Posted on 10/29/2006 7:59:45 PM PST by Alouette
Haredim promise violence if parade takes place, tell J'lem police chief 'will not give up, dialogue or negotiate'
Haredim keep threatening to strike the gay parade scheduled to take place in Jerusalem in two weeks. Most recently, Jerusalem Police Chief Maj. Gen. Ilan Franko met Sunday with Haredi leader Yitzhak Tuvia Weiss.
Franko asked to learn about the stance of Haredi rabbis who declared their intent of a 'Million Man Protest' against the parade. Police did not release details of the meeting.
A source close to the rabbi said that Weiss told Franko that he cannot promise the police chief that there won't be Haredi violence at the march.
"The rabbi declared there'd be a war over this, that we couldn't stay silent about it. We cannot give up or compromise about this," the source said.
Even an offer of compromise, that the parade be moved further from the center of the city, was rejected out of hand by the Haredim. Haredi representatives told the police chief that they intend to go "all the way" on the issue.
The Kol-Haredi telephone hotline, which supplies news updates from the Haredi sector, reported the meeting: "The meeting took place at the (spiritual leader's) house…for over half an hour. The police chief arrived to see just how serious Haredi leaders are about this march."
"Do they intend only to protest against the abomination, as is required, or do they intend to rally without restraint and with full devotion?" queried the broadcast.
"The spiritual leader was clear. We will not give up. We will not come to any dialogue or negotiation. We’re talking about our souls and our obligations to oppose such things and erase this abomination from the holy city, Jerusalem," it answered.
Kol-Haredi further reported that Franko had shown the Haredim the intended parade route, in the hopes of convincing them to stay away from areas where it would run. In response, the rabbi responded, "We're going to war on this issue."
"Not only in Jerusalem, but all over Israel, in Beit Shemesh, Ashdod and 15 junctions that will be hermetically sealed on Friday, during the abomination parade in Jerusalem," he elaborated.
According to the hotline, "we understand that Franko has the power to cancel the parade if he feels that there is a danger to human life. This is what we are trying to make him understand – there is a danger and there will be a holy war on this issue."
'Take a stick and hit them'
The Haredi counter-march is set to take place on Hillel Street, where the march is set to begin. One plan that came up in Haredi forums is to infiltrate the march with some fifty men who "don't look Haredi…who will 'blast' the parade from the inside," said a source close to Rabbi Weiss.
"He said every cop seen along the way should be beaten. After all, the police will try and stop us…so we should be prepared and bring sticks to hit them," he stated, adding "a direct order hasn't been issued, but everyone knows."
The Haredis will most likely be joined in their protests by religious group Agudat Israel. Despite pushing ninety, movement leader Menachem Porush is still active in advancing a counter-march to the rally.
"We haven't yet decided what to do, but we can't, without a doubt, allow such an abomination to go by as part of the daily agenda in Jerusalem," Porush told Ynet. His goal, he said, was to "take away their right to march."
In response, the Open House said "it should be noted that the march will not go through or next to residential neighborhoods, Haredi or otherwise."
"The unfortunately extremist attack-and-bargain strategy will not deter us," they insisted.
"The last few days have proven that we're not just fighting for the rights of the gay community in Jerusalem, but rather for anyone who believes in liberty and human rights. We call on the community at large to join us in our struggle."
Efrat Weiss contributed to the report
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
There should be outrage, violence, and pure mayhem in Jerusalem - against the gays. The very idea is an insult. We can't tolerate perversion. They can be gay if they want to, but not in the streets of Jerusalem.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Haredim ping. Go get 'em, boy!
This will only help the terrorists cause. They will say, "See, these people are promoting sexual immorality. Do you want them to spread this abomination to the rest of the Middle East?. This proves that they are of Satan. We must rededicate ourselves to wipe Israel off the map and stop this abomination from spreading to our countries."
This will fan the flames of hatred of Israel among the Islamic and Arab nations.
You know what would be a hoot? Maybe Israel could let the religion of peace come into the country for that one day.
bump with no comment.
By "pagan" I don't suppose you would include those heretical Christians, would you. Your "Islam...by the sword..." quote is exquisitely appropriate for you, you seem to have the mind-set of a first-rate Taliban.
For the record, I don't think that flamers should be parading in the streets of Jerusalem, but I believe that there are less drastic ways of preventing that.
You're probably right, but that in and of itself isn't a good enough reason. The arabs are savage primitives who will hate everybody else for whatever reason they can use to justify their psychosis. If we begin making domestic policy decisions based on what the depraved neanderthals want, we've already lost (by we, I mean the US and Israel).
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Is it the parade in any part of J'lem or does the parade go to visit certain places in J'lem that is the cause of outrage?
The very reason they want to parade their perversion there is because it is viewed as a Holy City. Otherwise they wouldn't go near it.
I'll take comments over beheadings any day.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
I'm not sure condoning, let alone encouraging, this kind of violence is a good idea. In fact, Im pretty sure its a bad idea. Can't we just stick to political pressure...and not...you know...massive street riots?
Homosexual Agenda Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
The only problem with political pressure is the homosexual "rights" crowd has already put so much pressure, for so long, that it's almost impossible to undo 25 years of surrender to them.
Again, not saying I condone violence, but civil disobedience? A show of disapproval? You bet!
A friend told me of a demonstration she took part in when a "gay" cruise ship landed in her port town. A lot of people lined the area (street? wharf? not sure) with signs such as "AIDS kills". They were reviled by the cruise ship residents, but the local people were energized. People need to stand up against evil. And homosexuals are obviously trying to stick it to religious people by having their noxious parade in Jerusalem.
If anyone is to blame for any violence, it is the city officials who refuse to deny a permit for the parade. They have every right in the Holy City, to deny any so called right, to perversion and indecency in the streets of the city. But they, so far, have succeeded only in postponing it till now. Deny them the permits, it's that easy.
Let them go to Mecca or some such place and hold there abomination parade. (I had to use that term, it's great!)
By that standard, there shouldn't be any laws that restrict anyone from doing anything they please, even if what they do are depraved. We should all make up our own minds what is right and wrong, and decide individually whether we want to do whatever we want whether good or evil, because restricting their behavior will be forcing your beliefs of good and evil on others who may not agree with your beliefs.
Israel and America were founded on the principles of the 10 commandments. That is why both countries are democratic republics. If we cannot put limits on behavior, then we have no right telling other nations that they cannot have nuclear weapons, kill innocent people, or invade other countries.
The parent of both Judaism and Christianity is El Shaddai, and I don't think He would mind saying that Christians are adopted into the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob since His Only Begotten Son, Y'shua said that planely Himself, and repeated by everyone of his diciples including Paul who wrote the majority of the books of the old Testament. The Old Testament is the New Testament Hidden, and the New Testament is the Old Testament Revealed for both point to the Messiah as our Deliverer and God's Anointed - To the Jews - Maschiach, to the Christian - Christ.
When you see the abomination of desolation "in the place it should not be"..................
That's fine. But there's a big difference between holding signs and carryings ticks and inciting people to attack the police.
Frankly, that is unG-dly, unlawful, and unJewish. And I really can not and will not condone it or turn a blind eye. I will go so far as to call that kind of action evil.
I like the whole Christian perspective of hate the sin, love the sinner. Well, that applies here. And beating people is not the best way of solving problems in this case.
As you know, I am not opposed to the use of violence in certain circumstances (such as self-defence), or arming yourself as a precaution and deterrent, but this is not one of those circumstances.
Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah are no longer Jews by the standards of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and thus by the Jewish community. Even if Christians might consider them such.
But, Christians and Jews do need to stand together in these times and cease squabbling amongst each other. Bigger problems to worry about.
Frankly, I think instead of targetting Jewish groups, Christians should target more and more Muslims for proselytization. Far more of them out there, and it would really help the cause, and fracture the ranks less.
;p
Just my two cents, though.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
I agree with you. Planning to beat the police is entirely wrong.
One problem is that because homosexual "rights" has gone so far, and now has government stamp of approval (or more) all over the world, people are being pushed into a tight corner.
why do we need to have pride in men wanting to anally violate each other? and what other sexual acts should deserve a parade??? Adultery? Beastiality?? Pedophilia?? Spouse-swapping? Group Sex?? Incest?? Masturbation?? S & M??
You got that right! This "parade" is a direct attack against the Haridim and their values, it's violence is of a sexual sort.
But then the Jews are adopted by the Parent too...
Traditionaly the siblings in an adopted family tend to have a bit of an identity crisis.
The entire motivation for this display of perversion is to offend and disgust decent people to the point where the homos can claim they are VICTIMS. Homos continue to build their victim-status as necessary to claim special rights and protections. Few people are not offended by a parade of disgusting and mentally depraved behavior as seen periodically in San Fransicko. Most people will be offended, but at the same time, some children may be recruited and attracted to such bizarre behavior.
You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state!
Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each state’s election boards - etc)
| Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] -- Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution. This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia. With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy. But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong….
|
Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below
All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way. Arizona defines the amendment this way:
All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.
-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)
* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)
* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)
* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)
* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)
* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)
* IOWA The only state I could not find the information.. what a mess.. even the Servers were so slow. Drove me crazy!... Found the documents but seems like they did not include the amendment….speaks poorly of that state to me)
* COLORADO
****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)
****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it,depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and confuse issues - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.
(Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)
Virginia State Board of Elections
Virginia: The amendment - Ballot question # 1 (page 3)
1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1
Excerpt -------------------------
EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.
Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.
Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).
A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."
Winsconsin State Elections Board website
Winsconsin:November 2006 Referenda Questions
Winsconsin:See the actual document (the amendment)
Colorado Secretary of State – Elections Center
Colorado:Amendments and Referendums
[1] Colorado: Amendment 43 (Marriage)
[2] Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron — 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....
Summary of Legislation
Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.
Tennessee Division of Elections
Tennessee Constitutional Amendment # 1 (Marriage - Page 3)
Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)
Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.
Arizona Secretary of State - 2006 Ballot Propositions and Judicial...
OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage
~[snip]~
The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
A “yes” vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.
A “yes” vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex “marriage”.
A “yes” vote will not invalidate anyone’s civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.
A “yes” vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.
A “yes” vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.
~[snip]~
ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizona’s Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, “Let the people decide.” We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our state’s marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote “Yes” on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriage’s traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less
South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.
A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.
A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.
South Carolina State Elections Commission - Ballot Measures 2006
South Carolina: Constitutional Amendment 1 - Marriage
SUMMARY
This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.
However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission
Why isn't everyone's BS detector going off?
'Haredim' isn't some capitalized, organized group that has a spokesman.
Y'idiot Achronot frequently makes up stuff to slander religious Jews.
I guess they could mount massive political pressure by cowering in their homes as the homosexuals take the streets, then again a better position would be to politically mandate their law enforcement arrest all homosexuals and remove their freedom to further degenerate society. While incarcerated if they seek to commit homosexual acts, then further remove their freedom to move about freely.
When societies ignore degenerate behavior, the violence of that behavior will prevail unabatedly.
They can parade in Jerusalem because they know the Jews will for the most part put up with gays mocking the Holy City. Just let the gays march at a site the Islamists consider sacred, such as Mecca. Of course, it will never happen for the same reason that leftists mock Christianity and Judiasm but either ignore or claim to revere Islam. They know that Jews are easy targets while while the Islamists turn violent at the slightest insult. I'm not exactly suggesting that Jews act like the Islamists but if Israel becomes like San Francisco (I don't think a few thousand perverts can make that happen) then the country is finished.
W.W.J.D. "What Would Joshua Do?"
He would have their heads, every single one of them.
I'm not arguing against such laws right now. I'm just saying who cares what the arabs want? They're murderous savages. If we went by what they want the ten commandments would be thrown out in favor of sharia law.
Woah . . . dude . . . that sounds like something I would say!
Yeyasher kochakha!
This will fan the flames of hatred of Israel among the Islamic and Arab nations.
As if anything more were needed to "fan the flames" of the terrorists' hatred!
Besides, Judaism (and the Jewish State) are not about "democracy" (a Western, Hellenistic concept) but about Torah, and whether Western secular conservatives (and Jewish liberals) want to admit it or not, there is a great deal of similarity between Torah and islam (except that Torah is from Heaven and islam is the invention of men).
I never understood why "conservatives," especially "Biblical Fundamentalists," would scream bloody murder over the stoning of adulterers!
Since all religions (at least of the western, Biblically-derived variety) believe that their religion is exclusively true, then all such members of every one of them is (by your definition) "like the Taliban." Haven't we had enough of liberals using such terminology for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?
Since all Orthodox Jews believe that HaShem and the Torah are exclusively true, naturally they believe that at the end of history their religion will be universally acknowledged and all others (including chr*stianity) will be discarded. It's called "the eschatalogical triumph" and all our Biblically-derived religions believe it. It's the same as Fundamentalist chr*stians who insist that at the "second coming" all Jews will recognize that J*sus was the messiah all along.
I've had it with enlightenment "conservatism!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.