I am not Jewish but I admire the State of Israel

[JB Globe]

The current factors as you call them are not the reason we have terrorism they are as a result of terrorism.

I agree.

Each Palestinian has a story.

I agree, I was using a shorthand, I didn't have the time for a lengthy post.

Stop patronizing them. Many are probably far more educated then you and your attempts to portray them as helpless victims clinging to the past sounds like you projecting your perceptions and assumptions on them.

I don't see anything patronizing about it. I find it inspiring how they have maintained their identity in the face of occupation by Israel and marginalization by the Arab states. They're not doing anything Jews didn't do in Europe for centuries in that sense when faced with oppression - except their circumstances are in general more severe (save say, the Inquisition). In fact you see this in any case where a group is oppressed and their future threatened - there's always a renewed interest in history and a new commitment towards protecting that history and customs.

And since I acknowledged that Palestinians have also had a part in creating the situation in Palestine (Fatah's corruption and ineptitude, Hamas' extremism) I assumed that would make it clear that I don't view them as "helpless"

Edited May 20, 2008 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

You are behind oin the news, all israeli citizens have democratic rights....russians, arabs, druze, christians....

On paper yes, in reality no.

According to the Charter, all Canadians have democratic rights too - yet some of us live in 400 000 dollar homes and some of us live in trailers on reserves without access to clean water.

Are you really denying that there is societal discrimination by the majority against minority groups within Israel?

[Rue]

On paper yes, in reality no.

According to the Charter, all Canadians have democratic rights too - yet some of us live in 400 000 dollar homes and some of us live in trailers on reserves without access to clean water.

Are you really denying that there is societal discrimination by the majority against minority groups within Israel?

Your argument has become so general now, that it applies to any society anywhere. With due respect your attempt to simplify the complex social conflicts in Israeli society with the blanket concept of discrimination by the majority against the minority is about as useful as stating there is inequality in the world.

The point is the problems within Israeli society are far more complex then the simplistic scenario you are trying to paint.

[M.Dancer]

According to the Charter, all Canadians have democratic rights too - yet some of us live in 400 000 dollar homes and some of us live in trailers on reserves without access to clean water.

Are you really denying that there is societal discrimination by the majority against minority groups within Israel?

Poverty, or at least the fact there is poverty has nothing to do whether someone can vote or have the right to sue, go to trial...etc etc

[Rue]

Poverty, or at least the fact there is poverty has nothing to do whether someone can vote or have the right to sue, go to trial...etc etc

No but I think you would agree it effects access in regards to the legal process. We all know the legal system is not accessible to most of us given how expensive it is. In theory it doesn't stop anyone from having legal rights but in practical reality it makes them unreachable for most of us unless we remain in Small claims court.

[JB Globe]

The point is the problems within Israeli society are far more complex then the simplistic scenario you are trying to paint.

Just like antisemitism in the Arab world is a lot more complicated than "Arabs hate Jews" - of course, I don't have the time for an expose of either subject.

My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face. And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships, we should be comparing it's treatment to other democracies, and when you do that it's clear Israel has a lot of work to be done.

[bush_cheney2004]

...My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face. And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships, we should be comparing it's treatment to other democracies, and when you do that it's clear Israel has a lot of work to be done.

Oh, you mean like First Nations, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, women, etc. in the USA and Canada? Israel is not so different after all.

[M.Dancer]

My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face. And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships, we should be comparing it's treatment to other democracies, and when you do that it's clear Israel has a lot of work to be done.

In that case, compare Israel to France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Slovakia, Estonia.....

Israel is at least on par if not better.

[Rue]

I respond JB Globe to this comment you made; "My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face."

The point to me is it appears your point is based on a subjective preconception of what life as a minority in Israel is, when you are not a minority in Israel or a "majority" in Israel and are basing your conclusions not on facts or anything objective but simply your preconceived stereotypes as to what life is like in Israel for anyone.

I w ould suggest before you make assumptions as to what the experience is for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bahaiis or anyone else in Israel you do something more than simply engage in promulgating stereotype assumptions based on your subjective feelings. That is precisely what I am calling you out on. What you do is simplistic and nothing more then an exercise in negative stereotyping.

Your above statement is absolutely incorrect. Muslim Israelis live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East. So your statement your comments are based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face is nonsense. Go find out for yourself how their standard of living compares to Muslims elsewhere.

In fact your statement is based on you assuming Jews hate Muslims in Israel and Israel discriminates against Muslims because they are Muslim. That stereotype comes from your ignorance as how how the law operates in Israel in regards to all Israelis and what in fact makes it difficult for people to get work regardless of whether they be Jewish, Muslim or Christiana nd how it affects them all.

In fact if you made an effort to really find out what is going on within Israel you would know more Israeli Jews are leaving then Muslim Israelis because of economic hardship.

You would also realize that when people can't find jobs it's because of a security clearance issue and that problem affects Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone else who has not joined the IDF-it has nothing to do with discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that in Israel, if you don't get security clearance many good jobs can not be obtained. Again you do not understand what causes the security clearance issue and assume the restrictions are based on religious or ethnic discrimination. Muslim Israelis or Druze Israelis or Christian Israelis who serve in the IDF have no security clearance issues. Jews that do not serve in the IDF have the same security clearance issues as Muslim Israelis who do not serve in the IDF.

You also seem oblivious to the fact that there is no majority of Jews as you try to suggest. That is you engaging in this simplistic black and white stereotyping of jews. No it does not work that way. Within the Jewish population are Ashkanazi (European, Russian, U.S.,) Jews, Tsfardic Jews (Jews from the Arab world), Felashies, each with their own problems depending on whether they are newcomers or were born in Israel. Then there are divisions based on whether a Jew is atheist, agnostic, reform, conservative, orthodox or ultra-orthodox (of which certain sects do not believe in the state of Israel because they feel it should not exist until the Messiah comes back first).

Your inference that Jews are all one neat simplistic group who all enjoy equal access to economic opportunity and all are in a superior position to Muslim Israelis is an absolute crock. In fact in many economic sectors Muslim Israelis to far better off then Jewish Israelis.

More to the point the animosity or friction within the Jewish community between all these groups is no different, absolutely no different then between Jews and Muslims or between Muslims and Muslims within and outside Israel.

" And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships...."

Again that is absolute nonsense. Of course we should compare how Israel treats Muslims within its nation with the same Muslim nations that criticize Israel. Absolutely. It is absolute nonsense to suggest Muslim nations which violate human rights law and discriminate through the apatheid state system of sharia law and dhimmitude are ignored but you engage in the suggestion that Israel be criticized without any comparison to them. Why? Because it doesn't suit you? Why because it evidences the double standard you engage in and how you demand one thing of Israel but look the other way on anyone else in the Middle East?

For that matter you made the statement that Israel should be compared to other "democracies". Then does that mean all countries that are not democracies can not criticize Israel at all because they can't be compared? Follow your absurd comment through to its conclusion.

More to the point, Israel's legal system, its political system, its social system, its economic system, all of it is scrutinized with a standard of expectation no other "democratic" nation is subjected to.

When Israel creates a law of return for Jews, its called racist. When 80 other countries in the world create a law of return for specified ethnic groups including Jordan with Palestinians, its ignored.

When there is a human rights offence in Israel its played out as if its the only nation in the world with such problems. Name one democratic nation in the world that is as you would infer in a position to lecture Israel on human rights or democratic rights? Who? You? Oh wait now. You are Canadian. You are perfect. You can point your finger right? Never mind those aboriginal people right? Never mind the legacy of Canada and how it treated the Chinese, Sikhs and so many other minorities. Right. You get to Judge.

Oh wait now Britain can its a democracy. Oh wait now. It does have some problems doesn't it. Say I know France. Belgium. Holland. Oops oops and oops.

See the problem is when you presume to be in the position to be able to lecture others on morality it assumes you are morally perfect. Imagine that concept. Democratic nations that are perfect and can criticize others.

What a crock. There isn't a "democracy" or "non-democratic" nation in the world without unresolved moral problems and issues of internal equality and human rights.

You want to criticize Israel be my guest but enough with this ridiculous comment that it should only be compared to democracies. That is illogical.

All countries, all humans should be measured by the SAME standards for that criticism to have any meaning. Your attempt to subjectively select when you will apply the standards and who you will apply them to is what I challenge as defective.

You state;

"Israel has a lot of work to be done"

How about you look in the mirror first.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Rue

[Remiel]

What is your opinion on people of Hebrew descent who have converted or are born to converts being denied under the Law of Return, Rue?

I was just looking at the Law of Return on Wikipedia, and all other things aside, this was one thing that kind of stuck out as rather... equivocal.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Remiel

[buffycat]

Muslim Israelis live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East. So your statement your comments are based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face is nonsense. Go find out for yourself how their standard of living compares to Muslims elsewhere.

What like in the Occupied Palestinian Territories??

Such as Gaza?

The West Bank?

Or do you mean Israel proper? (whatever that is - since she won't declare her borders)/

Man, you are deluded. You buy all the lies, hook line and sinker.

Muslim or Christian in Israel and want to build a house? Fooogeetaboutit!! No permit fo YOU!! Bulldozers on the way!

What a nice place!

Rue, why don't you move there? Make Aliyah?

[JB Globe]

Oh, you mean like First Nations, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, women, etc. in the USA and Canada? Israel is not so different after all.

Not exactly the same - any of those groups are not suspected by majority society of being "the enemy" and a source of bloodshed. Neither can religion be used against them in an effort to bar them from purchasing property in certain neighborhoods.

Although I will admit, seeing as how the initial creation of Israel was a colonial enterprise, it did bear a few similarities to the kinds of things that happened to natives when Canada was being settled.

[HisSelf]

I question the authenticity of your above story which is designed to incite hatred. Even if it were true...

It is 100% true. So if I tell the truth about what Israel does, I am inciting hatred, but if I talk about Arab terrorists I am not? You can't have it both ways.

Those of you who think this is a legitimate way to enforce security might want to consider what would happen were we to be subjected to the brass ring test at our airports before boarding a plane. Israelis have the best security technology in the world at their disposal, but they chose to use this.

"It is not for security," my companion said. "It is for humiliation." She was right.

[M.Dancer]

What like in the Occupied Palestinian Territories??

There's reading and then there's comprehending....lets look at what he said, again.

Muslim Israelis live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East.

What does the west bank and Gaza have to do with israelis living in israel? For that matter, what do any non israelis have to do with living in a modern civilized nation.

Let the palestinians learn civil engineering and then perhaps their standards of living might rise to levels near what arab israelis enjoy....

[Rue]

What is your opinion on people of Hebrew descent who have converted or are born to converts being denied under the Law of Return, Rue?

I was just looking at the Law of Return on Wikipedia, and all other things aside, this was one thing that kind of stuck out as rather... equivocal.

Its a great question. The Law of Return would not apply to someone born of a Jewish mother who converted to Catholicism for example. Believe it or not that same exclusion is no different then for all the other countries that have laws of return when defining which ethnic group is to be fast tracked for citizenship based on their ancestry and for example its the same situation in Canada where we had a huge legal debate as to whether an aboriginal woman should lose her aborginal rights if she marries a non aboriginal.

The Law of Return is based on a definition of being Jewish. The definition of being Jewish requires the person to be considered a Jew and that definition of Jew or who is a Jew, has caused a debate within Jewish and Israeli society. For example many orthodox Jews would not consider reform or reconstructionist Jews as true Jews.

When Felashie Jews came to Israel these same orthodox Jewish Rabbias in the rabbinical courts said Felashie Jews had to perform a ceremony if they wanted to be considered Jews. That to me is nuts. I consider Felashie Jews more Jewish in the sense of how they pray then me. They are more close to the old ancient ways of Judaism then some of these Rabbias who presume to be more Jewish-at least I think so.

For me as a secular Jew, my definition of what a Jew is, is probably different then what it is for an orthodox Jew.

For me personally, I would argue a Jew is anyone who either converts to Judaism, or who is born of a Jewish mother, or born of a Jewish father and may not practice Judaism as a religion but does not renounce their Judaism by joining another organized religion which is incompatible with Jewish identity. This is why I accept humanist Jews who do not practice Judaism because they are atheists as Jews. To me they remain Jews because they have not denounced their Jewishness. How they practice their Jewish identity is their business. So you ask why then can not a Jew who becomes a Christian still be considered a Jew?

