I won't step into this dispute whole hog (sorry, Israel), but it's ridiculous to say that the term "kidnap" can only be accurately applied to children. There's certainly nothing in the legal definition of kidnapping that limits it in that fashion. Grown-ups can be kidnapped, and all too often are. One's great-great grandmother can indeed be kidnapped. To kidnap is simply to take someone against their will to an undisclosed location, generally to seek ransom (financial or other concessions) from those who are bothered by their absence (parents, spouses, governments, whatever). At least you haven't suggested the term should be limited to the abduction of young goats!

Are you referring to the X part of it? It's the "cross of saint Andrew" because he was crucified on an X shaped cross. Andrew (Peter's brother) is the patron saint of Scotland. After the English conquered Scotland they incorporated into their flag.

I think you're confusing "In God We Trust" of the Coinage Act of 1864 with the insertion of the "under God" phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge did not have it, but it was added during the early 1950s and you're right that it supported by the Knights of Columbus.

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

Mike Carlton is a respected Australian journalist and a gifted radio satirist. THis article published by "The Sydney Morning Herald" says some of what many of us would like to say.
Janet

Kevin Kevin Bo Bevin, Banana Fanna Fo Feven,

Having two distinct charges of wheedling pending, I thought I'd go for the hat trick. But you really need to find a synonym for "wheedling."

On to more weighty issues:

The insane assertion that Israel is a theocracy -- despite the influence of the religious parties in items such as marriages, divorces, "blue laws," etc. -- is once again, only valid in a vacuum. Christians - or Jews - can produce and sell unkosher food; Nobody is forced to pray in synagogues; there are no stonings of homosexuals, unless they happen to be driving on the sabbath in certain ultraorthadox neighborhoods (and it's the driving that does it, not the homosexuality). You're evidently of the opinion that if you say "theocracy" enough it's true. Well, it isn't.

But the insane assertion is itself beside the point. The U.S. does have a theocracy as an ally in the region, and it's not Israel. Saudi Arabia, home of the veil and the beheading, is a real theocracy.

Is your contention now that for Israel to have a right to self-defense, she must be a liberal democracy without parallel, without the faintest vestige of religion in the public sphere -- despite the contrary examples in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere?

Your fight against Zionism gains no credence from the baseless assertions that 1) Israel is a theocracy or 2) Israel must be measured against different standards than other democracies.

As for your flag-design skills, you may try running your alternatives past the Israeli government, to see which they like best. Be prepared to explain why religious and ethnic emblems are perfect for the flags of Europe and the Middle East, but are offensive if Jews use them.

You've trotted out one double-standard, and when it was unsuccessful, you explained through recourse to a second double standard, then gone on to say that crosses aren't really Christian, and "In God We Trust" does not really refer to God. Meanwhile, Israel is really a theocracy, even though she has secular laws and courts.

Your double standards are pure vintage antisemitism: a gentile can do thus, but a Jew can not. When a gentile is doing thus, he is not really doing it. A Jew is doing it even if he is "sort of" doing it, and we needn't dwell on definitional niceties. It's not politics, it's not poetry, it's just plain ugly.

I'm not going to belabor kidnapping versus capture in battle. Taking hostages for the express purpose of using them as bargaining chips -- not as a concommitant of battle -- is every bit as forbidden as U.S. drumhead trials for Gitmo inmates. If you are another of those "Geneva, Shmeneva" types, then of course terrorism itself is fine and dandy by you. Otherwise, the distinctions of just war doctrine must have meaning. Take your pick. Just don't get too excited about abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, if you believe the Geneva Conventions have no meaning in the Israeli context.

If Lebanon can not disband a militia -- as Lebanon's Prime Minister claims -- the obvious conclusion is they need a little help. Israel is providing it. More likely, Syria does not want a hand laid on Hezbollah. This, from a Lebanese perspective, carries a lot of weight, especially given Israel's absence from South Lebanon for six years. From the Israeli point of view, it does not matter which is the case. Lebanese forces are attacking Israel. Israel is responding. The fact that Lebanon has the option of moving against Hezbollah before it comes to this point is only important from a Lebanese perspective. When you allow rocket volleys against your neighbor's territory, it is an act of war. If your complaint is that you do not exercise sovereignty over those areas attacking your neighbor, you have no complaint if your neighbor assists you in fulfilling your international obligations.

Really nice try on the out-of-context smear.

First of all, “Never Forget” is not a national slogan of Israel. It is, if anything, best known as a slogan of Clan Campbell of Scotland in its Latin form, “Ne Obliviscaris” (Forget Not.) I know this because I researched the term for use on a medal issued in the United States.

“Never Again,” the phrase you’re probably thinking of, is also not a national slogan of Israel, at least not to my knowledge. It’s possible, of course, that an official document states otherwise. Regardless, the phrase is as appropriate as ever, as is evident by the faddish embracing of anti-Semitism by the political left so prominent in what I will generously term your own thought.

Once more:
What you’re suggesting is that a people’s refusal to die out, is an offense and a danger to those who would plan future exterminations.

In your world, it’s a two-edged sword to remember a tremendous wrong done in the past, because others will remember your pettiest mis-steps – such as defense of borders – as atrocities. In your world, because Israelis have suffered atrocities, any act of self-defense on the part of Israel can be considered an atrocity. Now that’s creepy.

Understand this, Kevin, and spread the word among those who share your views, demanding that Israel be “holier than thou,” “more secular than thou,” “more peaceful than thou,” etc.: Consistently choosing to make points regarding Israel’s cultural and religious identity, without considering the identities of other nations, clearly singles out that nation’s identity for special treatment. Ignoring the parallel cases of Christian and Muslim states, you attack the single Jewish state, not on political grounds, but on the grounds of its Jewishness.

This year, the symbol of the Magen David Adom – the Israeli equivalent to our “Red Cross” – was finally recognized by the international Red Cross. The Star of David – unlike the Red Crescent or Red Cross – must be surrounded by a second design.

Your anti-Semitism is similar to the IRC’s. I doubt you walk around with seething hatred for the Jew who is your friend or coworker. You do, however, accept the current fads among the left (of which I am a “member,” on other issues,) and come to anti-Semitic conclusions.
These conclusions are no less anti-Semitic because they are in vogue.

Since you are concerned about “wheedling implications,” Kevin, here is what you want. Your views are anti-Semitic, full stop. It’s not that you oppose Israel; it’s that you oppose Israel’s right to do what every other nation does, and you base your case on Israel’s specifically Jewish character (though it is no sin for a state to be of a Muslim or a Christian character.)

Yours in…

Oh that’s right.

Yours,
Dan

Ah, thanks. I knew they were responsible for one of them.

And thanks, also, for the help on the Cross of St. Andrew. We already know it repels Dan--even if it's only the symbol of the crucifixion of St. Peter's brother, as opposed to an upright Jesus-style crucifix--but does it repel vampires too? I'm asking because the St. Andrews cross is obviously incorporated into the Stars-and-Bars, so what would happen if Bo and Luke were to chase Dracula with the General Lee?

No, Kevin. Anti-Semitism repels me. Crosses don't repel me, unless they're presented along with a sermon against the display of the Mogen David. Or if you bend the ends at right angles. That bothers me too.

HUH??? Isn't it the Salvation Army which rings bells in front of the supermarkets? And isn't the Knights of Columbus a catholic organization which was founded by a catholic priest in 1882 to render financial aid and assistance to members and their families?

http://www.fathermcgivney.org/mcg/li...line/index.cfm

Just to further muddy these here waters.....Robert M. is entirely correct - "In God We Trust" first appeared on the U.S. 2cent coin in the year 1862, and shortly after that on all US minted coins ....a full twenty years before The Knights of Columbus even existed....and almost 3/4 of a century before McCarthism reared its ugly head and the K of C became involved in adding "Under God" (which is no way similar to the words "In God We Trust" other than both phrases happen to contain the word God...but then again, "goddamn you" and "godbless you" are equally similar but hardly anyone ever confuses the two) to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...we-trust.shtml

One of us is either playing with facts or is just plain confused here.....and I don't think it's me.

Lo

All militias, world wide, are criminal organizations and must be destroyed. A real military acts on the orders of a civilian government, but militias have no accountability and therefore are more akin to the Charles Manson 'family' or the Mafia: the McViegh / Nichols gang, the Crips, the Bloods, the KKK, the so-called Catholics and so-called Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hezbollah, all of them. I wonder how these 'tough guys' would handle a stroke?

Robert Meyer

ps: thanks Lo.

[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 28, 2006).]

Dan,

Entertainingly enough, I have here over my desk a 1920s OUIJA board that prominently displays <cite>both</cite> a cross with the ends bent at right angles <cite>and</cite> a Star of David. Back from the 1920s mind you, when the first symbol meant "Good Luck" and the second meant "Magic."

But symbolism and perception is what it's all about. I once had a housemate from Korea who walked out of her room wearing a necklace with a little gold charm in the shape of the same bent cross. I asked her what it meant and she promptly replied, "Good luck!" since it still means that in the East. I had to inform her that unfortunately it no longer meant that in the West, and she shouldn't wear it outside the house or some people would flip out.

As for double standards, I hold Israel to the same benchmark that, faddish liberal, I did with South Africa in the early 90s. I still remember getting flamed over the phone by some guy from the South African consulate over how the awful awful USA did not have socialized medicine, unlike the wonderful South Africa, even if they did have apartheid, and why was I concerning myself with some other country's business?

Of course disapproving of South Africa wasn't anti-semitic, since only Israel gets to hand out free anti-semitism cards if anyone dares to criticize its policies or politics.

With the Red Cross, I wasn't even aware that there'd been any trouble with having a red Star of David, since I'd seen that up on the wall of all the Red Cross locations here in California, along with the Red Crescent and the rest of the crew. Though looking it up on Wikipedia now, I do have to say that the new Red Crystal design does solve the problem of multiple symbols.

But anyway, back to the double standards. You want me to compare Israel to Saudi Arabia? Fine. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy with theocratic laws which could most charitably be described as pickled in amber since the 18th century. Women can't vote, not that there'd be much to vote for anyway, with a monarchy and clerics, and they can't drive either. No one in the west would want anything to do with Saudi Arabia except for all the oil wealth they have. But visit there let alone live there? Bwahaha! Surely you jest. Note: Special circumstances might make me visit, but still wouldn't want to live there.

Israel? Democracy set up with religious and racial limitations on immigration, the military and identity cards. Other than that, reasonably nice, apart from sporadic terrorism and continual border disputes. Know folk from there. As with most things, like the people, dislike the government. Would I visit? Have no plans or interest, but would change my mind for the right reasons.

The "crystal" or "diamond" or whatever the hell it is will now be put around the red cross and the red crescent as well, I assume? No? I see how this "solves the problem" as you see it.

So let's see, you were against Apartheid, where a government of whites ran a whole country for the benefit of a minority white population.

You are against Israel because a majority Jewish population shares in the government of a majority Jewish nation, with no restriction on Muslim or Christian voting rights.

No wait, I know. It's because Israel occupies areas which, when Israel leaves, attempts to murder her citizens.

No wait don't tell me...

Never mind, it's hard to expect logic regarding your hatred of Israel, given your first few attempts. I've seen enough of the ilk to get it... the argument doesn't need to hold water. It just needs to be in vogue.

Dan