holiest of holy places to the Jews, while the Dome of the Rock is only the third holiest site to Muslims.

As part of several written agreements — the last being in 1995 and also signed by the Palestinians — Israel has official (and legal) charge of all the holy sites in ‘The Holy Land’.

There is a Facebook page of protest. And a reply has already been forthcoming from the ASA. They say:

I would like to reassure you that the ASA ruling does not prevent the Israeli Government Tourist Office from depicting the Western Wall or other parts of Jerusalem in future advertisements. The ruling seeks to ensure that future ads do not imply that places in the Occupied Territories are part of the State of Israel.

So there you have it: a quango has decreed the borders of Israel and the status of her indivisible capital city. East Jerusalem is not part of the State of Israel; it is ‘Occupied Territory’.

And all because of one complaint.

Who was it from?

The Queen?


Blogger Welshcakes Limoncello said...

What a ridiculous ruling! I, too, would love to know who complained.

17 April 2010 at 10:02  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I wonder if Sinn Fein have considered complaining about adverts featuring Northern Island?

17 April 2010 at 10:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Does Your Grace have anything more to offer regarding the involvement of HMQ? This is really surprising to see Betty engaging openly in political shennanigans- surely not?

Is it I wonder anything to do with a realistic observation of the intentionally politically provocative imposition of the sight of the golden dome being profiled dominating the WW -

Or, on the other hand, is the reach of Islam so far extending into our national conciousness much greater than is aparent.

I compliment on YG on the inclusion of this matter during such a febrile period of pre election mayhem.

17 April 2010 at 10:12  
OpenID MikeC said...

Outrageous. An abuse of power beyond my comprehension.

17 April 2010 at 10:14  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Does the ASA have any statutory authority or is it a voluntary code of practice?

17 April 2010 at 10:17  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The not so Holy Land

It is unbelievable that in the 21st Century people are still arguing the right to patches of land that have been disputed for millennia. Get a grip. Most of what you collectively believe, never happened, it is simply myth and magic passed on through centuries of ignorance. That most of you here, evidently educated and articulate, believe any of this stuff amazes me. Virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and the rest is so absurd; add to that some of the Old Testament stuff and the absurd becomes the insane.

It wouldn’t be so bad if you simply stuck to the often morally reasonable teaching of Jesus, but you don’t. You squabble over ridiculous detail that undermines any of what could have been valuable. What has the rank homophobia shown here so often to do with the teachings of Jesus?

You cosy up to your “first cousins” the Jews in the forlorn hope that together you will form a bastion against Islam. Well I am afraid all three of your irrational and dangerous beliefs share the same nasty Abrahamic origins and all belong in humankind’s dark age of ignorance. Come out into the light and renounce your crazy beliefs and help build a world based on the innate values shared by all humankind and not the superstitions of the past.

17 April 2010 at 10:25  
Blogger Adrian said...

Suggested slogan for the state of Israel: "Give 'em an inch and they take a mile."

17 April 2010 at 10:26  
Anonymous len said...

This is a much deeper issue than first appears.
Israel is the most fiercely contested territory in the world,especially Jerusalem, especially the Temple Mount.

The Site of The End Of Days;
While the Temple Mount is seen as the site where two faiths began, it is also seen as the place, according to all three monotheistic religions, where the world will end.

In Jewish tradition, since the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, saying that the Temple will be rebuilt is tantamount to saying that the messiah will come and that God's kingdom on earth will be established.

In Islam, it is also the place of the end. According to one oral tradition, or hadith, final judgement will take place at al-Haram ash-Sharif when a thread will be stretched from the Mount of Olives to the Temple Mount. Thereafter, the souls of all who have ever lived must walk it. Those who were good will make it across and go to heaven. Those who were evil will fall off and be damned for eternity.

There is also an interpretation embraced by millions of evangelical Christians in which the Temple Mount is central to the scenario of the end of days. According to this theology, the temple of the Jews must be rebuilt in order for Jesus Christ to return and bring an end to the world as we know it

17 April 2010 at 10:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

len said..."This is a much deeper issue than first appears."

No it isn't. The history of Israel, the whole Middle-East political religio-political scene is deeper than most people think. But the exclusion of a picture of one of the most recognisable, historical Jerusalem landmarks in Israel Tourism literature - that's not deep at all. It's just idiotic prejudice.

17 April 2010 at 11:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Worse still is Chazzer's multy-culty 'Defender of Faiths' self perceived status. It was reported last week that there was something agreed with the State and The Establishment that is to remain secret until his death.

I think it has already been decided that he won't inherit the throne because of his track record.

Bring on the Republic.

17 April 2010 at 11:47  
Anonymous len said...

Rebel Saint, For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.(Ephesians 6;12)
(This is the deeper issue I was referring to.)

17 April 2010 at 11:57  
Blogger srizals said...

What a beautiful sight. Craved by both, the holy and the unholy.

17 April 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Adrian said, "Suggested slogan for the state of Israel: "Give 'em an inch and they take a mile."
Suggestion for Adrian, "Take a hike."

17 April 2010 at 12:20  
Anonymous len said...

It is a wise man who knows His God.

17 April 2010 at 12:34  
Blogger Kenpachi said...


How do you figure that when the Israelis were originally promised a state much bigger than the tiny patch they ended up with? They gave up the Sinai and completely withdrew from Gaza as well, so if anything your slogan applies to the Muslims intent on wiping out the Jews and not the other way around.