I would explain it this way and keep in mind this is my personal opinion. Under the law of return its the Rabbinical courts who define what a Jew is and I do not agree with their definition which is more restrictive then mine. For me, aJew born of a Jewish mother, who practices Buddism or Taoism would not be engaged in a faith that denies their Jewish identity but in fact simply helps advance it in a positive way. However if they become Catholic or Christian or Muslim they can no longer be considered Jewish as those kinds of religions define Jews as morally incorrect and inferior. To me if you accept an organized religion whose precepts necessarily deny the existence of Jews as a people, you can't expect to have your cake and eat it to. For me Taoism, Buddhism, are disciplines that do not tell you what God to believe in or comment that Jews are wrong and mistaken. They in fact contain principles that are very compatible with mystic Judaism in the Kabal and also found in the Talmud. Certain aboriginal faith beliefs would do the same thing-they don't contradict or deny the Jewish collective identity but in fact help define it.

Now in the law of return the Rabbinical courts would consider humanist Jews not to be Jews. Humanist Jews do not renounce their Jewish indentity or join other religions which define Judaism and therefore the jewish identity as wrong or defective or morally unacceptable, they are atheists or agnostics. They do not deny their identity they just do not practice the religious part of it. If you become Christian or Muslim your religion says Judaism is wrong and Jews are cursed (coing to hell). Atheist Jews do not say that-they accept their Jewish identities and do not ridicule the religion they do not follow. Rabbinical courts would disagree and say, no not good enough, you have to say certain prayers and do certain things first.

The bottom line is today, Jews range from atheist to ultra-orthoodox who believe Israel can't exist until the messiah returns-it can include anyone who is a converted Jew and practices the religion or anyone who is of a Jewish mother and does not engage in any practice that calls Jews cursed or going to hell or morally wrong or inferior. I also include children of Jewish fathers. The Rabbinical courts are strict on it being on the mother's side.

I am very wide open on what is a Jew. I draw the line personally on someone who accepts the Christian or Muslim faith but tries to say they are Jewish. Its not possible to accept a religion that says Jews are cursed and you must denounce your Jewishness and then say in the next breath you are Jewish.

But this debate as to who is a Jew can get absurd and its no different then when people start defining whether they are black or white, aboriginal or not, on and on. Hey even if the gay community has the same debate with bisexual people and transgendered people. Defining identity aint exactly the most rational of exercises.

Personally I think we are all mutts and sluts and all the product of rape and pillage and inter-racial mixing and shennanigans. Tribalism? Well no I am not comfortable with it. I sympathize with a Jewish state, but the truth is I could not live in Israel. Having been born a Jew in the diaspora, and in a country that accepts me as a Jew, I have grown up in a system where being different is tolerated.

Had I been born in Europe forced to flee the holocaust, had I been born in Arab countries forcefully expelled or harassed, I would have a far different approach to being Jewish.

I am not comfortable living anywhere where everyone is the same or with any organized religion.

For me as a Jew I see Israel as a spiritual necessity that came about because of the holocaust and persecution and was a refuge for Jews not fortunate enough like me to be born in Canada.

In an ideal world of no religions and tribalism, we wouldn't have any religious nations or discrimination now would we.

For me Israelis exist because they had to exist-for Jews to survive they had to come about. They live a hardship so that people like me in the diaspora can survive and vice versa. We are both parts of the Jewish identity. Neither could exist without the other.

But no I define myself as a human first, Canadian second, Jew third and I do not find the three contradictory or conflicted. I do not see my being Jewish as making me superior or better-its just part of a legacy I honour and respect and by remembering and respecting that legacy add it to the bigger human picture, one ingredient in a large soup.

Take a look at the law of return in Ireland to see how it determines whether someone is considered entitled to Irish citizenship based on their ancestry. You will see it does nothing different then what Israel's law of return does. You will also find the same anomole in the Japanese law of return, the Liberian law of return, and all the other laws of return, i.e., Austria's, Bulgaria's, Slovakia's, etc.

Its also no different then sharia law and how it defines Muslims or for that matter how people of organized religions differentiate themselves from followers of other religions.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

Just like antisemitism in the Arab world is a lot more complicated than "Arabs hate Jews" - of course, I don't have the time for an expose of either subject.

I have argued intensely about your other comments but I forgot to state I agree with the above comment for the same reason I debate you on the others. Gross generalizations of any behaviour are not helpful.

