Jerusalem Corpus Separatum

[Humanity]

MOD EDIT - did you miss the warning in red posted above?

 

[montelatici]

In 1943 more than 90% of the land was owned by non-Jews. From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566.

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

 

[aris2chat]

night journey was a dream of heaven

does that make heaven the sole domain of muslims?

 

[Shusha]

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

 

[Humanity]

MOD EDIT - did you miss the warning in red posted above?

I believe I did as I was writing my post pretty much the same time as the warning was also written...

However, I do feel that the subject has deteriorated into the usual 'arguments' and way off the original OP...

So, in an attempt to bring things back on track...

Do we think that Jerusalem would be better placed under international regime?

Yes or No and WHY you think yes or no?

This is not really a topic of religion or indigenous peoples, it's about trying to find some solutions to the 'issues' within the ME...

 

[Coyote]

night journey was a dream of heaven

does that make heaven the sole domain of muslims?

What it "makes" is what ever the believers "make of it"....I don't buy into any of it as anything more then interesting stories.

According the Muslims, only Muslims go to heaven, and they have to jump through certain behavioral hoops in order to get there.
According to Christians, only Christians go to heaven and the only requirement is sincere belief in Christ as the savior.
According to Jews...I don't think there is any official "afterlife" (correct me if I'm wrong) so you had best make the best you can of your life on earth because there are no second chances.

Personally I find the Jewish outlook to be the most pragmatic and realistic - enjoy the life we have and be a good person. The Islamic version of heaven requires that one do good deeds, be charitable etc along with belief in the prophet Mohammed. The Christian version forgives everything as long as you sincerely repent prior to deceasement.

I strongly object to an eternity of torture for the mistakes of one life - or because one happens to be the wrong brand of religion. I don't anticipate heaven in my future...

 

[Coyote]

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

You are asking for sole control, and primary recognition in all ways of the Jewish right to those sites. It is a sacred trust to more than the Jews.

 

[Shusha]

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

You are asking for sole control, and primary recognition in all ways of the Jewish right to those sites. It is a sacred trust to more than the Jews.

Sole Israeli control because the international community and the Muslim community are demonstrably unable to preserve Jewish culture and Jewish rights.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I'm not sure. But Wikipedia says:

In 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War, its population of about 2,000 Jews was besieged, and forced to leave en masse. Colonel Abdullah el Tell, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, with whom Mordechai Weingarten negotiated the surrender terms, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959):
Weingarten negotiating the surrender with Arab Legion soldiers

"... The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion.... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty.... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction.... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it.... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud - a cloud of death and agony."

— Yosef Tekoah (Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations) quoting Abdullah el-Tal.

SOURCES:

• Abdullah el-Tell
• Jewish Quarter (Jerusalem)
​

Destruction and Desecration of Religious Sites

Upon its capture by the Arab Legion, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was destroyed and its residents expelled. Fifty-eight synagogues--some hundreds of years old--were destroyed, their contents looted and desecrated. Some Jewish religious sites were turned into chicken coops or animal stalls. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews had been burying their dead for over 2500 years, was ransacked; graves were desecrated; thousands of tombstones were smashed and used as building material, paving stones or for latrines in Arab Legion army camps. The Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the cemetery and graves were demolished to make way for a highway to the hotel. The Western Wall became a slum area.
​

The senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that his group:

"would not allow the synagogues to exist for fear that they would be turned in the future into "Wailing Walls" for Jews. "We won't allow any Wailing Walls on our blessed land," he said. Defending the decision to raze the synagogues, Haniyeh said Israel was trying to keep them to put pressure on the PA to protect them in the future. "These synagogues were built for political, not religious, reasons. They were built illegally and should go away with the occupation."
​

Reuters
A September 12 Reuters article by Nidal al Mughrabi also used the "hated symbols" rationale to explain the torching of synagogues:

Attacking symbols of the hated Israeli occupation, youths set ablaze several of the synagogues left behind in the 21 settlements evacuated last month under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to "disengage" from conflict. ("Israel Pulls Out of Gaza, Palestinians Rush In")
​

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

You are asking for sole control, and primary recognition in all ways of the Jewish right to those sites. It is a sacred trust to more than the Jews.

(QUESTION)

Now I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is true. But I ASK THE QUESTION: Do historically, radicalized Arabs, whether Taliban, DAESH, HAMAS, Arab League Forces, have a history of intentionally destroying ancient religious sites?