17 April 2010 at 13:47  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Hi Len. I usually agree with the thrust of your posts, but not the following:
"According to this theology, the temple of the Jews must be rebuilt in order for Jesus Christ to return and bring an end to the world as we know it"

I am not presuming that this is your own theology, but that you are simply stating a view held by some other evangelical Christians?
I think you will agree that there are many hundreds of NT references to the Lords second coming.
But, I have yet to see a single one that refers to either the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple, or that the Lord's return is contingent upon such a building being necessary.
You may agree with me that any reconstructed "temple" is entirely superfluous in a NT context anyway, as that whole Old Covenant economy has gone, and is replaced by the New.
Christ said of Himself "One greater that the temple is here"
(Mat. 12:6.)
What possible function could a temple have, now that Christ has come, and his body, the Church (not modern denominations)is now the locus of his presence through the Holy Spirit?
The three main passages about the 2nd Advent (I Thess.4; and 2 Peter 3; and 1 Cor 15) all fail to mention any temple.

I appreciate your quoted view may not be your own, but simply stated as that of some Christian groups?

17 April 2010 at 13:49  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

What will dodgy dave make of it all,who recently applauded our jew ridden parliament as the saviour of us anglo-saxon dogs,dizzie,howard ,not to mention the san hedrim in the communist party,westminster indeed has become a room with a jew.

17 April 2010 at 14:21  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Yesterday Mr. Singh posted the first part of the "Second Coming" for this one. Here's the whole of Yeats's poem:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at laSt,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Personally, I think the 'Birth' was a while back...

I expect most everyone has seen how well Blake's "Tyger" works with this, too.

Oh -- and God Save and Bless HMQ. Vivat

17 April 2010 at 14:42  
Anonymous len said...

The rebuilt temple is a signpost in prophesy,in no way essential to Jesus Christ only as a fulfilment of prophesy.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Now we request you brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering to Him, that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

17 April 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Big and ugly enough to fight their own battles comes to mind.

Its only a holiday brochure, this post comes across like the irrational ranting I expect from 'minority' bemoaners.

Signed: Warren Want

17 April 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

What would Jesus recommend we say and do? Just out of a matter of interest. (Brace yourselves).

17 April 2010 at 15:10  
Anonymous Katrina said...

Poor Israel! Unable to advertise stolen goods? It's outrageous!

It's so tragic that they had to withdraw from territory in Gaza that they were occupying. After all, it's their right to be able to massacre and displace civilians in order so that they may attain their 'holy land' promised to them by God.

And they have to maim a few thousand kids while they're doing it, no problem.


17 April 2010 at 15:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

We need to assist the Israelis to dismantle the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple.

"The Torah testifies that the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was the spiritual centre for all mankind. All of Israel's prophets foretell that in the future, the Holy Temple will once again stand on Mount Moriah, and at that time all nations will worship there together.

“In our time, there is a great spiritual awakening concerning the importance of the Temple. The Temple Institute views this awakening as Divinely-inspired, and actively seeks to share the desire and knowledge of the Temple with people around the world, thereby laying the foundation for the spiritual revolution that will precipitate the rebuilding of the Holy Temple...and the fulfilment of this prophecy in our time."

Said, Rabbi Richman

17 April 2010 at 18:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr. D.Singh - doesn't it make you despair; all this anti-jew crap spouted above? How someone calling himself 'Englishman' cannot see the 'wider connections' is beyond me entirely. He worries about a ''jew ridden parliament'' (?) but seems unable to grasp the threat of an 'Islam ridden populace'!

Seemingly there are 'abominations' above, beyond and below the 'rock'...

17 April 2010 at 18:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Oswin

Quite right.

Islam is on the rise. Even Turkey has turned away from the West and has realigned itself with Russia.

The Allies will withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq - and then we shall see Islam's Caliphate.


17 April 2010 at 18:45  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Good for the ASA.

Deal with it...

17 April 2010 at 19:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

The sooner Israel rids itself of the parasitical Philistines, by force, the better.

17 April 2010 at 19:43  
Blogger Gnostic said...

To paraphrase Mr English Viking - the sooner the UK rids itself of the parasitical quangos, by force if necessary, the better.

And how many billions will we save by doing that? Are you listening Call Me Dave?

17 April 2010 at 19:46  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Katrina said...
'Poor Israel! Unable to advertise stolen goods? It's outrageous!

It's so tragic that they had to withdraw from territory in Gaza that they were occupying. After all, it's their right to be able to massacre and displace civilians in order so that they may attain their 'holy land' promised to them by God.

And they have to maim a few thousand kids while they're doing it, no problem.


I can only suppose that those who lived there had lived there since the beginning of time. Otherwise is it not simply taking back land that belongs to them; land that they should have received when we gave them back what was rightfully theirs? When we gained that land as a result of their (Ottoman Empire) decision to support the German Empire in the Great War, we gained the right to do with it as we pleased. We decided to grant it back to the Israelites to whom it originally belonged.

The deaths of civilians are caused by their political leaders who decided to use them as human shields when Israel invade (as a legitimate defence of their people). Can you not see that Israel is deliberately being provoked by a hostile group of nations that surround it? It works because those who are anti-Israel/anti-Jewish jump at the chance of denouncing their 'unprovoked attacks on innocent peaceful Arabic peoples'.

17 April 2010 at 20:01  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

English Viking said...
"The sooner Israel rids itself of the parasitical Philistines, by force, the better."

Biblical Philistines also known as "Daanu" Linked to the Danai and thus Danes or Thuath-duine (norse men) or our word Dutch and German Deutsch

Thus Teutons, Pelaset sea peoples of old, advanced metalurgists for that era with navigational expertise and actual forebears of the Vikings.

Philo the Jew of Alexandria discovered much Greek philosophy in the Old Testament and the Greeks in turn learned much from the Hyperboreans.

The Word-Logos (Sophia) sacred wisdom, sufi wisdom, sophistry, for the love of wisdom, lets all wise up, seek the Golden Thread of beliefs.

Set sail for the fleece, yon norde.

Signed: Sin Bad

17 April 2010 at 21:11  
Blogger Miss Jelly bean said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 April 2010 at 22:40  
Anonymous Pragmatist said...

Part of the "Occupied Territories" ... Occupied by whom? As a visitor to Israel, would one have to enter territory controlled by anyone else to visit the Wailing Wall?

What about the occupying power in Calais ... in Gibraltar ... in Quebec?

17 April 2010 at 23:09  
Anonymous len said...

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before.

18 April 2010 at 00:00  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oh boy. The little god marx has a lot to answer for - whether we euhemerize him or not! (Best to reserve that for heroes though, I'd have thought}.

I still think our priority is to ditch the euros and secure our own borders. We can't help anybody until we do that and get them out of our culture. Unity of Christians, parallel individuality under a banner of common faith -will surely help. Without it our increasingly ineffectual voice appears - to adapt further desert imagery -:

In[to[ this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.

What, without asking, hither hurried whence?
And, without asking, whither hurried hence!
Another and another Cup to drown
The Memory of this Impertinence! (XXIX/XXX)

According to Fitzgerald, so said the old Persian (1048–1131 AD) ... on his way to another glass of ?red.

18 April 2010 at 01:03  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

Len - some very instructive information there - thank you.

Graham Davies - I have to balance your opinions against mountains of evidence from both history and Scripture. I find your opinions monumentally outweighed.

David Wheeler.

18 April 2010 at 08:55  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Perhaps the ruling by the ASA could be used to rid us of the State of Belgium, which is not a country but an 'occupied territory' as Nigel Farrage points out clearly in his well known address to the unelected unwashed in the so called European Parliament.

18 April 2010 at 08:59  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I, and hundreds of other people, complained to the ASA about the Act on CO2 drowning puppy advert. It was scientifically inaccurate and packed with climate alarmist lies. The ASA let the advert run and run because they accepted the, ahem, peer reviewed "evidence" put forward by the IPCC AR4 BS.

Yet one person complains about an Israeli tourist brochure...

Kill the quangos.

Kill them all now.

18 April 2010 at 09:33  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Preacher - Ban Belgium! Brilliant idea. Thanks for that! :D

18 April 2010 at 09:35  
Anonymous Katrina said...

"I can only suppose that those who lived there had lived there since the beginning of time. Otherwise is it not simply taking back land that belongs to them; land that they should have received when we gave them back what was rightfully theirs?"

According to your logic, it would justifiable to murder and displace residents of the USA, as North America belonged to the Native Americans until it was invaded by the English.

"The deaths of civilians are caused by their political leaders who decided to use them as human shields when Israel invade (as a legitimate defence of their people)."

How deluded are you? I suppose you don't hold Israel or the IDF responsible for these deaths at all? Never mind the fact that Israel, while having some of the most sophisticated military, managed to bomb 2 UN schools during the Gaza offensive. They've also failed to investigate crimes committed by the IDF, while locking up those who object to the occupation.

"Can you not see that Israel is deliberately being provoked by a hostile group of nations that surround it? It works because those who are anti-Israel/anti-Jewish jump at the chance of denouncing their 'unprovoked attacks on innocent peaceful Arabic peoples'."

Are you really holding Palestinians at fault for being invaded?!

Israel admitted being responsible for the start of the 1967 war.
Israel was ordered to leave occupied land, but decades later, they continue to defy the UN.
Israel broke the ceasefire towards the end of December 2008.
The IDF themselves have been found to have been using human shields, once tying a young child to the front of their jeep to stop other children throwing rocks at them.

18 April 2010 at 09:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MsK said:-
...Israel admitted being responsible for the start of the 1967 war....

As statement as bold as this needs reference qualification - where is it?

You seem to ignore the fact that Israel was surrounded by hostile nations massing their troops and armour on it's borders. Making a pre-emptive attack on Egypt and destroying it's air force on the ground was a tactical defence rather than an attempt to destroy an entire nation.

18 April 2010 at 10:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure why the term is occupied, the Arabs have never agreed a border so shouldn't the term be disputed.

18 April 2010 at 10:55  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'According to your logic, it would justifiable to murder and displace residents of the USA, as North America belonged to the Native Americans until it was invaded by the English.'

If America waged war on us and lost; if we invaded and they surrendered, then we would have the right to give their land back to the native Americans (if for some reason we wished to do so). I never claimed that murder was justifiable. Such an assertion is a ridiculous straw man argument.

The English didn't wage war on the natives. We sometimes fought them, but only in skirmishes. For most of the time the British had quite friendly relations with the natives; trading with them and even prevented the colonials from expanding West in order to preserve native lands. You mistake the American Colonies for the United States.

'How deluded are you? I suppose you don't hold Israel or the IDF responsible for these deaths at all? Never mind the fact that Israel, while having some of the most sophisticated military, managed to bomb 2 UN schools during the Gaza offensive. They've also failed to investigate crimes committed by the IDF, while locking up those who object to the occupation.'

Of course they are responsible, but they are not solely responsible. How naive are you? I suppose you believe that the Governments of the surrounding Arab countries have done everything in their power to protect their civilians and prevent rocket attacks (deliberately) against Israeli civilians. Sophisticated military isn't magic and is operated by fallible users called humans. It is very easy to make a mistake in the heat of the moment and the attacks against schools were certainly not deliberate.

'Are you really holding Palestinians at fault for being invaded?!'

Yes! Not the entire people but those who were firing rockets at Israeli civilians and those who were supporting and encouraging them. If French people starting shelling the South coast and the French Government were supporting and encouraging them, would you not support military action against those people (or even against the French Republic)? Or would you believe that British lives are worth less than French lives?

18 April 2010 at 12:23  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

For most of the time the British had quite friendly relations with the natives

That is when the devout Christian settlers were not enslaving the to work the plantations in the South East.

18 April 2010 at 13:16  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Profound apolgies - I meant to refer to MrLakester' post.

18 April 2010 at 13:19  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Sorry reference should have been to MrL

18 April 2010 at 13:21  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Pragmatist said...
Part of the "Occupied Territories" ... Occupied by whom?


The 'Israelis'

Do keep up at the back.

On another topic, supposing that a specific Palestinian identity was forged relatively recently - out of - erm - dispossession, brutalisation, expulsion, massacre and things like that, which tend to give the victims a collective sense of identity (not entirely surprisingly) how does that render that identity something other than authentic?

Rather the opposite, I would have thought.

18 April 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

...erm - dispossession, brutalisation, expulsion, massacre...

Reality check! in 1947 the Arab States told the Arabs of Palestine to temporarily move away from their homes in view of the impending attack on Israel which would be over in a matter of days due to numerical superiority.

Jews however were simultaneously expelled in almost equal numbers from the likes of Syria and Jordan ordered never to return. Strange however, with all this alleged atrocity and injustice, 25% of the population of Israel remains Arab, while elsewhere the surrounding beligerents States are virtually 'Jew free'.

18 April 2010 at 13:51  
Blogger srizals said...

Remember, remember, Dier Yassin, for without it, there would never be any European Jewish in the lands of the Arab, just like there would not be any English in the lands of the Scots.

18 April 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Can the not so real have any reality check?

Why was it then, Christians persecuted the Jews for centuries? A Judea Christianity confusion?

Come crusaders, do tell me please.
Don't let the cross be a mark of error.

18 April 2010 at 14:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone is responding to you srizals, for the Brits, it is better to ignore than debate with the truth. Why? Because they would surely win by doing so.

18 April 2010 at 15:15  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

'Dreadnaught said...
...erm - dispossession, brutalisation, expulsion, massacre...

Reality check! in 1947 the Arab States told the Arabs of Palestine to temporarily move away from their homes in view of the impending attack on Israel which would be over in a matter of days due to numerical superiority'.

That is a vile lie.

18 April 2010 at 15:16  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

That is a vile lie.

Sure about that Hyatt?

"The UN partition plan of 1947 was rejected by all the Arab countries. Arab leadership in Israel and in the countries surrounding Israel, planned a Jihad, holy war, against Israel and encouraged the Arabs to leave Israel promising their return after they purge the land of Jews. The great majority of Arabs left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier"…

see article and Arab sources that describe what happened during the war of 1948 that caused the Palestinian refugee problem).

18 April 2010 at 15:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Persecution in the name of Jesus is the most emotionally charged strand of the net of objections. More than anything else, many people point to "Christian anti-Semitism" as a reason to dismiss Jesus. When Jewish people find themselves questioning whether Jesus might be the Messiah, thoughts of the Crusades and the Holocaust quickly rush to mind, setting off a warning signal-Jews who believe join the same league as those who hate our people. When Jewish people allow that signal to block any further contemplation of Jesus, they base their decisions not upon who Jesus is, but rather upon who they do not want to be (namely, among those who persecute Jews).

How can a Jewish believer respond to the accusation that we have joined the persecutors? Anti-Semitism is a fact that should never be minimized or pushed out of mind. Nor can we avoid the fact that many people have used the name of Jesus as a justification for their anti-Semitic crimes. Yet we need to ask questions. For example, can we truly blame our sufferings on Jesus and the things he taught? Can those who have wrongly used the name of Jesus make it wrong for us to believe and trust in him? Can the evil committed in Y'shua's name free us from the responsibility of considering his true identity? These are important questions, because if the answer is no and we continue to allow anti-Semitism to prevent us from considering Jesus, we allow anti-Semites to keep us in the dark about the greatest Jew who ever lived--which produces an even greater injustice against us.

It is important to remember that Jesus never taught hatred of Jewish people, nor did that hatred begin with the church. Persecution was a fact of Jewish existence in the days of Pharaoh and Haman. People justify their hatred in various ways, and some of the worst sins committed are cloaked in false piety. It is human nature to justify ourselves, no matter how ugly our actions. To claim loyalty to a noble person or cause is the perfect justification for the worst possible crimes. Such associations (however false) enable people to deceive themselves into believing that their wicked deeds are righteous.

The French Revolution was a bloodbath in the name of liberty, fraternity and equality. But who would say that liberty, fraternity and equality are ideals to be despised because of that bloodshed? People have committed terrible acts in the name of freedom and justice, but that doesn't make freedom and justice wrong. Nor do we label everyone who advocates freedom and justice as murderers, even though so many criminals have attempted to justify their terrible deeds in the name of those noble causes.

Jesus and his teachings have no connection to crimes committed in his name.
How can we blame Jesus for those who claim to follow his teachings but do not? We might say that if he had never existed, no one could misuse his name, but that is like burying our heads in the sand. Jesus is not to blame for the misuse of his name. In the same way, how are those who wish to explain his teachings to be blamed for those who have distorted them? If (as some have done) we blame all believers in Jesus for killing people they never knew, we become guilty of the same thing our persecutors do when they wrongly blame all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.

