The Pope is dead - long live the Pope.
In his Easter message before he died, Pope Francis mentioned Gaza.
“I think of the people of Gaza, and its Christian community in
particular, where the terrible conflict continues to cause death and destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation,” Pope Francis' message said. “I appeal to the warring
parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!”
unquote
We can have conversations about whether Pope Pius XII spoke out against
the Nazi regime and the persecution of the Jews, but that's now in the
rather distant past.
Why doesn't the current Pope and why doesn't the entire Catholic church outspokenly condemn Israel for its genocidal actions in Gaza which are
now as appalling as they have ever been - preventing aid and medical
supplies getting through, rather like Himmler's concentration camps
where people died of typhus, starvation and exhaustion rather than
poison gas?
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame
as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
I can understand Israel getting a bit cheesed off with Gaza, but what I
can never understand is why everyone turned a blind eye for years
regarding Israel's actions earlier to the present day in the West Bank.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time talking >>about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of human >>life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral leadership >>and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially those in war >>zones.I can understand Israel getting a bit cheesed off with Gaza, but what I
can never understand is why everyone turned a blind eye for years
regarding Israel's actions earlier to the present day in the West Bank.
Why doesn't the current Pope and why doesn't the entire Catholic church >outspokenly condemn Israel for its genocidal actions in Gaza which are now
as appalling as they have ever been - preventing aid and medical supplies >getting through, rather like Himmler's concentration camps where people
died of typhus, starvation and exhaustion rather than poison gas?
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and the >mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame as
the IDF.
The Pope is dead - long live the Pope.
In his Easter message before he died, Pope Francis mentioned Gaza.
“I think of the people of Gaza, and its Christian community in
particular, where the terrible conflict continues to cause death and destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation,” Pope Francis' message said. “I appeal to the warring
parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!”
unquote
We can have conversations about whether Pope Pius XII spoke out against
the Nazi regime and the persecution of the Jews, but that's now in the
rather distant past.
Why doesn't the current Pope and why doesn't the entire Catholic church outspokenly condemn Israel for its genocidal actions in Gaza which are
now as appalling as they have ever been - preventing aid and medical
supplies getting through, rather like Himmler's concentration camps
where people died of typhus, starvation and exhaustion rather than
poison gas?
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame
as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
On 16/05/2025 14:20, The Todal wrote:
The Pope is dead - long live the Pope.
In his Easter message before he died, Pope Francis mentioned Gaza.
“I think of the people of Gaza, and its Christian community in
particular, where the terrible conflict continues to cause death and
destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian
situation,” Pope Francis' message said. “I appeal to the warring
parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of
a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!”
unquote
We can have conversations about whether Pope Pius XII spoke out
against the Nazi regime and the persecution of the Jews, but that's
now in the rather distant past.
Why doesn't the current Pope and why doesn't the entire Catholic
church outspokenly condemn Israel for its genocidal actions in Gaza
which are now as appalling as they have ever been - preventing aid and
medical supplies getting through, rather like Himmler's concentration
camps where people died of typhus, starvation and exhaustion rather
than poison gas?
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to
blame as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity
of human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
While I aspire to your cause this is a purely political post.
You could have taken the opportunity to go over some of the court
actions regarding sending arms to Israel and the legal basis if any of stopping this.
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the
people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame
as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the
people who have been marching?
I take it your lack of a response reflects that you really don't have
a clue about how many Christians have been marching.
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron
and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to
impose sanctions on Israel.
There's not much the Vatican can do about imposing sanctions and I'd
guess that you'd be one of the first to complain if they tried to tell
the UK government what to do.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the
people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron
and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to
impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the
people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and
the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron
and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to
impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the
people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral
leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially
those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron
and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to
impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history
of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright falsehoods. And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population"
is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should
have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both
sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history
of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as
saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging
that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew. He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no wish to
see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
On 28/05/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew.
He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no
wish to see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
When you make a statement like that about 'many diaspora Jews', what do
you base that on? Is there a survey, perhaps?
Given your views on religion, I'm quite surprised that you apparently
know so much about the Jewish population worldwide.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much
to blameas the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>>and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to >>>>impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history
of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright >>falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population"
is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should
have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both >>sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history
of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as
saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging
that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the >>respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal but don't have the power to achieve that. Israel
doesn't have an intrinsic objective to destroy the Palestinian people,
but it does have the power to do and doesn't hesitate to use it when
it deems it necessary to defend itself.
FAOD, I don't use that to defend Israel's actions in any way; having
power carries a moral obligation to use that power responsibly and
nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies Israel's actions against
civilians in Gaza.
As I already said, a problem can only be solved by addressing the
underlying cause of the problem and IMO, nothing is achieved by
marches and other forms of protest that focus on the wrongs of one
side and ignore those of the other side.
That's why I think an article admitting faults on both sides by a
leading Jewish writer like Finkelstein matters, whatever its
shortcomings.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>> and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to
impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history
of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright
falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population"
is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should
have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both
sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history
of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as
saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging
that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the
respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal
but don't have the power to achieve that. Israel
doesn't have an intrinsic objective to destroy the Palestinian people,
but it does have the power to do and doesn't hesitate to use it when
it deems it necessary to defend itself. FAOD, I don't use that to
defend Israel's actions in any way; having power carries a moral
obligation to use that power responsibly and nothing, absolutely
nothing, justifies Israel's actions against civilians in Gaza.
As I already said, a problem can only be solved by addressing the
underlying cause of the problem and IMO, nothing is achieved by
marches and other forms of protest that focus on the wrongs of one
side and ignore those of the other side.
That's why I think an article admitting faults on both sides by a
leading Jewish writer like Finkelstein matters, whatever its
shortcomings.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the
oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might
interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame >>>>>> as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time
talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of >>>>>> human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders,
religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>>and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to >>>>impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history
of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright >>falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population"
is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should
have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both >>sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history
of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as
saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging
that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the >>respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal but don't have the power to achieve that. Israel
doesn't have an intrinsic objective to destroy the Palestinian people,
but it does have the power to do and doesn't hesitate to use it when
it deems it necessary to defend itself. FAOD, I don't use that to
defend Israel's actions in any way; having power carries a moral
obligation to use that power responsibly and nothing, absolutely
nothing, justifies Israel's actions against civilians in Gaza.
As I already said, a problem can only be solved by addressing the
underlying cause of the problem and IMO, nothing is achieved by
marches and other forms of protest that focus on the wrongs of one
side and ignore those of the other side.
That's why I think an article admitting faults on both sides by a
leading Jewish writer like Finkelstein matters, whatever its
shortcomings.
On 28/05/2025 11:56, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew.
He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no
wish to see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
When you make a statement like that about 'many diaspora Jews', what
do you base that on? Is there a survey, perhaps?
Given your views on religion, I'm quite surprised that you apparently
know so much about the Jewish population worldwide.
I have a very large friendship and family circle of Jewish people. I
speak as I find. I suppose you'll be asking me for precise statistics,
as the only way of finding fault with my experience of Jewish friends
and family.
We don't all see Israel as our spiritual home, or our refuge against
possible future pogroms, or our protector. Finkelstein probably does see Israel that way. Romantic old duffer.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 11:16:29 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the >>>>>>>> oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might >>>>>>>> interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much >>>>>>>> to blameas the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time >>>>>>>> talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders, >>>>>>> religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>>>>and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to >>>>>>impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides. >>>>>
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history >>>>of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright >>>>falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important
similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
Sure. And pretending, as Finkelstein does, that the history involves one >>side being nigh-infallibly virtuous and the other side being constantly >>irrational and evil is not a good starting point to "work something out".
I don't see that in the article.
<quote>
But for Israel to move from a war to eliminate Hamas to one that aims
to drive out Palestinians from Gaza altogether is horrendous and must
be opposed most robustly.
[…]
When this war began, I said with confidence that Israeli forces would
never target children, but if it pursues a policy of destroying Gaza,
rather than destroying Hamas, then the distinction between targeting
children and children dying as collateral damage disappears. It is
also simply unacceptable to use the general withholding from civilians
of food, water and other supplies as a way of waging war.
[…]
"But to aim to create by force a greater Israel, a single state in the
entire land that the UN wished to divide, is something I have always
seen as morally wrong and a strategic error.
</quote>
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population" >>>>is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should >>>>have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both >>>>sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history >>>>of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as >>>>saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging >>>>that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the >>>>respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal but don't have the power to achieve that. Israel
doesn't have an intrinsic objective to destroy the Palestinian people,
but it does have the power to do and doesn't hesitate to use it when
it deems it necessary to defend itself.
Yeah so it seems to me you have that precisely the wrong way around.
Israel *does* have an intrinsic objective to wipe out Palestine and
its people, and Hamas does not have an equivalent objective to wipe
out Israel and its people (let alone Palestine having such an
objective!).
FAOD, I don't use that to defend Israel's actions in any way; having
power carries a moral obligation to use that power responsibly and
nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies Israel's actions against
civilians in Gaza.
As I already said, a problem can only be solved by addressing the
underlying cause of the problem and IMO, nothing is achieved by
marches and other forms of protest that focus on the wrongs of one
side and ignore those of the other side.
Have any such marches occurred?
I haven't seen any placards on any pro-Palestine marches condemning
Hamas for Oct 7. Equally, I haven't seen any placards on the
pro-Isralei marches condemning the IDF for the butchery and starvation
of innocent civilians. Mind you, I don't really follow coverage of
these protests closely so I may have missed stuff; feel free to
enlighten me if I have.
That's why I think an article admitting faults on both sides by a
leading Jewish writer like Finkelstein matters, whatever its
shortcomings.
He could start by actually admitting that faults have already occurred
on his side rather than that his side might be theoretically in danger
of fault in the future.
The quotes I gave above seem to me clear admission of faults on the
Israeli side.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 13:03:18 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:86fg3khjm6qn6tvnrvmqnfj3fm9dsqoflh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the >>>>>>>> oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might >>>>>>>> interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame
as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time >>>>>>>> talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders, >>>>>>> religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>>>>and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to >>>>>>impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides. >>>>>
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history >>>>of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright >>>>falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important
similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population" >>>>is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should >>>>have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both >>>>sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history >>>>of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as >>>>saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging >>>>that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the >>>>respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal but don't have the power to achieve that. Israel
doesn't have an intrinsic objective to destroy the Palestinian people,
but it does have the power to do and doesn't hesitate to use it when
it deems it necessary to defend itself. FAOD, I don't use that to
defend Israel's actions in any way; having power carries a moral
obligation to use that power responsibly and nothing, absolutely
nothing, justifies Israel's actions against civilians in Gaza.
As I already said, a problem can only be solved by addressing the
underlying cause of the problem and IMO, nothing is achieved by
marches and other forms of protest that focus on the wrongs of one
side and ignore those of the other side.
That's why I think an article admitting faults on both sides by a
leading Jewish writer like Finkelstein matters, whatever its
shortcomings.
Sursly the big difference is that the last Protestaant Plantation
of Ireland took place over 300 years ago. Its not as if the
Protestants only moved in, in large numbers, in the 20th century
and turned Catholics out of their homes.
Similarly the problem only arose because the Protestant Majority
Parliament in Northern Ireland made very few concessions to the
Catholic minority; who always took second place in jobs, housing,
whatever. Whereas had the Catholics been given fairer treatment
there would have been no tension at all; as they knew that at
that time at least they were better off than they would be
in the South. Basically Republicanism had no real traction
at all. And only gained momentum in response to Protestant
over-reaction to Catholic Civil Rights marches in pursuit
of their demands.
As it is, it was the demographics - with the inevitability of
an eventual Catholic majority within years, plus Tony Blair
bullshit that got them all around the table in the end.
Plus maybe the realisation, that the British military found NI
a very useful training ground, to keep troops on their toes;
should they ever be needed even closer to home.
While in the South, Sinn Fein has similarly no hope of ever
forming a Government, being squeezed out by the coalition
of the two former sworn enemies Fianna Fail and Fine Gail.
What part of " the whole Northern Ireland thing which is clearly not identical" did you not understand?
On 29 May 2025 11:38:13 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 at 11:54:25 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 08:48:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-28, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 08:20:54 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:28, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:20:45 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Why aren't Christians marching in large numbers to stand with the >>>>>>>> oppressed people of Palestine?
How do you know that they're not - have you gone out and surveyed the >>>>>>> people who have been marching?
Reluctance to condemn Israel is surely not because, as some might >>>>>>>> interpret the words of Pope Francis, there is blame on both sides and >>>>>>>> the mutilated and burned women and children in Gaza are as much to blame
as the IDF.
When religious leaders dodge the real issues and waste their time >>>>>>>> talking about their opposition to euthanasia because of the sanctity of
human life, it is obvious that religion offers no ethical or moral >>>>>>>> leadership and is irrelevant to the lives of most of us. Especially >>>>>>>> those in war zones.
Public condemnation achieves little or nothing except create a
feel-good feeling for those doing the condemning, What achieves
results is usually the work done out of the public eye by leaders, >>>>>>> religious or otherwise.
I think public condemnation is probably the reason why Starmer, Macron >>>>>> and Carney have at last said that enough is enough and it's time to >>>>>> impose sanctions on Israel.
Daniel Finkelstein writing in today's Times has what I think is an
exceptionally good analysis of where Israel is going wrong at the
moment. FWIW, he reflects a lot of my own thinking and, I suspect,
that of many (maybe most) people who can see the faults on both sides. >>>>>
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/what-do-i-feel-about-gaza-distress-and-despair-z2r833xd6
Non-paywalled: https://archive.ph/uPmxW#selection-1491.0-1491.18
I am the precise opposite of an expert on the situation, but his history >>>> of the conflict seems to me to be full of half-truths and outright
falsehoods.
I am also far from expert but I did come through the whole Northern
Ireland thing which is clearly not identical but does have important
similarities. The big one is the lesson that a political problem might
in the short term be controlled militarily, it can only be permanently
solved politically by people sitting down and working out something
that might not be perfect but is acceptable.
And the bit about "Hamas ... had tunnels and used them to
hide themselves and the hostages, rather than the civilian population" >>>> is straight-up insane. He appears to be suggesting that Hamas should
have hidden *two million civilians* in tunnels. Just... what?
As for "faults on both sides", *of course* there are "faults on both
sides". That says absolutely nothing - there's no side in the history
of the world that didn't have "faults". It's as utterly useless as
saying "Israel has the right to defend itself" without acknowledging
that, while this is *of course* true, it makes a difference what
Israel *does* to defend itself. It also makes a difference what the
respective faults are.
In this case the fault on one side is an ongoing massacre in which
tens of thousands of civilians have died and are still dying with
no end in sight, and the fault on the other side... isn't that.
The difference as I see it is that Hamas has an inherent objective to
destroy Isreal
This was there policy at one time, and, who knows, may be the motivation now >> of individual members. But you have fallen for a propaganda lie here. For a >> good many years (it could be looked up) Hamas' policy has been to bring about
a Palestinian state in greater Israel where Jews and arabs could live
together. Some Israelis might regard this as destroying Israel.
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
Logically because they want their new idyllic state of Jews and Muslims to be located there I suppose. All I said is that their policy is not to drive out or kill all Jews as it was once. I'm not recommending their policy as an acceptable one or even a likely outcome.
On 5/29/25 21:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
Logically because they want their new idyllic state of Jews and Muslims to be
located there I suppose. All I said is that their policy is not to drive out >> or kill all Jews as it was once. I'm not recommending their policy as an
acceptable one or even a likely outcome.
Why do you feel the need to distance yourself from an idyllic one-state solution based upon coexistence and equality?
You appear to support racial equality, equal opportunity, in the UK, why
not from the River to the Sea?
Do you think South Africa was wrong to abolish Apartheid and seek a
single state solution?
On 28/05/2025 20:15, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:56, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew.
He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no
wish to see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
When you make a statement like that about 'many diaspora Jews', what
do you base that on? Is there a survey, perhaps?
Given your views on religion, I'm quite surprised that you apparently
know so much about the Jewish population worldwide.
I have a very large friendship and family circle of Jewish people. I
speak as I find. I suppose you'll be asking me for precise statistics,
as the only way of finding fault with my experience of Jewish friends
and family.
The trouble is that we tend to associate with like-minded people. Also,
you have quite a forceful personality, so it's possible that people
don't express contrary opinions.
Polls indicate that around three quarters of British Jews "felt very or somewhat attached to Israel". So, you're in a minority, but not as small
a minority as I had assumed (based on my own family and friends - viz my comment above about like-minded people).
On 29 May 2025 11:38:13 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This was there policy at one time, and, who knows, may be the
motivation now of individual members. But you have fallen for a
propaganda lie here. For a good many years (it could be looked up)
Hamas' policy has been to bring about a Palestinian state in greater
Israel where Jews and arabs could live together. Some Israelis might
regard this as destroying Israel.
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
On 2025-05-29, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 20:15, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:56, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew. >>>>> He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no >>>>> wish to see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
When you make a statement like that about 'many diaspora Jews', what
do you base that on? Is there a survey, perhaps?
Given your views on religion, I'm quite surprised that you apparently
know so much about the Jewish population worldwide.
I have a very large friendship and family circle of Jewish people. I
speak as I find. I suppose you'll be asking me for precise statistics,
as the only way of finding fault with my experience of Jewish friends
and family.
The trouble is that we tend to associate with like-minded people. Also,
you have quite a forceful personality, so it's possible that people
don't express contrary opinions.
Polls indicate that around three quarters of British Jews "felt very or
somewhat attached to Israel". So, you're in a minority, but not as small
a minority as I had assumed (based on my own family and friends - viz my
comment above about like-minded people).
"Somewhat attached to" is not the same as "wish to see or preserve as
a homeland for all". "Somewhat attached to" is a very easy answer indeed
to say "yes" to since saying "no" to it basically means "have no positive feelings whatsoever about".
On 30/05/2025 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-29, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 20:15, The Todal wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:56, GB wrote:
On 28/05/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
No, it may be vitally important to many Jews but not to *every* Jew. >>>>>> He overstates the importance of Israel. Many diaspora Jews have no >>>>>> wish to see Israel or to preserve it as a homeland for all Jews.
When you make a statement like that about 'many diaspora Jews', what >>>>> do you base that on? Is there a survey, perhaps?
Given your views on religion, I'm quite surprised that you apparently >>>>> know so much about the Jewish population worldwide.
I have a very large friendship and family circle of Jewish people. I
speak as I find. I suppose you'll be asking me for precise statistics, >>>> as the only way of finding fault with my experience of Jewish friends
and family.
The trouble is that we tend to associate with like-minded people. Also,
you have quite a forceful personality, so it's possible that people
don't express contrary opinions.
Polls indicate that around three quarters of British Jews "felt very or
somewhat attached to Israel". So, you're in a minority, but not as small >>> a minority as I had assumed (based on my own family and friends - viz my >>> comment above about like-minded people).
"Somewhat attached to" is not the same as "wish to see or preserve as
a homeland for all". "Somewhat attached to" is a very easy answer indeed
to say "yes" to since saying "no" to it basically means "have no positive
feelings whatsoever about".
Feeling ashamed of Israel because they give a bad name to Jews could
also be regarded as feeling somewhat attached to Israel.
Feeling ashamed of Israel because they give a bad name to Jews could
also be regarded as feeling somewhat attached to Israel.
Indeed, that's a good point - "attached to" doesn't necessarily mean
"approve of". I feel "somewhat attached to" the British Empire, not
in the sense I approve of it or had anything to do with it, but that
I and my ancestors were born and lived in Britain.
On 30/05/2025 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Speaking purely from memory, I think that around two-thirds of British
Jews disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 21:03:50 +0100, GB wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Speaking purely from memory, I think that around two-thirds of British
Jews disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza.
But do they count ?
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:32:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 11:38:13 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This was there policy at one time, and, who knows, may be the
motivation now of individual members. But you have fallen for a
propaganda lie here. For a good many years (it could be looked up)
Hamas' policy has been to bring about a Palestinian state in greater
Israel where Jews and arabs could live together. Some Israelis might
regard this as destroying Israel.
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
It isn't.
You're presumably referring to "from the river to the sea", the rest
of which slogan goes "Palestine will be free".
Yes.
Many people using it
simply mean they want to see peace and justice in the entire area
described. It doesn't mean "Israel must be wiped out".
On the other hand, the Israeli ruling party Likud's founding charter
says "from the river to the sea there will only be Israeli sovereignty"
which *is* a demand that Palestine be wiped out. So yet again I think
you have things completely the wrong way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Legal_status
<quote>
Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the British Home Secretary
at the time, Suella Braverman, proposed prosecuting those using the
phrase in certain contexts.[108]
A majority of the Dutch parliament declared the phrase to be a call
for violence. The judiciary, however, ruled in August 2023 that the
phrase was protected on free speech grounds, being "subject to various interpretations", including those that "relate to the state of Israel
and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to
Jews because of their race or religion". The decision was later upheld
by the Dutch Supreme Court.[10][63][109] In May 2024, a parliamentary
motion calling for the criminalization of the slogan passed with a single-vote majority. As a result, prosecutions for inciting violence
and hate speech when using the slogan are theoretically possible;
however, prosecutions remain difficult in practice.[110]
On 11 October 2023, Vienna police banned a pro-Palestinian
demonstration, citing the inclusion of the phrase "from the river to
the sea" in invitations, as a justification.[92][111] Politicians in
Austria have also considered declaring use of the phrase to be a
criminal offense, with Austrian chancellor Karl Nehammer saying that
the phrase would be interpreted as a call for murder.[112][113]
On 5 November 2023, in Tallinn (Estonia), the police opened criminal proceedings against five rally participants who used "From the river
to the sea, Palestine will be free".[114][115]
On 11 November 2023, the phrase was banned in Bavaria (Germany), and
"the prosecutor's office and the Bavarian police warned that
henceforth its use, regardless of language, will be considered as the
use of symbols of terrorist organizations. This may result in
punishment of up to three years in prison or a fine".[116] Despite a
report of 28 January 2024 by CNN, the phrase was not considered
illegal all over Germany. On 22 March 2024 the Administrative Court of
Hesse ruled against an interdiction by the Frankfurt municipality and
allowed the phrase in the course of a demonstration the same
day.[117][118]
On 16 November 2023, it was reported that users of the phrase may face criminal prosecution in the Czech Republic.[119][120][121]
On 17 November 2023, it was reported that the case of a man charged by
the police in Calgary, Canada for using the phrase, had been
stayed.[122]
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy
surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational
for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive,
many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:32:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 May 2025 11:38:13 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>This was there policy at one time, and, who knows, may be the >>>>motivation now of individual members. But you have fallen for a >>>>propaganda lie here. For a good many years (it could be looked up) >>>>Hamas' policy has been to bring about a Palestinian state in greater >>>>Israel where Jews and arabs could live together. Some Israelis might >>>>regard this as destroying Israel.
So why is "from the mountains to the sea" still the common chant of
Hamas supporters?
It isn't.
You're presumably referring to "from the river to the sea", the rest
of which slogan goes "Palestine will be free".
Yes.
Many people using it
simply mean they want to see peace and justice in the entire area >>described. It doesn't mean "Israel must be wiped out".
On the other hand, the Israeli ruling party Likud's founding charter
says "from the river to the sea there will only be Israeli sovereignty" >>which *is* a demand that Palestine be wiped out. So yet again I think
you have things completely the wrong way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Legal_status
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 >>against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy
surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational
for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive,
many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many >countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and >judges, even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by
fellow Jews.
When I'm on a protest march I occasionally hear the "from the river to
the sea..." chant, usually from one chap with a megaphone and a few
people nearby joining in. I don't join in, but I see no need to leave
the march. It would be ridiculous to suggest that these chants cause
anyone in earshot to attack Jews.
On 04/06/2025 in message <mab6p8Ft8pU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 >>>against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy >>>surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational
for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive,
many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many >>countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and >>judges, even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by >>fellow Jews.
Can you explain why it would be antisemitic as I find the suggestion
somewhat confusing.
On 04/06/2025 in message <mab6p8Ft8pU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44
against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy
surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational
for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive,
many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in
many countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians,
lawyers and judges, even if it is true and even if the above
suggestion is made by fellow Jews.
Can you explain why it would be antisemitic as I find the suggestion
somewhat confusing.
On 04/06/2025 17:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mab6p8Ft8pU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 >>>>against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy >>>>surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational >>>>for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive, >>>>many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many >>>countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and >>>judges, even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by >>>fellow Jews.
Can you explain why it would be antisemitic as I find the suggestion >>somewhat confusing.
Those amateurish "examples" to the IHRA definition. Accepted without
question by people who ought to know better, including the Labour Party.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations >about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as,
especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy
or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal >institutions.
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabbslF1r0iU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 17:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mab6p8Ft8pU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>>wrote:
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a >>>>>resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 >>>>>against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy >>>>>surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib, >>>>>who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational >>>>>for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive, >>>>>many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many >>>>countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and >>>>judges, even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by >>>>fellow Jews.
Can you explain why it would be antisemitic as I find the suggestion >>>somewhat confusing.
Those amateurish "examples" to the IHRA definition. Accepted without >>question by people who ought to know better, including the Labour Party.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations >>about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, >>especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy
or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal >>institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
The Todal wrote:
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable to
be against, and to attack, Christianity.
Hatred against Catholicism is probably at the very top of that list,
with the Salvation Army at the other end of it (and that's not a
criticism of the Army from me).
On 04/06/2025 23:22, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish >>>> conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
It has often been said that there are more Jews than non-Jews in
positions of power in Hollywood. Lots of Harvey Weinsteins, many of them preying on novice female actresses.
But it's unwise to draw attention to that.
