Finally - Religious Brotherhood Achieved in Middle East

Politics International Politics
1

[quote]Religious leaders met on Wednesday in Jerusalem in a united protest against a gay pride festival planned there in August. From left: Sheik Abed es- Salem Menasra, deputy mufti of Jerusalem; the Rev. Michel Sabbagh, the Latin patriarch; the Rev. Aris Shirvanian, the Armenian patriarch; Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic chief rabbi; and Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Ashkenazi chief rabbi. The man at right was not identified.

…

International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions.

Now major leaders of the three faiths - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - are making a rare show of unity to try to stop the festival. They say the event would desecrate the city and convey the erroneous impression that homosexuality is acceptable.

“They are creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable,” Shlomo Amar, Israel’s Sephardic chief rabbi, said yesterday at a news conference in Jerusalem attended by Israel’s two chief rabbis, the patriarchs of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian churches, and three senior Muslim prayer leaders. “It hurts all of the religions. We are all against it.”

Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik, added: “We can’t permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty. This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem.”

Israeli authorities have not indicated what action, if any, they might take to limit the events. Banning the festival would seem unlikely, though the government could withhold the required permits for specific events, like a parade.[/quote]

Now there’s an understatement.

But if that’s what it takes to bring peace in the Middle East… It’s so heartwarming to see people who’ve been killing each other for decades, all come together to stand against people they hate even more.

2

Which just goes to show that Bush was correct to fear that al Qaeda and the Baathists might get together to cooperate against the US… :slight_smile:

Great post, BTW!

3

Maybe they will all realize that the true enemy is not the US, but the gays. Nothing like finding a common enemy…one who can’t bomb you! :unamused:

Hmm…does this mean Jerusalem will go the way of Sodom? Fire and brimstone? Well, at least that would solve the debate about where to place the capital of Palestine… :slight_smile:

4

So, looking at the subject and then relating your response to it, are you saying that Al Qaeda is a religious group, like those mentioned in the article?

5

So, looking at the subject and then relating your response to it, are you saying that Al Qaeda is a religious group, like those mentioned in the article?[/quote]

It depends on what you mean by “like those”.

Like those groups identified in the article, al Qaeda is a religious group. Unlike those groups identified in the article, al Qaeda uses terrorism to further its goals.

But, this is not really relevant to my point about parties that are normally enemies coming together against a third party that they both dislike.

6

Perfect place to hold a gay festival, IMO … there are some really HOT* Palestinian boys … I knew one back in college, probably one of the best-looking guys I’ve ever met. :rainbow:

7

Not to mention some beautiful Israeli lesbians…Shalom the beavers :bravo:

8

Yasser must be turning in his grave :s

9

:astonished: He was buried with his favorite bodyguard?

10

Thanks for the clarification Tigerman, but I think your point is moot for the following reason(s):

[quote=“Tigerman”]It depends on what you mean by “like those”.

Like those groups identified in the article, al Qaeda is a religious group. Unlike those groups identified in the article, al Qaeda uses terrorism to further its goals.[/quote]

Someone could easily pull out an example of enemies disagreeing and thus make the point that ‘parties that are normally enemies’ might not come together. Both points might be equally valid but only in a very general or simplified manner. In fact you can make both statements without comparing them to anything, so they are actually meaningless in relation to the article above.

If we look at your comparision more closely than it becomes obvious your argument is not only oversimplified but in fact nowhere does it support the conclusion that Bush was correct:

  1. The keymessage is ‘Interfaith agreement is unusual in Israel.’ This does not mean that interfaith agreement did not happen before nor that it did/does not happen in other places.
    However, most certainly it does not allow the conclusion that the agreement reported applies to any other case of any two parties anywhere in the world.
  2. Are the religious groups in Israel ‘enemies’, like Baathist and Al Qaeda, just because they happen to disagree from time to time?
  3. Baathist are a political party, not a religious group
  4. Al Qaeda is AFAIK not a religious group either, it’s a terrorist group that uses religion to excuse/justify their actions. Though they do support religious extremists they are first and foremost a terrorist group, not a ‘religous group’.
  5. Even Al Qaeda would qualify as religious group their leaders are not appointed or elected as represantatives of Islam, not in a specific country nor worldwide (as compared to those mentioned in the article that are appointed or elected for their respective religions in Israel).

Futher the article said the parties reached an agreement by opposing the gay festival, in case of Al Qaeda and Baathist you are talking about a (possible) cooperation with intent to kill.
Please note the distinction between agreement and cooperation: As the article mentioned the parties in agreement are not those that make the decision if the festival will be held nor is it said that they will cooperate by e.g. seeking to attack a certain group of people (as what Al Qaeda and Baathist would do were they to cooperate as Bush feared).

It might not relevant to your point but then neither is your point relevant to the subject of this discussion, IMHO.
*)

*) Note that I hereby do not intend to qualify your post as being disruptive or negative in any other sense, I am merely opposing your argument and it’s validity as part of the discussion.

11

After reading your comments Rascal, I just came to one conclusion. You have never been to the Middle East have you. Please let me know. Have you ever been to the Middle East even once? If so, when and where and for how long?

12

I said that Bush was correct to fear that certain enemies might come together…

How can you argue that Bush was incorrect to fear something?

13

[quote]I said that Bush was correct to fear that certain enemies might come together…

How can you argue that Bush was incorrect to fear something?[/quote]
I argued that your conclusion (of Bush being correct), reached on the above article, is incorrect. See the difference?

14

[quote=“Rascal”][quote]I said that Bush was correct to fear that certain enemies might come together…

How can you argue that Bush was incorrect to fear something?[/quote]
I argued that your conclusion (of Bush being correct), reached on the above article, is incorrect. See the difference?[/quote]

It wasn’t my conclusion. It was my opinion.

15

Ok, then your opinion is incorrect. :unamused: