Thanks for you support. I am mostly over the “pain” associated with being of German heritage at this point in my life. I believe I wrote about my experiences to illustrate the point that too many groups, often religion members, playing the “sympathy card” to gain advantage. Yes, we see this quite prominently with some Jews, we see it with outrageous attitude with some Muslims by constantly claiming “offense” and demanding respect, we see it with some Blacks, and many other groups who feel they are not treated with the level of tolerance that they desire. The behavior seems to demand certain privileges or reparations because their ancestors were wronged in the past. The problem it creates is that people are living in the past and unwilling to let go, so they can change for the better as an evolving society requires.

About the Nazi party being the anti-religion, or atheists, actually that is not true. There is as much evidence that they were religious people as there is to the contrary. A couple of references that shed light on this question are here: “Quotes from Hitler’s Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers” (http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm), and also found in the “National Socialist Program”, or a quote from point 24 “The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination.” Of course we can question if they were really religious (spiritual) or just using religion to enhance their power. If that is a valid investigation, then it must also apply to all leaders, politicians, and religious states that are in place today around the world.

My point is that we will continue to have conflict as long as religion is intermixed with politics and government. Religion should be an optional activity, perhaps a way of life as people choose. And all children should be offered the option to choose their own religion or spiritual practice as they choose. But as long as we have states that are based on a religion, then the conflict will continue (Iran, Israel). People can have religious debates, fine…. or choose to advocate their god of choice…. fine. But we must understand that each religion has defined its own god, and if each one states that their god is the best, then how will we ever resolve that debate at the geopolitical level? I for one do not subscribe to the ancient methods of answering worldly questions that were created thousands of years ago and can now often be concluded are fairy tales with worldly answers that are no longer relevant. Maybe our children would prefer to choose some more modern spiritual practice that has fewer errors? Once a religion is given the power of statehood, and all the force associated with statehood, then the religion can invoke powers beyond what is reasonable (e.g. state sponsored Jihad).

Also, there is now much evidence that religion is not required for people to have a moral compass, or conscience. That is a myth that religions propagate for their own advantage, and may be the last vestige of power for religions that they still cling to. I’d suggest a reading of “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris or related new ideas at http://www.edge.org.

I went to Israel a few times on business, once we had an early morning flight back to the US, and so sat up in the hotel lounge to leave early. In talking with the hotel clerk that night, she asked me “how can you live with yourself” (being of German heritage).

My parents went through the war as teens, my father was drafted into the army at 16, sent to the Russian front, and spent 1.5 years in a Russian POW camp. Yet our world has essentially no sympathy for these victims. He never whined about any of it, never, the stories were really hard to get out of him. He loved life and had no lingering grief or blame. As a kid I used to cry for him, but he never sought sympathy and obviously refused to become a victim.

I agree completely in “If we want to fight antisemitism, racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other bigotry we need to educate the younger generations. If they can stop seeing people as black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, and start seeing them as *people* then the future would be better.”

If I read the sample list of bigotry above carefully, I think I see that the majority of the examples are driven by religion. As long as people put religion above other concerns we will never be rid of bigotry and prejudice. I agree we have to change how we educate our children. We should stop expecting children to be indoctrinated into religion, they should be given a choice, no longer automatically be trained (brainwashed) into the religion of their parents.

I’ve been told I’m going to go to Hell. I’ve been asked why I killed Jesus. I’ve been called a “Dirty Jew” and many other things.

All of that before I was even 13. The people who tormented me were my peers.

If we want to fight antisemitism, racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other bigotry we need to educate the younger generations. If they can stop seeing people as black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, and start seeing them as *people* then the future would be better.

We can keep teaching our children the differences between people as long as we point out the similarities too.

A big federation is needed as fast as possible.

Nina (bivouac-id.com)

First, The Romans (and Greeks before them) did not kick the Jews out of Eretz Israel. Sure, many were taken as slaves and others left on their own accord but the Jews were the majority of the inhabitants here all that time. The Sanhedrin continued to function. The Mishna was completed in Tzippori only 18 Centuries ago. The Talmud completed here some 14 Centuries ago.
Yes, our sovereignity in Eretz Israel ended with the destruction of the second Temple but the Jews remained here. The Roman people themselves never even contemplated moving here from Italy….
It was the Crusaders, led by Richard the Lion Heart, who finalised the Diaspora of the Jews from Eretz Israel by Killing nearly all the Jews (In Europe too, on route, just for practice…)

Second, The Arabs of Palestine did not oppose the Jewish immigration during the Auttoman rule. On the contrary the idigenous Arabs of post WWI Palestine saw the benefit of the Zionist boosting of the economy. Sure there were attacks on the Jewish inhabitances in secluded places (like Tel cHai) but those were more the acts of bandits who attck anybody – Europeans, Americans, other Arabs, Druz whatever, than an orgenised campaign against Jews. The Arab opposition the Jews and Zionism began ONLY AFTER THE START OF THE BRITISH MANDATE. It was the Brits who inflamed the Arabs aginst the Jews just as they did in their other colonies (Kashmir, Nepal, to name just two)
They instigatd the violence against the Jews by preventing Jewish protection or resistance while turning a blind eye (not to say active support) to the murders in Hebron, Jaffa and all the rest.
Two Etzel fighters were Hung for trying to protect Jewish busses to Tzffat – a hanging that brought about the hanging of the British Sargents.
The Brits, who received the Mandate from the League of Nations (to create “a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine” in light of the Balfur Declaration) soon backed out of that commitment with the “White Book”s.
Thus the half a Million Arabs who were here at the start of the Mandate grew to 2 Millions by the end of it. At the same time just half a Million Jews were allowed to come home.
And what happened to those extra 1.5 Million Arabs who came here? One Helf a Million went to reside in the UN “Refugee Camps”. The rest mingled with the “old” Arabs and they are all calling themselves “Palestinians”

So, The Brits were responsible for both the clearing (“cleansing”?) the Jews from Eretz Israel in the first place and the creation of “the palestinian refugee problem” in the second place.

Avi