Jerusalem Holy Site Declared Muslim, Not Jewish, In United Nations Resolution

This is kind of a last straw for me...I'm done with the game. Sorry.

a reply to: breakingbs

Are you okay?

a reply to: breakingbs

You're right, it seems to be an almost constant across the US political spectrum, but the religious right particularly come across (to me at least) as the most radically pro-Israel.

a reply to: angeldoll


Be quiet.

a reply to: Ohanka

Yeah, but I'm on the right and I'm pro nobody. I will play any role up until it gets to the point of distraction.

One question here.

Who exactly authorized the UN to tell multiple religions where their holy sites are?

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Pff. Beats me. I've heard neither hide nor hair of it..

a reply to: breakingbs

Basically, you have one city that is holy to three major religions.

And one site where two of them have major claim to sacred ground.

Islam is famous for repurposing the holy sites of conquered foes into its own new sacred sites. That's what the Dome of the Rock is. That isn't to say it isn't sacred to Muslims, but it is an attempt to deny that Judaism also lays claim to that ground as their Temple Mount.

It's a standard tactic used to try to erase the religious and cultural traditions of others and it's been used time and again by conquering peoples all across the world. It becomes a problem when the indigenous (or conquered) group refuses to relinquish their culture and traditions and give up their holy sites and sacred ground.

It's not like Jerusalem is the only place where this happens. It's only the most famous.

a reply to: ketsuko

Don't talk to me like I'm 10.

Isn't the UN supposed to bring peace ?

Facepalm !

a reply to: lostbook

I must say, I find that a rather strange, and historically speaking ignorant ruling.

Fact:

Of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths, Islam is by far the youngest. It simply has not been around as long as either of the other two.

Given that, it seems improbable that the Muslim faith has a stronger claim to the site than the Jewish faith does. Something seems a little... skewed here.

So, if I get this right, an islamic majority in the UN has declared a sacred site within Israel to all faiths in that area to be exclusively recognised as an islamic holy place only to the detriment of the other faiths?

What's the chance of this declaration being actually honoured?

Nil IMHO and all that can come from it is bloodshed as if there's not enough of that already there.

originally posted by: schuyler
The UN is a joke. Who built the (first and second) temple in the first place as the primary place of worship for Judaism? The Jews. Who put a shrine ON TOP OF IT several hundred years later after conquering Jerusalem, a Jewish city? The Muslims. Conclusion? It's a Muslim holy place.

How utterly absurd.

The people who built that temple were local to the land at the time. The locals haven't changed since then, only their belief systems have. Just like in many other areas of the world belief systems change over time.

Immigrants using ancient texts to justify an occupation is what I'd consider to be the real absurdity here.

Free Palestine!!!

originally posted by: breakingbs
a reply to: ketsuko

Don't talk to me like I'm 10.

Don't act like it?

Who said anything about you being 10?

You were the one who said you have no idea, so I tried to give you some idea. Don't ask for people to give you a clue after claiming you don't have one if you don't want one.

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: schuyler
The UN is a joke. Who built the (first and second) temple in the first place as the primary place of worship for Judaism? The Jews. Who put a shrine ON TOP OF IT several hundred years later after conquering Jerusalem, a Jewish city? The Muslims. Conclusion? It's a Muslim holy place.

How utterly absurd.

The people who built that temple were local to the land at the time. The locals haven't changed since then, only their belief systems have. Just like in many other areas of the world belief systems change over time.

Immigrants using ancient texts to justify an occupation is what I'd consider to be the real absurdity here.

Free Palestine!!!

And yet, we respect the sacred grounds of the indigenous people of the Americas all over based on what? Their oral traditions and artifacts. In fact, they have their own autonomous enclaves within sovereign nations too based on the same. What are the Jews asking for that is different?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: schuyler
The UN is a joke. Who built the (first and second) temple in the first place as the primary place of worship for Judaism? The Jews. Who put a shrine ON TOP OF IT several hundred years later after conquering Jerusalem, a Jewish city? The Muslims. Conclusion? It's a Muslim holy place.

How utterly absurd.

The people who built that temple were local to the land at the time. The locals haven't changed since then, only their belief systems have. Just like in many other areas of the world belief systems change over time.

Immigrants using ancient texts to justify an occupation is what I'd consider to be the real absurdity here.

Free Palestine!!!

And yet, we respect the sacred grounds of the indigenous people of the Americas all over based on what? Their oral traditions and artifacts. In fact, they have their own autonomous enclaves within sovereign nations too based on the same. What are the Jews asking for that is different?

"Indigenous people of the Americas". This is exactly what Jewish people in Palestine aren't, that's the big difference.

originally posted by: breakingbs
a reply to: angeldoll


Be quiet.

Lol! I think I will take your advice.

To be fair, the Temple Mount predates both Judaism and Islam. So if the UN is truly interested in Cultural Protection, it should go to Pagans still in the area.

The ruling itself is absurd though. Jerusalem was getting on for several thousands age before Islam was even invented....... Not often i agree with the state of Israel (as opposed to Israeli's themselves) but i do here - it smacks of anti-semitism.

Again though, the Temple Mount was in use before either religion came about.

...