What a frightening (but not unnatural) phenomenon it is when the wrongly judged and hated turn around and wrongly judge and hate others. It takes tremendous determination for those who have been persecuted not to persecute others in turn. We must remember not to do to others what we hate having done to ourselves. As Jesus put it, "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise"(Luke 6:31).

From an article that appeared on a site called 'Jews for Jesus'.

18 April 2010 at 16:03  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

'Dreadnaught said...
That is a vile lie.

Sure about that Hyatt?'


I'm not going to argue with you. Frankly, I'd as soon argue with a holocaust denier.

18 April 2010 at 16:07  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

...having said that, I've just looked at the link. The 'source' is laughable.

18 April 2010 at 16:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone is blaming Jesus for what Christians did to the Jews, Mr DS.

18 April 2010 at 16:14  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

...I'd as soon argue with a holocaust denier

Because they are so easy to counter obviously. Now that business is a vile lie.

Its not the only source available and it obviously has come as a bit of shock to you, but take your time to come back with the 'truth'if you find it or to paraphrase you in your other post - get over it!

18 April 2010 at 16:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Throughout Judaeo-Christianity there is a fault-line.

It began with Cain and Abel.

Throughout our history there have always been those who loved God and His people and those who have used the name of God to persecute the very people whom God called His own.

In our country, my Lord Cromwell readmitted the Jews in 1656.

18 April 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr DS, I didn't bring that up, srizals did.

18 April 2010 at 16:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well then, my dear fellow; he has eyes to see with and an intellect that can comprehend.

18 April 2010 at 16:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Here is another example where Christians have been divided

Thomas Macualay, 17 April 1833 (Parliament): ‘A matter of shame and remorse’ on the issue of discrimination against Jewish people in our country…

‘During many ages we have, in all our dealings with them [the Jewish people], abused our immense superiority of force; and then we are disgusted because they have recourse to hat cunning which is the natural and universal defence of the weak against the violence of the strong. But were they always a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoarding race? Nobody knows better than my honourable friend the member for the University of Oxford that there is nothing in their national character which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. He knows that, in the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letter and arts were still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what afterwards the site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians, and poets…

The resolution was passed but thrown out by the House of Lords, inspired by William IV and the bench of bishops.

The fight for the Jews was eventually won in 1858.

18 April 2010 at 16:59  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Srizals @ 1400: "....the lands of the Arab, just like there would not be any English in the lands of the Scots."

Huh? Are you peddling the divide and conquer guff of frogules and other marxist-euros?

I question the validity of your comparison. The history of tribal settlement in Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent is older than ours. The genetic and linguistic facts about semitic tribes are discoverable; and the Wailing Wall remains among other evidence of Hebrew presence in ancient Israel.

But English in the lands of the Scots?
Ireland is the land of the 'Scoti' (Celts). Scotland is the land of the Picts (other Celts), whom the Scots subsumed by moving from west to east over the centuries. They clinched it when they, not the English, subsumed the Picts in the tenth century. The Northumbrians (English) gave way to the Danelaw slightly before that.

The Irish (Scoti) presumably worked with the Viking, who had bases in Ireland, notably Dublin. In any case, the Irish had continually harried, raided, and invaded, other Celtic lands in western GB (Wales, Cornwall, 'Elmet,' Rheged).

Reminder: genetics show that British indigenes sport hardly any germanic DNA - Sykes suggests even that is mainly Viking. Billy Conk and the Vikings seem to have 'removed' the English; However, it suited the Normans - as it does the present enemy - to "incite hatred" and division by pretending that some Celts are "English."

Sorry all. But I'm constrained to rebut euro-marxist propaganda!

18 April 2010 at 21:02  
Blogger srizals said...

Oh, not at all no nonny, I'm always pleased to learn from you. Interesting. Now how about the claim that the West, since the beginning of time, has been indulging itself in Christian heritage, what about the Romans then? Who had fought them to resist the cross?

18 April 2010 at 23:12  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Ms D,
Thanks for the correction, though I did state 'for most of the time'.

18 April 2010 at 23:50  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I don't know about 'the West' at large, or the beginning of time Srizals! But the New Testament shows Israel as a Roman colony in the time of Christ. e.g.
Luke: "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." (Luke 2.1 Douay-Rheims). I believe Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution.

At first, the Apostles spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean, and it was written in Greek before Latin. St. Paul wrote his Epistles to some groups, and Peter is believed to have headed the group in Rome (the first Pope). But Christians were persecuted, and both Peter and Paul were martyred.

Constantine probably put it on the political map. He was stationed at York in 306, and later became Emperor - having seen a vision of the Cross before a famous victory (312, I think). He dispatched his Ma to Jerusalem to find the True Cross.

So in his reign it was PC to be Christian. He also built Constantinople (at Greek Byzantium), and this became a powerful centre of the religion in the 'East.'

If you're really interested, there are some good overviews of the history - I find Cook and Herzman's "The Medieval World View" handy enough. But I'm sure others here (Len, the Preacher, D. Singh, or even His Grace himself!) may have recommendations you'd prefer!

[The development in Britain and Ireland is its own story, of course...and much to do with literacy].

19 April 2010 at 03:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your'e welcome MrL

19 April 2010 at 09:18  
Blogger srizals said...

Yes, accepted no nonny. I appreciate your willingness to communicate with me in a true Christian kindness. And believe me, it is a rare thing for me. If you don't mind, could you please explain to me the differences between the Old testament and the New testament?

19 April 2010 at 13:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

no nonny

I would recommend 'The World of the New Testament' by E. M. Blaiklock as an excellent introduction.

Mr srizals

I suppose, but I am no theologian, that the major difference is that the Old Testament looked forward to Jesus coming. The New Testament bore witness to Jesus in the flesh (in space and time).

He is coming back.


19 April 2010 at 16:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps this edited posting in the US by David Harris of the American Jewish Congress will be of interest.

The ruling implies that the Western Wall - which, as the last remaining relic of the Second Temple, represents Judaism's holiest site - should either be erased from future ad campaigns or designated as "occupied territory."

Perhaps this decision was driven by malice aforethought, especially given the current open season on Israel in important segments of the United Kingdom (the media, academia, trade unions, etc.). Or maybe not. Either way, it once again makes friends of Israel wonder about the motives of those who assail it from every imaginable direction.

If the Western Wall isn't an integral part of Israel, in fact emblematic of the country's very soul, then what is? No conceivable peace agreement with the Palestinians could exclude it from Israeli authority.

The BBC, reporting on this story, referred antiseptically to Jerusalem's Old City, "which was under Jordanian rule from 1948 until the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, when Israel occupied the eastern side of Jerusalem...."

Not for the first time, the BBC failed to mention a few salient facts. ...

Furthermore, Jordan's 19-year rule of the Old City, including the Jewish Quarter where the Western Wall is located, was a travesty.

As the actual history of that period of Jordanian rule is not well known, let me quote at some length from a letter by Yosef Tekoah, Israel's ambassador to the UN, addressed to UN Secretary-General U Thant. It was written in 1968, when Israel was led by the left-of-center Labor Party:

"It was Jordan which, in defiance of the United Nations Charter, attacked the City [Jerusalem] in 1948, placed it under siege, and opened indiscriminate fire on its inhabitants and on its historical and religious sites.

"It was the Jordan Government which then relentlessly set about destroying the Jewish Quarter, including its synagogues and places of learning and the venerated Cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

"The inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter were uprooted, transformed overnight into refugees and forcibly prevented from returning to the homes inhabited by themselves and their ancestors.

"It was Jordan which prevented free access to the Jewish Holy Places and the cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mount Scopus, in flagrant violation of its international obligations solemnly undertaken.

"In the Jewish Quarter, all but one of the thirty-five houses of worship that graced the Old City of Jerusalem were found to have been wantonly destroyed. The synagogues had been razed or pillaged and stripped, and their interiors used as hen-houses and stables.

"In the ancient historic Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives, tens of thousands of tombstones had been torn up, broken into pieces or used as flagstones, steps and building materials in Jordanian military installations and civilian constructions. Large areas of the cemetery had been leveled and converted into parking places and petrol-filling stations."

And finally, since the city was reunited in 1967, following a war foisted upon Israel by blood-curdling threats from Cairo and Damascus to destroy the country, the holy sites of all three monotheistic faiths - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - have been scrupulously respected and protected.

That policy was enshrined into Israeli law within weeks of Jerusalem's reunification: "The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to these places." It remains the case to this day.

Surely, Britain's Advertising Standards Authority can make better use of its time than to degrade the sacred with such a profane attack.

19 April 2010 at 19:53  
Blogger srizals said...

The history according to anonymous, well, that's very assuring. There's always another face to a coin. N please give some links for the readers to check out your understanding of history.

Mr. D Singh, at least, we both can agree on this one. He is coming since the blood of the son of Adam is no longer considered as holy by many of us. Until the day, all the good must play their part, instead of sit and wait.

19 April 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Anon @ 2010 - interesting post, thank you; I'll read Mr. Harris's work.

I once heard someone remark of the Monty Python shows: "Nothing is sacred!" At least they could be funny, though - if satirical. Now the profaners are just plain nasty - I think it's PC for these 'neu' secularists to require us to pretend that we live without souls... while also proving the state of their own, of course. Poor things.
Thanks Mr. Singh :)
Mr. srizals - so that's sorted that, then.

20 April 2010 at 03:42  
Anonymous no nonny said...

sorry - that was anon@19:53.

20 April 2010 at 04:18  
Blogger srizals said...

What about the writers and the prophets in them, are they the same?

20 April 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

There is a gap of approximately 400 years between the Old and New Testaments. It is a most extraordinary book.

You may or may not believe this but if one attaches mathematical values to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet – some astonishing patterns are formed. It’s as if just one person wrote it – but from an archaeological standpoint that is impossible.

I tell you impossible.

20 April 2010 at 14:56  
Blogger srizals said...

Thank you for the link. 10:30 p.m. and I have to get some shut-eye. Been a tired day today. Good night D. Singh.

20 April 2010 at 15:30  
Anonymous no nonny said...

btw, srizals: anyone can ‘google' commonly acknowledged British history, in this case on ‘Scoti in the ninth century.'

Otherwise, I use print sources. Just for the record, then: the series Short Oxford History of the British Isles presents data I've mentioned, cf. After Rome, (Ed. Thomas Charles-Edwards) and From the Vikings to the Normans, (Ed. Wendy Davies). In the latter, Barbara Crawford (University of St. Andrews) discusses the formation of Scottish Alba (42-3). That's part of the 'Scots-Irish' thing Americans often talk about.

Bede (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) is among other historians informing my understandings; so is David Rollason. So is Thomas Cahill, who wrote a study: How the Irish Saved Civilization (New York: Doubleday, 1995); and so is Daibhi O Croinin, another specialist on the same people.

For my general remarks on Norman perception of divide and conquer, one support lies in Gerald of Wales The Journey Through Wales/The Description of Wales. London: Penguin, 1978. In Chapters 8/9 he explains how to conquer the Welsh by turning them against each other (267-73).

I've previously posted info on the genetics study that consists with the history. It's from Bryan Sykes (Oxford) -> Blood of the Isles. London: Bantam, 2006.
He concludes, of germanic contributions to insular DNA: "It is a real presence, but it is by no means completely overwhelming." "[... A]nd still there are far more people with Celtic ancestry in England, even in the far east, than can claim to be of Saxon or Danish descent," (286).

From the Danelaw, the genetic 'overlay' ranges from 10% in the east, to 5% in the north(283). There's a high Viking count in northern Scotland: they based themselves in the Orkneys too (186-218).

And: "However we may feel about ourselves and about each other, we are genetically rooted in a Celtic past. The Irish, the Welsh, and the Scots know this, but the English sometimes think otherwise," (287). Foreigners may like to suggest otherwise too.

20 April 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

no nonny


One day I shall match your learning.

Unfortunately: I can not exceed it.

For a pupil can never be greater than his master.

20 April 2010 at 20:26  
Anonymous no nonny said...

You're too modest, Mr. Singh. I disagree with you for once - think it's the other way around!

But -- those of us who want to see, don't we all rely on the light provided by great predecessors? [Haven't got the Augustinian refs. to hand - but it's not original :)]

20 April 2010 at 22:32  
Blogger srizals said...

Who is then the most Christian at that time? Why then, they killed and dominated one another? Is there any teaching of Christianity that asks Christians to fight a war in defence or aggression? Why then with such uniformity, there's still conflict? Human nature or typically Western?

23 April 2010 at 00:15  
Anonymous no nonny said...

1. "Who is then the most Christian at that time?"
Late Classical through Medieval is fifteen hundred years of stuff
srizals - so: Which time? For that matter, which place?

2. "Why then, they killed and dominated one another?"
As your first question suggests, there are degrees of 'being Christian.' Which Christians and/or pagans are you talking about?

3. "Is there any teaching of Christianity that asks Christians to fight a war in defence or aggression?"
Christians have long debated whether there is such a thing as a "just war." Have you ever considered the question yourself? What is your opinion on the subject? What does your religion or culture teach?

4. "Why then with such uniformity, there's still conflict?"
What uniformity?
This site is just one small forum -have you not noticed all the different interpretations of politics that appear here?

5. "Human nature or typically Western?"
Satisfactory answers to all your questions would require specialist knowledge of many disciplines besides theology: history, geography, literature, languages, humanities, and probably the sciences and their history as well. Now you broach Psychology and demographics.

Is there some point where you will move away from generalizations? Have you tried to accumulate and process any of this information for yourself? Have you considered taking academic courses in the areas that interest you the most? Have you considered even taking Bible Study classes at a local church?

23 April 2010 at 01:16  
Blogger srizals said...

1. I thought of the wars of the Roses, William Wallace, Boudica and the Romans, but for what really interest me, German Christians vs the rest of the Christians in World War 1 and 2, since their outcomes have coloured the world we live in nowadays.
2. Related to 1.
3. When someone drove me out of my homeland in an intimidating and invading manners, raping and killing my countrymen, they can't expect to survive me.
4. Uniformity that I'm referring to is that the belligerents of most wars and conflicts, major ones of course, were mostly based on Christian countries. Now why then the fear of Islam?
5. Europe was in turmoil beyond imagination with its ancient torture devices still exist today for us to ponder and yet, all Muslims were and are barbarians.
6. In no way I am generalising one or two circumstances as an indicator for the whole entire existence. I'm just bringing it up as a point to consider in the wake of fear of the unknown and of course, to share the annoyance felt by Muslims, which have been severely overgeneralised by so many in the West.
7. Could you please provide me a link for a such study according to your belief?
8. I'm just an average Joe, I'm looking for an understanding not just from my readings, but of course, from interactions and communications.

23 April 2010 at 04:21  
Anonymous no nonny said...

1. The trouble is, srizals, you're asking for an explanation of 2,000 years of history among diverse peoples. I don't know anybody who can provide that.

At the beginning of the time you mention, the Romans who invaded Britain were pagans. So were the Celts they fought and conquered, including Boudicca.

While it's generally understood that some Christianity reached Britain during the Roman occupation, the country was probably not entirely Christian when they left it. The germanic tribes who were the Anglo-Saxons invaded after the Romans left (around 407 AD), and they were pagans.

The pope (in Rome) sent St. Augustine to Canterbury to convert the Anglo-Saxons in 597. The Anglo-Saxons eventually concurred. But I can't encapsulate all that for you in a few words - people spend their entire careers trying to sort out the truth of various aspects of the situation, and to understand what really happened among the people and tribes in Britain.

btw - I know nothing about William Wallace. If I needed to, I might google the name; but I would go to my academic library and search for books by experts on the subject.

The twentieth century wars (another 5-600 years later) took place in an entirely different world; one where we had books, radios, television, advanced medicine, iron ships, aircraft, guns, submarines, cars, railways, telegraph, telephones, etc.

And people here are even arguing about the truth of those situations- still analyzing the outcomes of what is within living memory.

2 & 3. I don't believe anyone can supply the answers in a few words other than to say that, theologically speaking, mankind is a fallen race. We all have our flaws.

Christianity requires that we work to improve ourselves in the eyes of God - who is the only true Judge. But we all have free will, and we each choose the extent to which we comply. The Bible tells us that God says "Vengeance is mine," but not everyone understands that, or can accept it, or can live up to it.

4. "Uniformity that I'm referring to is that the belligerents of most wars and conflicts, major ones of course, were mostly based on Christian countries."

I don't see how you can say that, if you've read any history of the Middle East (and they left earlier records than us, because they were literate before us). Nothing that I have read (including the Old Testament portion of the Bible) suggests that these people are traditionally free of strife. Quite the opposite. Nor does anything that I have read or seen suggest that the early Chinese or subcontinentals were peaceful people.

5. "Europe was in turmoil beyond imagination with its ancient torture devices still exist today for us to ponder and yet, all Muslims were and are barbarians."

The word 'barbarian' reached us through the Latin - the Romans probably viewing all foreigners as cultural inferiors. In fact the word translates as "foreign" - and derives from the Greek barbaros, which means: "foreign, literally stammering, from the unfamiliar sound of foreign tongues." [This from Chambers dictionary; you can check any online dictionary, though the OED online is probably the most detailed and authoritative]. Certainly the concept has accrued many negative connotations during its long history.

23 April 2010 at 06:55  
Anonymous no nonny said...


But, srizals, I can't post links as 'proof' of what I say. I don't use the internet to inform me of etymology or Roman and British Literature. I've studied them all my life, to a greater or lesser extent. The information ultimately derives from manuscripts and other artefacts that still survive. It reaches us through professionals who study
and teach about those things.

At my High School we studied Caesar's writings, and that of other Romans. Some schools provided Greek studies. We also studied the Bible as "Religious Knowledge," and that, by definition, involved some understanding of Jewish/Hebrew history. But the study didn't stop there, srizals. Some of us are still at it. Intellectual development is a life-long project.

So I recommend formal education, or books written by academics on their subjects. Yes, a quick google for the keywords can provide a survey, and it can point us towards authorities. But internet sources are not the best or most reliable. And the processing of knowledge and thought is hard work; those of us who are serious about it put a lot of effort into it; nobody else
does it for us, although we respond to the right kind of guidance.

5. "Europe was in turmoil beyond imagination with its ancient torture devices still exist today for us to ponder..."

The history of torture isn't in my purview. As I said, Christianity recognizes that mankind is a fallen race: we are susceptible to evil impulses, and some are more liable than others. In many ways the story is one of the battle against evil.

However, you only have to turn on a TV today to see that such things still appeal to some people - or they wouldn't publish them. I don't watch TV.

"...and yet, all Muslims were and are barbarians."
Well, I don't know about that either. I don't know any Muslims -but, in the etymological sense, they are foreigners to my country, my culture. And that country and culture has always fought for the right to develop in its own individual way in its own territory.

5. "In no way I am generalising one or two circumstances as an indicator for the whole entire existence. I'm just bringing it up as a point to consider in the wake of fear of the unknown and of course, to share the annoyance felt by Muslims, which have been severely overgeneralised by so many in the West."

As I said before, I can't speak for the 'West.' I know as little about much of euroland as you do.
The 'West' I assume also includes North and South America, and probably Australia and New Zealand. That's an awful lot of territory.

We are all different people who have different customs, beliefs, and languages. The British I know and understand are those who think we have a right to retain the civilization we have worked so hard to develop; and we don't think anyone should make us change who and what we are. Certainly, most of us have no intention, ever, of converting to Islam. What we see of it around us simply doesn't appeal to us.

We also don't like the way any foreigners are changing the country we love. The country we have inhabited and developed for many thousands of years.

Everything I have ever seen suggests that Moslems share such attitudes. Why are they so hard to accept in others?

23 April 2010 at 07:55  
Blogger srizals said...

Thank you no nonny, I do envy you with your access of limitless books and sources. I had my chance of venturing to such a place, but I had to waive it since my organisation won't set me free. Something tells me that you are a part of the realm of education and knowledge. I have to travel quite a distance tomorrow and prepare some materials for a course. Thank you again for responding to me. Nice talking with you.

23 April 2010 at 08:01  
Blogger srizals said...

As for difficulties of accepting one another as they are, I think it is rather personality issue, the inter and intra personality qualities that each of us possessed, differently of course. As the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Pagans and Buddhists in my country are here to stay, so will Muslims in your country. I don't think that we have the right to change one another, we can only discuss and argue for the betterment, tolerating differences and minimising bruises for such a close contact where friction is inevitable. No Muslims want to control and dominate Non Muslims, but unless you can give the instances, I might have a better clue. What are the Muslims trying to do in your country? What are the changes that most Europeans are afraid of? Do you know that Britain was one of the supreme master of nations not long ago? Is it a coincidence that their former alien subjects are now in their own backyard?

23 April 2010 at 08:26  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I expect you're right, that some of the demographic changes are irreversible. And, of course, I expected you to mention the British Empire.

In fact, I originally had no problem with the idea that some former colonials would want to come to Britain, and I thought we owed a welcome to those of them who liked us. But there is a limit to it. We are a small country. England, for example, is only part of the largest island in an archipelago like your own. And the rest of the world simply doesn't fit into it.

Furthermore, the Empire's been over for quite a while (googling confirms that one of the largest countries, India, gained independence in 1947). So the millions who've flooded in recent years now never were a part of the empire; furthermore, many of them are coming in illegally; and there's no doubt that some of them don't like us. I've experienced quite threatening behaviour myself, just for minding my own business.

These immigrants 'take over' areas in cities. I just checked "Muslims in Bradford" and found such items as "Bradford's Burning-Asian Muslims riot in England."

On europe, as I say, I have no clue and I don't care. It's not my country.

23 April 2010 at 10:48  
Anonymous no nonny said...

P.S: Thank you, srizals. And good luck in your own search for knowledge, peace, and understanding!

23 April 2010 at 18:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older