I suggest "Kahane vs. Alan Dershowitz" for starters. It's amazing how the issues discussed are as relevant today as then.
http://kahane.hostultra.com/
http://kahane.hostultra.com/
Uncomfortable Questions For Comfortable Jews
- Thread starter sunnyskies
- Start date
I donât agree with rabbi Kahane----idea of a Israel government based on Halakha ---like dershowitz statement----âthere are more non- orthodox in Israelâ. yes the problem Jewish low birth rate is big. Kahane I agree today(as yesterdayâbefore death) would be a minority(as stated by alan)-----great come back by Kahane---all Jews are a minority-----like a boxing match----two heavy weights champions of debate. State of Israel exists because some Jews assured the rest of us, against the judgment of most of the greatest rabbis, that they were going to build the promised state-----so all support of Israel have a stick (my non-Jew friend).someday there maybe a problem with Israel not have a Constitution.----but only in a jewish state of Israel will there be a church, a Mosque and a Shuls---next together in some kind of peace. Great debate like an episode âback to the futureâ.
good day
good day
Rabbi Kahane doesn't want a western influence on his culture and country, I thoroughly understand. He doesn't really want a secular democracy from what I have heard, he wants a theocracy first, and democracy second if the democracy works.
I support him in his personal beliefs 100%.
Accordingly, let's withdraw all our economic support and aid for Israel immediately, and discontinue polluting Israel with our western funding.
p.s. It is not difficult at all to understand after listening to the emotion filled rhetoric from both sides, why fundamentalist jews and fundamentalist arabs have been at each other's throats for centuries....
I support him in his personal beliefs 100%.
Accordingly, let's withdraw all our economic support and aid for Israel immediately, and discontinue polluting Israel with our western funding.
p.s. It is not difficult at all to understand after listening to the emotion filled rhetoric from both sides, why fundamentalist jews and fundamentalist arabs have been at each other's throats for centuries....
Quote from GIDEONSPY:
I donât agree with rabbi Kahane----idea of a Israel government based on Halakha ---like dershowitz statement----âthere are more non- orthodox in Israelâ. yes the problem Jewish low birth rate is big. Kahane I agree today(as yesterdayâbefore death) would be a minority(as stated by alan)-----great come back by Kahane---all Jews are a minority-----like a boxing match----two heavy weights champions of debate. State of Israel exists because some Jews assured the rest of us, against the judgment of most of the greatest rabbis, that they were going to build the promised state-----so all support of Israel have a stick (my non-Jew friend).someday there maybe a problem with Israel not have a Constitution.----but only in a jewish state of Israel will there be a church, a Mosque and a Shuls---next together in some kind of peace. Great debate like an episode âback to the futureâ.
good day
I've read through a few dozen pages of Kahane material. He DID advocate stopping Israel's receipt of all foreign aid. He also argued for a strict Israeli Jewish theocracy- something which would ruin the lives of secular Israeli Jews, who represent over 75% of Israel's Jewish population... not to mention our allies the Israeli Druze, who number 100,000.
In 1990, R. Kahane was murdered in New York by Al-Qaida. This thrilled Liberals at the time. Their jubilation wore off a bit three years later, when the same Al-Qaida terror cell bombed the World Trade Center.
It is a very difficult and very complicated situation, because the underlying conflict is one of religious beliefs, not something that is ever going to be solved with reason and common sense of the style that Dershowitz was arguing for, until secular reasoning for daily living and society is elevated above the feelings that come from religious practice.
I don't cheer his or anyone's death.
There is plenty of room for a hateful God in a hateful heart, there is no room for a loving God in a hateful heart....
We could try to discuss these issues with reason, but I doubt that is possible until you could achieve some condition of objectivity.
This is not to say you are wrong and I am right, nor the reverse. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and there will not likely be agreement between us one some fundamental issues no matter what you or I say.
The reason for this is easily seen, as religion goes deeper than reason for most people, as it should in one's personal life. A contract and covenant with God is always more important than any secular agreement...but until such time that we can build sufficient fences that allow groups to be protected from outside influence to live as they want to live with their own beliefs, and at the same time have those fences open up sufficiently to have international trade and relationships which we all need as an evolving world, there has to be more and more compromise from both sides...which is quite difficult when both sides are inherently both so emotional and stubborn in their positions.
I don't cheer his or anyone's death.
There is plenty of room for a hateful God in a hateful heart, there is no room for a loving God in a hateful heart....
We could try to discuss these issues with reason, but I doubt that is possible until you could achieve some condition of objectivity.
This is not to say you are wrong and I am right, nor the reverse. I have my beliefs, you have yours, and there will not likely be agreement between us one some fundamental issues no matter what you or I say.
