A country haunted by demons L.: Score 0 for Israel due to the lack of religious freedom for non-Orthodox Jews. In the report summarizing the state of religious freedom in 2010

133 תגובות

1. Michael,
   There was no attempt here to make fun of what you wrote. Maher is indeed funny, but this passage hits home and completely ridicules those who claim that the secular way of life is a religion, which is why I brought the passage.
   It's not that we don't have principles, we do (and how are those who try to claim that secularism is a different kind of religion) but the difference is that we are always ready to examine our principles and change our minds, if new information arrives.

2. Shmulik:
   Maher is funny but I wrote about it seriously.

3. point,
   Whenever someone threatens to turn secularism into a religion or atheism into a religion I always refer to Bill Maher's masterful passage. He says everything
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc

4. In other words: they see that you are in favor of drugs

5. Maybe yes, maybe not, but sure May he laugh and you You did not read the article.
   Otherwise you wouldn't say that the story of the woman who prayed at the Western Wall is the reason why CIRI gave Israel a score of zero.

6. I just read the whole thread, it's entertaining... I won't touch the whole thread just the article itself.
   There was someone here, his name was Yitzhak, he said something very nice and true about the article, but no one bothered to respond to him..
   In short and to the point, it goes like this:
   Is the arrest of a woman who prayed at the Western Wall in a way other than hers, Mercifully, (Talit, etc.) comparable to the arrest of a man who prayed to the Buddha in Mecca (this city with that big stone that Muslims stab themselves when they walk around it)?
   Or maybe it can be compared to not taking off your shoes at the entrance to an Indian mosque/temple?
   A kiss on the Ganges?
   Is it possible to compare the previous cases demonstrated to the arrest of a person who prayed in his own way just like that in his home? Or - for the sake of extremism - he urinated on the holy books in his home?
   The state (whatever it is) got a score of 0 because it arrested a person who did a provocative act in a sensitive place known as a pre-explosive zone.... Can it be attributed a serious meaning?
   I'm sorry, but to say that there is no religious freedom in Israel (or the degree of freedom of religion = 0) because of extreme cases such as the arrest of a woman who prayed in an explosively volatile area... it requires a lot of drugs.
   Now don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favor of drugs, but guys... it's probably not doing you any good, enough.

7. Even a red light in Israel is only a recommendation (slow down).

8. A ban on advertising in Israel is only a recommendation.

9. Logic in its embodiment:
   "In prisons there are blatant displays of homosexuality and bisexuality and they don't make it a homophobic matter"
   Nice!
   Of course they also eat meat there and yet they don't call themselves vegetarians.

   I have come across internal information that changes the picture substantially and confirms my words even more, but unfortunately, its publication is still prohibited.

10. jubilee
    I take my words back and apologize to Jack Title and the religious, in this case.
    It turns out that these gays are no less delusional than the religious ones.
    And I will add my private opinion: if I were in the place of Hagai F. I would think of doing the same.
    The only morality I identify with in this case is the same morality dictated by the Jewish religion.
    But I don't think so because of religion. This is my opinion because I was born this way and I really feel disgusted with such people.
    One more thing (in the context of "skeptic"):
    I happened to sit in prison for 4 months, and I did not encounter any homosexual disclosure there. Maybe there was and I didn't notice, but in my opinion there is no connection between criminals and homophobia. And also between religion and homophobia. In my opinion (this is how I feel) it is an innate feeling of aversion to everything that is foreign to you (to your body; for that matter).

11. safkan,
    M-Y-K-A-L's theory is not delusional, because:
    a) He brings a reference from the sources.
    b) It is known about executions of homosexuals according to religious orders originating in our holy books (in Iran, in the name of the Koran, which took a great deal from the Torah of Moses).

    But what is true is that this theory does not seem to me to be relevant to this particular case.

12. jubilee

    The killer did not act for homophobic reasons and certainly not for religious reasons. He is a criminal who does not put sex on religion, he acted out of respect among criminals. In prisons there are blatant displays of homosexuality and bisexuality and they do not make it a homophobic matter.

    On the other hand, criminals with weapons are able to murder easily in matters of honor, we have seen how criminals kill for a debt of NIS 1000 or someone cursed them and put them in an unpleasant situation in front of friends. That is what happened.

    The senior member of the gay-lesbian community humiliated brother B in one way or another. Felician and the older brother Hagi planned to take revenge on the senior. When he did not find the senior on Saturday night, he got angry and took revenge on those who seemed to him to be collaborators of the senior. A youth bar is a bar whose purpose, among other things, and perhaps mainly, is a bar for the purpose of sexual encounters. Everyone who was in the bar was in Hagai's view collaborating with the senior.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the 26-year-old guide who was murdered also initiated sexual contact with people in the bar, that's why he worked there or volunteered there. Therefore, from Hagai's point of view, he is cooperating.

    Regarding the murdered Liz. According to my memory, Hagai was encountered when he left the bar, so he shot her so that she would not obstruct his escape routes.

    Regarding the twisted explanations of M-Y-K-A-L. They are not worth a penny. He is unable to think objectively, so he will stick to his delusional theories about religion until the end.

13. I am the first to answer: the second law of thermodynamics.

    System A lowers its entropy by increasing the entropy of system B.

    And Ata Shohat, and Vashhat to Tora, Dashta to Mia, Dakba to Nora, Dashraf to Khotra, Dahikha to Kalba, Daneshach to Shunra, Dakhla to Gadiya, Dzabin Abba Batri Zozi, Had Gadiya, Had Gadiya.

14. We both agree that the killer is a homophobe and that he received a religious education. You say "because religion commanded" and I say "anger due to humiliation". I ask "Which of us opinion has a better chance of being accepted?". We do not know the judges personally. Shall we hold a poll here?

15. And to your question: my explanation is correct.
    The answer to the question of whether he will be accepted is not unequivocal - precisely because the explanation is true and not only because the killer is homophobic

16. jubilee:
    What exactly are you talking about? Maybe even offer self-defense?
    This is a man who suspected that his brother raped him while his brother denies it.
    Not the victim (who claims there was no victim) murdered, but someone else.
    He did not kill the person who allegedly raped the victim, but other people.
    I'm trying to find a more ludicrous explanation than the one you present and can't

17. And I have another scenario. Regardless of religious or free education, the anger that arises in the heart of a person (masculine because of the language barrier) who has been raped can lead to a rage to the point of murder. If you and I were to appear as expert witnesses, whose opinion would have a better chance of being accepted?

18. jubilee:
    This is indeed a hypothetical question because its subject is not one that an expert is invited to testify about, but I am convinced of the correctness of things and I am ready to try to explain it to anyone who asks.
    Of course, if I do this from the witness stand, there is a danger that they will find lunatics who want to murder me too, but maybe there are some already.
    A child who is born does not invent homophobia by himself.
    He nurses it with the education he receives and therefore, for example, children of same-sex couples do not grow up to be homophobic.
    The question is therefore where does homophobia come from in our regions and the answer is clear.
    Religion is homophobic and it is the one that instilled homophobia in society as a whole under the guise of "values".
    Even a child who grows up in a secular home usually absorbs the homophobia that society suffers from and therefore - such a child too - if he becomes a homophobe - is a victim of a religious education he received without his parents consciously intending it.

19. Michael, hypothetical question:
    If they decide to invite an expert to the court who will testify in the direction of murder on the background of religious education, do you see yourself as a reasonable candidate?

20. Well, from what is known so far about the investigation it appears that this is, after all, a hate crime committed by a person who received a religious education.
    Selected quotes from The details known so far

    First quote:
    The investigation revealed that two weeks before the murder, Felician discovered that his relative, who was a teenager, had been sexually assaulted (A suspicion that both the minor and the known activist deny). Upon receiving the information, the three began to plan revenge.

    Second quote:
    Who are the suspects? Hagai Felician is a member of a religious family Has six children from Pardes Katz. After his parents divorced, he remained with his brother under the authority of his mother, who had to work hard to support them. HA few of the family members are now ultra-Orthodox, while the eldest brother Yaakov, along with Hagai and others - degenerated into crime. About a year and a half ago, the two brothers were shot at close range in a public garden on Yosef Haim Street in Bnei Brak, and were lightly-moderately wounded, as part of a conflict between criminals.
    In 2004, a case was opened against Hagai and the other suspect for arson, theft and possession of a knife. The young relative from Hagi got into trouble with the law again and again. In one case, while violating the conditions of house arrest, he drove a motorcycle wildly, overturned and was seriously injured. His life was saved after resuscitation efforts. He underwent several surgeries and was hospitalized for five months. Due to a series of offenses, he was sentenced to four months in prison in November 2011. The court reduced his sentence due to his physical condition, and the young man pledged that he had started a new path in his life. The neighborhood remembers to this day how he "entered prison in a wheelchair".
    The third suspect, Terlan Khankishev (26), was known by the other two suspects from the neighborhood and worked with him at an egg distribution line in the area. He too has had a series of entanglements since he was a teenager, and a year and a half ago he was accused of stealing a scooter and a dangerous escape from the police. But no one imagined that "small" criminals like him and his friends would be the ones who would be found responsible for the mysterious and terrible massacre.

21. As a staunch Darwinist, I do not accept your claim that religion and nationality are artificial boundaries. They evolved exactly according to the rules of natural selection (Darwinian or Dawkinsian - delete the unnecessary) which I'm sure you also agree with. It is clear that there is also harm in them, because that is how it is in a world with limited resources.

    Since I am in New Jersey I am no longer a fanatical supporter of the Jewish nation state. New Jersey is a great state for Jews. Just yesterday, Frank Lautenberg, who served five times as a senator, died here, and the national television broadcast the funeral ceremony The Jew his in full. A train station is named after him and he was also laid to rest in Arlington, America's most respected cemetery. If you ask me, New Jersey is the state of the Jews at least as much as Israel.

    The ultra-Orthodox, for my part, should unite with Neturi Karta and be loyal citizens of the Palestinian Authority, for the benefit of all parties.

    And homosexuals have hope in a secular state; See the example of Tel Aviv.

22. jubilee:
    Why do you have to insist on a difference I introduced in the first place? If I hadn't thought myself that there was a difference I wouldn't have done it.
    Except that (perhaps different from you - I don't know) I see both religion and nationality as artificial and harmful borders that cause wars and in my utopia both do not exist.
    Since today we are far from utopia, I am in favor of turning existing borders (at least the ones I am limited by) into defenses.
    This is the reason why I support the state of the Jewish nation even though I am basically against states.
    Take it one step further and you will understand that I am also in favor of political separation from the ultra-Orthodox (which is probably not possible for geographical reasons).
    People who like to persecute others also draw the theme of persecution from their sources.
    That's why you won't find, for example, persecution of the retarded minority without ideological justification (of race improvement) while persecution of homosexuals, in the event that it is not of a declared religious origin, comes without justification (because it is of an undeclared religious origin)

23. Love love 🙂 Necessity is the father of invention

    I am not just insisting with you on the distinction between religion and nationality. Historically factual, the Jewish entity began its journey not as a religion but as a nation. It is not that this nationality stands out intellectually because of its learned religion, but quite the opposite. Because of his high intellect the mystics among him preferred a scholarly religion.

    Persecution of homosexuals is persecution of minorities for everything. The Holy Scriptures give the persecutors a sufficient excuse, but those who have persecution in mind can do without excuses. The current Tsar is a powerful and violent type, and the persecution of homosexuals gives satisfaction to his lust

24. By the way, Yuval, strive for the solution to the problem of blocking comments!

25. By the way - the term "secular" exists in all countries, only that while you can say "secular Jew", the expression "secular Christian" has no real meaning.
    The origin of the phenomenon is the multiplication of the meaning of the word "Jew" which I explained in the article.

26. jubilee:
    I actually addressed your question about Jews (as opposed to religious people) and in a very broad way in the article I referred you to.

    Regarding non-religious populations that harass LGBT people - my argument is that even in these populations it is a remnant of religion. Otherwise - where did they wink it from?

27. thanks Michael,
    I know harassment of homosexuals by a non-religious population: the current regime in Russia is openly homophobic.
    In contrast, the largest city in the State of Israel (perhaps not anymore, but it used to be), Tel Aviv, is one of the most homophilous cities in the world.
    I do not deny the facts you bring. On the contrary, you are most punctual in bringing facts in our intimate club. But too often I find myself disapproving of your haste to jump to conclusions.
    Your test for religiosity is interesting. But when I asked about the reformers I wasn't talking about religious people but about Jews. Despite your previous statements on the subject of people versus religion, you sometimes forget to make this distinction. The term "secular" in the context of a religious group does not exist in many countries. For example, you will not find a secular Christian or a secular Muslim, but secular Jews are more common in our country in particular and in the world in general than religious Jews.

28. jubilee:
    The Reformers are a diverse community that is probably difficult to answer as to the extent of its religiosity as a single part.
    In my opinion, there are quite a few among them who are almost not religious at all.
    The test for religiosity - as I have mentioned more than once - is the question of whether they have rules of conduct that they draw from a transcendental authority - that is - those that cannot adapt to new knowledge.
    It is interesting to ask their rabbis this question.
    A particularly interesting question to ask is the following question:
    "Suppose it turns out beyond any doubt that circumcision harms health and shortens life expectancy" (I remind all the regular naysayers: this is a hypothetical question. I am not at all claiming that this is the case) "Will you still insist that in order to be considered Jewish one must perform it?"
    So far I have talked about belonging to the Jewish religion.
    The question of who is a Jew deserves, in my opinion, a broader answer which I have summarized In a special article on the subject.
    Regarding support - a skeptic wrote the following (and I quote):
    "We will return to the massacre at the youth bar on Nachmani Street in Tel Aviv. From the way the murder was carried out, it is clear with an almost absolute level of certainty that the killer knew the place very well, his entrance and the shooting were carried out in a very short time, as was the escape route. (If I'm not mistaken, the killer was inside the bar at the time of the murder for less than two minutes). From the fact that the murderer knew the scene of the murder very well, the almost certain conclusion that the murderer belongs to the gay and lesbian community or close to it, he came to the bar several times and probably got involved with someone, the murder was perhaps a type of settlement of accounts or a violent attack. "

    You said that his version is a reasonable possibility and that's what I was referring to when I talked about support. It is true that you said similar things about opposite claims, so it is probably not true to claim that you supported his words.
    The meanderings of a skeptic regarding the meaning he tries to give to the phrase "or close to it" are terrifyingly delusional.
    All the arguments he put forward to justify the entire trial are based on familiarity with the place, therefore withdrawing the phrase "or close to it" to such an extent that it would also apply to someone who is not gay and was not there is nothing but an act of fraud.
    By the way - things he said later also point to his private homophobia.
    Read, for example, the following sentence (which I am quoting from):
    "Most of the violent conflicts with people from the gay and lesbian community are between themselves or with people who are not from the community but have had a personal encounter with them (such as harm to a relative by someone from the gay and lesbian community). This is the known statistic."
    I'm interested in how the skeptic knows this statistic.
    Can he point to a scrap of information that corroborates it?
    In fact there is more than a difference of information that contradicts her. for example:
    The study that shows that about half of the LGBT people in the army are victims of violence and harassment due to their sexual orientation

29. M_Y_K_A_L

    Stop talking to have a good time.

    Everything I said regarding the "almost certain" identity of the murderer is detailed in my long response (in this comment thread) on January 12, 2012. Especially in the last paragraph of that response where I analyze the known facts about the murder and conclude from them the "almost certain" identity of the murderer. Anyone who wants to can immediately review that response and see how accurate I was. He will also show where M_Y_K_A_L M_S_K_R I will get to that a little later. I will only add that I know more details about today's investigation (from leaks that are known to me from the last few days and were banned from publication). When the details become clear - everyone will probably see that my above analysis regarding the identity of the killer was a complete insult. Today it is a little wisdom to offend Bull (because more details were discovered) I offended Bull even then because I analyzed well the few facts that were known then.

    And now to _S_K_R who flourished from_Y_K_A_L about what I supposedly said about the identity of the murderer. He neutered my words in my response of January 12, 2012 to challenge my credibility. In more detail: he said in a message a day ago (or something like that) that I said the killer "belongs to the community" (gay lesbian), but that's not what I said: I said "the killer belongs to the gay lesbian community or close to it". Please refer to my message dated January 12, 2012, in the last paragraph there.

    I did not add the words "or close to it" as decoration, but out of a desire to be as accurate as possible. In other words, the meaning of the words "or close to her" was: the murderer himself does not belong to the gay and lesbian community, but there is some personal "closeness" between him and people from this community. There are all kinds of possible "closeness" for example:
    (1) The killer is straight but was a guest at the youth bar several times and formed personal relationships with some of those present there.
    (2) The killer is a bisexual teenager who has been a guest at this bar several times (for reasons of embarrassment or curiosity).
    (3) The killer is a *relative* of a teenager who stayed several times at the youth bar and was sexually assaulted there, the relative took revenge on the bar residents.

    There may be several other types of "closeness" to the gay-lesbian community when the "closer" himself is not part of the gay-lesbian community. Note: Option (3) is probably the closest to what happened.

    Finally, I will comment here on why I formulated my words the way I did. It was because the fanatical hater of the religious people accused them that the killer got out of their circle and the killer did it because the religious people have an agenda to kill transsexuals. In other words, according to M_Y_K_AL_, the murder is an ideological-religious murder and the killer does not kill because of personal motives, but kills people he does not know because he sees himself as a messenger of the Jewish religion. In response to his words that of M_Y_K_AL_I said: the killer acted for personal and not religious motives, most likely the killer belongs to the gay and lesbian community or is close to it.

    What _M_Y_K_AL_ did then was an ugly blood plot against the religious, for that he must not be forgiven. Remember this and don't forget.

30. He claimed what he claimed and I presented a scenario of a romantic murder. If that's what you call support, then we have semantic differences.
    Do you not consider the Reformers to be a legitimate element of Judaism?

31. And by the way:
    Anyone who claims that the Jewish religion nowadays is different and no longer advocates the murder of homosexuals is invited to show me where in the Holy Scriptures this change is reflected.
    Alternatively, let him point me to an ultra-orthodox rabbi who will say that what the Holy Scriptures command him to do is not moral.

32. jubilee:
    When I want to find out what motivates me I will remember to ask you.
    Otherwise - how will I know?
    I am against all religions and my words about ultra-Orthodox come from two reasons:
    One is that I am responding to the words of others who talk about Haredim.
    The second is that after all - the ones who actually make my life miserable here are the ultra-Orthodox.
    By the way - I have nothing against the ultra-orthodox personally either - I'm just trying to help them sober up from the brainwashing they went through. I am against the religion and not against its victims.
    You don't rule out a skeptic's version outright?
    Which version?
    He claimed that in his opinion the murder was committed by members of the community.
    You supported him.
    When the murderers were caught and this claim was disproved, he referred us to the things he had said before and built on the fact that they would not be read and gave us a new version.
    You continue to support him.
    I didn't put a single word in your mouth.

33. Michael,
    It seems to me that what motivates you is the hatred for the Jewish religion, that you use every stage and every opportunity to attack it. After all, the Christian religion also condemns homosexuals, and the religion of Islam increases both of them, even executing them in public.
    Unlike you, I do not rule out a skeptic's version outright. I even put forward arguments that strengthen it. But from here to saying that I support her is going too far. I don't like words being put in my mouth, and if you continue on your way, don't be surprised if I ignore you here and elsewhere.

34. And I repeat: no apologetics will hide the fact that the Jewish religion encourages hatred and murder of homosexuals.
    This is written in its writings and demonstrated in various actions of its people.
    By the way - the encouragement of hatred and loathing also encourages murder, but the Jewish writings even speak explicitly about murder.
    The specific case of the youth bar does not change this fact, and the fact that the current state laws prevent the existence of religious laws as such does not change the religious laws.

35. jubilee:
    A skeptic claimed that the killer came from within the community.
    You supported his position.
    This was apparently disproved in the investigation (because if the murderers are caught and they are not from the community - that is the situation).
    Anyone with common sense understands that anyone who shoots anyone they succeed in at that particular location, when the intended victim is not there at all, is committing a hate crime.
    So it could be that the motivation for the killer's arrival there was revenge and it could be that the criminals believed that they would find him in a place where he wasn't, but that doesn't change anything.

36. skeptic,
    I understand you may feel the piss has gone to his head. It is clear that he has recently been under pressure. Please forgive him

37. If I allow myself to hazard a guess, then I will guess that the act they came to take revenge on is related to some gay man's attempt to "start" with a relative of some criminal or to encourage him to come out of the closet.
    This is of course only speculation but - unlike the speculation of a skeptic - it has not yet been disproved.