I also think the word hate is a misused word. Sometimes what we really mean is intolerant or disrespectful but we use the word hate. I have met Muslims and Christians who have said things I consider hateful and extremely ignorant, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind in their minds, they were not saying anything hateful or intending to be hateful. I would say the same thing about my fellow Jews and most certainly myself.

Sometimes what we intend to manifest and how its perceived are labelled by others. That is why we debate and most times my positions claim to rebutt general stereotypes although I concede I am as ignorant if not more ignorant then anyone I challenge. My intent is to treat everyone as I want them to treat me, but I admit there are some days I like any other human can be a stink weed making that problematic.

And so this is why they invented fibre. So we listen to William Shatner and eat Bran Flakes and be more tolerant of others.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Rue

[BC_chick]

As a Westerner, I felt perfectly at home in Tel Aviv or Haifa in a way that I never did in Damascus or Amman. Only Beirut offered something similar to Israel's freedom - and even Beirut had some obscurantist intrigue hanging over the discussion.

[...]

How did these people get the land where they live? I really don't care. (Israel was invaded in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.)

Translation: They look and live like we do so if they happen to bulldoze some houses and claim the land as theirs... meh, whatever.

[Remiel]

That was an excellent post, Rue, but I still have a few questions I hope you could clarify: 1. Would you count a militant atheist (someone who thinks people that believe in the divine are morally or intellectually stunted) as someone who would not be a Jew, under your definition? 2. If asked about the ethnicity of someone who was Jewish but converted to an incompatible religion, what would you say they are? 3. What would be your position on someone who was Jewish who found substantial value in a text like the Jefferson Bible, which divorces the teachings of a religious figure from the religion itself in order to create a secular reading?

Also, on a side note, I am skeptical of claims that an ideal world would be one without religion or nationality of any kind. I forsee that it would have a number of serious problems of its own, merely of a different nature. At the very least, people could probably find something else to discriminate based on.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Remiel

[Oleg Bach]

Translation: They look and live like we do so if they happen to bulldoze some houses and claim the land as theirs... meh, whatever.

So many barbarians these days...looks like nothing has changed in 5000 years..what a shame.

[Rue]

Oh Man Rem I knew youw ould keep asking. Please remember I am only giving you my personal opinions. I make no claims to being an expert on any of this and I understand why you are asking the questions and yes its hard to reconcile this multiple concept of what a Jew is because as you can see its a bit religious, a but cultural, a bit national but not specifically any of the three but a mix of them and to what degree and component remains the question and my comments only provide my subjective opinions.

O.k.s o you ask;

"1. Would you count a militant atheist (someone who thinks people that believe in the divine are morally or intellectually stunted) as someone who would not be a Jew, under your definition?"

Me personally yes, unless he denounces the concept of a Jewish identity. The Jewish world has a growing Jewish humanist component of atheists and agnostics some I suppose could be called militant but they very much celebrate their Jewish identity and culture and the right to express it through universal sufferage, art, etc. So for me yes. I think I would be safe in saying for most rabbias no and I would also hesitate to guess in the picture of the entire Jewish world, I might be in the minority on this view point although on the latter I really do not know.

" 2. If asked about the ethnicity of someone who was Jewish but converted to an incompatible religion, what would you say they are? "

Me personally I would refer to them by that religion's name, i.e., Christian, Muslim precisely because that is what their religion would require they be referred to as. Where I have a huge argument is with Jews for Jesus. They are Christian but they try claim they are Jewish. To me the two concepts are incompatible as their Christian identity necessarily contradicts the Jewish one-me personally I think they are just trying to confuse people to try convert them. However I know many Jews who practice Buddhism. One example is Leonard Cohen. I mean you could easily be a Buddhist and be Jewish. One is veryc omptabile with the other. Likewise someone could coexist as a Unitarian and a Jew at the same time-its quite possible. Nothing in Unitarianism would prevent a Jew from remaining a Jew and doing both. Unitarianism and Buddhism or say Taoism would not call on a Jew to denounce their identity or a vital component of it. Now for me personally the distinction between a jew who converts to Christianity and a Jew who is an atheist is the one who becomes Christian necessarily believes he is a Christian-his Jewish essence becomes necessarily subordinated. An atheist Jew who does not follow the Jewish religion does not have to subordinate their Jewish identity and deny part of it. To me there is a difference. To a more traditional Jew you need to engage in a certain minimum level of Jewish religious precepts to be Jewish so they would exclude atheists as well. So it often depends on who you ask. I mean I know a very wierd man who claims he is Jewish and a Satanist at the same time. He was born Methodist. Far be it for me to suggest he is confused. I mean in my world Satanism and Judaism are incompatible but not according to this person who tells me all Jews are Satan's children. What-ever.

"3. What would be your position on someone who was Jewish who found substantial value in a text like the Jefferson Bible, which divorces the teachings of a religious figure from the religion itself in order to create a secular reading?"

Me personally, I find it compatible but then I am bias because I subscribe to that concept just as I do say the unitarian approach or certain Taoist or Buddist approaches to defining enlightenment. I personally believe the less attention we spend on hero worshipping the message giver and the more we contextualize such thoughts or passages in secular terms the more we can incite compatibility but I don't see traditional religion and this approach as necessarily being exclusive-for me on one level I would like to retain my jewish religion and traditions but on another level when interacting with others be able also to converse through the approach you raise as an example of how we can find neutral approaches for all religions and cultures to converse with one another so we can get along. I see them as both potential parts of an enlightenment process.

You stated;

"Also, on a side note, I am skeptical of claims that an ideal world would be one without religion or nationality of any kind."

I hear you. Anything to its extreme is not healthy I think. I think religion and nationality if taken to an extreme to define who we are becomes unhealthy, i.e., racist, facist, terrorist, but then a complete lack of it, would make it easier to adapt some very bad habits as we would forget the valuable lessons behind these traditions and what they intended to teach us. As I know you are already at head space wise, this key to balancing our past, present and future is a balancing act and the key is to be flexible and inclusive in how we communicate and value things-at least I think so-but again I am no theologian, prophet or lecturing-that's just my humble opinion-I would never presume to make t-shirts and create a sect to have people worship such thoughts-well at least not yet.

"I forsee that it would have a number of serious problems of its own, merely of a different nature. At the very least, people could probably find something else to discriminate based on."

Again Rem and I am just one person sharing an opinion, I would personally agree with your last statement. I think humans by nature discriminate-its what we do. Its part of a cognitive process we use to make the world around us seem understandable-its how we try make patterns from what otherwise seems like chaos. Discrimination I think is a natural cognitive process. Its when its used to incite or justify hatred or making assumptions as to what is without the need to be objective and establish what is through neutral corroborated sources, i.e. scientific methodology, logic, where I get nervous.

I see humans as primates. As apes we need to live in tribes and we discriminate no different then different species smear themselves with feces to mark their scent or piss on trees. We discriminate to make it clear what pack we are in. Now mind you some primate tribes or packs don't fight over territory, others do.

I suppose if nothing else learning to discriminate different life forms such as those that can eat us from those that would compete for our food supply and those we would eat and those that are harmless to us is all part of the natural process. However I think where we human primates have gone astray is in the fact that our discimination is no longer natural but has taken on a dimension I would best describe as killing for the sake of killing, a trait no other species on the planet seems to have.

Even when killer whales play with seals before eating them or fox or wolf cubs chase after mice or cats and bat them around and leave them half mutilated it would appear such exercises are designed to develop their primal hunting skills they will need to survive. When we humans do it, we don't do it because we need to survive-we seem to have evolved to a level of discrimination without any real purpose.

I used to think it was caused by a territorial imperative, now I just see it as a pathological trait we have developed and a symptom if a behavioural illness we have developed arising from our having lost touch with the natural rules of order and emersing ourselves in a non natural material world of values where life is defined by what we possess and control not what we learn to be compatible and mutually coexistent and interlated to.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Rue

[Remiel]

Hey, Rue, thanks for answering. I find your posts to consistently be worth reading. Yes, I do tend to be rather, persistent, with some lines of inquiry, but you have satisfied my curiosity well enough for now.

I think that in some respects that the world we have created is beginning to create us. I am not so sure how " unnatural " our rather advanced forms of discrimination are, but there is definitely a question of whether some of the heuristic devices that allowed us to progress this far are now what is holding us back.