|
Post by dividavi on Aug 6, 2017 8:00:57 GMT
www.timesofisrael.com/council-blocks-australian-synagogue-plans-over-terror-fears/Plan for new synagogue in Australia blocked over terror fears In move that Jewish community says rewards terror, court upholds Sydney council decision that house of prayer poses unacceptable security risk BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF August 3, 2017, 6:40 pm 37 Pedestrians walk past newly-installed concrete security bollards near the Lindt Cafe on July 17, 2017, scene of the 2014 Sydney cafe seige, in which two hostages and the gunman were killed. (AFP/WILLIAM WEST)
A local council in Sydney, Australia, has blocked plans for a new synagogue, saying it may become a terrorist target and poses an unacceptable security risk. Members of the Jewish community in the Bondi Beach neighborhood reacted angrily to the ruling, saying it rewards terrorism. The refusal of Waverley Council to approve the new Orthodox house of worship was upheld in court on Wednesday. The council said the proposed building raised “concerns as to the safety and security of future users of the Synagogue, nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians,” news.com.au reported. The Land and Environment Court upheld the decision, basing its decision on the risk assessment submitted with the application along with proposed security measures. “It would seem that a more sophisticated risk assessment process could be required for matters such as a potential terrorist threat,” Commissioner Graham Brown said. The council told the court that “strong anti-Semitic undertones pervade much of ISIS’s online presence and literature” which has “manifested itself in both attacks and prevented attacks that have been aimed at Jewish communities in various parts of the world,” The Australian reported. At the same time the council refused to allow architects to change the design of the planned building to increase security, saying that would make the building too ugly. A policeman wearing a Christmas hat patrols Bondi Beach on Christmas Day in Sydney, Australia, on December 25, 2016. (AFP PHOTO / PETER PARKS)
“It’s a very sad day for Australia if an established community, which needs a house of worship, is refused permission to build it because of fear that others may pose a threat,” New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff told news.com.au. “This simply shows how we’re all losing our freedoms. Those who want us to be afraid are winning, and this ill-conceived judgment represents a dangerous precedent.” The rabbi of the Chabad house that applied to build the synagogue, Yehoram Ulman, said the decision was “unprecedented” and that it “came as surprise and shock to the entire Jewish community.” Ulman said that the court’s ruling to uphold the council’s decision threatened Jewish life in Australia. “By pulling the terror threat argument they have shown that they are completely out of touch both with the reality and with needs of their constituency,” he said. “They have effectively placed in jeopardy the future of Jewish life in Australia.” On Saturday Australian police stopped a terrorist plot to bring down an airplane, arresting four men in raids on homes in several Sydney suburbs. Four men of Lebanese origin were accused of plotting to bring down a plane using poisonous gas or a crude bomb disguised as a meat mincer. Australia’s national terror alert level was raised in September 2014 amid concerns over attacks by individuals inspired by organizations such as the Islamic State group. AP and AFP contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 6, 2017 8:52:42 GMT
Oh, come on, man. You know it isn't about that. They just hate Jews. Anytime Jews don't get something they want, it's got to be "anti-Semitic" hatred.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 10:00:12 GMT
The biggest problem Muslims have with western culture is Christianity, not Judaism. Tensions between Muslims and "Judaism" in the Middle East are territorial only, not ideological, except insofar as Israel embraces Christianity. Until now tensions between Muslims and Jews have been virtually nonexistent outside the territorial problems in the Middle East, just as tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland, just as tensions between Hindus and Muslims are nonexistent outside those territorial disputes with India. Lately things have gotten so crazy anything might happen though. The notion that Christianity represents any "religion" is somewhat misinformed. Quite many of the people who count themselves as Christians are really just people who follow the crowd blindly who need some narrative to follow. It really doesn't matter if it's religious, and frankly they prefer it not be religious lately. The issue of spirituality in various people can be resolved here.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 6, 2017 11:13:20 GMT
The biggest problem Muslims have with western culture is Christianity, not Judaism. Tensions between Muslims and "Judaism" in the Middle East are territorial only, not ideological, except insofar as Israel embraces Christianity. Until now tensions between Muslims and Jews have been virtually nonexistent outside the territorial problems in the Middle East, just as tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland, just as tensions between Hindus and Muslims are nonexistent outside those territorial disputes with India. Wow. I guess the Thirty Years' War and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre are a product of the imagination of conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 13:20:29 GMT
The biggest problem Muslims have with western culture is Christianity, not Judaism. Tensions between Muslims and "Judaism" in the Middle East are territorial only, not ideological, except insofar as Israel embraces Christianity. Until now tensions between Muslims and Jews have been virtually nonexistent outside the territorial problems in the Middle East, just as tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland, just as tensions between Hindus and Muslims are nonexistent outside those territorial disputes with India. Wow. I guess the Thirty Years' War and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre are a product of the imagination of conspiracy theorists. Did I forget what happened in 1572 and from 1618 to 1648? Not really. No, those were not the same type of territorial conflict as in the modern world to which I was referring. Those were conflicts between the political leaders of various nations that had nothing to do with the religions those officials claimed to represent. The establishment of the United States was such a brilliant idea because it made that sort of "religious" (political) conflict impossible. I can understand why you want to blame religion for the problems in the world. Most people do because they have a blind, childlike faith in science. It would be great if it really was science, that might actually solve some problems. Even good science is inadequate to address most political problems though.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 6, 2017 13:25:57 GMT
. . . just as tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland. . . Your jaw-dropping ignorance has already been firmly established. You don't have to rub it in.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 6, 2017 13:36:11 GMT
See how easy it is to modify a quote and end up being more accurate than the original quote?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 13:46:12 GMT
. . . just as tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland. . . Your jaw-dropping ignorance has already been firmly established. You don't have to rub it in. A lot of that "jaw-dropping ignorance" is going around. It's not mine though. Good luck anyway enforcing your superficial understanding of things.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 13:48:10 GMT
See how easy it is to modify a quote and end up being more accurate than the original quote? When a person has such a shallow and superficial understanding as yours it can be easy for him to string all sorts of words together and believe they make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 6, 2017 13:53:14 GMT
A lot of that "jaw-dropping ignorance" is going around. It's not mine though. Good luck anyway enforcing your superficial understanding of things. I'm not the fucking idiot who dismissed hundreds of years of wars, conflict, and persecution throughout Europe and England.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 14:07:07 GMT
A lot of that "jaw-dropping ignorance" is going around. It's not mine though. Good luck anyway enforcing your superficial understanding of things. I'm not the fucking idiot who dismissed hundreds of years of wars, conflict, and persecution throughout Europe and England. Of course not, you're the one who blamed religion for what was really rivalries in the aristocracy. That's because you don't understand that whole "king" thing that God was so against and warned his people about. I didn't "dismiss" hundreds of years of conflict. It's just more difficult to fool me than it is you about the real reasons for those conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 6, 2017 16:09:39 GMT
I'm not the fucking idiot who dismissed hundreds of years of wars, conflict, and persecution throughout Europe and England. Of course not, you're the one who blamed religion for what was really rivalries in the aristocracy. Except he didn't. And neither did I. Your original quote was: "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland", and that is false. There were tensions between Catholics and Protestants outside of Ireland. The reasons may have been political; but they were still tensions. Therefore, your following sentence is false as well: "I didn't "dismiss" hundreds of years of conflict." Just because the reason for a conflict is more political than religious doesn't mean it's not a conflict.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 16:41:02 GMT
Of course not, you're the one who blamed religion for what was really rivalries in the aristocracy. Except he didn't. And neither did I. Your original quote was: "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland", and that is false. There were tensions between Catholics and Protestants outside of Ireland. The reasons may have been political; but they were still tensions. Therefore, your following sentence is false as well: "I didn't "dismiss" hundreds of years of conflict." Just because the reason for a conflict is more political than religious doesn't mean it's not a conflict. You obviously have the mentality of an eleven year old. You also apparently did not read or did not understand what I said to faustus5 about the religion of Judeo-Christian tradition considering kings and their minions pinheads. So the people who joined the conflicts were not "Jews" or "Christians" but subjects of one pinhead government or another. Therefore I was correct. Yes there were conflicts. Yes various aristocrats said it was for some religion or other. No they did not read the rules. No they were not about a religion.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Aug 6, 2017 17:00:04 GMT
Your jaw-dropping ignorance has already been firmly established. You don't have to rub it in. A lot of that "jaw-dropping ignorance" is going around. It's not mine though. Good luck anyway enforcing your superficial understanding of things. Dunning-Kruger in action, folks.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 6, 2017 18:30:35 GMT
Of course not, you're the one who blamed religion for what was really rivalries in the aristocracy. That's because you don't understand that whole "king" thing that God was so against and warned his people about. I didn't "dismiss" hundreds of years of conflict. It's just more difficult to fool me than it is you about the real reasons for those conflicts. Religion and aristocracy were intertwined throughout that period of history and the theological disputes were genuine, idiot. The fact stands that in a public space, you were stupid enough to post that "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland," something which the period known as the French Religious Wars disproves all by itself. Now go ahead and keep twisting yourself into little pretzel like figures trying to make it seem as if you didn't make a complete ass of yourself. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2017 20:19:45 GMT
Of course not, you're the one who blamed religion for what was really rivalries in the aristocracy. That's because you don't understand that whole "king" thing that God was so against and warned his people about. I didn't "dismiss" hundreds of years of conflict. It's just more difficult to fool me than it is you about the real reasons for those conflicts. Religion and aristocracy were intertwined throughout that period of history and the theological disputes were genuine, idiot. The fact stands that in a public space, you were stupid enough to post that "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland," something which the period known as the French Religious Wars disproves all by itself. Now go ahead and keep twisting yourself into little pretzel like figures trying to make it seem as if you didn't make a complete ass of yourself. Again. Your capacity to confuse the machinations of political systems with religious ones make understanding reality highly unlikely for you. It's like arguing whether Hitler was an atheist. He was insane, what difference does it make to any religion what he believed about any gods? How could that possibly define any religion? He was not a religious leader, he was a political one. There happens to be a difference.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 6, 2017 21:13:16 GMT
Religion and aristocracy were intertwined throughout that period of history and the theological disputes were genuine, idiot. The fact stands that in a public space, you were stupid enough to post that "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland," something which the period known as the French Religious Wars disproves all by itself. Now go ahead and keep twisting yourself into little pretzel like figures trying to make it seem as if you didn't make a complete ass of yourself. Again. Your capacity to confuse the machinations of political systems with religious ones make understanding reality highly unlikely for you. It's like arguing whether Hitler was an atheist. He was insane, what difference does it make to any religion what he believed about any gods? How could that possibly define any religion? He was not a religious leader, he was a political one. There happens to be a difference. Holy shitballs. You actually said something clever, unrelated to the conversation at hand, but nevetheless you said something, it made sense (out of context) and I agree with it. Mind you with the sheer amount of words you mange to throw out there I suppose it was inevitable that you would say something intelligent and correct eventually.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 6, 2017 21:34:33 GMT
Your capacity to confuse the machinations of political systems with religious ones make understanding reality highly unlikely for you. It's like arguing whether Hitler was an atheist. He was insane, what difference does it make to any religion what he believed about any gods? How could that possibly define any religion? He was not a religious leader, he was a political one. There happens to be a difference. Holy shitballs. You actually said something clever, unrelated to the conversation at hand, but nevetheless you said something, it made sense (out of context) and I agree with it. Mind you with the sheer amount of words you mange to throw out there I suppose it was inevitable that you would say something intelligent and correct eventually.That's the secret to winning arguments with dictionaries.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 7, 2017 1:35:17 GMT
Religion and aristocracy were intertwined throughout that period of history and the theological disputes were genuine, idiot. The fact stands that in a public space, you were stupid enough to post that "tensions between Catholics and Protestants were virtually nonexistent outside Ireland," something which the period known as the French Religious Wars disproves all by itself. Now go ahead and keep twisting yourself into little pretzel like figures trying to make it seem as if you didn't make a complete ass of yourself. Again. Your capacity to confuse the machinations of political systems with religious ones make understanding reality highly unlikely for you. It's like arguing whether Hitler was an atheist. He was insane, what difference does it make to any religion what he believed about any gods? How could that possibly define any religion? He was not a religious leader, he was a political one. There happens to be a difference. Arlon, this Faustus5 is a buffoon. If he had studied the Thirty Years War he would know it didn't have as much to do with the Catholic-Protestant schism as he thinks it does, and the longer it went on the less it had to do with religion. Mercenaries fought on both sides without care of who was Catholic and who was Protestant. France, although a Catholic country, joined the war on the Protestant side. You've been posting on RFS longer than me, and I'm sure you've seen the militant nonbelievers pull this kind of thing many times before. It's what they do.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 7, 2017 10:36:00 GMT
Your capacity to confuse the machinations of political systems with religious ones make understanding reality highly unlikely for you. Your capacity for denying the objective, utterly uncontroversial historical reality of conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Europe and England is a testimony of the utter idiocy religion drives people to.
|
|