The reason for this is easily seen, as religion goes deeper than reason for most people, as it should in one's personal life. A contract and covenant with God is always more important than any secular agreement...but until such time that we can build sufficient fences that allow groups to be protected from outside influence to live as they want to live with their own beliefs, and at the same time have those fences open up sufficiently to have international trade and relationships which we all need as an evolving world, there has to be more and more compromise from both sides...which is quite difficult when both sides are inherently both so emotional and stubborn in their positions.
You know, when you refrain from rabid flaming and name calling,
as demonstrated in the above post, you sound...well....almost human.
1. American economic support for Israel is the will of the AMERICAN people.-------ok---------if you donât like it------go complain to your congressman---thereâs been a few anti-Israel congressman-----not reelected so there goes your responds from your congressman and the American people.
2. Western influence------go preach that to your homicide bomber
3. at least rabbi Kahane was debated in a public forum-----I donât see any Moslem cleric debating OSAMA .
4. I donât agree with rabbi kahane Ideology-----but if he was alive today-----even you could have had the chance to debate him.-----go try that with some Moslem cleric----I donât think so!----with civility.
1. The American people are woefully uneducated of the entire story of the conflict between the warring forces in the middle east. It is my opinion that we need to put the blinders of secular justice on and take off the blinders of religious preference in our policy.
2. I have no homicide bomber friends.
You are becoming irrational with your statements.
3. I give credit to the Rabbi for debating, though I doubt seriously he paid any attention to any of Dershowitz's arguments. Reason and common sense fall on deaf ears of religious fundamentalists, be they Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist.
I don't support Bin Laden's action at all, though I do understand the type of political powerlessness that leads to those actions.
4. I believe debating either would be pointless in any attempt to sway their opinion.
The only value in a real and genuine debate is for the listeners who still have an open mind on a subject.
Solutions to conflict have to start with basic agreements first, then build slowly step by step on those agreements so that enough compromise can be reached for an eventual solution.
When reason can dominate, that is possible.
When emotions dominate, it is a lost cause.
As religion is a non rational process, it must be put into its proper place during these discussions, or everything else is just a spiritual pissing contest.
2. I have no homicide bomber friends.
You are becoming irrational with your statements.
3. I give credit to the Rabbi for debating, though I doubt seriously he paid any attention to any of Dershowitz's arguments. Reason and common sense fall on deaf ears of religious fundamentalists, be they Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist.
I don't support Bin Laden's action at all, though I do understand the type of political powerlessness that leads to those actions.
4. I believe debating either would be pointless in any attempt to sway their opinion.
The only value in a real and genuine debate is for the listeners who still have an open mind on a subject.
Solutions to conflict have to start with basic agreements first, then build slowly step by step on those agreements so that enough compromise can be reached for an eventual solution.
When reason can dominate, that is possible.
When emotions dominate, it is a lost cause.
As religion is a non rational process, it must be put into its proper place during these discussions, or everything else is just a spiritual pissing contest.
Quote from GIDEONSPY:
1. American economic support for Israel is the will of the AMERICAN people.-------ok---------if you donât like it------go complain to your congressman---thereâs been a few anti-Israel congressman-----not reelected so there goes your responds from your congressman and the American people.
2. Western influence------go preach that to your homicide bomber friends.
3. at least rabbi Kahane was debated in a public forum-----I donât see any Moslem cleric debating OSAMA .
4. I donât agree with rabbi kahane Ideology-----but if he was alive today-----even you could have had the chance to debate him.-----go try that with some Moslem cleric----I donât think so!----with civility.
Sometimes I choose to rise above the audience, sometimes I choose to meet them on their own level.
Believing I can match them at any level, it really becomes their decision, not mine.
Actually, it makes so little difference in a forum like this.
Whether one hears someone delicately say "I need to defecate" or if they hear the same person say "I gotta take a shit" it all comes through the very same digestive process.....
Believing I can match them at any level, it really becomes their decision, not mine.
Actually, it makes so little difference in a forum like this.
Whether one hears someone delicately say "I need to defecate" or if they hear the same person say "I gotta take a shit" it all comes through the very same digestive process.....
2...My apology ---didnât meant to write that -----I was referring in comparing the action (which I donât agree) Jews and fundamentalist Arabs-----to comparing them is cloud judgment.
3.what?----terrorism should not be a political tool---ok----
4.i think you mistaken ---about removing emotions from the debate------if two civil and peaceful debaters ,nothing wrong with debating with emotion(with they didnât)-----so genocide and slavery debate---donât spark emotions?