🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr12.071917.2928@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr12012706@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # >	   However, Israel
>   # >   is the first local non imperial "power" to allow freedom of religious
>   # >   expression.
>
>   # 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.

>	   How petty can you get?  Fine.  I will amend my statement to be for
>   modern history.  Capish?

You still haven't answered the question.  Let me summaraze what I
think you are saying: "Israel is the first local non-imperial power in
modern history to allow freedom of religious expression."

My question is: What other local (to Jerusalem, I guess) non-imperial
power in modern history are you comparing Israel to?

--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)