🚀 go-pugleaf

[Sorry about replying in many small snippets.  Blame my news software.]
In article <1992Apr12.014433.29249@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr10223708@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # >   # And in my admittedly insufficient reading, Jerusalem was free for
>   # >   # worship to all faiths under British rule.
>
>   # >	   Jerusalem may have been, but certain places outside of Jerusalem
>   # >   were not.
>
>   # Backpedaling.  So Israel is _not_ the first power to administer
>   # Jerusalem and allow freedom of religious expression.  What were these
>   # "certain places"?
>
>	   Certain areas in what is now Judea and Samaria.  However, Israel
>   is the first local non imperial "power" to allow freedom of religious
>   expression.

You sure can be vague when you want to be.  ("Certain areas" in this
case means uncertain areas.)  I will take that as a sign that you
don't know what you are talking about.

Now as for the rest of your claim, it is so restrictive as to be
meaningless.  Jerusalem has been under the control of various
non-local governments for centuries.  Just which government are you
comparing the present Israeli government with?  Not the British
government.  Not the Ottoman Empire.  Not the Crusaders.  Not the
Byzantine Empire.  Not the Roman Empire.  Not the Babylonians.  Not
the Assyrians.  Perhaps the ancient Israelites, who were local after a
fashion, and were hardly religiously tolerant.

You also seem to forget that when the Moslems took over Jerusalem from
the Byzantine empire about 640 AD, one of the first things they did
was to let the Jews back into Jerusalem.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)