We know that each side, from time to time, screws up and takes actions that, in hindsight, they would rather not have done. I know that in April, 2014, the Masque in the village of Kherbt al-Taweel near Nablus was intentionally destroyed. But there is there a long standing history or pattern of destruction.

I'm just asking if there is anything to these patterns of radicalise Muslims actually doing this over a long period of time?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

So, interestingly, the sermon at services this morning was centered around our on-going responsibilities as Jews, as Canadians, as people, to continue to take responsibility and make restitution for the wrongs done in the past to the First Nations peoples on whose land we have built, even into these second and third generations and onward into the future.

It made me think about this thread.

 

[Coyote]

So, interestingly, the sermon at services this morning was centered around our on-going responsibilities as Jews, as Canadians, as people, to continue to take responsibility and make restitution for the wrongs done in the past to the First Nations peoples on whose land we have built, even into these second and third generations and onward into the future.

It made me think about this thread.

It is interesting! I know I am very flippant about religion (I'm convinced God has a sense of humor otherwise why would he have given it to us?) but things like you say above, are what I like, and one of the things I like about Judaism in particular (as opposed to Christianity and Islam) - is what matters most is this life, not some afterlife.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Now I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is true. But I ASK THE QUESTION: Do historically, radicalized Arabs, whether Taliban, DAESH, HAMAS, Arab League Forces, have a history of intentionally destroying ancient religious sites?

I don't know about Arab League Forces, but I don't tend to lump them in with extremists such as Daesh and the Taliban. I don't know if Hamas should be in that category either since their focus is less religious than territorial.

Extremist sects, regardless of religion, seem to share a propensity to destroy the artifacts of other religions deemed false. Even in ancient times - and, I'm scouring my limited memory of this - didn't the God of the Old Testemant order his followers to destroy the idols and cities of false religions? Christianity certainly destroyed ancient religious sites as well when they conquered new territories. That is so far back in history now no one cares or notices and at the time there was little desire to protect such sites.

I also think that destruction of holy sites is, like rape, a weapon of war designed to demoralize the opposition or wipe out their culture.

We know that each side, from time to time, screws up and takes actions that, in hindsight, they would rather not have done. I know that in April, 2014, the Masque in the village of Kherbt al-Taweel near Nablus was intentionally destroyed. But there is there a long standing history or pattern of destruction.

I'm just asking if there is anything to these patterns of radicalise Muslims actually doing this over a long period of time?

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think that the pattern of radical Islam is any different than that of any other extremist religious group. It's just that it's occuring in recent times so we're more aware of it. I think what people forget in this is that it was Islam that protected many of those sites for hundreds or a thousand or more years.

 

[Coyote]

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

You are asking for sole control, and primary recognition in all ways of the Jewish right to those sites. It is a sacred trust to more than the Jews.

Sole Israeli control because the international community and the Muslim community are demonstrably unable to preserve Jewish culture and Jewish rights.

I disagree, on several fronts.

First the Muslim community DID preserve those sites prior to the establishment of Israel, did they not?

Second - there is no evidence that joint control (as exists now) has failed.

 

[Shusha]

So, interestingly, the sermon at services this morning was centered around our on-going responsibilities as Jews, as Canadians, as people, to continue to take responsibility and make restitution for the wrongs done in the past to the First Nations peoples on whose land we have built, even into these second and third generations and onward into the future.

It made me think about this thread.

It is interesting! I know I am very flippant about religion (I'm convinced God has a sense of humor otherwise why would he have given it to us?) but things like you say above, are what I like, and one of the things I like about Judaism in particular (as opposed to Christianity and Islam) - is what matters most is this life, not some afterlife.

G-d has a sense of humor. Yep. And sounds like something a Jew would say. Grin.

It was a good sermon. He spoke about how we all step back and raise our hands and say -- whoa, whoa, well it wasn't US who (did that horrible thing) -- it was another people, or another religion or another sect or another generation. But he was trying to make us realize that we are accountable. Even unto the next generation. And the next. And the one after that That we need to repair the world. And we need to keep doing it, individually and communally until its fixed.

 

[Phoenall]

The people that have always lived in an area, regardless of the languages, cultural changes or changes in religion remain the native people. Just because native americans may have become Roman Catholics, may speak Spanish and may have adopted much of the Hispanic (Spanish) culture, does not somehow change their status as the native people of America.

By definition, Arab Muslims have NOT "always lived there".

By definition, Spanish cultures are NOT the indigenous cultures of the Americas.

By definition, I (Canadian of Irish/Scots/German descent) am from an immigrating (invading) culture and am not First Nations. Nor will my descendants EVER be.

By definition invading, colonizing cultures are not First Nations cultures.

The PURPOSE of identifying and protecting First Nations cultures is to preserve the cultures of those who were invaded and conquered.

Can a First Nations person learn to speak a foreign language and still be First Nations? Duh. Of course, they can. Can a First Nations culture entirely adopt an invading culture so that there is no trace of their First Nations culture and still be First Nations. Uh. No.

We invaded a really, really long time ago does not confer First Nations status on people. Though it might give them claims to sovereignty and self-determination.

The people of Palestine, whatever religion they converted to are still descendants of the native people. Irish Catholics are the descendants of the original Irish although they may have worshipped trees or rocks before.

So you are saying that a person that converts from English Christian to islam becomes an arab muslm now. Care to provide the evidence to back this up.

The evidence showed that the inhabitants took on the arab culture only, but kept their own religion and culture with it.




Arab Immigration To Palestine | Cherson and Molschky


First Wave(7TH Century)

The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The Arab – Muslim occupation of Palestine lasted about 400 years (640 – 1099). Most scholars agree that the ethnic- religious structure of the population remained essentially unchanged from the days of the Byzantine occupation (324CE – 640CE), and the majority of the population consisted of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. The number of Arabs settled in Palestine was negligible.

The Muslim army emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was comprised of Bedouin warriors who moved along with their families and flocks. Prof Moshe Sharon, rejects the theory that the 7th century Arabic conquest was immediately accompanied by massive Arabic settlement in the country. He gives several reasons for the absence of massive Arabic penetration into the Land of Israel prior to the 9th century…

An Arabic 9th century source attests to the composition of the coastal cities population, which included Jews, Samaritans, Persians, Greeks, and a few Arabs.

At a later stage, soldiers released from the Caliph’s Muslim army settled in villages and towns that had been deserted by Christians fleeing ahead of the Arab conquerors, but no numerical data is available.

WTF has nationality got to do with religion?

That was the claim made by freddy boy if you look. He says that Greek Christians that converted to islam became arab muslims overnight. How was this possible ? Shouldn't they be Greek muslims and still carry their Greek names ?

 

[Phoenall]

When they immigrated back, after all that time, they brought back foreign cultures. How are they any more "First Nation" than the people who stayed behind, and absorbed foreign cultures?

Because they retained their distinct and recognizable Jewish culture, regardless of what other cultural attributes they may have gained they never LOST their originating, First Nations, Jewish culture. As opposed to the "Palestinian" people who were entirely swallowed up by the invading culture.

I think this is the spot where we disagreed before. I see people, you see cultures. I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area no matter how long they have been there and when those rights are expanded to include immigrants who's ancestors left that land three thousand years ago it becomes very questionable.

The only things we can know for sure is this:

Jerusalem is a very important Holy Place for three closely related major world religions. Can we agree on that?
No one usurped anything - cultures and religions (as part of the culture) build upon the ruins of older existing ones. Claiming "usurption" is claiming theft and undermines the authenticity of almost every culture and religion existing today. We will probably not agree on that one.

• Jerusalem has in the recent past been governed by the Ottomans, Jordanians, and a consortium of Israel and Jordan.
  
• Under the Ottomans Jews were forbidden from access to the Temple Mount. Under Jordan, those rules were somewhat relaxed, but access was still very limited. Under joint adminstratorship, Jews have more access, but are not allowed to actually pray.
  
• You propose Israeli/Jewish administratorship only, as the best and most just solution because the Jewish sites are the oldest and Israel will guarantee rights of access and preservation.
• I propose a continued joint management of some sort over religious sites because of the importance of the site to 3 world religions no ONE should be soley in control, the importance of preserving the archeological integrity of the site (which I would trust Israel over Muslims to do) and serious trust issues between Muslims and Israeli's that will take much time and cultural change to resolve.
• When it comes to Jerusalem - I also propose a joint management because it of it's importance to multiple peoples but this may become moot as Israel has been steadily driving out the Arab presence through a series of initiatives and laws. Joint management might also be able to address the Palestinian violence directed at Palestinians that sell property, innocent civilians as well as those Israeli's who try to fraudulently buy buy Palestinian property by misrepresenting themselves. If a city is jointly managed - then there is no longer anything to be gained in altering demographics or committing terrorism. Maybe.