And it's certainly true that the Israelis have an extremely efficient
public relations machine, encouraging the belief that anyone
anti-Israeli is motivated by antisemitism. And that anyone who opposes Zionism actually hates Jews. And many of our politicians have been
taken in by that propaganda. Part of the lie is that most left wing
people, being sympathetic to Palestinians, are in fact antisemitic. That there is an epidemic of antisemitism among socialists.
Israel is thoroughly mendacious. And has proved it time and time again.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
Hatred against Catholicism is probably at the very top of that list,
with the Salvation Army at the other end of it (and that's not a
criticism of the Army from me).
I think that's just a personal fantasy of yours. There are no hate
crimes against Catholics except perhaps in Northern Ireland. The death
of the Pope proved that all of our broadcast media, all of our pundits, wanted to offer grovelling praise towards the dead man and encourage
feverish excitement while the cardinals deliberated over which boring
old man should be appointed as the new voice of God.
On 2025-06-04, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mab6p8Ft8pU1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote: >>
On 16 April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution condemning the phrase as antisemitic, with 377 in favor, 44 >>>> against, and 1 absent. The resolution stemmed from controversy
surrounding Rashida Tlaib's video post featuring the phrase. Tlaib,
who voted against the resolution, defended the phrase as aspirational
for freedom. While some Democrats viewed the resolution as divisive,
many supported it due to concerns about antisemitism.[123]
</quote>
Maybe those various authorities should have checked with you first.
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many >>> countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and >>> judges, even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by
fellow Jews.
Can you explain why it would be antisemitic as I find the suggestion
somewhat confusing.
Because "there is a conspiracy under which the Jews secretly control the world" is a classic anti-semitic trope.
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish >>>conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its head >again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is which),
you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable to be
against, and to attack, Christianity.
On 04/06/2025 11:43 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:22, JNugent wrote:
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
Hatred against Catholicism is probably at the very top of that list,
with the Salvation Army at the other end of it (and that's not a
criticism of the Army from me).
I think that's just a personal fantasy of yours. There are no hate
crimes against Catholics except perhaps in Northern Ireland. The death
of the Pope proved that all of our broadcast media, all of our pundits,
wanted to offer grovelling praise towards the dead man and encourage
feverish excitement while the cardinals deliberated over which boring
old man should be appointed as the new voice of God.
Could I possibly have asked you to illustrate my point any better? :-)
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and judges
Almost as ridiculous as to suggest that people are going to burn down
hotels as a result of a deleted angry tweet, X, whatever?
Let me give you a similar challenge to what I gave Todal. Can you
identify one pro-Palestine activist at any of the protest marches who
has said that Israelis should have equal rights with Palestinians in a one-state solution?
And I see you simply have no response to the fact that it's actually
the Israeli ruling party that has used the phrase as a call to wipe
out Palestine.
They have used it in the context of Israeli rule, not the wiping out
of the Palestinian people.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:24:24 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Obviously it would be antisemitic to suggest that a Jewish lobby in many
countries has a disproportionate influence over politicians, lawyers and
judges,
I wouldn't regard it as particularly antisemitic, just as someone
trying to concoct some sort of argument to bolster their preconceived
ideas.
even if it is true and even if the above suggestion is made by
fellow Jews.
Cite?
But in Germany in particular there seems to be a hypersensitivity to any
pro-Palestinian protests or chants, and a reluctance to permit freedom
of speech and freedom to demonstrate. It has been suggested that the
Germans may be over-reacting to their past history of antisemitism.
In France, face coverings for women (niqab, burka) were banned some
years ago regardless of whether the women wanted to wear them.
In the UK we should be proud of our tolerance and freedom of expression
and we don't have to follow the example of other countries. We don't
threaten to withdraw funds from our great universities in the way that
Harvard has been bullied.
When I'm on a protest march I occasionally hear the "from the river to
the sea..." chant, usually from on e chap with a megaphone and a few
people nearby joining in.
"Occasionally" and "a few" come across as weasel words from someone
trying to downplay events. I'd bet a tidy sum that it was a lot more
often than anyone with a megaphone or placard calling for the release
of the hostages.
I don't join in, but I see no need to leave
the march.
And no need to challenge the guy with the megaphone. Probably a
sensible course of action; if you had challenged him, you'd probably
have been lucky to escape with a severe kicking.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that these chants cause
anyone in earshot to attack Jews.
Not so ridiculous if they were being chanted to a receptive audience.
On 05/06/2025 00:12, JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 11:43 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 23:22, JNugent wrote:
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
Hatred against Catholicism is probably at the very top of that list,
with the Salvation Army at the other end of it (and that's not a
criticism of the Army from me).
I think that's just a personal fantasy of yours. There are no hate
crimes against Catholics except perhaps in Northern Ireland. The death
of the Pope proved that all of our broadcast media, all of our pundits,
wanted to offer grovelling praise towards the dead man and encourage
feverish excitement while the cardinals deliberated over which boring
old man should be appointed as the new voice of God.
Could I possibly have asked you to illustrate my point any better? :-)
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better.
I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book
of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power nowadays as it had in 1563.
President Joe Biden is a Catholic. That never held him back, as far as I know. His character and qualities as a human being may perhaps have been influenced by his Catholic faith. He stubbornly insisted on standing for
a second term (having originally promised only to serve one term), even though his skills were rapidly failing. He defied those who urged him to stand down to prevent the re-election of the worst President in living history, Donald Trump. Biden should take the blame for Trump winning
the Presidential election. In discussions with his team, Biden would say
I've not got time to discuss this any more, I'm going to Mass. He had indestructible faith in his ability to outshine Trump, despite all the
poll results. Anyone who urged him to stand down was a traitor, no
longer part of the circle of trust.
What's his Catholicism got to do with it? Maybe nothing. Or maybe it
gave him unshakeable faith and a stubborn reluctance to see other points
of view.
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish >>>> conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a
particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it
means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first
thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is
illegal to say they plan to run the world.
On 05/06/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>>such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish >>>>>conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or >>>>>other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a >>particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it >>means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first >>thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is
illegal to say they plan to run the world.
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is
warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
On 05/06/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>> such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish >>>>> conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a
particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it
means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first
thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is
illegal to say they plan to run the world.
Do *you* believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is
warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
On Thu, 29 May 2025 15:12:33 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1dmg3kph2mbgi58832adh8hbbpc49m0c8k@4ax.com...
What part of " the whole Northern Ireland thing which is clearly not
identical" did you not understand?
So which are the "important similarities" which you would wish
to point out ?
Well just to take one rather important example, Israel thinks they are crushing Hamas but by inflicting so much suffering on Gaza civilians,
they are simply creating a new generation of Palestinian militants.
Just like the British Army killing 14 civilians on Bloody Sunday gave
the IRA a massive recruitment boost.
On 05/06/2025 04:52 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>>> such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world
Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or >>>>>> other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a
particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it
means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first
thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is
illegal to say they plan to run the world.
Do *you* believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is
warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Damn... "warranted"...
On 05/06/2025 in message <madsovFenmkU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>>> such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world
Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or >>>>>> other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its
head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is
which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable
to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a
particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it
means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first
thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is
illegal to say they plan to run the world.
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is
warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls
the White House.
On 05/06/2025 10:01 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 05/06/2025 in message <madsovFenmkU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 05/06/2025 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 04/06/2025 in message <mabv9lF512hU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
The Todal wrote:[ ... ]
quote
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>>>allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>>>>such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or >>>>>>>other societal institutions.
OK, not come across that.
What, never?
Absolutely normal a relatively few decades ago. And now rearing its >>>>>head again, from the left.
What about making similar comments about Catholics or Baptists?
Whether or not you intended it (I have no way of knowing which is >>>>>which), you make a good point there. Today, it seems very fashionable >>>>>to be against, and to attack, Christianity.
I made the point because it is completely unbalanced and favours a >>>>particular religion, and to me if you favour one category of people it >>>>means you dis-favour/prejudice another.
Good wheeze though. If aliens land and want to run the world the first >>>>thing they should do is lobby to introduce a world-wide law that is >>>>illegal to say they plan to run the world.
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is >>>warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls
the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book
of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply
because they are Catholic.
JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
quote (Can't remember who posted this, but it was posted):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — >>>>>>>> such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>> Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy,
government ot other societal institutions.
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is
warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls
the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say if you want a response.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>>> nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>>> available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply
because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that seriously what you want to argue?
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>>>nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>>>available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply
because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that seriously what you want to argue?
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>>>> nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>>>> available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply
because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
Ah, so you've decided you were wrong in your statement above?
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
That was my point to you, yes.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that
seriously what you want to argue?
That whole paragraph suffers from what my maths teacher at school would
have described as a "dearth of logic".
On 07/06/2025 08:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
quote (Can't remember who posted this, but it was posted):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>>>>>allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective >>>>>>>>>—
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>>>Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, >>>>>>>>>government ot other societal institutions.
[ ... ]
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is >>>>>warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls >>>>the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say if you want a response.
OK, I thought it was clear enough, but it was based on a reference to >someone's previous post. So I'll restate the question so that all the >information is within it. Not that you seemed to have any trouble with it >last time when you said you hadn't thought about it.
Here's the question:
Q: Do you believe it is true that Jewish people control more of the world >(quote: "the media, economy, government ot other societal institutions")
than is warranted and that they seek to control even more of it?
A: ...
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics.
Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now
easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply
because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that
seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think
so.
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that meant the King could not divorce his wife.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion
and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop challenged him.
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the
Church of England.
On 07/06/2025 04:06 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. >>>>>> Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's
Book
of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now
easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional
power
nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that
seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think
so.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there
another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect that
a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not accede
to the post of Head of State.
[Yes, I suppose you can include Australia, Canada, NZ and the smaller
out posts in with the UK, by default.]
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that
meant the King could not divorce his wife.
In the out-turn, that made no difference. Not that anyone knew it at the time.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion
and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop
challenged him.
The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of Henry's
claimed authorship of a document defending the Catholic Church against Lutheranism. This was while Henry was still relatively sane. The title
was - as one would expect - revoked by a subsequent Pope (Paul III) when Henry stopped defending the faith and started attacking it.
The title professed by the English monarch ever since was later enacted
by Parliamant, which is hardly the Holy See, as you will agree.
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the
Church of England.
The absurdity, these last five hundred years or so, is that a lay
person, not in Holy Orders, can be the head of a church. What CAN the
point be, other then a purely political tactic which cost the lives of
many thousands of people during the sixteenth century?
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>>>Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>>>>>nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>>>of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>>>>>available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>>>nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
That is a reprehensible accusation unless you have something to back
it up.
Please show where I so defined it or withdraw it.
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. Not >>>>>>> nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now easily >>>>>>> available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
That is a reprehensible accusation unless you have something to back
it up.
What on earth are you on about?
Please show where I so defined it or withdraw it.
It's still quoted above! Todal says there is no evidence in England
of "hatred of Catholics". You counter by saying that Catholics are
prohibited from becoming Head of State. If we assume that your reply
is supposed to have something to do with the post it was responding
to, then you appear to be saying that preventing someone from being
Head of State is evidence that they are "hated". You have thus put
forward the proposition that if people are not happy to see someone
as Head of State then that someone is hated. This is is an extremely
binary proposition as you are saying that the only options are "can
have the highest position in the land" or "are hated".
On 08/06/2025 12:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>>>>> Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of
Catholics. Not nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been >>>>>>>> told about Foxe's Book of Martyrs, listing all the victims of
Catholic persecution, now easily available on Kindle, but I
don't think it has the same emotional power nowadays as it had >>>>>>>> in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
That is a reprehensible accusation unless you have something to back
it up.
What on earth are you on about?
Please show where I so defined it or withdraw it.
It's still quoted above! Todal says there is no evidence in England
of "hatred of Catholics". You counter by saying that Catholics are
prohibited from becoming Head of State. If we assume that your reply
is supposed to have something to do with the post it was responding
to, then you appear to be saying that preventing someone from being
Head of State is evidence that they are "hated". You have thus put
forward the proposition that if people are not happy to see someone
as Head of State then that someone is hated. This is is an extremely
binary proposition as you are saying that the only options are "can
have the highest position in the land" or "are hated".
I don't think that follows just from the quotes above, but the context
before that has been snipped.
Todal says "please illustrate your point rather better" [that point
having been snipped], and then says there's no current hatred towards Catholics.
Martin then says that the King can't be Catholic.
On 2025-06-08, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 08/06/2025 12:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>>>>>> Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of
Catholics. Not nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been >>>>>>>>> told about Foxe's Book of Martyrs, listing all the victims of >>>>>>>>> Catholic persecution, now easily available on Kindle, but I
don't think it has the same emotional power nowadays as it had >>>>>>>>> in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
That is a reprehensible accusation unless you have something to back
it up.
What on earth are you on about?
Please show where I so defined it or withdraw it.
It's still quoted above! Todal says there is no evidence in England
of "hatred of Catholics". You counter by saying that Catholics are
prohibited from becoming Head of State. If we assume that your reply
is supposed to have something to do with the post it was responding
to, then you appear to be saying that preventing someone from being
Head of State is evidence that they are "hated". You have thus put
forward the proposition that if people are not happy to see someone
as Head of State then that someone is hated. This is is an extremely
binary proposition as you are saying that the only options are "can
have the highest position in the land" or "are hated".
I don't think that follows just from the quotes above, but the context
before that has been snipped.
Todal says "please illustrate your point rather better" [that point
having been snipped], and then says there's no current hatred towards
Catholics.
Martin then says that the King can't be Catholic.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me,
and if the latter, in what way and why. If we look further back
in the thread for more context, it doesn't seem to me to make any
difference.
On 07/06/2025 04:06 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. >>>>>> Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now
easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that
seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think
so.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there another civilised
state which has current legislation to the effect that a Catholic (or a member of any
ohter religion, or none) may not accede to the post of Head of State.
[Yes, I suppose you can include Australia, Canada, NZ and the smaller out posts in with
the UK, by default.]
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that
meant the King could not divorce his wife.
In the out-turn, that made no difference. Not that anyone knew it at the time.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion
and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop
challenged him.
The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of Henry's claimed authorship of a document defending the Catholic Church against Lutheranism. This was
while Henry was still relatively sane. The title was - as one would expect - revoked by
a subsequent Pope (Paul III) when Henry stopped defending the faith and started
attacking it.
The title professed by the English monarch ever since was later enacted by Parliamant,
which is hardly the Holy See, as you will agree.
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the
Church of England.
The absurdity, these last five hundred years or so, is that a lay person, not in Holy
Orders, can be the head of a church. What CAN the point be, other then a purely
political tactic
which cost the lives of many thousands of people during the sixteenth century?
On 07/06/2025 in message <maish5Fbdq9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 08:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
quote (Can't remember who posted this, but it was posted):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>>>>>> allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as
collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>>>> Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, >>>>>>>>>> government ot other societal institutions.
[ ... ]
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is >>>>>> warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls >>>>> the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say if you want a
response.
OK, I thought it was clear enough, but it was based on a reference to
someone's previous post. So I'll restate the question so that all the
information is within it. Not that you seemed to have any trouble with
it last time when you said you hadn't thought about it.
Here's the question:
Q: Do you believe it is true that Jewish people control more of the
world (quote: "the media, economy, government ot other societal
institutions") than is warranted and that they seek to control even
more of it?
A: ...
Same as before, I hadn't really thought about it. I have seen on social
media that Netanyahu claims he has the White House in his pocket and, of course, a large proportion of Conservative MPs, and a smaller proportion
of Labour MPs are members of the Friends of Israel.
On 07/06/2025 20:48, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:06 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. >>>>>>> Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's >>>>>>> Book
of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now >>>>>>> easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional >>>>>>> power
nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another. >>>>
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that >>>> seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think >>> so.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Vatican City is a state, and the Pope is the head of that state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there
another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect
that a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not
accede to the post of Head of State.
[Yes, I suppose you can include Australia, Canada, NZ and the smaller
out posts in with the UK, by default.]
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that >>> meant the King could not divorce his wife.
In the out-turn, that made no difference. Not that anyone knew it at
the time.
The prohibition against divorce ruined the life of the Duke of Windsor.
That prohibition was relaxed when Charles wanted to divorce and then
marry his mistress. Evidently God had changed his mind. Or the
archbishop of Canterbury decided that all rules can be bent or broken in order to fit with modern fashions.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion
and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop
challenged him.
The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of Henry's
claimed authorship of a document defending the Catholic Church against
Lutheranism. This was while Henry was still relatively sane. The title
was - as one would expect - revoked by a subsequent Pope (Paul III)
when Henry stopped defending the faith and started attacking it.
The title professed by the English monarch ever since was later
enacted by Parliamant, which is hardly the Holy See, as you will agree.
Nevertheless it would be impossible to have a Catholic as King without seriously interfering with the hierarchy of the Church of England.
As an
atheist I don't much care. I wouldn't mind if Charles converted to Catholicism or Judaism or Islam. Would there be riots in the streets?
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the
Church of England.
The absurdity, these last five hundred years or so, is that a lay
person, not in Holy Orders, can be the head of a church. What CAN the
point be, other then a purely political tactic which cost the lives of
many thousands of people during the sixteenth century?
I agree. But is the solution to appoint that lay person to "holy orders"
and is that such a difficult obstacle? No need to circumcise anyone.
Just say the necessary hocus-pocus.
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops,
priests etc.
or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people and
the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.
On 08/06/2025 09:43 AM, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Irrelevant.
The Catholic Church has existed for two thousand years,
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 16:38:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2025 09:43 AM, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Irrelevant.
The Catholic Church has existed for two thousand years,
Really ? Founded in 25 AD - 8 years before the crucifixion.
You really do learn a lot here.
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates
back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:majjcgFf4ulU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/06/2025 04:06 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate"
Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. >>>>>>> Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's Book >>>>>>> of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now >>>>>>> easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional power >>>>>>> nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either you
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices."
You need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no
logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another. >>>>
being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that >>>> seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think >>> so.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
See below
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there another civilised
state which has current legislation to the effect that a Catholic (or a member of any
ohter religion, or none) may not accede to the post of Head of State.
[Yes, I suppose you can include Australia, Canada, NZ and the smaller out posts in with
the UK, by default.]
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that >>> meant the King could not divorce his wife.
In the out-turn, that made no difference. Not that anyone knew it at the time.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion
and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop
challenged him.
The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of Henry's claimed
authorship of a document defending the Catholic Church against Lutheranism. This was
while Henry was still relatively sane. The title was - as one would expect - revoked by
a subsequent Pope (Paul III) when Henry stopped defending the faith and started
attacking it.
The title was in fact granted to Henry for defending the hierarchical principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops, priests etc. or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people
and the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. While charging
a healthy commission into the bargain, for sacraments etc. on pain
of eternal damnation.
Henry in fact kept all the bishops and priests only the money all went
to him; instead of some bloke in Rome.
He kept all of the doctrines as well. The Doctrines of Transubstantiation
was only abandoned long after his death. The only difference being that because he no longer paid his subs, none of his priests were fully
licenced as before.
As had already been explained to you already more than once Henry needed
a male heir. Catherine of Aragon was too old to give him one, and as things were he'd be stuck with her forever.
He had passable grounds for annulment as Catherine was his dead brothers widow. However the Pope refused to grant him one *for no other reason *
than he didn't want to offend Catherine's brother or uncle or something.
It was their failure in this that eventually cost both Wolseley and More their lives
Far from being insane Henry had no other recourse than to break with Rome
and an easily corruptible Pope.
which is hardly the Holy See, as you will agree.
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the
Church of England.
The absurdity, these last five hundred years or so, is that a lay person, not in Holy
Orders, can be the head of a church. What CAN the point be, other then a purely
political tactic
which cost the lives of many thousands of people during the sixteenth
century?
So you'd much rather England had been conquered by Spain then ?
Which isn't to say that your Catholic Irish Forbears wouldn't.
The reason for not having a Catholic Head of State is very simple.
Their first Loyalty will always be to the Pope in Rome and whatever he
might say. A Pope who is supposedly infallible and speaking Gods word.
A Pope supposedly elected by a load of *divinely inspired* bishops.
This is the person who you want having the final say over your own
head of State ?
Rather than their choosing bishops etc. to suit England's intersts rather than Rome's.
On 07/06/2025 07:30 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <maish5Fbdq9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 08:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
quote (Can't remember who posted this, but it was posted):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>>>>>>>allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as >>>>>>>>>>>collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>>>>>Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, >>>>>>>>>>>government ot other societal institutions.
[ ... ]
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is >>>>>>>warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he controls >>>>>>the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say if you want a >>>>response.
OK, I thought it was clear enough, but it was based on a reference to >>>someone's previous post. So I'll restate the question so that all the >>>information is within it. Not that you seemed to have any trouble with
it last time when you said you hadn't thought about it.
Here's the question:
Q: Do you believe it is true that Jewish people control more of the
world (quote: "the media, economy, government ot other societal >>>institutions") than is warranted and that they seek to control even
more of it?
A: ...
Same as before, I hadn't really thought about it. I have seen on social >>media that Netanyahu claims he has the White House in his pocket and, of >>course, a large proportion of Conservative MPs, and a smaller proportion
of Labour MPs are members of the Friends of Israel.
In that case (and thank you for the confirmation): same as before:
It doesn't sound like a "No", and can only be construed as a "Yes".
It isn't vacant enough to be an "I don't know".
On 08/06/2025 09:43 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 20:48, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 04:06 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 07/06/2025 14:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>>>>> Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of Catholics. >>>>>>>> Not
nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been told about Foxe's >>>>>>>> Book
of Martyrs, listing all the victims of Catholic persecution, now >>>>>>>> easily
available on Kindle, but I don't think it has the same emotional >>>>>>>> power
nowadays as it had in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
Would you say that
you "hate" everyone that you don't want to see as monarch?
Actually, I don't hate anyone.
"Either youYou need to take a breath and think about what you are saying.
want me to be king or you hate me, those are your only two choices." >>>>>
My point wasn't about being a head of another religion, it was about >>>>> being *Head of State*. The impact of being head of another religion
And of course it's nothing to do with "hate", it's that it makes no >>>>>> logical sense for the head of one religion to be a member of another. >>>>>
only comes into play if you regard meeting the needs of the CoE to
matter more than the interests of the British people at large. Is that >>>>> seriously what you want to argue?
Would the Vatican consider appointing a Jew as Pope? No, I didn't think >>>> so.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Vatican City is a state, and the Pope is the head of that state.
Irrelevant.
The Catholic Church has existed for two thousand years, The formation of
the Vatican state was a gracious concession by the Italian government in
- IIRC - the 1920s. It is a pure matter of administration and could,
without any obvious damage to the church, be repealed / revoked / abolished.
No response attempted.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there
another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect
that a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not
accede to the post of Head of State.
[Yes, I suppose you can include Australia, Canada, NZ and the smaller
out posts in with the UK, by default.]
The head of the Church of England is our current King. At one time, that >>>> meant the King could not divorce his wife.
In the out-turn, that made no difference. Not that anyone knew it at
the time.
The prohibition against divorce ruined the life of the Duke of Windsor.
And?
That prohibition was relaxed when Charles wanted to divorce and then
marry his mistress. Evidently God had changed his mind. Or the
archbishop of Canterbury decided that all rules can be bent or broken in
order to fit with modern fashions.
Not my problem. Not that I wish it as a problem on anyone.
It is the fashion nowadays to have a pick and mix attitude to religion >>>> and Charles has foolishly proclaimed that he is the Defender of All
Faiths, which is plainly impossible but I don't suppose the Archbishop >>>> challenged him.
The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of Henry's
claimed authorship of a document defending the Catholic Church against
Lutheranism. This was while Henry was still relatively sane. The title
was - as one would expect - revoked by a subsequent Pope (Paul III)
when Henry stopped defending the faith and started attacking it.
The title professed by the English monarch ever since was later
enacted by Parliamant, which is hardly the Holy See, as you will agree.
Nevertheless it would be impossible to have a Catholic as King without
seriously interfering with the hierarchy of the Church of England.
All that means is that it would be impossible to have a Catholic monarch unless the law prohibiting it were repealed.
Well... duh!
As anThere might be in one of those cases (and I don't mean Catholicism).
atheist I don't much care. I wouldn't mind if Charles converted to
Catholicism or Judaism or Islam. Would there be riots in the streets?
Let it not be thought that the Catholic Church is more absurd than the >>>> Church of England.
The absurdity, these last five hundred years or so, is that a lay
person, not in Holy Orders, can be the head of a church. What CAN the
point be, other then a purely political tactic which cost the lives of
many thousands of people during the sixteenth century?
I agree. But is the solution to appoint that lay person to "holy orders"
and is that such a difficult obstacle? No need to circumcise anyone.
Just say the necessary hocus-pocus.
That would still be a political tactic. And would not remove the further
base of the absurdity, which is that a temporal monarch took it upon
himself to be a spiritual monarch.
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect that a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not accede to the post of Head of State.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 16:38:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2025 09:43 AM, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Irrelevant.
The Catholic Church has existed for two thousand years,
Really ? Founded in 25 AD - 8 years before the crucifixion.
You really do learn a lot here.
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates
back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
On 8 Jun 2025 at 16:38:09 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I think you may have some difficulty in explaining to an atheist how the pope is better qualified as "spiritual" leader of the Catholic church than king Charles is qualified to lead the Church of England. He has had a lot of training in leading things.
On 07/06/2025 20:48, JNugent wrote:
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there
another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect
that a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not
accede to the post of Head of State.
Yes (for likely definitions of a religion).
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates
back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
The title was in fact granted to Henry for defending the hierarchical
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops, priests
etc. or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people
and the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. While charging
a healthy commission into the bargain, for sacraments etc. on pain
of eternal damnation.
That's simply a different and less accurate, way of saying what I said, which was that
the title was conferred for Henry's defence of the Catholic Church.
Why did he "need" a male heir?
He might have wanted one, but that's not the same thing.
On 08/06/2025 in message <malojqFq5l8U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2025 07:30 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 07/06/2025 in message <maish5Fbdq9U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 07/06/2025 08:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/06/2025 09:09 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
quote (Can't remember who posted this, but it was posted):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical >>>>>>>>>>>> allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as >>>>>>>>>>>> collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world >>>>>>>>>>>> Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, >>>>>>>>>>>> government ot other societal institutions.
[ ... ]
Do you believe that to be true?
["That" being that Jewish people control more of the world than is >>>>>>>> warrented and that they seek to control even more of it?]
Not really thought about it although Netanyahu has boasted he
controls
the White House.
It doesn't sound like a "No", does it?
Of course, you may think it does.
You'll have to clarify what you are trying to say if you want a
response.
OK, I thought it was clear enough, but it was based on a reference to
someone's previous post. So I'll restate the question so that all the
information is within it. Not that you seemed to have any trouble with >>>> it last time when you said you hadn't thought about it.
Here's the question:
Q: Do you believe it is true that Jewish people control more of the
world (quote: "the media, economy, government ot other societal
institutions") than is warranted and that they seek to control even
more of it?
A: ...
Same as before, I hadn't really thought about it. I have seen on social
media that Netanyahu claims he has the White House in his pocket and, of >>> course, a large proportion of Conservative MPs, and a smaller proportion >>> of Labour MPs are members of the Friends of Israel.
In that case (and thank you for the confirmation): same as before:
It doesn't sound like a "No", and can only be construed as a "Yes".
It isn't vacant enough to be an "I don't know".
My answer is as I wrote it.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 15:52:06 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops,
priests etc.
or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people and
the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.
Much more like Islam, then.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates
back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
That being the "Branch" of the Christian Church where most of the
early developments of Christianity actually took place; for the
first 800 odd years.
Based in Constantinople it suffered a bit of a setback admittedly in 1453 when
finally conquered by the Ottoman Empire
A whole World which up until now it appears you never ever knew existed !
Those naughty teachers, keeping all that from you, for all these years.
But never mind. Now thanks to UseNet, you've been finally saved !
bb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:malu3cFr29jU1@mid.individual.net...
The title was in fact granted to Henry for defending the hierarchical
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops, priests >>> etc. or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people
and the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. While charging
a healthy commission into the bargain, for sacraments etc. on pain
of eternal damnation.
That's simply a different and less accurate, way of saying what I said, which was that
the title was conferred for Henry's defence of the Catholic Church.
It's much *more* accurate.
Because there is *nothing* in the teacings of Our Lord Jesus Christ justifying the whole paraphernalia of a Pope in Rome with his
numerous Cardinals and Bishops Lording it over everyone
and living lives of luxury. At the expense of poor believers
Dr Ian Paisley was right in calling the Pope "The Anti-Christ"
As he is seeking to take some of Christ's Glory for himself
and taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of Christ while
declaring himself to be "Infallible".
Why did he "need" a male heir?
He might have wanted one, but that's not the same thing.
Because his daughter Mary was a Catholic who subsequently married
the King of Spain and was thus again subjecting her people to the
rule of the Anti-Christ in Rome.
As proven by Her burning of innocent Protestants at the Stake !
And you want that lot back again ?
Oh and one more thing.
Catholic Church doctrine unequivocally preaches that
Abortion is a *Mortal Sin*.
No question.
And yet despite having a *Catholic President* for the past four
years, the Trump enabler, Joe Biden*, how comes all the
anti abortionists appear to be Bible Toting Protestants ?
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:1024deq$1nufa$24@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 15:52:06 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops,
priests etc.
or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people and
the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.
Much more like Islam, then.
Or Judaism.
Neither of whom have "Popes"
Single figures, claiming to be speaking directly on behalf
of the "management" upstairs
Just scholars instead bent over their Talmuds and Korans offering varying interpretations of the written word.
One whole basis of Western Civilisation, it could be said,
And right back on topic, exactly how the Law works today.
Rather than just leaving it all down to the King to decide on a whim.
bb
On 08/06/2025 08:50 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 07/06/2025 20:48, JNugent wrote:
That isn't the question. The question was about heads of state.
Other than Israel (I suppose) and the Islamic countries, is there
another civilised state which has current legislation to the effect
that a Catholic (or a member of any ohter religion, or none) may not
accede to the post of Head of State.
Yes (for likely definitions of a religion).
What are they?
Japan? India?
I leave out Pakistan and Bangladesh because covered in the question.
Perhaps instead of "civilised state", I should have specified "first world liberal democracy".
On 08/06/2025 09:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:malu3cFr29jU1@mid.individual.net...
The title was in fact granted to Henry for defending the hierarchical
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops, priests >>>> etc. or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people >>>> and the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. While charging
a healthy commission into the bargain, for sacraments etc. on pain
of eternal damnation.
That's simply a different and less accurate, way of saying what I said, which was
that
the title was conferred for Henry's defence of the Catholic Church.
It's much *more* accurate.
So you claim.
Because there is *nothing* in the teacings of Our Lord Jesus Christ
justifying the whole paraphernalia of a Pope in Rome with his
numerous Cardinals and Bishops Lording it over everyone
and living lives of luxury. At the expense of poor believers
You haven't read the contents of the four Gospels, then?
If you had, you would be aware of Christian beliefs in the role of Peter.
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
That being the "Branch" of the Christian Church where most of the
early developments of Christianity actually took place; for the
first 800 odd years.
Based in Constantinople it suffered a bit of a setback admittedly in 1453 when
finally conquered by the Ottoman Empire
A whole World which up until now it appears you never ever knew existed !
Those naughty teachers, keeping all that from you, for all these years.
But never mind. Now thanks to UseNet, you've been finally saved !
bb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
On 08/06/2025 09:57 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1024deq$1nufa$24@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 15:52:06 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which
were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops,
priests etc.
or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people and
the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.
Much more like Islam, then.
Or Judaism.
Neither of whom have "Popes"
Single figures, claiming to be speaking directly on behalf
of the "management" upstairs
As you ought to know, but do not, that is NOT what happens.
But do your own research.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It
existed before that. It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though
one could only imagine it moving in the face of some unforseen
calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open
for the Anglican church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mamctgFtduvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:malu3cFr29jU1@mid.individual.net...
The title was in fact granted to Henry for defending the hierarchical >>>>> principles which characterised the Catholic Church. It's these which >>>>> were opposed by Lutherans; who saw no purpose in a Pope, bishops, priests >>>>> etc. or any other intermediaries placing themselves between the people >>>>> and the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures. While charging
a healthy commission into the bargain, for sacraments etc. on pain
of eternal damnation.
That's simply a different and less accurate, way of saying what I said, which was
that
the title was conferred for Henry's defence of the Catholic Church.
It's much *more* accurate.
So you claim.
Because there is *nothing* in the teacings of Our Lord Jesus Christ
justifying the whole paraphernalia of a Pope in Rome with his
numerous Cardinals and Bishops Lording it over everyone
and living lives of luxury. At the expense of poor believers
You haven't read the contents of the four Gospels, then?
If you had, you would be aware of Christian beliefs in the role of Peter.
No. Don't tell me !
Matthew 16:18
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"
Not of course overlooking the fact that at the time early Chistians
including Popes were regularly being martyred in increasingly
novel and excruciatingly painful ways.
So that the only possible reason for anyone ever wanting to be a
Christion or a Pope in the first place, was the hope of Everlasting
Salvation
However putting the clock forward around 1500 years
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church;
including additional expenses allowing you to keep at least four
mistresses, father at least 12 illegitimate children including
Ceasare and Lucretia Borgia, and earn yourself substantial
commissions by authorising Papal Bulls gifting South America to
Spain "
This was the chap who had final say as to who could be Archbishop
of Canterbury
And you really are suggesting that Henry VIII should have made
himself subject to his equally corrupt successor ?
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed >>>>> before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it >>>>> moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the >>>>> Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
On 09/06/2025 07:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
However putting the clock forward around 1500 years
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church;
including additional expenses allowing you to keep at least four
mistresses, father at least 12 illegitimate children including
Ceasare and Lucretia Borgia, and earn yourself substantial
commissions by authorising Papal Bulls gifting South America to
Spain "
What woud be the point of that?
Please explain any possible scenario that lead you to ask it.
Henry VIII should have complied with the terms of his own coronation oath(s). He did,
for a while. But then welshed on them.
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before
that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in
the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
On 9 Jun 2025 at 23:38:34 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed >>>>>> before that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it >>>>>> moving in the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the
Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
There is quite an extensive world Anglican communion; although though they don't quite follow the catholic tradition of having a Capo dei capi.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:map61gFd5n7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 07:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Snip
However putting the clock forward around 1500 years
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church;
including additional expenses allowing you to keep at least four
mistresses, father at least 12 illegitimate children including
Ceasare and Lucretia Borgia, and earn yourself substantial
commissions by authorising Papal Bulls gifting South America to
Spain "
What woud be the point of that?
What would be the point of having four mistresses, and trousering
a few million gold ducats, by giving Spain exclusive rights to South
America ?
If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'll come up with
something.
Please explain any possible scenario that lead you to ask it.
How a Pope with four mistresses and 12 illegitimate children can possibly
be seen to qualify as Christ's representative on Earth ?
As Dr Paisley pointed out he and his successors are the Anti-Christ
They simply use the Christian religion to gain positions of power
in order to enrich themselves.
Henry VIII should have complied with the terms of his own coronation oath(s). He did,
for a while. But then welshed on them.
When he finally realised the extent of Papal corruption, which ran
contrary to all Christian teaching, he had no real alternative.
All human institutions eventually become corrupt.
Whereas in theory anyway, the various Sacred Texts remain unaltered over time.
All that changes is their interpretation.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:map63aFd5n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before
that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in
the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
He wasn't an Estate Agent on the side as well, by any chance was he ?
Or she, of course.
He could maybe have helped solve another problem, at the same time.
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
I am also aware of the meaning of the term "parochialism".
Are you ?
England is, and always has been, a very small part of what is known
as "Christendom"; a large part of which, up until yesterday at least
you apparently had never even heard of* The first known occurrence of
"Roman Catholic" as a synonym for "Catholic Church" was in fact found
in a communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208,
*As neither quite possibly, had your Anglican Vicar new best friend.
On 10/06/2025 11:26 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:map63aFd5n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates >>>>>>>> back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before
that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in
the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the
Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
He wasn't an Estate Agent on the side as well, by any chance was he ?
Or she, of course.
He could maybe have helped solve another problem, at the same time.
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
I am also aware of the meaning of the term "parochialism".
Are you ?
So you have never discussed, or been open to discussion, with a knowledgeable insider,
on a matter which is peculiar to the Anglican church.
On 10/06/2025 11:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:map61gFd5n7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 07:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Snip
However putting the clock forward around 1500 years
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church;
including additional expenses allowing you to keep at least four
mistresses, father at least 12 illegitimate children including
Ceasare and Lucretia Borgia, and earn yourself substantial
commissions by authorising Papal Bulls gifting South America to
Spain "
What woud be the point of that?
What would be the point of having four mistresses, and trousering
a few million gold ducats, by giving Spain exclusive rights to South
America ?
If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'll come up with
something.
Please explain any possible scenario that lead you to ask it.
How a Pope with four mistresses and 12 illegitimate children can possibly
be seen to qualify as Christ's representative on Earth ?
No, no, no... Please explain how (in your opinion), anything might have led to the
scenario:
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church..."?
Take your time if you need it.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:maqsvgFlnf0U3@mid.individual.net...
On 10/06/2025 11:12 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:map61gFd5n7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 07:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Snip
However putting the clock forward around 1500 years
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church;
including additional expenses allowing you to keep at least four
mistresses, father at least 12 illegitimate children including
Ceasare and Lucretia Borgia, and earn yourself substantial
commissions by authorising Papal Bulls gifting South America to
Spain "
What woud be the point of that?
What would be the point of having four mistresses, and trousering
a few million gold ducats, by giving Spain exclusive rights to South
America ?
If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'll come up with
something.
Please explain any possible scenario that lead you to ask it.
How a Pope with four mistresses and 12 illegitimate children can possibly >>> be seen to qualify as Christ's representative on Earth ?
No, no, no... Please explain how (in your opinion), anything might have led to the
scenario:
"Thou art Alexander VI and upon this rock I will build my Church..."?
Take your time if you need it.
You based your whole claim for the legitimacy of the Papacy on the
references to St Peter in the Gospels; which specifically can be
boiled down to the following.
Matthew 16:18
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"
So that put simply, if as you claim Alexander VI is a true successor to
St Peter, then what goes for St Peter, also goes for Alexander VI.
Religious belief is a matter of Faith alone. Even if its necessary
to believe three impossible things, before breakfast.
While the acknowledged existence of corrupt Popes and peadophile
priests could be seen as simply representing a further test
of faith.
It cannot depend on knowledge of facts nor familiarity with complex arguments; as that would disqualify large numbers of deserving souls
from ever attaining religious belief.
So that on present evidence at least, I consider it highly inadvisable
that you should try to convert anyone to your own particular faith,
based on your present state of knowledge.
Go in Peace. (some hopes)
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:maqt47Flnf0U4@mid.individual.net...
On 10/06/2025 11:26 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:map63aFd5n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 09/06/2025 06:45 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mamca5Ftb33U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 09:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maluh3Fr4d2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/06/2025 05:23 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
There is no "Roman Catholic Church".
I'll punt that some people would say the *Roman* catholic church dates
back to Constantine the Great. First half of the 4th century. >>>>>>>>
There is the Catholic Church and it is currently HQd in Rome. It existed before
that.
It doesn't have to be centred in Rome, though one could only imagine it moving in
the
face of some unforseen calamity.
The habit of calling it the RCC is a device to leave the way open for the
Anglican
church to call itself "catholic"
And the Greek Orthodox Church ?
How long has that existed ?
Not my concern, old chap.
You said above
" RCC is a device to leave the way open for the Anglican church to
call itself "catholic"
Which is compete and utter nonsense.
Have you ever spoken to an Anglican vicar on the topic?
He wasn't an Estate Agent on the side as well, by any chance was he ?
Or she, of course.
He could maybe have helped solve another problem, at the same time.
I have.
You almost certainly haven't.
I am also aware of the meaning of the term "parochialism".
Are you ?
So you have never discussed, or been open to discussion, with a knowledgeable insider,
on a matter which is peculiar to the Anglican church.
How is the fact that the term "Roman Catholic" originated in
communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208, somehow
"peculiar" to the Anglican Church; given it didn't even exist
for another 300 odd years ?
And it does make one wonder quite what other topics might have been
discussed with this "knowlegeable insider".
While from your side
of course, as a driver of say over 40 + years experience, there
would have been your extensive knowledge of The Road Traffic Acts.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:46:42 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
Sorry just noticed this
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdk04k5h6m7jh3v1vd0jimvtlcd55tinuf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 May 2025 15:12:33 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dmg3kph2mbgi58832adh8hbbpc49m0c8k@4ax.com...
<gross snippage >
What part of " the whole Northern Ireland thing which is clearly not >>>>> identical" did you not understand?
So which are the "important similarities" which you would wish
to point out ?
Well just to take one rather important example, Israel thinks they are
crushing Hamas but by inflicting so much suffering on Gaza civilians,
they are simply creating a new generation of Palestinian militants.
Just like the British Army killing 14 civilians on Bloody Sunday gave
the IRA a massive recruitment boost.
Well yes. But there is surely a very obvious difference between them.
Which is why I said in my original remarks that they are not
identical. The same underlying principle does, however, apply - using
the military to deal with a political problem only makes things worse.
rOn Sun, 8 Jun 2025 11:15:27 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:47:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:58:33 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Yes, please illustrate your point rather better. I don't "hate" >>>>>>>>Catholics. I see no evidence in England of any hatred of >>>>>>>>Catholics. Not nowadays. Perhaps at school you would have been >>>>>>>>told about Foxe's Book of Martyrs, listing all the victims of >>>>>>>>Catholic persecution, now easily available on Kindle, but I >>>>>>>>don't think it has the same emotional power nowadays as it had >>>>>>>>in 1563.
Yet someone is still prohibited from being your Head of State simply >>>>>>> because they are Catholic.
That's a very peculiar, binary, definition of "hate".
It would be if I had so defined it.
You did.
That is a reprehensible accusation unless you have something to back
it up.
What on earth are you on about?
You accusing me of claiming that I am defining the bar on Catholics
from the monarchy as some binary form of hatred.
Please show where I so defined it or withdraw it.
It's still quoted above! Todal says there is no evidence in England
of "hatred of Catholics". You counter by saying that Catholics are >>prohibited from becoming Head of State. If we assume that your reply
is supposed to have something to do with the post it was responding
In other words, I didn't define anything - you are making your own assumptions. Which happen to be wrong. I was replying to the Todal's
final comment about this stuff being back in 1563 and giving a
specific example of discrimination against Catholics still being part
of British law.
to, then you appear to be saying that preventing someone from being
Head of State is evidence that they are "hated".
I said no such thing and it takes a really twisted form of thinking to
make it into that.
Which is why I said in my original remarks that they are not
identical. The same underlying principle does, however, apply - using
the military to deal with a political problem only makes things worse.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:34:22 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |