Source - http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...on-old-city-clergymen-becoming-daily-1.393669 Excerpts: "When Narek Garabedian came to Israel to study in the Armenian Seminary in Jerusalem half a year ago, he did not expect the insults, curses and spitting he would be subjected to daily by ultra-Orthodox Jews in the streets of the Old City."When I see an ultra-Orthodox man coming toward me in the street, I always ask myself if he will spit at me," says Narek, a Canadian Armenian" ""It happens a lot," says Archbishop Aristarchos, the chief secretary of the patriarchate. "You walk down the street and suddenly they spit at you for no reason." Spitting on Christians is a tradition practised by Ultra Orthodox Jews, this has been going on for years and is on the rise. How many people even know that this occurs in Israel? I'm wondering though, what if it was Muslims that spat on Christians on a daily basis? I bet that the media would give it more coverage, magnify it, they would generalise and talk about how intolerant and uncivilized ALL Muslims are.
So there should be No Spitting on sides of Jews - Christians - Muslims Put a NO SPITTING LAW like Singapore where various cultures live together.
This is only practised by Jewish radical extremists, the victims are mainly Christians. Its common sense not to spit on others, the act of spitting on Christians for being Christian is on the rise, the Israeli government must do more than what they doing currently (if they are doing anything at all). Naama Margolese was spit on for dressing in an immodest way by Jewish Extremists, she says: "“When I walk to school in the morning I used to get a tummy ache because I was so scared ... that they were going to stand and start yelling and spitting,†More on the story: [video=youtube;9U2M6vsMy48]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9U2M6vsMy48[/video]
I love how dedicated you are to trying to make Muslims look better by making Jews look bad. You must have fun scouring the Israeli news. Anyway, any time the absurdity of the extreme religious is pointed out and mocked is a good thing. So, yeah, these spitters are fools who should be stopped. Not as bad as say stoning a witch or adulterer, but nonetheless something that should be stopped.
The old "you are trying to make Jews look bad", when is to going to stop? If you are Jewish, you should be ashamed of these people who spit on innocent Christians, condemn them and be silent, its useless to accuse those that are sharing information like this to be attempting to "make Jews look bad", these extremists Jews are the ones that make Jews look bad.
I think all the religious people should be spit on equally for their stupidity, no discrimination. LOL.
This is basically because you tend to side with Muslims over all others in such ways as defending Sharia Law and the Quran over all other books of faith. It's no secret where you stand. You can come across as bashing other cultures and religions while defending your own. Jewish people that aren't fundamentalists are more than likely ashamed of such acts. This is something that involves radicals and is not something of the norm.
One radical moron, who gets angry, loses his mind and spits on people. Other radical moron, who gets angry, loses his mind and blows himself and people. Hmmm... tough call, isn't it?
It is an interesting difference isn't it. It would appear the Jewish morons make up a smaller percentage of their population, though equally despicable IMO. More humor from the holy land. [video=youtube;5RnVfXFd5MU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RnVfXFd5MU[/video]
Very good point. Spitting vs. suicide bombing and killing several people. I'm weighing. Still weighing because it's such a tough call. It's funny how in other countries people can speak their mind through actions and get things done in some cases, but if this were to happen in the U.S. these guys would have already been tear gased and/or pepper sprayed, shot with rubber bullets, tackled, beaten, and jailed before something was even thrown. The U.S. doesn't allow for any protests other than some sign in a "designated" safe area out of sight. Safe for whom I wonder?
I like that protesting with brooms. Protest, swing those brooms. Smack some people. Sweep, sweep, sweep. Clean up after yourself. Protest some more. Bash a few heads w/ brooms. Sweep, clean, sweep, clean. Tremendously efficient. Hope that spreads around the world!!!
You think these priests are protesting? They are fighting over who can lead the church or something like that.
Not them. I was more referring to Western European nations that protest and actually change things when the policies are either stifling or counter productive I was simply pointing out the fact that this country was founded on protest and revolution and ironically, protest is the thing that we seem to stifle the most. Feel free to hold that sign quietly in protest, but please do it within these daytime hours and in these specific zones that are out of the way of everyone and their line of sight. Also don't make a fuss or we'll be 'forced' to take extreme measures including but not limited to pepper spraying, rubber bullets, beatings, and jail time.
You must be referring to Occu-poo. The Tea-Party managed to protest and completely change the direction of our government in about 18 months. No arrests. No rubber bullets, beatings, or jail time. Its simply a matter of tactics. The tea-party became a nuisance to their congressional representatives. Occu-poo(the flea party) became a nuisance to the general public. There is also the issue of how your message gets delivered. Occu-poo used the people's microphone to drown out dissenting opinion. They used non-violent means to step on the rights of others, who are also entitled to use places like Zucotti park, and the park surrounding the Los Angeles Mayors office. Rumor has it Occu-poo even went so far as to try to claim title to Zucotti park via squatters rights/adverse possession. Ignoring the defacing of private property in Oakland, and the burning vehicles, the "non-violent" thug techniques to step on the opinions and rights of others are the very reason we have a police force. Beyond that, lets be honest about the message. Occu-poo wants to move towards socialism and does not favor smaller government. Looking at the deficit, that view is in the extreme minority, whether or not you call yourself the 99%.
Actually, I wasn't referring to Occupy at all. I was thinking more along the lines of the small riotous acts that have occurred in Europe that I have seen. Most recently were the students in France that were protesting the pension reform. They rioted a bit and the reform was revoked. Change was made. Many times the politicians don't have the constituents they're supposed to serve at heart when they make their policies. It's evidenced in their greed and pork policies that benefit corporations more than the people. And I wouldn't say that anything has changed by way of reform. This is evidenced by further negative policy such as the newly passed NDAA which now makes it possible for the government to authorize the military to apprehend any American citizen anywhere in the world, including here in the U.S., whether in your home or not, without due process or trial and detain indefinitely just for being suspected of anything remotely terroristic. It has basically rounded out the Patriot Act so that now even more freedoms are being trampled such as the Bill of Rights. So this is less about Occupy and more about freedoms, rights, and the ability to protest.
So you aren't talking about Occupy. Who are you talking about then? I'm trying to recall the last round of protests that was met with rubber bullets, pepper spray, or jail time. Don't recall any of that at any Tea Party protests, and there were many. Here you also mention rioting, vs your previous post which mentioned holding signs. Do you think rioting should be a right? Do you think rioting should be a means by which we change policy in America, as you claimed it did in France? I'm struggling to understand how rioting for benefits is not extortion. Would it be acceptable, in your opinion, for a group of people who were being laid off from a private company to riot until they got their jobs back? How bout rioting for pay raises?
This story has finally reached CNN, better late than never: [video=youtube;Yq8twVXl4GI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq8twVXl4GI&feature=related[/video]
I think you're not understanding the original point I was making. I give a full roundabout then from start to finish on the whole point, not just pointing out each individual post. Basically, I am saying that in Europe, they actually protest and riot a bit when policies are truly bad, not just something as superficial as a few people losing their job or wanting a raise. While losing a job is bad, it's not a policy that affects the entire nation or state. So with that in mind, I was referring to the fact that if you even peacefully protest here, you get pepper sprayed, jailed, beaten, etc. I was pointing out the difference. It is said that the government should fear the people as that is the ultimate check on corruption and excess of power for the wrong ends. I also stated that this country was founded upon protest, revolt, and revolution, yet it's ironic that it's stifled now to the point that even peaceful protest is frowned upon and unnecessary means are taken to stifle it. Do you think it would have worked if the colonists would have held up some signs saying they didn't like the ridiculous taxes the English kept imposing? Maybe would have ended a bit differently. I feel that protest is a human right, more so than a national right. People should stand up against injustice and bad policy. I'm not saying that there should be full scale riots, but just trying to "vote someone out" after more years of dealing with their ridiculous policies or holding some signs doesn't always work. I'm just stating that Americans have been much, much more pacified compared to their European counterparts.
So if I am understanding you correctly here, I think your answer to my question of it being OK to riot for benefits is "Yes". Are you familiar with the riots in France, regarding who was rioting and why? If so, I'm scratching my head as to how you came to be under the impression that the french policies were at odds with more than 30% of the population. As an anology, lets say that 15% of America are racist crackers running meth labs and living on government assistance. Are you asserting that, if that 15% gets out and sets enough private and public property on fire, the government should give them whatever they are demanding? Again, can you cite an example where reasonable peaceful protest in the US has been met with the above punitave actions, without citing Occu-poo, which has been unreasonable for the reasons I cited earlier? I find it interesting that, in this quote, you comingle the words "protest" and "revolution". Lets be honest. Every country is founded on a revolution. Once there is popular support, specifically from the middle class revolution becomes possible. Most of the Occu-pooers don't get that concept and can't figure out why their popularity level is under 20%. If what you are asking for is the right to "peacefully revolt", you are asking for an oxymoron. In the US, you are welcome to protest all you like, but fomenting revolution outside the structure for change built into our democracy will unquestionably earn you jail time, and rightly so. Every time I see Occu-poo crash a private event and try to disrupt it by shouting everyone down, I have to say, it brings a smile to my face when the cops show up and present the protesters with a night in jail, a year's worth of legal bills and a misdameanor level arrest on their permanent record. Not sure who came up with the brilliant idea that oppressing other people's rights would earn them public support. Of course it does, so long as the change you are asking for is popular. As I mentioned earlier, the Tea party demonstrated the power of effecting change within the scope of the system in a very big way 14 months, ago, and they will do it again next November. The purging of the Republican party is only half complete. Asking for a big government that takes from those who work and gives to those who don't, on the other hand, is asking for something that is basically unamerican. Asking for more money from taxpayers to support special interests such as government pensions which are already two times the equivalent private sector package is the antithesis of asking bad policies to be changed that "effect everyone". When you can't get popular support for your ideas, you are absolutely right in saying that holding a sign until you turn blue will have no effect whatsoever. Rioting is one alternative, though I would recommend the sale and transport of illicit drugs, or bank robbery as more productive and viable alternatives. Absolutely. Now do you feel it is your right to take up living in a public park meant for families and other people to enjoy as well, without having to deal with an unsightly mess?