As I keep asking and not getting an answer to the question "WHAT ARE THE TIES TO JERUSALEM FOR THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS THAT ARE NOT STOLEN FROM THE JEWS.

As far as I can see the most holy places for Christians are Bethlemem and the hill outside of Jerusalems city walls. For the muslims it is the Jewish cities of Mecca and Medina.

So no we cant agree on your fantasy as it is not holy to any religion but Judaism.

 

[Phoenall]

Humanity, Phoenall, et al,

Clearly, there was an intention adopted by the UN General Assembly that the City of Jerusalem, and the greater Municipal Area, should be under a special international regime --- administered by the United Nations; Trusteeship Council designated the Administering Authority. This was the UN intention all the way through 1949 and General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV).

Just as clearly, this did not happen. While we often think of the unauthorized Arab League Military intervention to defy the resolution of the General Assembly and engage in a deliberate effort to alter by force the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) - The Partition Plan, it did accomplish a number of its secondary objectives. One of the political-military (POL-MIL) objectives was for the Jordanian Army (the Arab Legion, trained and led by British officers) took the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem and seized control of the West Bank area on the western side of the Jordan River.

Furthermore, has you bothered to keep up with this post you would see that I called for a 'free' Jerusalem for all!

(COMMENT)

The "Free Jerusalem Movement" was actually a mantra and organization substructure behind the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This cost the Hashemite King his life when he was assassinated by Arab militants (the proto-PLO gunmen) entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. A faction of Fedayeen Arab Militants opposed to Jordanian rule was becoming popular emerging lands rath in 360º (Fortification).

Prior to the general outbreak of hostilities in 1947 and War in 1948 The Old City of Jerusalem was divided into four separate quarters:

• Jewish,
• Christian,
• Arab and
• Armenian.
​

From 1949 and until 27 June 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two distinct sectors:

• West Jerusalem was under Israeli control and covered about 38 square kilometers, and
• East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control and covered about 6 square kilometers.
​

After annexation, Israel attempted to (as best they could) provide all groups free access to holy sites.

The PLO would eventually rise to be the most generally recognized faction of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), and becomes the "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (1974) in any Palestinian territory that is liberated." In the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence, Jerusalem is declared its capital. Recognized as they (the PLO) are, the decision on Jerusalem goes unchallenged; although a political concern to Israel.

While the Internationalization of The City of Jerusalem was propably the best solution, it has been overtaken by events --- largely in part to very slow reaction times on the part of the UN to put the plan into action.

Just My Take ---

Most Respectfully,
R

Mr Rocco

As you are aware, I am sure, Israel did not include Jerusalem within the bounds of Israel at the formation of state. "Annexation" is a clear indicator of this.

Ben-Gurion, declared, at the end of 1949, Jerusalem as an "inseparable part of the State of Israel", he also declared Israel is no longer bound by Resolution 181 and the corpus separatum null and void...

In July 1980, Israel passed the Jerusalem Law, the law declared Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel... Still not recognised by virtually every country in the world, except Israel.

Declaring exclusivity over Jerusalem is not acceptable to Muslims, Christians NOR Jews... Nor is it acceptable, by most of the international community for one party or other to maintain exclusivity within Jerusalem...

IMHO there needs to be a concerted effort to remove Jerusalem from the 'expectations' of ALL potential 'owners' and maintain that Jerusalem should be placed under a special international regime...

This, in my opinion, can be the only solution to the arguments over Jerusalem. A holy city to many more than just Jews, Muslims and Christians...

Wrong again as Israel lost Jerusalem when Jordan invaded and stole it from the UN.

Once the arab league invaded then 181 became null and void and the land became free for everyone. Because the UN refused to take any action against the arab league regarding Jerusalem then the corpus separatum was also nullified. The only answer would be to go to law and have the judges decide on legalities alone who owns what and why, something that the arab's don't want as they will lose the lot to Israel. Then we will see 1947/1949 all over again, and this time the world will have to take sides or witness a wholesale massacre of two groups.

 

[Phoenall]

I also think there is a tendency, when you label people indiginous (or as you are trying to make the claim for "first nations") - to give them special rights denied to other peoples in the area

Well, yes. But ask yourself what "special rights" I am asking for the Jewish people. I'm not asking for exclusive or special rights of access. The only special right I'm asking for is the right of preservation of a First Nations culture -- a sacred trust that the original Jewish historical, culture and religious significance is preserved and recognized.

Doesn't seem like asking for a lot. Yet neither the international community nor the Arab Muslim community seems to be able (willing) to do so.

You are asking for sole control, and primary recognition in all ways of the Jewish right to those sites. It is a sacred trust to more than the Jews.

Sole Israeli control because the international community and the Muslim community are demonstrably unable to preserve Jewish culture and Jewish rights.

I disagree, on several fronts.

First the Muslim community DID preserve those sites prior to the establishment of Israel, did they not?

Second - there is no evidence that joint control (as exists now) has failed.

Then you are either reading a different set of history books to the rest of the members or you are spouting islamonazi propaganda. Just look at the Church built there by the Christians that was demolished and replaced by a carbuncle to islam. Or the Jewish grave markers used to line a sewer, the remains dug up and thrown on a refuse heap. How is that preserving the site ?
So there are no attacks on Jews from muslims on or around the Temple Mount. No rocks dropped on the heads of Jews praying at the western wall, no stone's petrol bombs, fireworks thrown at Jews entering the Temple mount to start a riot .

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

Now I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is true. But I ASK THE QUESTION: Do historically, radicalized Arabs, whether Taliban, DAESH, HAMAS, Arab League Forces, have a history of intentionally destroying ancient religious sites?

I don't know about Arab League Forces, but I don't tend to lump them in with extremists such as Daesh and the Taliban. I don't know if Hamas should be in that category either since their focus is less religious than territorial.

Extremist sects, regardless of religion, seem to share a propensity to destroy the artifacts of other religions deemed false. Even in ancient times - and, I'm scouring my limited memory of this - didn't the God of the Old Testemant order his followers to destroy the idols and cities of false religions? Christianity certainly destroyed ancient religious sites as well when they conquered new territories. That is so far back in history now no one cares or notices and at the time there was little desire to protect such sites.

I also think that destruction of holy sites is, like rape, a weapon of war designed to demoralize the opposition or wipe out their culture.

We know that each side, from time to time, screws up and takes actions that, in hindsight, they would rather not have done. I know that in April, 2014, the Masque in the village of Kherbt al-Taweel near Nablus was intentionally destroyed. But there is there a long standing history or pattern of destruction.

I'm just asking if there is anything to these patterns of radicalise Muslims actually doing this over a long period of time?

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think that the pattern of radical Islam is any different than that of any other extremist religious group. It's just that it's occuring in recent times so we're more aware of it. I think what people forget in this is that it was Islam that protected many of those sites for hundreds or a thousand or more years.

Then why is the hamas charter written along extremist Islamic religion lines, showing that you have either not done your research or you are spouting islamonazi propaganda.

The evidence shows that hamas has systematically destroyed all traces of non Islamic religions from gaza, and that fatah have done the same in the west bank just not as openly

Christianity preferred to combine pagan practises and places into their religion so they did not alienate the natives. Sometimes this backfired as in the case of missionaries who where crucified by the natives to see if they would be resurrected. I would not say 400 or even 300 years ago is a long time, just look at what the Christians destroyed in the US and Australia because it was pagan religious artefacts. Even today Indian burial grounds are destroyed in the name of progress

 

[Coyote]

So, interestingly, the sermon at services this morning was centered around our on-going responsibilities as Jews, as Canadians, as people, to continue to take responsibility and make restitution for the wrongs done in the past to the First Nations peoples on whose land we have built, even into these second and third generations and onward into the future.

It made me think about this thread.

It is interesting! I know I am very flippant about religion (I'm convinced God has a sense of humor otherwise why would he have given it to us?) but things like you say above, are what I like, and one of the things I like about Judaism in particular (as opposed to Christianity and Islam) - is what matters most is this life, not some afterlife.

G-d has a sense of humor. Yep. And sounds like something a Jew would say. Grin.

It was a good sermon. He spoke about how we all step back and raise our hands and say -- whoa, whoa, well it wasn't US who (did that horrible thing) -- it was another people, or another religion or another sect or another generation. But he was trying to make us realize that we are accountable. Even unto the next generation. And the next. And the one after that That we need to repair the world. And we need to keep doing it, individually and communally until its fixed.

That's interesting...is it unique to Judaism? The sense of communal responsibility to repair the world and accountability through the generations? I would like to know what Christians think and what Muslims think on this from Muslims and Christians. I wonder if what makes it particular to Judaism is that unlike the others, there isn't an afterlife. Belief in an afterlife would mean more of your actions are geared towards that? Saving souls rather than focusing on the earth you live on and saving it for future generations? This could be totally simplistic - might make a good threa on it's own.