38. Safkan:
    You're just an idiot!
    They haven't said the reason yet, but you're already dancing.
    What is known is that the man came (perhaps) to take revenge (I don't know what) and shot a lot of people he didn't want to take revenge on.
    Every reasonable person understands that even if there are other motives here, there is also a hate crime here.

39. It turns out that my assessment of the identity of the killer in the youth bar was very accurate. My assessment and reasoning are listed above.

    On the other hand, M-Y-K-A-L, who was wise in his own eyes, turned out to be a fool and an anti-religious fanatic. From the discussions with him it was clear to me that he is an anti-religious fanatic who tries to forcefully clothe "seemingly rational" reasons for his fanaticism.

    Most of the violent conflicts with people from the gay and lesbian community are between themselves or with people who are not from the community but have had a personal encounter with (such as harming a relative by someone from the gay and lesbian community). This is the known statistic.

    Both the killer (and his close collaborators) and the senior community member (who was probably complicit in a sexual offense) represent the anomaly rooted in the gay and lesbian community. This anomaly is the cause of most of the violent conflicts involving members of the gay and lesbian community.

    Although - most of the people of this community find quiet frameworks to maintain their lifestyle, but an anomalous minority of them do not find the quiet framework and therefore they get into conflicts.

    There is only a tiny minority of criminals who are not of the aforementioned type (that is, criminals who harm members of the gay and lesbian community without experiencing personal harm) and the vast majority of them are disturbed people who use "ethical" reasoning to justify their violence. "Religious" reasoning can be used as such ethical reasoning, but it does not represent the usual religious position. Religious people can look down on the gay and lesbian community and even alienate them, but *today* under no circumstances see themselves as messengers of religion to kill "sinners" they don't know. The mitzvos of eliminating sexual sins mentioned in the Torah are mitzvots that suited Israeli society 4000 years ago and today these mitzvots are ignored, they are ignored because the religion is flexible. Only fanatics freeze in their inflexibility and attribute their own inflexibility to others.

    And as for the wisdom of God who called me religious or "religious in the skin of a secular". This is another example of his fanatical way of thinking and his (so-called) rationalization for fanaticism. I am a complete atheist but I believe that an empathic attitude towards religious people is a humane attitude on my part. Those who fanatically hate religious people are not humane.

40. I get the impression that the Israeli police decided to listen to me 😛
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/zero-rank-to-israel-on-religious-freedom-070112/comment-page-3/#comment-322837

41. Machel
    I agree with you. It certainly looks like a murder committed by one extremist (from a certain extremist group) on another extremist group. It certainly sounds logical that such a thing would happen. And it also makes sense that it would be carried out against the background of a certain ideology or agenda that goes against the ideology or agenda (or in this case sexual tendencies) of the opposing extremist group. And the fact that the murder is attributed to Jacob Teitel while there is no other "candidate" besides him, shows that the murder was most likely carried out on religious grounds.

42. By the way, skeptic - note that I actually called you "religious in the skin of a secular" while Guy did not try to define you because it was clear to him that you are religious or even ultra-Orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/zero-rank-to-israel-on-religious-freedom-070112/#comment-322511).
    There is nothing to be done - it is your words that bring people to this conclusion.

43. Ghosts:
    Not necessarily stupid - there can also be someone with an agenda who says things he himself does not believe in (for example - religious in the skin of a secular).

    After all, regarding the criminal - we are not talking about someone who happened to show up (with a weapon!) at the club and saw that his partner was cheating on him.
    This is a man who planned everything in advance - including his escape - and only cared about one thing and that was who he shot.
    It's just like someone entering a synagogue abroad or the Cave of the Patriarchs in Israel with a weapon and starts spraying it in all directions.
    To think that this is a romantic story seems absurd to me.

44. skeptic:
    1. You probably don't know how to read or aren't trying to read.
    2. The fact that you ask for proof of something does not oblige me to give it proof. It is also allowed to express an unproven opinion
    3. You will not find the term "religious in the skin of a secular" in the dictionary and I used it to convey a feeling that I have and when I describe my feelings - there is no greater authority than me - I know them better than they do
    4. Despite this - I gave an example of what can be considered proof and that is your willingness to lie to protect religion.
    5. You are not the subject of the discussion here.
    6. Despite the fact that all of the above is true - you continue your attempts to close your eyes

45. Machel
    I would say that anyone who thinks this was done on a romantic basis is a fool.
    Not that I'm familiar with the details of the investigation or the subject but even on the surface, you have to be a fool who doesn't understand what he's talking about to claim that it was done on a romantic basis.

46. To M-Y-K-A-L who is jealous of the word H-M-T and hates H-K-R-N Y-M:

    You avoided proving to the public your hypocrisy that I am "religious in a secular skin".

    I asked you *twice* to prove this point, in both cases you made a lot of noise but avoided giving an answer. You have not proven anywhere your claim that I am "religious in the skin of a secular".

    I understood from this that you are *not mentally capable* of admitting that you are wrong and misleading, but still I am giving you a third chance. Please, prove to the honorable public that I am "religious in the skin of a secular".

    Don't avoid giving an answer by making a fuss about other matters, this is a well-known demagogic exercise. I repeat in a bold frame the question I asked twice (the frame is bounded by an upper line and a lower line). I frame the question so you can identify exactly where the question is.

    ================================================== ===============

    Question to M-Y-C-A-L:

    Where is your proof that I am "religious in the skin of a secular"?

    Note:
    You explained to me that "religious in the skin of a secular" means "religious who thinks itself secular" or "religious in the closet." I understand the first paragraph, on the other hand the second paragraph ("religious in the closet") I do not understand. The second paraphrase is a meaningless metaphor. If you have proof that I am "closet religious" you will have to give a convincing interpretation of this meaningless metaphor (please, do not use a new metaphor as an explanation, give an explanation in clear and simple language).

    ================================================== ==============

    For the sake of completeness, I, the owner of the nickname SAFKAN hereby declare:
    I am a staunch atheist, I have never been religious, I have never thought of being religious, I do not observe mitzvot of any kind.

    Regarding your message today about the fact that the best of my knowledge regarding Yaakov Teitel is bad news:
    I will not comment on your cheap wisdom right now. If I had responded to her, you would have used my response to make noise about this matter. The purpose of such noise was to avoid *for the third time* giving an answer to the question I asked.

47. skeptic:
    You have already proven many times that "to the best of your knowledge" is among the worst there is.
    Now you are doing it in the matter of Jacob Teitel.
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/1.1585595

    for everyone:
    I'm interested in how you would react if, after an arson attack on a synagogue or a shooting attack against Israeli embassies abroad, when the culprits have not yet been caught, someone claimed that in his eyes it was not a hate crime but an act with a romantic background.

48. safkan
    I don't care about the details. I also did not intend to start a discussion in this forum about the exhaustion of the law in a corrupt country. There was only one thing that bothered me here - the manner of speech of the person who might be representing me in the Knesset - and I think I have exhausted the issue.

49. jubilee

    The police interrogated Jacob Teitel mainly because he "confessed" on his own initiative that he was the murderer. To the best of my knowledge, Jacob Teitel is a mental patient who is currently hospitalized in a closed psychiatric institution. Jacob Teitel's confession to the police that he allegedly carried out the massacre at the youth bar is only a fantasy, this confession was refuted by contradictions in the confession and/or a striking inconsistency with the findings.

    There are other reasons why Jacob Teitel was investigated, I don't want to go into detail here. In any case, Yaakov Teitel was a very easy target for investigation, so he was investigated.

50. It is clear that the suspicion that fell on Jacob Teitel is not accidental. After all, Israel Police investigators are not equipped with the necessary "extreme imagination". And yes, I also agree that it is very possible that this is exactly the type of crime you are talking about. But I would expect more stateliness from you.

51. jubilee:
    I don't remember a case of mass murder based on an indiscriminate shooting that was carried out on a romantic basis.
    Indeed - anything is possible and it is even possible that the killer happened to be passing there and suffered a hallucination as if he was in the war, but the fact that the police suspected Yaakov Teitel - is not a coincidence.

52. Michael,
    I understand that you attribute to me an extreme imagination. Although I accept it as a compliment, thank you, but I must admit and confess with shame that for me it is just paranoia.
    When Rabin was murdered, a large group of rabbis were presented as the instigators and as the real murderers, while the shooter was only defined as the "trigger" pulled by their hands. I accept this show as accurate and I am sorry that the real killers are walking free. It is very possible that the murder in question here is also the result of hatred at the hands of clerics. But as long as the police don't have a clue, I'd be careful about what I say.

53. Yael:
    I "yelled" at your father only after he yelled at me and contrary to his claims against me - my claims against him were justified and I still stand by them.

54. By the way, regarding the other quibbles:
    I know beyond any doubt from a number of first hand sources that the cooperation of the homosexual community with the police was extremely extensive.
    Even from the police I never heard a claim that information was hidden from them.

    Of course, this should not prevent a skeptic from claiming that he knows more than all those involved in the case - otherwise he would not be a skeptic!

55. Mr. Skeptic,

    We have already learned that Mr. Mishal is not a bad person, he even yelled at my father once. But I wanted to ask something... Yesterday evening I saw a spirit man (I don't remember his name) on Channel 2 and he was talking about the ultra-Orthodox demonstration with the children of the Holocaust, remember? And I think that spiritual man said something true and shocking... like, if the ultra-Orthodox are the children of the holocaust... then that means we are the Nazis. And this is a very "stinking" statement to say to Jews, some of whom are Holocaust survivors and some of whom are children of Holocaust survivors!

    So you too as the ultra-Orthodox lawyer on earth - Poya.

56. By the way, it is also clear to me that a skeptic understands the investigation of crimes much better than the police.
    But still, you have to understand that the police are sometimes right (rarely, so they catch far fewer criminals than they do, but you have to give it a chance)

57. jubilee:
    It takes an extreme imagination to attribute this type of crime to romance.
    The person entered a specified place and shot indiscriminately.
    I have no doubt that this is a hate crime.

58. Yael:
    I see that you've got an increase in typographical Tourette's syndrome again.
    Everything I wrote was true and reasoned, and when someone lies, you have to respond to the lie instead of attacking the one who warns of the lie.

59. jubilee

    As I mentioned elsewhere, the murderer knew the scene of the murder very well and therefore the suspicion falls precisely on someone from the gay-lesbian community. who stayed there at least several times.

    In my opinion, the police wasted valuable investigation time near the murder by investigating in the wrong direction, it is possible that the murderer has been abroad for a long time. At that time, the atmosphere of incitement against the religious at the time of the murder was extremely difficult, and everyone mobilized at that time for mental support in the gay-lesbian community. According to the behavior of the homosexual community at the time of the massacre (ashamed of many of the community to expose) - it seems that there was limited cooperation with the police from the side of the club (youth bar). This state of affairs made it difficult for the police to investigate the gay and lesbian community in real time.

    Yael.

    It seems to me that Y-K-A-L is responsible to one degree or another for managing the forums, and he is also the most active in the forums, therefore A.B. He will have trouble reading it in order even if he wants to.

60. Michael…

    Did you lose your temper again?

    Immediately stop cursing and wash your mouth with soap!

    Puja, father block him in the corner until he calms down.

61. Since the murderer has not been caught (yet), we have no information about his/her religion and his/her sexual and social tendencies.
    We know that religion fuels homophobia, but we also know of romantic murders. I would not jump to hasty conclusions, but I would recommend the Israel Police investigators to expand their radius.

62. The lying skeptic:
    You wrote - and I quote - "M-Y-K-A-L who repeatedly describes himself as a zealot-for-the-truth and a hater-S.K.R claims that I am religious who pretends to be secular." And you said I was lying.
    I explained that I was not lying and now you are lying about the things you yourself said.

    I'm sure you're completely religious - one with a wig and one who lies whenever the truth attacks his religion - but since I have no proof of this I've been careful not to claim it and have only pointed out lies that I know to be lies.

    I did not divert the debate.
    All in all, I directly addressed the point's claim that the seculars coerce the ultra-Orthodox and I clarified that what the seculars coerce the ultra-Orthodox is to avoid horrific acts that their ultra-Orthodox orders them to do.
    Everything I described in the matter is true to the truth and since I am aware of the existence of you "skeptics" liars I also supported the things with quotes from the sources.

    Homophobia is a product of religion.
    She has no other reason.
    The police also caught a self-proclaimed ultra-Orthodox homophobe as the first suspect.
    So it turned out that it was committed by another homophobe and the homophobe who was caught committed other crimes but I have no doubt that the homophobe who committed the crime in the gay youth club also did it for religious reasons.
    True - I have no proof. This is just my opinion and I am completely convinced of it.

    You are constantly making claims that you clearly know are not true, so how dare you even argue against true claims for which not enough evidence has yet been found in your favor?!

    In my opinion - everything you write (but really everything!) indicates that you are religious in the skin of a secularist and it is really funny to claim that you did not express an opinion that can be heard *only* from the mouth of a closet religion.
    To prove this diagnosis, you can suffice with the fact that you are willing to lie to protect religion.

63. First of all, I will not give the Israel Defense Forces the opportunity to escape its blame for the fact that it was ultra-Orthodox who carried out the massacre at the youth bar on Nachmani Street in Tel Aviv, in 2006 as I believe.

    This accusation is a blood plot because he had no proof that the ultra-Orthodox were the ones who committed the murder.

    All of M-Y-K-L's quibbling over what the Halacha says regarding homosexuals (in general) will not escape him from the fact that he plotted a blood plot against the ultra-Orthodox (for an ultra-Orthodox massacre at the youth bar on Nachmani Street, Tel Aviv).

    Nor will he be able to say here that he meant something else (not a blood plot) since he repeated this plot in several variants.

    I must say this introduction so as not to forget the terrible things he said. Diverting the debate to what the Halacha says or does not say regarding the mitzvot of killing may make the blood plot go into oblivion.

    Regarding what the Halacha says (according to the version of M-Y-XNUMX-A-L), I briefly stated my opinion. My opinion regarding Michael's gibberish on Halacha matters remains the same. But it does not belong to what I say later in this message. I want to focus on the rest of my words without digressions.

    In the following - my desire is to focus on M-Y-K-A-L's claim that I am religious (in one guise or another), this is a claim that has no shred of proof behind it. I would like to show that his claim that he is jealous of the truth (that he hates liars and all) is a false claim. I want to show that when it is convenient for him, he tells half-truths (after all, a half-truth is a lie).

    Where will I go to Michael's claim that I am "religious in the skin of a secular" as I remember I asked him to prove this puzzling claim.

    When I addressed this request to God, I used the words "religious in the skin of a secular"
    I repeated those words in quotation marks two more times, therefore my request from him was for this verbal expression and not for another verbal expression (the words "pretending to be secular" at the beginning of my speech are words that I intended to delete, but due to an editing error I did not delete them). I will not let God escape his need to prove that I am "religious in the skin of a secular", otherwise it will turn out that his zeal for telling the truth is a false zeal.

    In any case, Maaz came out sweet, M-Y-K-A-L clarified the meaning of his words "religious in the skin of a secular" (I think he said that the meaning he meant was that I am "religious who considers himself secular", or I am "religious In the closet." Well, even these claims he must prove as an *unequivocal* conclusion from things I said, otherwise I will suspect him of making false statements.

    To the best of my knowledge, nowhere have I expressed an opinion that can be heard *only* from a religious mouth, or *only* from a religious mouth in the closet, or *only* from a religious mouth that considers itself secular. I'm an atheist who likes religious people, admitting guilt.

64. skeptic:
    It turns out that you don't even know how to read.
    I did not say that you are religious pretending to be secular.
    I said you are religious in the skin of a secular.
    You may be pretending - your other comments indicate that - but I didn't say that.

    There are several possibilities to be religious in the skin of a secular person and one of them is the one I attributed to you here - a person who is religious in the closet - thinks he is secular but in fact he is religious.

    The fact is that later on I also said that the whole debate here is between "secular"

    No wonder you didn't understand the rest of my words and the fact that they are completely proven and based within the response itself.

65. M-Y-K-A-L who repeatedly describes himself as a zealot-for-the-truth and a hater-S.K.R. claims that I am a religious person who pretends to be secular. I am sure that he has proofs for this claim, that he is a fanatic for the truth (according to him) and therefore he will not say anything that S.K.R.

    Joel, the zealot-for-the-truth (M-Y-XNUMX-A-L) please present to the public the proofs in his hands that I am "religious in the skin of a secular", otherwise (God forbid) I will suspect him that his zeal for the truth is a *false* fanaticism.

    In order to save trouble from the readers, I will immediately claim that my statement that "a Sanhedrin that pronounces death once in seventy years is called a hovelnit", is not knowledge of only religious people, but knowledge that is known to many intellectuals. (For example, I am sure that Yossi Sharid and Shulamit Aloni are well aware of this statement, even though they are not suspected of being religious). Therefore, the fact that I mentioned this statement is not proof that I am "religious in the skin of a secular". I say all this because God will probably want to base his claim (that I am "religious in the skin of a secular") based on this weak "proof".

    As for the rest of his words in that message, mainly the collection of quotations he brings from Torah literature (as well as the words of Josephus ben Matityahu, Josephus Flavius). For the most part these things seem to me to be irrelevant hashes, but I'm not sure I'll find time to respond to them.

66. ., I will explain
    They have no courage. They're just making fun. They are molested. They are waiting to become the majority, and only then will they come out of the holes.

67. I really did not understand the relevance of the list of Torah laws to the actual discussion here. Those who keep them today as written and spoken are only Muslims. Today's ultra-orthodox Judaism has no shortage of fragrant emanations from Shupra Dashupra, but the origin of these should not be sought in the Torah but in rabbinic rulings.

68. Michael, so how - after all the things and evidence you brought - do you explain the fact that the ultra-Orthodox do not kill or stone or burn?
    Maybe they are actually secular?

69. Mr said:
    Let's start from scratch:
    1. I was not mocking, so what Papa said is not relevant to him.
    2. I didn't say that Papa didn't say the things, so there was no need for you to emphasize the fact that he said it. I agree with you that he said that and I just said that his words do not apply to me even if they reflected some truth.
    3. Beyond all this - what do I care what Rabbi Papa said? So he said! He simply revealed another ugly side of Judaism and offered us a law that no moral person would have offered.
    4. Appropriate punishment for those who have committed a crime and where I come from - telling the truth is not a crime. This can only be considered an offense for a true selfie like you.

70. Mr. Rothschild
    You were precise in your words and it is clear that you came out perfect and flawless. However, this asceticism is not exempt.
    Still things as they are are in the Tractate of Eruvin - said Rav Papa anyone who mocks the words of the Sages is condemned in Tzer

71. Mr said:
    Although your interpretation of the word is not exact, but even according to this interpretation there are no mocking words.
    I wasn't talking about the "dawn" of things at all.
    I merely quoted them for the benefit of those who think they were not said.

72. Mr. Rothschild

    A bit of reading comprehension: mocking: meaning=> insulting.

    Trying to show that things are pointless and the like.

73. ravine:
    That's all I ask for and I've never asked for anything else.

74. Do you see?!
    this A response from a religious person who knows the laws of religion!
    This is the type of behavior of true religious people - those who know they are religious and do not delude themselves that they are secular.

    He - obviously - was not strengthened by my comments.
    All in all, they made him reveal his hypocrisy and describe my words which have no trace of mockery in them and are all just a note of unfortunate facts - as mockery.
    This is - of course - so that he can apply his disturbed laws to me.

75. In short, before all these forced accusations lead to a civil war-
    The time has come to let each community live in its faith and let people maintain religious institutions according to their community - Orthodox, Reformed, Wiccan, whatever suits them. Without state-subsidized religious studies and without income guarantees. The state should run a state, not run religion and worship.
    I hope there are no poor people here who are frightened that I want to "force" people to go out to live, worship and make a living according to their will and ability. Just not at the expense of the public.

    http://orr.org.il

76. Mr. Rothschild

    A great understanding of the Torah, so you should know that anyone who mocks the words of the sages is condemned to boiling excrement.

77. By the way - the secular environment does not always manage to curb the madness of religion.
    Do you know that in 1966 (!) the court ordered a deaf woman who was widowed before she gave birth to be raped by her (married) brother-in-law because the Jewish religion does not allow a deaf woman to go through the (humiliating and idiotic) ritual of stripping?
    That's how far the modern coercion of caveman laws goes.

78. This is really fantastic:
    Do you see what is happening here?
    A skeptic, who defines himself as a "secular who is not really familiar with the laws of Judaism" lectures us about Judaism and others who see that he is actually religious in the skin of a secular come to me with claims that I strengthen the religious.

    The correct definition of a "skeptic" is of course - "a religious person who is not really familiar with the laws of Judaism" and what I am helping him to do is to overcome his ignorance.

    Judaism has not abandoned anything of itself.
    She lives in an environment that does not allow her (nowadays. It seems to me that you are trying to change it) to apply all her laws. She had already "abandoned" the definition of a woman as a woman full of excrement and she is returning to it today.
    There is nothing to be done - the Holy Scriptures are sacred in their eyes and the murders I mentioned come from them.

    Note one more thing:
    This whole discussion is between "seculars".
    All the arguing is precisely on the part of those who are not familiar with Jewish law.
    This discussion started - in case you forgot - when a certain "secular" tried to claim that it is the secular who oppress the religious.
    Since it is very difficult to find something that the seculars do that is really a coercion on the religious - there is almost no choice but to react in response to those things that the seculars really coerce the ultra-Orthodox. This is not a rant but a response to a fraudulent act.

    Please read some of the stoning punishments that Rambam wrote about (among other things - for a male bed):
    http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/5101.htm#s14
    Now I will bring you a telegraphic list of some of the punishments of the Torah. Note that these are many punishments that not only do not require a Sanhedrin, but that the authority and in fact the duty to carry them out rests with an individual and even a court is not necessary:
    Blood revenge for killing a relative:
    "And the redeemer of the blood found him outside the border of the city of refuge, and the redeemer of the blood killed the murderer, he has no blood (in the desert, La; 27)
    A priest's daughter who commits adultery will be burned in the fire:
    "And the daughter of a priest, because she begins to commit adultery with her father, she commits adultery with fire and will be burned" (Leviticus, 9:XNUMX.)
    The one who bows to the sun and the moon is stoned to death:
    "And you shall bring out that man or that woman who did this evil thing to your gates, the man or the woman, and stone them to death" (Deuteronomy, 5:XNUMX.)
    Violating Shabbat is punishable by death:
    "And you kept the sabbath because it is holy to you. Those who desecrate it are dead, because everyone who does it is a work, and that soul is cut off from among its people" (Exodus, no; 14.)
    The wife of a man who commits adultery, the punishment for adulterers is death:
    And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife shall die the death of the adulterer and the adulteress" (Leviticus, 10:XNUMX.)
    And there are many priests in the laws of the Torah, as a rule the majority of the world's population is sentenced to death according to the laws of the Torah; Other worshipers of God, who disbelieve in divine revelation, and crimes of adultery and indecency.
    Sages gave a list of those who owe the death penalty - according to Sages there are four types of death penalties: stoning with stones, strangulation with a garment, killing by beheading with a sword, burning.
    Sages sorted out the acts for which the various punishments were given and wrote them in the Sanhedrin treatise and set aside entire chapters for them to explain the punishment and its method and who and who is liable, etc.:
    "These are the charges against the mother, and the father's wife, and the bride, and the zachar, and the animal, and the woman who brings the animal, and the blasphemer, and the one who commits idolatry, and the one who gives his seed to the king, and the possessor of obv and knowledge, the one who desecrates the Sabbath, and the one who curses his father and mother, and the one who brings On the betrothed girl, and the instigator and the washerwoman, and the sorcerer, and a disobedient son and a teacher,..." (Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX.)
    "And these are the burnings that come upon a woman and her daughter, and a priest's daughter who committed adultery... and these are the slain by the murderer and the people of a rejected city by a murderer who struck his neighbor with a stone or an iron" (Mishnah, tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX.)
    "These are the narcissists who strike his father and his mother and steal souls from Israel and an old man from the dead according to the court and the false prophet and who prophesies in the name of star worship and who comes upon a man's wife and a plotter, a priest's daughter and a prostitute who strikes his father and his mother" (Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX.)
    An example of the cultural norm in the past is the personal testimony of Joseph ben Matthew about himself cutting off a bandit's hand and asking him to hang it around his neck, a Jew who lived in the first century AD and thus he writes: "The goat in the band of bandits [the people of Tiberias] came to me, and I tormented him with whips and ordered him to cut off one of his hands and to hang it on his neck and after that his divorces from my face" (Book: "Hai Yosef" Masada Publishers, Tel Aviv p. Klu - Klz.)
    Since the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of the Sanhedrin (the courts authorized to impose death sentences) the authority to punish was given to the discretion of the court, to beat, excommunicate, excommunicate and even kill. This is how it is explained in the Talmud: "R. Elazar ben Ya'akov: I heard that the Sabbath prepares punishments that are not from the Torah, and not to transgress the words of the Torah but to make a caveat to the Torah; And the act of one man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of pigeons, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved it, but because the time needed it. . And again the case of one man who slapped his wife [a husband's wife] under the fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because he deserved it - but because the time needed it [even though the written law does not require flogging, the court required flogging so that the burglaries would not increase]!" (Yavmot T.A.B.)
    There is another type of death penalty that is given only to an individual and not to the courts, and is practiced even in our time, which is defined in the language of the Sages, "zeals hurt him". An example of this is given in the Torah when Pinchas the priest killed Zimri who slept with the Midianites and pierced their bodies with a sword and for that he received a reward from God "Brit Olam" (Bamadbar, 7; 13-XNUMX.)
    Likewise, those who are subject to a "persecutive law" are allowed to be killed individually. This punishment actually applies in two cases: one who pursues to kill, and one who pursues to rape a woman, which is forbidden from a halachic point of view (note that the rape of a single woman does not apply to one who pursues, but only to a married woman.)
    The same applies to the permission to kill infidels and converts given to an individual, as written in the Shulchan Aruch:
    "The people of Israel, and they are those who work for the worship of stars, or who commits offenses to anger, even (d) eat filth or wear clothing that causes anger; And the heretics, and they who disbelieve in Torah and prophecy from Israel, used to riot in the Land of Israel. If he had the strength to fight with a sword, with a sword, they were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. How, one of them saw that he had fallen into the well and the ladder was in the well, first and removed it and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and I will bring him back to you, and the like in these words (Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah Siman Kanah section XNUMX.)

79. Guy, I saw your comment only now.
    Arguments exist on every side, and sticking to a single case does not indicate the general rule.
    The rate of homosexuals in ultra-Orthodox society is of the same order of magnitude as this rate throughout the world, but homosexuals in the ultra-Orthodox community suffer from a severe problem of alienation and ostracism. It is not impossible that the stabbing during the pride parade was done as part of the stabber's efforts to fight his own coming out of the closet.

80. Michael, you are doing to the ultra-Orthodox what they are doing to science, you are inventing things for them that do not exist for them.
    They don't kill anyone, imagine out of hate, you can imagine what you want.

81. safkan, to reinforce your words:
    The basic holy scripture, the Torah, does require death, in one place for the rape of a male in the same way as a woman is raped, and in another place for both participants in the act. The religion that still follows these requirements is Islam. Judaism and Christianity gave them up.
    I also came, a long time ago, to your conclusion that the murderer belongs to the community. You wrote "someone who had a conflict" and I went further in the direction of unrequited love and jealousy. I wonder if the Israeli police investigators also thought about it.
    Unfortunately, the criticism of the situation in the country is translated by many And good From us to hatred towards weak minority groups. Hate is a strong emotion whose heart makes it possible to mobilize, relatively easily, votes at the ballot box on election day. Sad to see that it was used here too.

82. Michael:
    You're right. you help safkan ………
    Arguing is the refuge of the unjustified, and with careless phrasing you simply stand there and show them where to run.

    Note, however, that the exact example of the two you gave - the stabbing (attempted murder...) committed by an ultra-Orthodox participant in the pride parade - Mr. Speken did not mention. This is of course not in his interest, because it shows that his favorite ultra-Orthodox do not consider human rights when confronted with the "rights" of the Book of Leviticus. And then it doesn't fit with the image of the holy priests that he decided in advance to give them without question. After all, it's only a handful of weeds... about as much as only a "handful" of Beitar fans hate Arabs.

83. I waited until the Shinat of the ultra-Orthodox came out of M-Y-XNUMX-A-L's mouth. I knew it would come out to him at some point. I knew that he would not be able to hide his hatred towards them for a long time, I knew that he would not be able to hide his hatred under a so-called sophisticated cloak.

    So pay attention. M-Y-K-A-L *accuses* the ultra-Orthodox for the massacre at the youth bar on Nachmani Street, Tel Aviv. He also says (in his own words): If it weren't for the government's fear, they would stone homosexuals and kill Shabbat violators.

    Strangely, I am not aware of a significant event in the history of the last 2000 years in which religious Jews stoned homosexuals or killed Sabbath breakers, at least not a case that was institutionally supported by the community (acts of madness by individuals are possible in any society, we do not learn from this about the community's approach).

    As a secular person who is not really familiar with Jewish law, I know that death penalties were disallowed in Jewish law at least from the time of the Mishnah onwards, except in particularly serious cases (the Sanhedrin that approved death penalties once every seventy years was called the Hovalnit Sanhedrin). No sane religious Jew preaches the murder of homosexuals and the killing of Sabbath breakers. The religious in general sanctify life more than the secular (this matter is known to everyone, except maybe religious haters). By the way, as far as I know (I haven't checked) Judaism treats lesbians in a tolerant manner, does not apply any legal sanctions towards them.

    We will return to the massacre at the youth bar on Nahmani Street in Tel Aviv. From the way the murder was carried out, it is clear with an almost absolute level of certainty that the killer knew the place very well, his entrance and the shooting were carried out in a very short time, as was the escape route. (If I'm not mistaken, the killer was inside the bar at the time of the murder for less than two minutes). From the fact that the murderer knew the scene of the murder very well, the almost certain conclusion that the murderer belongs to the gay and lesbian community or close to it, he came to the bar several times and probably got involved with someone, the murder was perhaps a type of settlement of accounts or a violent attack. Placing responsibility for the murder on the ultra-Orthodox community expresses blind hatred towards them, this hatred is the property of sections of the public.

84. ravine:
    I'm not helping the point.
    The religion commands the stoning of homosexuals and the killing of Sabbath breakers.
    The ultra-orthodox live today in a framework that really forces them not to do this, but we all also remember contemporary events of stabbings at the pride parade and a massacre at the gay youth club.
    If a point dares to ask me "when were homosexuals murdered for religious reasons" it will cost me at most to check the dates of the aforementioned events.

85. With a name like yours, you just don't know how to put a full stop, eh?

    Duties and rights of a citizen is probably a strange idea for you.
    I don't intend to do some kind of psychological analysis on how suddenly, when it concerns the ultra-Orthodox, you have a need to "be balanced" (that is, why do you have the urge to love what is more religious, even though they don't tolerate me and don't respect me and probably don't either...)
    I can only suggest that you check if the situation is really balanced - think to the end what they are doing and what else they are planning to do. They have no intention of "living quietly in Bnei Brak". And they themselves do not intend to "let" other Jews, as long as the electoral system gives them the power of the tongue of scales to squeeze laws and budgets at the expense of other publics.
    And also think about what we want to "force" on them - that there will be public transportation on the streets of Tel Aviv and Haifa on Shabbat? That the owner of a grocery or pastry shop can sell baked goods to anyone who wants it even if it's Passover? That a guy named Moti from Ashdod will be able to marry a girl named Irena without the rabbinical institution, which they themselves do not recognize as having authority, make her life miserable for six months with an absurd "conversion"? How do these things "impose" something on them, in their neighborhoods, in their yeshiva?

86. Well here, Guy, the representative of the secular religion expresses its duties and torments in the acetala of relations between citizens and their state.
    What are you complaining about that you are working on? Someone has to pay the taxes, how can the ultra-Orthodox get money? what are you complaining about

87. Michael, don't help Mr. Point.
    If out of nerves you say exaggerated things like "Force the ultra-Orthodox not to murder homosexuals", it only gives him an escape route!
    He will immediately be shocked, saying "What?! When did ultra-orthodox murder homosexuals?!" And will completely ignore the real comparison of their concealed racism against Gentiles, seculars and women (according to the Halacha, of course) against the defeatist "tolerance" he demands of us.

    Besides, unlike Mr. Point, a person who has no moral hypocrisy to hide will be clear that you mean the instruction that exists in the Torah to kill homosexuals, and not that the ultra-Orthodox today really seek out and murder them. It doesn't happen in Israel, only in Iran. Meanwhile.

88. Friends:
    Don't you understand that at the nihilist point words have no meaning?
    The fact that I force the ultra-Orthodox not to murder homosexuals is equivalent in his eyes to the fact that they force me to pay for their idleness.
    Only the verb "Kupah" is important and the other words have no meaning.
    I don't believe he really means what he says. He's just trying to annoy.

89. force?? I'm starting to think you're intentionally confusing the word "oblige" with the word "force"
    The fact that I expect every citizen in the country to be responsible for himself to the best of his ability is not called "coercion"!

    Because when a state obliges citizens to study professions that are vital in order to manage and earn a living later as an adult, it is not called coercion.
    When a state obliges citizens to participate in the vital effort to defend the state by conscription, it is not called coercion.

    Citizens have duties in a normal country, if you haven't noticed!
    A person cannot decide not to work and only study three books all day, and for the state to finance him and the 7 children he decided to have without being able to provide for them.

    The fact that you call the duties of a normative citizen "coercion" only shows your hypocrisy. Because of course you complain about the high taxes, and you just don't notice why they are high. And about the mortgage, and that the fire department has no budget for fire engines, and a million other things. But a third hope in the neighborhood? more included? Of course there is money!

    The coercion is that my wife must go to the mikvah otherwise they won't marry her, and that if someone who is not an orthodox rabbi (who knows very well how to ask for a "donation" later) stands at the chuppa the state will not recognize our marriage.

    It is a coercion that the citizens of the country have no choice but to spit blood in order to support their children, meet the expenses and tax payments, and make ends meet, while the men give birth to 6+ children and do not work, send the woman to work half-time and the state will pay, subsidize, supplement the rest.

    And one more thing - don't be a demagogue and tell me about "hedonism" in the people. The fact that the ultra-Orthodox are content to live in poverty at the expense of the taxpayers does not mean that I cannot protest it because I have a television.

90. I generally try to be balanced.
    There is such a rule of the disqualifier, Momo disqualifies. Therefore, anyone who hates the other should check for himself, and it is likely that he will find that he himself is doing exactly the same things in which he accuses the other. What to do like this.

91. Sexual harassment and sexual abuse is when a woman is told how to "purify", how much to "purify", to be "pure for her husband", to be raped by the man on the wedding day. In general, being married is the height of promiscuity and the height of sexual harassment in an eternal way. There is nothing more sexually disturbing, promiscuous and repulsive than being married and more according to religion.
    All the blasphemies about women in the Talmud are also terrible verbal-sexual violence.

    So don't play it like you care about women who are sexually harassed or abused.
    After all, you support that they will live their whole lives with endless sexual harassment and coercion.

    In addition, most of the sexual harassment experienced by Tel Avivians is by traditionalists and religious people of various kinds.
    The religious taxi drivers, for example, are known for being sexually harassing.

    Deciding and forcing what to wear, where to sit and what their role is according to gender - this is the highest sexual violence and sexual humiliation.

    Regarding rape - most cases of rape are within the family - in every society. And the more closed the society is and the less it addresses the authorities, the longer it lasts and therefore - there is much more sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in it.
    If you go to a forum of "victims of incest" or victims of sexual assault, you will see that most of them are from ultra-Orthodox and religious families of various kinds...and they simply never complained in order not to destroy the family.

    Do you dare to use the fact that the Tel Avivites are honest, to preach a religion that they despise and a religion that oppresses their souls and bodies to the fullest? be ashamed of yourself

92. Avi! You are missing the point.
    We are all Jews and all of us (with the exception of a negligible number) are proud of our Judaism and happy to support each other. In the first years of the state's existence, support for the ultra-Orthodox among the secularists won an overwhelming majority. With the passage of time, the support for the ultra-orthodox became a burden that only gets heavier. As usual, with humans, it is convenient for people to criticize others and not themselves. Although I have a harsh criticism of the ultra-Orthodox for their parasitism and interference in my private life, this criticism is nothing compared to the criticism I have of myself for allowing this.
    Criticizing the ultra-Orthodox is an easy compensation for the feeling of disgust that afflicts us, but it does not solve the problem. For a good solution to the problem, the way things are done must be changed. Right now, the ultra-orthodox have taken advantage of being a "Libra language". The phenomenon of the tongue of the scales was born because of the current system of government that does not separate the legislative and executive branches. I already wrote about this here, for example in this response: https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-road-to-a-free-society-1009106/#comment-276485

93. Father, note that you want to impose on them what to study and how to think, and also that they go to the army.
    Just to remind you, the whole matter of conscription is contrary to the Basic Law of Human Dignity (which is a secular law), and only that there is a comment about an emergency.

    In any case, notice how the coercion comes from the direction of the secularists. The seculars are not comfortable seeing that there are old-fashioned Jews who live differently.

94. point:
    I have become convinced that this is not about innocence, but about impiety, so I will stop the discussion with you.

95. One point, none of the average religious people start with the extremists because the average religious person always has the feeling that he is not observing a mitzvah enough, and maybe after all the compilation of the mitzvah (iyana mitzvah) that the extremist fulfills is better. This is what happens when they don't learn to think independently. And this is unfortunately something that is built into ultra-Orthodox education, and is becoming more extreme day by day. Just as they are trying to spread a legend that there are moderates in Chabad at a time when this movement is about to completely split from Judaism against the background of their superstitious belief in a 20th century prophet.... The fiction of a moderate Haredi exists only to mislead the secular.
    We will see the moderate ultra-Orthodox make the entire community go to the army and study core studies, or at least in the first stage eliminate the 'repentance' enterprise that produces extremists.

96. Michael, I don't know what you are talking about. The average Haredi has nothing to do with those social mechanisms. He lives his life, just like you live yours.

    I don't know what you are putting the capo in, but it seems that it is precisely the hatred that is directed against those who do not have power in the country, the ultra-Orthodox have no police, and even with weapons most of them do not know how to shoot, this hatred is reminiscent of the hatred that was directed towards the Jews with claims of Jewish coercion and Jewish takeover...

    I can understand the fear of the average secularist that in the future he will not be a majority. The average secularist knows the effects of not being a majority in a democratic country. He knows this because he knows what it means to be a majority = coercion. That is, the secularist knows that in a democratic state the majority has the power to impose on the minority, exactly what he is doing now.

97. Israel!
    How do you label a "legitimate path in democracy"? "Kosher but smelly".
    Which butcher shop would you prefer? The one who received the rabbinical kosher or the one who received the Ministry of Health kosher? Well, as long as the Ministry of Health is headed by an ultra-Orthodox, I am a vegetarian.
    I am not returning to Israel in the near future, so I may not have the right to speak. I see things from the outside and yet intervene in the discussion as if from the inside. Hence my self-definition as "insane".

98. jubilee

    Coalition negotiations are a completely legitimate way in a democracy, even if the end result is as you say

    "That the majority of the public chooses one party and ends up getting a party they didn't vote for."

    And for the matter of fact - someone like us both knows that it is possible to have an ultra-orthodox or Muslim or Hindu lifestyle without interruption. See Amish entry. The problem arises when an entire public is fed by money it obtains by selling its vote at a higher price than another public that it despises. Is it democratic? certainly. Do I see any solution to the problem? Of course not. Should we shout and try to influence? Of course it is.

    And no, I don't think the war is lost and the country survives miraculously. When in the last hundred years was the situation in Israel better? There have always been problems and there always will be, but overall, the situation is improving.

99. I, the insane one, believe this is a lost war. This country lives from miracle to miracle. Sometimes, miracles run out.

100. Yuval Chaikin:
     There are sane people here and I assume this is your opinion as well and it is simply a relapse of Tourette syndrome.
     Many Israelis have very good reasons to live here and even continue to fight for the existence of the state and its sanity.

101. point:
     To this it is said - "O holy innocence".
     I guess you also blame the Jewish capos for the Holocaust.
     The fact that the ultra-orthodox succeeded in enslaving the mechanisms of society in their favor does not change the fact that this is religious coercion.
     The coercion is religious - not because of the mechanism that carries it out but because of its tastes.

     By the way - a large part of the religious coercion is made possible because many of those who call themselves secular were religiously brainwashed in their childhood through the schools that were also taken over by the religious while cunningly exploiting democracy.

     In fact - the people who do not understand that this is religious coercion are exactly the ones on whom religious education worked.

102. Michael,
     All the laws of the country are the laws of this religion.
     And this means that the real coercion is secular coercion.
     Since you and I live in the same country, surely we both know that the ultra-Orthodox do not have their own police, so I do not know what ultra-Orthodox coercion you are talking about.
     It seems that the public follows the charms of the media channels.
     And surely the owners of those channels have interests in fomenting hatred against the ultra-Orthodox, they certainly have interests that the hatred is not directed towards them. Psychology in a dime.

     In short, I don't know what ultra-Orthodox religious coercion you are talking about, we live in a secular country, and the only coercion here is secular. By definition.
     Everything else is brainwashing that can be shown to be false with a simple thought. You just need to free yourself from the mental fixations on hatred.

103. Israel,
     I said "deceiving the public" and here are two reasons (out of many) to substantiate my words:

     A)
     When the majority of the public chooses one party and ends up getting a party they didn't vote for, it's a fraud.
     It's just like falsifying election results, but the widespread use of the claim of expression makes the falsification kosher.
     Democracy, according to my worldview, must be free of fraud.

     B)
     Democracy must be based on separation of powers. When the public votes for a legislative authority and an executive authority on the same ballot, it is not a separation of powers. This is the beginning of a circus show, and certainly not a democracy

104. Why isn't this really a democracy, Yuval?

     Doesn't the majority rule in a democracy? Isn't every voice exactly equal to every other voice?

     Can't the majority of 51% oblige the minority of 49% to work for it, if it properly disguised its actions with slogans and ideology?

     Isn't this what has been happening with the ultra-orthodox parties for generations? In the bottom line, won't they join the party that pays the most?

105. Israel Shapira,
     you are joking. Right?
     After all, this is not really a democracy. This is a fraud on the public.

106. Everything that the ultra-Orthodox parties and public have ever received, they have received strictly democratically, through coalition negotiations and legislation in the appropriate institutions.

     If the zebrafish party, which has the sharp and clear, logical and committed ideology of financial support for any zebrafish, would be a balance sheet without which a coalition cannot be formed, and would be willing to join any party that would accept the same logical fundamentals of the party - then naturally it would be accepted into its ranks All the gerbils of the country and those who suddenly discovered the eternal gerbil light, and the national cake is shared. no need to work

     And all in a legal and kosher democratic celebration.

107. In response to "to all sane respondents":
     There are none here. Those who are sane have long since left the country and severed all ties with everything related to it, including the current favorite website.

108. without justifying one side or the other. Can a reform or postmodern synagogue where a woman serves as rabbi, and women read the Torah exist in Israel? The clear answer is yes, and such exist, and they are not "persecuted" either by the police or by Neturi Karta. The Western Wall is a particularly charged place, and the woman who wraps herself in a tallit was not persecuted simply because she wraps herself in a tallit, but because she did so in this charged place. Am I allowed to wear a tefillin in an Anglican church? Or read the Torah in a mosque in the US? Of course not, but it won't deduct points. The Western Wall is not exactly the property of the ultra-orthodox public, but it does not reflect "religious persecution". To claim this is hypocrisy and tendency.

109. to Michael Rothschild.
     The Or Party is proof that there are actually not many true secularists in the State of Israel. Conscious secularists are a small and disappearing minority.
     A party that proposes the separation of religion from the state needs many millions of shekels to bring its voice to the public consciousness, and even then it will be very easy to sway it by scaring the masses that a state in which religion is separated will become the state of all its Arab citizens and other intimidations.
     The only bright spot I see in the situation is that the ultra-orthodox will not be satisfied with what they achieve and will try to achieve more and more until the end. They will continue to exaggerate more and more until the average citizen's back breaks and he burns down the club.

110. So I was intrigued,
     Without too much editing Israel 2010:
     (Excuse me, if during the cut and paste operations, I dropped letters somewhere)

     Physical Integrity Rights 2
     – ranges* from 0 to 8.

     This is an additive index constructed from the Torture, Extrajudicial Killing, Political
     Imprisonment, and Disappearance indicators.

     Disappearance 2
     - a score of 2 indicates that disappearances did not occur in a given year

     Extrajudicial Killing 0
     - A score of 0 indicates that extrajudicial killings were practiced frequently in a given year

     Political Imprisonment 0
     - 0 indicates that there were many people imprisoned because of their religious, political, or other beliefs in a given year.

     Political imprisonment refers to the incarceration of people by government officials
     because of: their speech; their non-violent opposition to government policies or leaders;
     their religious beliefs; their non-violent religious practices including proselytizing; or
     their membership in a group, including an ethnic or racial group

     Torture 0
     - 0 indicates that torture was practiced frequently in a given year

     Torture refers to the purposeful infliction of extreme pain, whether mental or physical, by
     government officials or by private individuals at the instigation of government officials.
     Torture includes the use of physical and other force by police and prison guards that is
     cruel, inhuman, or degrading. This also includes deaths in custody due to negligence by
     government officials

     Empowerment Rights 5
     - It ranges* from 0 to 14.

     This is an additive index constructed from the Foreign Movement, Domestic Movement,
     Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly & Association, Workers' Rights, Electoral
     Self-Determination, and Freedom of Religion indicators

     Freedom of Assembly and Association 0
     – 0 indicates that citizens' rights to freedom of assembly or association were severely restricted or denied completely to all citizens It is an internationally recognized right of citizens to assemble freely and to associate
     with other persons in political parties, trade unions, cultural organizations, or others
     special-interest groups. This variable indicates the extent to which the freedoms of
     assembly and association are subject to actual governmental limitations or restrictions (as opposed to strictly legal protections)

     Freedom of Foreign Movement 2
     - 2 indicates unrestricted freedom of foreign movement

     Freedom of Domestic Movement 0
     - 0 indicates that this freedom was severely restricted
     This variable indicates citizens' freedom to travel within their own country.

     Freedom of Speech 1
     - indicates that there was some government censorship of the media
     This variable indicates the extent to which freedoms of speech and press are affected by
     government censorship, including ownership of media outlets. Censorship is any form of
     restriction that is placed on freedom of the press, speech or expression. Expression may
     be in the form of art or music.

     Electoral Self-Determination 1
     - 1 indicates that while citizens had the legal right to self-determination, there were some limitations to the fulfillment of this right in practice. Therefore, in states receiving a 1, political participation was only moderately free and open

     Freedom of Religion 0
     - 0 indicates that government restrictions on religious practices are severe and widespread
     This variable indicates the extent to which the freedom of citizens to exercise and
     practicing their religious beliefs is subject to actual government restrictions. Citizens should be able to freely practice their religion and proselytize (attempt to convert) other citizens to their religion as long as such attempts are done in a non-coercive, peaceful manner.

     Worker's Rights 1
     - 1 indicates that workers' rights were somewhat restricted
     Workers should have freedom of association at their workplaces and the right to bargain
     collectively with their employers. This variable indicates the extent to which workers
     enjoy these and other internationally recognized rights at work, including a prohibition on
     the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of
     children; and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of
     work, and occupational safety and health

     Women's Economic Rights 2 (of 3)
     - 2 indicates that women had some economic rights under
     law, and the government effectively enforced these rights in practice while still allowing a low level of discrimination against women in economic matters.

     Women's Political Rights 2 (of 3)
     - 2 indicates that women's political rights
     were guaranteed in law, but were still moderately prohibited in practice. Finally, a

     Independence of the Judiciary 2
     - 2 indicates "generally independent".

     *range: ranges from a (no government respect for these four rights)

     to b (full government respect for these four rights).

111. To all the sane responders:
     So where were you in the last election and why did you let the avalanche continue to deteriorate instead of joining the Or party's attempt to stop it?
     I hope that in the next elections the situation will be different and that a party that proposes to work for the separation of religion and state will finally receive the support it deserves.

     Ilana:
     You're right.
     Why what you described is called "defensive democracy".
     In a defensive democracy - anti-democratic parties are illegal.
     Democracy in Israel is, unfortunately, a suicidal democracy.
     The Or party once petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding that the anti-democratic parties be outlawed, but even the High Court did not understand that this is the only thing that can save democracy.

     point:
     What is this talk about turning secularism into a religion?
     Can you please point to one law of this "religion"?
     Is it permissible to defend oneself against religious coercion only seven times and then - if it continues - one must no longer defend oneself so that His Holiness does not define the defensiveness as religion?

112. gift
     The last sentence of your response nicely sums up what you wrote:
     "We need to organize not a protest - but decisive actions that will make religious people think 20 times before they try to impose Orthodoxy on those who do not want it."

     It is true that religion is darkness, but it is important to understand that secularism is not "another religion". It can be said that secularism is a kind of renunciation of religion, or as an analogy to your words 'coming out of the darkness'.
     It is also important to understand that secularism does not coerce because it cannot coerce.
     Religion, on the other hand, imposes - through laws (created by humans) and humans themselves - 'practice' on others.

     The conclusion of the sane: as secular - to defend against religious coercion. And as a country - to establish a democratic government that will protect its secular nature. Some call it 'defensive democracy'.

     So far everything is fine. But here comes your response and 'hints' at "not a protest" but at "decisive actions". And here I thank you that I discover another sane person in the system, and therefore I turn to you with a question:
     Do you have any ideas that can be implemented and defined as "decisive actions"?

113. Democracy in Israel has become a farce. The State of Israel is turning, slowly but surely, into a theocracy. This is because of its fundamental principles and because of an ambiguous definition of Judaism. On the one hand, Judaism is a religion. On the other hand, she is a people. "A national home for the Jewish people" became a "greenhouse for the cultivation of the Jewish religion". It was possible, perhaps, to stop the process in the first years after the establishment of the state. now it is too late. Since the ultra-Orthodox do not respect the Zionist movement excessively anyway, they will not insist on maintaining the existence of the state. There is a faction in ultra-Orthodox Judaism that openly opposes the State of Israel and its institutions, defames Israel and Zionism at every opportunity and wishes for its complete destruction. The members of this faction should not worry us, because most of them live abroad. However, it is precisely the ultra-orthodox who do participate in Zionist activities that are a cause for concern. They choose and are elected to the legislative/executive authority (it's one authority, in fact - did I already say that democracy in Israel is a farce?), dictate to the rest of the public how to live, live at the expense of the productive sector and evade their obligations. I believe that they are hypocrites, and when they form a majority they will openly join their brothers who hate the state.

114. "Are the ultra-Orthodox prevented from having public transportation that suits their values"??
     What do I care what their values ​​are? What, they respect my values?
     Wiser and more skeptical than Mr. Skeptic have already realized that people will continue to kill each other for their "values" unless you raise two above the rest - equality and individual freedom. You are allowed to have any thousand-year-old insanities you want, or alternatively to go crazy and sleep with your own children one by one, as long as you do not arrogate to yourself excessive rights/discounts, and in addition you do not impose your desires on those who do not desire it.

     With all "respect" to the disgraceful propaganda against "anti-Semitism"-
     The ultra-orthodox in all their shades really completely reject these two principles, and this is the reason for the dismal survey results.
     Those Jews completely reject that there is any equality between Gentile and Jew!
     Those Jews completely reject that a woman has rights to study, work, and make her voice heard!
     Those Jews believe with all their soul that their autistic seclusion within the world of the Talmud entitles themselves to benefits and allowances and special education, and this at the expense of others!

     And all this racism and coercion came to us because those 10-12 mandates of disciplined ultra-Orthodox have been a balance sheet (more like a touchstone) for Israeli governments for years! Without them recognizing democracy, by the way - but only out of a desire to solicit more funds

115. States must be secular, a religious state does not meet any modern standards for quality of life, Zionism did not establish a state to make it a Halacha state, religion is darkness and not light, religion is oppression imposed on the citizens of the state who do not desire a religious lifestyle, right now, the state is fast approaching For a halachic state where delusional rabbis and fanatical believers increasingly take over the public space, we need to organize not a protest - but decisive actions that will make religious people think 20 times before they try to impose orthodoxy on those who do not want it.

116. Father, what do you think about the published survey of Tel Aviv girls that revealed that 80% were sexually harassed at least once.

     And in general, from your speech, it seems that you are turning secularism into a religion. A minor's religion. If so, I don't see any essential difference, it's just a different type of religion. And so the war is coming

117. Avi Blizovsky
     Those who seek controversy and live from controversy disappear and fade away. See all the parties that were founded on this background in the past.
     If you look at your book on the Korah affair, you will see that the dispute has no existence and that it only causes damage.
     If you are not able to solve your problems peacefully and wisely you will not be able to solve them through the dispute.

118. And a few final words for all the religious/Orthodox wherever they are:

     Where is free love? Is she among the priests who curse women? Is it found among those who are nearby at the table of others (the secular ones) and even tell them how and what to eat? Is it found in those who harm the IDF soldiers defending their lives?

     Where is the brotherhood? Where is the common path despite the differences of opinion? Where is the exit against the extremists? And for the love and brotherhood that this tiny and attacked nation needs?

     Do you have an extra soul? Are you the chosen people? Where is the rest of your spirit? Why can't you be flexible and give up your control and coercion in our lifestyles? Why are you able to behave differently abroad and here you are unable to remove your sucking organ from our artery? And even spit in our faces in the process?

     See that you are able to bring light and not darkness - then there will be blessings.

119. skeptic,

     Since when do we seculars have to fund Mahadrin lines for the ultra-Orthodox - and we are not even allowed to travel on them??

     Remember what Eli Yishai said with an uncharacteristic frankness about the separation of Beit Shemesh into a secular and ultra-orthodox city? - In summary - the ultra-Orthodox will not survive without funding from the seculars who work and pay taxes.

     Isn't this the definition of parasitism?? 25 years ago there were not thousands of yeshiva students today there are. Why do we have to finance them, their meetings, their families and their bus lines??

     We may be "Messiah's donkey" for you, but not anymore. Now the donkey stands on its hind legs and throws you to the side of the road. Learn to walk alone.

120. Skeptic, from your whole list I become sadder because the ultra-Orthodox violently resent the taking of privileges, more than those they have at the very least - i.e. almost free housing and allowances to finance the little it costs them. In addition, in the process it became clear that the fact that people suddenly find an ultra-Orthodox city on their doorstep that later swallows up their old neighborhoods is not a decree from heaven but rather the result of the coalition agreement of the governments in the last decades with the ultra-Orthodox parties.
     And then you wonder that there are people who are fed up and want to stop the deterioration of the whole country towards the abyss.
     By the way, not only in Beit Shemesh is this a real estate war. Every city is a vantage point for such a war because the government promises the mayors mountains and hills in exchange for their agreement to ultra-orthodox neighborhoods, and iflo in Tel Aviv the mayor does not fight the phenomena of neighborhood despondency because of all kinds of coalition considerations.
     The fact that the seculars feel suffocated you cannot deny, and the fact that you have to fight the suffocation and not with their cries for being suffocated and you disagree and it's a shame.

121. to Ilan
     You are one hundred percent right. The incitement against ultra-Orthodox is a livelihood for journalists. Only this is a livelihood without a future.

     Yael.
     The whole campaign that has been going on recently is a severe harassment against the ultra-Orthodox. Check details not through the words of inciting journalists. Discovering the details is difficult because most of the secular newspapers were mobilized to only one side. Below are the main details.

     *. The ultra-Orthodox are prevented from having public transportation that suits their values, their public lines are a reincarnation of the "Mehadrin" lines from 25 years ago. Probably now the Egged lines in question will be canceled and returned to being normal Mehdrin lines (for use by ultra-Orthodox only). The seculars will lose the ultra-orthodox transportation lines that were made available to them, they will have to make do with what is left. The lines were made available to the seculars out of a tacit agreement that the seculars would respect the conduct of the Mahdrin lines, since the tacit agreement was violated, the lines will probably return to being Mahdrin lines for the ultra-Orthodox only.

     * There is a real estate dispute in Beit Shemesh, all other phenomena are immaterial chips to the real estate dispute. The ultra-Orthodox were given certain plots and the more moderate religions were given areas in close proximity to the ultra-Orthodox territories. According to what I understand, part of the territory allocated to the ultra-Orthodox was expropriated in favor of establishing a complex of schools for moderate religious, this created a situation of a moderate religious enclave within the territory promised to the ultra-Orthodox. Whoever expropriated the territories promised to the ultra-Orthodox (if indeed he expropriated) did a stupid thing that ignited the conflict.

     * There is a possibility that the two bus passengers did an act of provocation about which they announced in advance on their personal websites (blog, Facebook or something similar). It was announced that the advance notices were removed immediately after the provocations. Since I did not have time to see the above messages, I cannot say with certainty that this possibility is correct.

     * The story with the girl from Beit Shemesh happened in September (probably near the beginning of the school year), that is, about three months ago. Pulled this story out of the Boydam for incitement.

     * Using Holocaust symbols is inappropriate, but auto-anti-Semitism against the ultra-Orthodox is much more inappropriate. It's like kicking someone and then complaining that they responded with a slap.

122. Another way to solve problems between religious and secular people

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UobaqQcn0Pw

123. tree:

     You're right. Because people like you kill/imprison/force their minds, or maybe you're just a troll. One way or another, just because you might be right, doesn't mean I would wave it away.

124. Dear Mr. Ilan and Mr. Avi,

     What and why did we get the shocking use of the children of the Holocaust? what did we do What is the connection?

     (This is an informative question, God forbid not a criticism of any of you)

125. Ilan, Tol Cora is out of your sight, after all, I am defending myself. For some reason the aggressors have become victims in their own eyes. After all, it is impossible to forget the image of the Holocaust that they used against the seculars, who are accused of being Nazis only because they tried to shake off even a little of the excess weight they carry on their backs. But with you, every criticism is anti-Semitism, and with that you have closed the debate.

126. Avi Blizovsky
     All you're looking for is to pick a fight. History shows that people like you disappear from the stage.

127. The solution - stipulating the right to vote for the Knesset by signing a charter of basic democratic principles - democracy is under attack from within through anti-democratic forces that take advantage of freedom - it is impossible to continue like this and therefore democracy must protect itself.

128. Only in a state of religious freedom, secularism will also be a legitimate way of life and not assigned as it is today (so assigned that one of the greatest commandments is to take their money and steal their children).
     Indeed the limit is that if a group abuses part of its population, it should be stopped and not hidden under the freedom of religion. The situation of women in growing groups among the ultra-Orthodox has been deteriorating in the last twenty years. But the ones to blame for this are all the moderates who succumbed to every whim of the modesty guards and their partners, now they join the secularists in the demonstrations, while standing up for the rights would have prevented the situation from deteriorating and our becoming a strict state.

129. What is religious freedom?
     If someone's religion is to slaughter animals and beasts in public, should we give it to him?
     And who sets the limit?

130. The only solution is the separation of religion and state. And before all the traditionalists/religious/Orthodox jump on me - no, the intention is not the establishment of a state for all its citizens, but a state of Jewish nationality. It's not that complicated to do in the country - simply public transportation on Shabbat, canceling the law of possession, transferring the institution of marriage to a family law court, etc. Everything else - holidays, Saturday as a sabbath day and even Bible studies in high schools - can continue.

     The intention is only laws that interfere with leading a free lifestyle in the country - for example returning after spending time on Friday from Tel Aviv by public transport, for example the freedom to marry and be buried, and the freedom to eat what you want when you want and where you want.

     When will the religious understand that freedom of religion begins and ends with the absolute understanding and acceptance that no group has a monopoly on how the other group will live their lives.

     No one has any objection to public transportation lines not passing through neighborhoods with a religious-Orthodox color on weekends and holidays, no one has any objection to local religious councils deciding on a local pork law, etc.

     The problem is solely with the concept that their lifestyle should be imposed on the entire country, and on everyone who lives in it.

131. rummy:

     Well done *clap*, you managed to find two points that even I agree are irrelevant/nonsense and ignore the main point.

     So let's re-ask the main questions that appear in the article from my point of view:

     Why can't I get married in Israel? Or be buried as I wish?
     Why is there recognition of religious settlements as such but there is no such thing as a secular settlement?
     Why is there a law against hurting religious feelings? How are their feelings different from mine?
     Why is there a law against any missionary except Jewish (more or less orthodox)?

     You are welcome to continue the list because I do not have the necessary patience.

132. An important and enlightening article.
     In these days when the government claims that the Supreme Court places obstacles at its feet, and interferes with legislation, the citizens need to see and understand that at the height of this court's power, the citizens of Israel have not yet succeeded in achieving full freedom to live their lives according to their own way, to marry as they wish, to divorce as they wish, and to eat what suits them .
     The future is even worse, casts a gloomy shadow over us.

133. When you read the claims, you see that they are denied.
     If Israel should receive a score of 0 it is because of the fact that Jews are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, the holiest place for Judaism (remember the Wall is nothing and nothing, just a wall near the Temple). And if forbidding Bedouins to build a mosque with illegal construction lowers a score, then what will they say about banning the construction of a synagogue/temple as part of legal construction on the Temple Mount?

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.