🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr13012616@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# 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)

	Your guess is correct.

# non-imperial
# power in modern history are you comparing Israel to?
 
	All of them (which means any Middle Eastern country that has
controlled it).
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu