🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr14171250@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# In article <1992Apr14.185225.23291@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <JIME.92Apr14122236@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# >   # In article <1992Apr14.054637.25386@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   # >   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.  ...

# >   # >   # >	   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?

# >   # >	   All of them (which means any Middle Eastern country that has
# >   # >   controlled it).

# >   # Yet again, you haven't answered the question.  Why do you avoid it so?

# >	   You are being dishonest here.  It is obvious that even you
# >   recognize that I answered, and did not avoid, your question.  You just
# >   do not like my answer because it was not specific enough for you.

# >   # Name the countries individually, please.

# >	   How about these two?  The Ottomans and Jordan.

# Finally.  Now, unfortunately the Ottoman Empire is definitely not
# non-imperial, so it doesn't satisfy your criteria.  Furthermore, the
# Ottomans _did_ allow relative freedom of religion in Jerusalem during
# their jurisdiction, so your claim about them is basically wrong.

	FIne.  Whatever you say.  You are being ridiculous and bringing up
minor issues that obscure the main point.  Israel brought religious
freedom where it did not exist.

# That leaves Jordan.  And it should be clear that as Jordan never ruled
# all of Jerusalem, your claim is not strictly correct.  Aside from that
# nitpick, though, your original all-encompassing claim of "Israel is
# the first power to allow freedom of religious expression in
# Jerusalem" has been reduced to "Israel allows freedom of religious
# expression in Jerusalem, while Jordan didn't in the part of Jerusalem
# it administered."  Somehow the sweeping generalization has lost its
# punch in the light of reality.

	You are being asinine.  Jordan controlled the parts of Jerusalem
that contained the holyiest sites.  Stop nitpicking to obscure the
issue.

# Next, perhaps someone should post some comments on the religious
# restrictions placed on Jews in East Jerusalem during the Jordanian
# tenure.  I would find this an interesting topic.

	There were no Jews there to permit restrictions on.  The
Jordanians killed off or expelled all of them.  Then they proceeded to
desecrate Jewish holy sites.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu