Greetings, Ray, I'm not sure that I follow all your arguments correctly, but I want to respond to what I think is the overarching argument you make.
I think that you are saying that: 1. People alive today can claim rights that attach back to their ancestors, regardless of how much time has gone by, or the intervening history. 2. That the older the events or situation one chooses to hark back to, the more compelling the claim. 3. That those who later learn from the belief system of an older group owe such a debt to that older group that they, the newer group should subordinate any conflicting claims they may have with the remnant of that older group. 4. That there is a 'Creator' who 'gives' certain rights to certain peoples. I hope this is a fair summary of the points you make. Can you confirm, or if not accurate, modify, or replace? Best regards, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans > Harrell > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 3:56 AM > To: Karen Watters Cole; Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Horrific traditions > > > Well, cousin. It has been sixty years and Jews still have no secure > country even though places that both Christians and Moslems find > sacred are > thus only because the Jews made them so. Not only that but the > intellectual capital that created both of those stories came from this > little group of 14 million world wide. I've often wondered > where the size > of the Jewish people made it fit in the great religions of the world. > There are a couple of billion Christians and over a billion Moslems. > > Frankly it seems to me that the children are doing what children > always do. > Diss the parents. How could the "respect your Mother and Father" not > extend to the parent religion of the two. For a long time the > Christians called them the "Killers of Jesus" but this doesn't make sense > considering that he had to die according to the story, in order > to complete > the process. This seems to me that the Jews were used for a > necessity to > finish the story. Do you really believe they could have said "no" > according to the story. One could even say that they were protecting > their country and culture from the BC version of terrorists. There are > lots of situations like that in traditional stories all over the world but > the instrument is rarely treated so badly for 2,000 years. > Especially when > the despised one is the parent people. I don't recall anyone > treating the > soldier badly who murdered his daughter because he had promised > to sacrifice > the first person who he met at his house if he won the battle. > He did and > the daughter was sacrificed. On the other hand the Moslems claim that > the Jews are not the original inhabitants of that religion which doesn't > seem to make the history of their religion make any sense at all. > > I still say that the owners of the intellectual capital should be the > keepers of the sites that they developed and that represent their place in > the Creator's scheme of things (history.) What would happen > if we worked > out such things according to the plans of capitalism that states that all > such property must be owned. Those fundamentalists who are both > capitalists and have been since Calvin and supporters of Israel may not be > as much a matter of prophecy so much as the fact that the Jews (although > socialists) are the original owners and developers and the fundamentalists > support that wherever they find it. > > We have the same problems here when arrogant young white folks break into > Indian ceremonials and presume that they have a right to be there. > Everyone is fighting to be the Indians in the Middle East. But > the fact is > that the Jews are the only ones who give the sites significance. > Any other > significance is second to that according to their own stories. > The world > must always respect the owners and find a way to deal with the fact that > they are the owners. Otherwise we might do what Solomon suggested, just > destroy all of the sites in all three religions in which case anyplace can > be Jerusalem, Mecca/Medina, Bethlehem, Rome, Ada or whatever. Cut the > baby in half and give half of nothing to each. > > Cousin REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:58 PM > Subject: RE: Horrific traditions > > > > Forgive me for NOT adding the link to verify this information, but the > > American group Jews for Justice, in some of its counterarguments to > current > > Israeli land aggression, documents that there was a Zionist > push to detour > > European Jews after the Holocaust to the new Israeli state, even working > to > > keep migrants from Canada and the US, where many European Jews > were eager > to > > go. > > > > Karen Watters Cole > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 5:34 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Horrific traditions > > > > Oh well, more clichés from a NYT reader... > > > > Brad McCormick wrote: > > > I seem to have read that Switzerland did indeed preserve > > > its @#$%neutrality*&^%$ by saying Yes to all, including > > > sheltering Nazi gold and stolen art. This is not exactly > > > "neutrality", but rather middle-man opportunism. > > > > Mistakes of individuals happened under the immense pressure > > of food and coal scarcity, stuck between the two Axis powers. > > (Also note the difference between private banks and a gov't.) > > But compare this to the actions of other neutral countries > > like Sweden (not between the two Axis powers) who supplied > > the _steel_ of which Nazi Germany built its tanks, warplanes, > > submarines, gunships etc., and violated international law > > by allowing Nazi _armed_forces_ to transit their "neutral" > > country (to occupy Norway). Everything is relative! > > How many people were killed by the armaments from Swedish > > steel, and how many people were killed by the stolen art? > > > > > > > I also seem to have heard that Switzerland's > > > border was not as "porous" for jews wishing to flee > > > THe Reich as the jews had hoped for. > > > > Oh really? In fact, the Jewish community in Zurich asked > > the Swiss authorities to take up _less_ Jewish refugees. > > (They preferred that they go directly to Palestine -- > > Zionism and all that, you know.) Anyway, Switzerland > > took up tens of thousands of them (with an own population > > of 4 million), despite extreme scarcity of food and other > > basic necessities, not to mention that this really > > pissed off Berlin, increasing the likelihood of > > German incursions into the flat areas of Switzerland. > > > > Compare that to the rest of Europe where the persecution > > and deportation of local Jews was either tolerated or > > actively participated in by the local population. > > Or compare it to America which rejected Jewish refugees > > by the shipload, despite having lots of resources and space > > and no imminent danger at all. > > > > I know it's really easy to pass judgement on the 1940s' > > Switzerland from your NY armchair in 2002, but please > > at least try to see the whole picture... > > > > Chris > > > > >
