Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[i]"Spain’s Catholic church has said it will investigate antisemitic rituals after an Israeli newspaper revealed that towns and villages continue to commemorate the “blood libel” that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals.
The libel, that dates back at least to the early middle ages, was used to justify the expulsion of Spain’s Jewish population in 1492.
One of the most notorious is that of the Santo Niño de La Guardia in Toledo in central Spain. The myth dates back to 1480 when a child from the village was allegedly abducted and murdered by Jews, although at the time no child was reported missing. Each September villagers carry an effigy of the child to the church where it is blessed by the clergy over the course of a five-day festival. The child is venerated as a saint.
Is this a myth?
"A primary on Tuesday in suburban Maryland is the latest where pro-Israel groups have stepped in to try to defeat a candidate who doesn’t conform to their views.
“Bernie and others need to accept the fact that the majority of progressive Democrats in America are pro-Israel,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the United Democracy Project, the nondescript name for a new political action committee affiliated with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Not so, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a progressive Jewish organization and foil for AIPAC, who maintains that politicians who support the Jewish state ignore the growing criticism of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza — especially among younger voters — at their peril."
"A primary on Tuesday in suburban Maryland is the latest where pro-Israel groups have stepped in to try to defeat a candidate who doesn’t conform to their views.
“Bernie and others need to accept the fact that the majority of progressive Democrats in America are pro-Israel,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the United Democracy Project, the nondescript name for a new political action committee affiliated with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Not so, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a progressive Jewish organization and foil for AIPAC, who maintains that politicians who support the Jewish state ignore the growing criticism of Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza — especially among younger voters — at their peril."
No, but that’s a very strange (and rather tone-deaf) response to a post about the blood libel, of all things. And while my politics don’t align with AIPAC’s viewpoints, it has amassed power and influence as a result of longstanding political savvy, which has begotten a very well-funded war chest. There is no underlying cabal or conspiracy.
No, but that’s a very strange (and rather tone-deaf) response to a post about the blood libel, of all things. And while my politics don’t align with AIPAC’s viewpoints, it has amassed power and influence as a result of longstanding political savvy, which has begotten a very well-funded war chest. There is no underlying cabal or conspiracy.
The post seemed about a little more to me that I am not tone deaf enough not to hear, and sometimes comments draw other comments that are either directly or indirectly related. Perhaps you are tone deaf to what you don't want to hear?
To avoid getting further into the politics of these comments either way, so as not to break the rules here, I'm not sure I can further respond to your comment other than to note that one man's "longstanding political savvy, which has begotten a very well-funded war chest" is another man's something else entirely. Not necessarily an "underlying cabal or conspiracy." That's more than a bit of a straw man argument all your own. Even you quickly replied "no" to my question about whether anyone was aware of these facts and truth (rather than myth). Having nothing to do with a cabal or conspiracy.
Looking to get back on topic, I searched for more about "Ben Franklin on Religion," and pardon me if this was already covered in this thread before, but speaking of myths, here's one I didn't know anything about. Until just now. Sometimes we do learn a little something while dabbling in this forum...
The myth that American founding father Benjamin Franklin (Jan. 17, 1706 to April 17, 1790) was antisemitic first emerged 87 years ago—144 years after his death—with the publication of a fraudulent and since then repeatedly discredited text commonly known as the “Franklin Prophecy.”
The post seemed about a little more to me that I am not tone deaf enough not to hear, and sometimes comments draw other comments that are either directly or indirectly related. Perhaps you are tone deaf to what you don't want to hear?
To avoid getting further into the politics of these comments either way, so as not to break the rules here, I'm not sure I can further respond to your comment other than to note that one man's "longstanding political savvy, which has begotten a very well-funded war chest" is another man's something else entirely. Not necessarily an "underlying cabal or conspiracy." That's more than a bit of a straw man argument all your own. Even you quickly replied "no" to my question about whether anyone was aware of these facts and truth (rather than myth). Having nothing to do with a cabal or conspiracy.
I agree that we shouldn’t take the thread further off-topic.
Focusing only on the religion aspect without getting into the geopolitical realm, I will just say that I explained the basis of my concerns. Whether you choose to acknowledge that you can and should have stated your point differently is up to you. Nonetheless, since we already went down the mulberry bush with these types of comments once before, and I ultimately accepted at face value that you meant no harm then, I won’t make any accusations now. But I still think it may behoove you to consider why your comment might stand out in a negative way to someone who doesn’t have the benefit of that history and context.
You’re welcome to discuss that off-line with me if you’d like. I’m fine either way.
I agree that we shouldn’t take the thread further off-topic.
Focusing only on the religion aspect without getting into the geopolitical realm, I will just say that I explained the basis of my concerns. Whether you choose to acknowledge that you can and should have stated your point differently is up to you. Nonetheless, since we already went down the mulberry bush with these types of comments once before, and I ultimately accepted at face value that you meant no harm then, I won’t make any accusations now. But I still think it may behoove you to consider why your comment might stand out in a negative way to someone who doesn’t have the benefit of that history and context.
You’re welcome to discuss that off-line with me if you’d like. I’m fine either way.
I can well accept and agree I can and should have stated my point differently, since obviously we all share a different knowledge and perspective about all this kind of thing, and no doubt I can always do a better job as a general rule.
That said, again I just also shared what I had recently read in the news, reminded by that news by the comment I replied to in this thread. What I posted was straight from the news source. Whether that sharing is received in a positive or negative way depends largely on the person doing the receiving. Much of which is out of my control. I do my best under the circumstances, and this would not be the first time my comment is received in a negative way. That happens with differing opinion and/or differing perspectives, quite often. I can always be more careful and do better however. No question.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt here in any case, because I can honestly and very sincerely say I NEVER mean to do any harm (beyond what a difference of opinion may bring). It's always about distilling the truth of these matters as I see them, and/or to provide some balancing of opinions and perspectives that tend to tilt one way or another in this forum. That and to enjoy some of the other forms of entertainment that can be had in this forum now and then.
Ben Franklin on religion. There is a God and God is to be worshipped.
The best way to worship God is by doing good deeds among your fellow humans.
Doctrinal differences do not matter so long as you are doing good deeds among humans.........................
Many churches still to this day do great feats of charity, because that is how you truly honor God.
Yipes, even an atheist can do good deeds among fellow humans.
However, No atheist is going to tell others about the good news (gospel) of God's Kingdom - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
'feats of charity' can be done by anyone is showing 'practical love' for others, ( even as the good Samaritan did ) but ' Christian charity', so to speak, includes doing 'spiritual activities' as Jesus instructed for Christians to do - Matthew 28:18-20
Yipes, even an atheist can do good deeds among fellow humans.
However, No atheist is going to tell others about the good news (gospel) of God's Kingdom - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
'feats of charity' can be done by anyone is showing 'practical love' for others, ( even as the good Samaritan did ) but ' Christian charity', so to speak, includes doing 'spiritual activities' as Jesus instructed for Christians to do - Matthew 28:18-20
I think it's a good deed not to be telling others about the good news (gospel) of God's Kingdom, because much of that sort of thing has caused a great deal of conflict on this planet for a long time now. Another example of how "yipes, even an atheist can do good deeds among fellow humans" far as I'm concerned. Thanks for that.
I think it's a good deed not to be telling others about the good news (gospel) of God's Kingdom, because much of that sort of thing has caused a great deal of conflict on this planet for a long time now. Another example of how "yipes, even an atheist can do good deeds among fellow humans" far as I'm concerned. Thanks for that.
Exactly. Because to do so is, in reality, talking down to people. There are about 20 churches in my community, almost all of which have their advertising sign out front...some with all sorts of flashing electronic messages...and we non-believers are intelligent enough to read those signs and visit, if we wish. Our weekly local newspaper has more than a whole page of ads from those same (and more) local churches. We can read those ads and make a contact, if we wish. We can look churches up online, if we wish. There are plenty of books in the bookstores and libraries about various religions, including christianity, that we can consult, if we wish. We don't need to be told the 'good news'. If we're interested, we can easily seek and find, if we wish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
