Down with Islam's question

[Dr. Dan]

I think I have seen the light ...

My understanding of Chaim's answer is that when a nation/race/religion has an overwhelming majority that hates us, each individual person that we meet from that group is guilty until proven innocent...not the opposite....

Does that sound right to everyone?

[newman]

It's only logical. I get so sick of liberals saying " you can't generalise". Well you can if what you are saying applies to at least 60% of a group.

[Dr. Dan]

I always hated assuming that just because someone was black or arab that they were a bad person...just never sat with me well.  I understand JTF's ideology that when it is the vast majority then it is wiser to assume that person is evil.

But I think it's better in my understanding that these people are guilty until proven innocent...Meaning they have a chance to prove themselves as righteous.  HOwever, what criteria of truth will make them innocent and how do we know that the Arab or Muslim is not beign clever?

[Yogy]

Chaim's answer makes sense to normal people. It is just common sense. If someone belongs to a group of people at war with you, you assume him/her hostile until proven otherwise.
But the leftists are not normal people ...

[Muck DeFuslims]

Why are you making things so hard for yourself ?

Since 95% of Arabs are Mooozies, you automatically know they are evil.

Now let's assume out of the remaining 5% that there are some righteous Arabs.

What should this mean to a rational, sane person ?

Should the rational, sane person make it a priority not to wrongly classify the non-evil Arabs as enemies ?

Or should his priority always be self-preservation and self-defense, even at the expense of doing wrong to the small minority that might not be evil ?

In the real world, bad things happen to good people.

In a perfect world there would be justice for all.

But this is not a perfect world.

In this world, decent Arabs and decent Blacks have to suffer the consequences of guilt by association with the larger evil group they are part of.

Is this fair ? No.

Is this lamentable ? Yes.

But that's the way things have to be, because there's no easy or sure way to distinguish the good from the bad.

So don't torture yourself over it or feel unneccessary guilt about it.

[newman]

The sooner white guilt and self-hate is erased, the sooner we'll destroy our enemies.

[Ehud]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

[Dr. Dan]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

I see you and Muck have a good point..

but in Judaism, self defense means as soon as someone is about to pick up the gun, you shoot them...not when they first say, "i want to kill you."

So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way.

[newman]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

I see you and Muck have a good point..

but in Judaism, self defense means as soon as someone is about to pick up the gun, you shoot them...not when they first say, "i want to kill you."

So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way.

Not true......you can shoot an unarmed burglar because under Talmudic law you can assume a burglar will try to kill you if challenged . Check out this site:

http://www.jpfo.org/

[DownwithIslam]

Of course my question was logical. Look at all the shvartza leaders, they are all jew haters. There is no reason to value their lives over dogs who actually save jewish lives while serving in Israel.

[Dr. Dan]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

I see you and Muck have a good point..

but in Judaism, self defense means as soon as someone is about to pick up the gun, you shoot them...not when they first say, "i want to kill you."

So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way.

Not true......you can shoot an unarmed burglar because under Talmudic law you can assume a burglar will try to kill you if challenged . Check out this site:

http://www.jpfo.org/

you can shoot to kill the buglar if you aren't sure if he will pursue you or your family, Gd forbid.  But if you know that he has no intention to kill you, you are only permitted to shoot his legs, for example, if he starts running away...but that only applies to people who are good with guns...personally i'll probably hit his back.

[newman]

But you can't be sure.....I mean a burglar is not likely to tell the truth even if a dialogue were possible. Basically, if you have an intruder and live in a 'Castle Doctrine' duristiction.........kill the SOB.

[Dr. Dan]

But you can't be sure.....I mean a burglar is not likely to tell the truth even if a dialogue were possible. Basically, if you have an intruder and live in a 'Castle Doctrine' duristiction.........kill the SOB.

hey, i'm with you on that...i have never been able to figure out how one could possibly know that a burglar was pursuing your life or not...never been in those shoes to know..

Nevertheless, for those of us who are stuck on political correctness but dont' want to be but still have trouble leaving it completely behind, can justify stating that enemies of good/enemies of Jews nation or race shouldbe guilty until proven otherwise...which means that they ahve a chance to redeem themselves.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Dannycookie says:
"So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way."

I'm really not sure what the heck this means.

You say "i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..." and in the next breath not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people". 

I must be missing something.

Are you deeming them guilty until proven innocent or not ?

If you're not, then tell me what criteria you're using to selectively determine which ones aren't to be considered guilty.

This makes no sense at all.

And to clarify something; they're not being considered guilty and "couldn't care less because bad things happen to good people".

They're being considered guilty because they're part of a larger evil group and there's no easy or sure way to distinguish the good from the bad.

This doesn't mean you couldn't care less or are incapable of feeling bad about the injustice and unfairness when an innocent person is wronged.   

However it's senseless to beat yourself up over this or to feel unneccessary guilt because ultimately you are not to blame and you are only doing what is best to defend yourself. 

[Dr. Dan]

Dannycookie says:
"So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way."

I'm really not sure what the heck this means.

You say "i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..." and in the next breath not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people". 

I must be missing something.

Are you deeming them guilty until proven innocent or not ?

If you're not, then tell me what criteria you're using to selectively determine which ones aren't to be considered guilty.

This makes no sense at all.

And to clarify something; they're not being considered guilty and "couldn't care less because bad things happen to good people".

They're being considered guilty because they're part of a larger evil group and there's no easy or sure way to distinguish the good from the bad.

This doesn't mean you couldn't care less or are incapable of feeling bad about the injustice and unfairness when an innocent person is wronged.   

However it's senseless to beat yourself up over this or to feel unneccessary guilt because ultimately you are not to blame and you are only doing what is best to defend yourself. 

1. IN war, you take no prisoners...you take the guilty with the innocent...
2. In everyday life, those who are part of the larger group are guilty until proven innocent.  I just choose not to randomly hate individuals i do not know.  However for evil groups, in my eyes they will be guilty until proven innocent.
3. THere are different levels..there is the bigger picture of politics and then there is one-on-one basis.  If it is someone i work with everyday and it is purely professional and not political, I judge on human interaction, if they are helpful, if they are curteous, if they are nice, if they don't talk back, if they speak in clear english etc.  In the world of politics and religion, if they know about Israel, if they hate Israel, or if they love Israel etc etc etc.
4. Walking in the streets I see a man dressed in dirty clothes or gangster clothes....i would never trust him with my life..But if I saw him help an old woman across the street (and wasn't robbing her), then I know on one level he might be righteous.  If I knew him personally and he was a strong advocate of Israel and hated evil people, then i know he is righteous at another level. 

[Shlomo]

It's only logical. I get so sick of liberals saying " you can't generalise". Well you can if what you are saying applies to at least 60% of a group.

Ya, they always say that you can't generalize "like all the terrible conservatives and religious people do". They generalize when they say "the arabs want peace". So it's ok for them to generalize when it works in their favor. They are ignorant hypocrites who only claim things that help their agenda. If we can't look at a group of people for what they do on average, then how could we function? Voting in elections, by it's very nature, gives a generalized opinion. Whenever some politician says "the American people have spoken" or when a city claims to have more or less crime... again, it's a generalization.

We have to look at patterns because they are all we have. That doesn't mean we abuse the concept of generalizing, but excluding it all together would leave the planet in utter chaos. It's ignorant and arrogant for these folks to think that there are people who never generalize. That argument is such garbage. When they say this, ask them "do you think that, in general, most people do or do not generalize"?

[newman]

Yeah, It's like you've gotta chew the fat with 1.2 billion chinese before you can make a statement about chinese culture or values. It's another attempt at speach control/ thought control by the cultural elite.

[Catholic Zionist 73]

There is a difference between generalising a race/ethnicity, and talking about Muslims. Chaim is right, to be a Muslim means you believe the Quran. It says that Muslims must conquer the world and kill or enslave all non-muslims. They condemn all of us as their enemy, we can only respond by accepting their request to be enemies.

[RationalThought110]

I think I have seen the light ...

My understanding of Chaim's answer is that when a nation/race/religion has an overwhelming majority that hates us, each individual person that we meet from that group is guilty until proven innocent...not the opposite....

Does that sound right to everyone?

Why would you assume otherwise?

[newman]

I think I have seen the light ...

My understanding of Chaim's answer is that when a nation/race/religion has an overwhelming majority that hates us, each individual person that we meet from that group is guilty until proven innocent...not the opposite....

Does that sound right to everyone?

Why would you assume otherwise?

That's the guts of it.

[RationalThought110]

It's only logical. I get so sick of liberals saying " you can't generalise". Well you can if what you are saying applies to at least 60% of a group.

Ya, they always say that you can't generalize "like all the terrible conservatives and religious people do". They generalize when they say "the arabs want peace". So it's ok for them to generalize when it works in their favor. They are ignorant hypocrites who only claim things that help their agenda. If we can't look at a group of people for what they do on average, then how could we function? Voting in elections, by it's very nature, gives a generalized opinion. Whenever some politician says "the American people have spoken" or when a city claims to have more or less crime... again, it's a generalization.

We have to look at patterns because they are all we have. That doesn't mean we abuse the concept of generalizing, but excluding it all together would leave the planet in utter chaos. It's ignorant and arrogant for these folks to think that there are people who never generalize. That argument is such garbage. When they say this, ask them "do you think that, in general, most people do or do not generalize"?

When Joe Farah from WorldNetDaily and other guy quoted what was said at a mosque, Alan Colmes called them liars because the DailyKos, ThinkProgress and other liberal/progressive blogs told him so. 

When liberals hear something that doesn't fit their agenda, they try to make up false news.

[Shlomo]

So true... or worthless news to try and distract from real issues (*cough* Anna Nicole Smith *cough*)

[Lubab]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

I see you and Muck have a good point..

but in Judaism, self defense means as soon as someone is about to pick up the gun, you shoot them...not when they first say, "i want to kill you."

So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way.

Not true......you can shoot an unarmed burglar because under Talmudic law you can assume a burglar will try to kill you if challenged . Check out this site:

http://www.jpfo.org/

A better analogy to Jewish law is found in the laws of the Sabbath. There it states:

From askmoses.com
"1. When a [Jewish] city close to the border [is approached by a foreign power], then, even if [they state that] they come only for the purpose of [taking] straw and stubble, we desecrate the Shabbat [and wage battle against] them. For [if we do not prevent their coming] they may conquer the city, and from there the [rest of the] land will be easy for them to conquer. (Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Law], Orach Chaim 329:6)

This Halachah is not specific to the Land of Israel; it applies to any Jewish community no matter where it may be located. Our Holy Torah tells us that giving access to a foreign army to a border city is pikuach nefesh (a danger to life) which mandates that we desecrate the Shabbat to battle them. This is true even if the army claims that they have peaceful intentions – they only wish to have “straw and stubble”! How much more so when the enemy is demanding the border city itself!
---

And I'd add that here that are not only demanding the border city-they demanding the whole country. And they are not only demanding the whole country they are actively commiting acts of terrorism to accomplish this, G-d forbid!

[Dr. Dan]

Muck is right.  I'm a firm believer that it's better to be safe than sorry.  Unfortunately when one protects himself, righteous people may be lumped in with the unrighteous, but the one to blame is not the one who protects himself, but the unrighteous who draw suspicion onto the righteous.

I see you and Muck have a good point..

but in Judaism, self defense means as soon as someone is about to pick up the gun, you shoot them...not when they first say, "i want to kill you."

So personally, I'm being as jewishly vigilant as i'm supposed to...and therefore if it were only 5% righteous amongst my enemies..i will solely say, "Guilty until proven innocent..."; not "all guilty and couldn't careless becuase bad things happen to good people".  I believe in perpetrating justice a different way.

Not true......you can shoot an unarmed burglar because under Talmudic law you can assume a burglar will try to kill you if challenged . Check out this site:

http://www.jpfo.org/

A better analogy to Jewish law is found in the laws of the Sabbath. There it states:

From askmoses.com
"1. When a [Jewish] city close to the border [is approached by a foreign power], then, even if [they state that] they come only for the purpose of [taking] straw and stubble, we desecrate the Shabbat [and wage battle against] them. For [if we do not prevent their coming] they may conquer the city, and from there the [rest of the] land will be easy for them to conquer. (Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Law], Orach Chaim 329:6)

This Halachah is not specific to the Land of Israel; it applies to any Jewish community no matter where it may be located. Our Holy Torah tells us that giving access to a foreign army to a border city is pikuach nefesh (a danger to life) which mandates that we desecrate the Shabbat to battle them. This is true even if the army claims that they have peaceful intentions – they only wish to have “straw and stubble”! How much more so when the enemy is demanding the border city itself!
---

And I'd add that here that are not only demanding the border city-they demanding the whole country. And they are not only demanding the whole country they are actively commiting acts of terrorism to accomplish this, G-d forbid.




2. Said Rabbi Isaac: The Torah should have started from “This month is to you,” (Exodus 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded. For what reason did He commence [the Torah] with “In the beginning [G-d created Heaven and earth]?” Because “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Psalms 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper. When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us. (Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 1:1)

We mustn’t be ashamed to proclaim our Biblical right to our Land. It is the land that G-d promised to us in the universally accepted Bible.

Ok to clarify this.  Even if a person comes to one's doorstep only with only the intention to steal, it can be assumed that he may consider pursuing your life if you allow him.  How do the rabbis deem we should act?  Do we give a firm warning first? If we do, how are we supposed to do it?

In regards to evil nations against Israel when not all of its inhabitants, but the majority are against Israel, I'm suggesting vigilance, but not all out hatred.  "Guilty until proven innocent."  How do the Rabbis wish we act in these situations?