Militant Jews Order Bar Refaeli Not to Marry Leonardo DiCaprio
Jewish supermodel Bar Refaeli has received warnings from Jewish militant group Lehava who have ordered her not to marry non-Jewish lover and Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio.
Apparently marrying Leonardo will "dilute" the Jewish race. The ultra right-wing group states in a letter to Refaeli that "It is not by chance you were born Jewish."
"Your grandmother and her grandmother did not dream one of their descendants would remove future generations from the Jewish people," in addition to, "Come to your senses. Don´t marry Leonardo DiCaprio."
Just a second! Where were the miltant Jews when I married my wife?!? What, only FAMOUS Jewish people can´t marry non-jews? Or is it only jewish girls can´t marry non-jews, cause if thats the case, I guess I´m in the clear..
a think actually, a couple of them... so did Joseph... oh, definitely, there´s a lot of non jews marrying jews in the bible... so, what are they freaking out about...
Imagine how hilarious it must have been when Heidi Klum was explaining her situation to her parents lol. It just goes to show: when a woman makes up her mind, she makes up her mind and there´s no changing that!
Well by its etymolgy, African-American indicates someone of African descent who is an American so African-American is not a "race". Race refers in general to certain hereditary traits so her race would be Negroid. If she is a convert to Judaism, then she would be a Jewish Negroid.
Modern biology is distancing itself from classification of races so another definition of race may be necessary to define what is meant by the Jewish race. Jews have a shared ethnicity and nationality but they also believe that if you convert to the Jewish religion, you are a Jew. It is possible to be a Jew based on your nationality and ethnic background without adherence to the religion.
Yep, apparently famous people mean more. You know, like how Madonna got to study with Kabbalah ´adepts´, and Richard Gere gets to chill with the Dali Lama.
I thought its just a religion? I mean, are not most jews in israel today originating from Germany, the Askenazi? And then there are many russian jews, african jews?!
Earlier Friday, an Israeli cabinet minister said the government is moving to amend the country´s planning procedures on sensitive political decisions because of the embarrassing diplomatic flap. Netanyahu has said he was not aware the announcement was going to be made during Biden´s visit.
You bought that? Jewish Negroid?? No really? I think thats is an utter rubbish, not on your part unless you actually think it holds water.
Scientific community that bends backwards for jews is not a scientific community, these labels are designed to enhance an agenda, Jewish that is.
African Americans are only known as African Americans due to them losing their identity totally and completely.
Italians, British, Swedish and all other Europeans are known for their nationality, or their descent. Africans mostly for their colour of skin, North Africans are Arabs, not commonly referred to as African Arabs, but perhaps Arab Americans if they currently reside, or born in USA, or simply middle Eastern, when they may not be from there.
In a nutshell, this is the definition of Jew. Jew? ?/d?u/ Show Spelled[joo] Show IPA –noun 1.one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite. 2.a person whose religion is Judaism. 3.a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.
As for the "Jews have a shared ethnicity and nationality but they also believe that if you convert to the Jewish religion, you are a Jew." Ahum! hmm Yea, So are Muslims and Hindus and name any other religion. However can you expound on the "Shared nationality and ethnicity" Using Whoopi as an example?
Simply. They are a religious group, should not be defined as a RACE.
What if Whoopi´s famliy had been from Jamaica, instead of Africa? Would she still be classified as an African-American? Wouldn´t it piss Jamaican people off to call them Africans? From the geography lesons I learned, Jamaica is nowhere near Africa.
I knew a girl who was all about keeping the Jewish race pure...to the point where she admitted she didn´t care if all other races were exterminated. I asked her if it was OK for them, why wasn´t it OK for the nazis. Her answer was that the Jews are the chosen ones, so it is different. I didn´t bother getting into a "any god of any religion could say their followers are the chosen ones" debate.
Let´s say i am from America... and say this and that... blah blah... is this representative of America? Or even worse, is this America speaking?
The descendants of Issac (some call the Jews) are the chosen people because through their lineage comes the Messiah. The savior of man. The Messiah shall set man free from the bondage of death/sin placing man in his rightful place. But they (they being the best that human religion and human government has to offer) will kill the Messiah a descendant of Issac from the house of David, and this act will be the sacrifice that God determined would be the propitiation (that is the price determined before the creation of man) of sin fulfilled by His mercy.
Anyway, what you see there is the requirements put upon the children of Issac are to keep their paths straight for the ushering of the coming of the Messiah. It says nothing about the genetic stock or quality of character of those descended from Abraham. Because of course, Abraham was a Chaldean. What you do find in the history of the children of Abraham is many descendants became very bad people. In fact, many descendants killed each other when they became great nations. For instance, Moses fought the Moabites, the Midianites, and the Amorites... who were descendants of Abraham´s Ethiopian wife. Yet, Moses marries both a Midianite and a Cushite (both Africans). As does Joseph who marries an Egyptian. Now from there we have two kingdoms develop... the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah. Many in these kingdoms including Solomon worshiped the gods of the nations around them. That is, they had many gods.
If someone can tell me which of these can be traced to the modern state of Israel? Then who ever claims that descended purity is what is meant by chosen people (jewish), is correct. Otherwise, they´re full of self pride.
Here´s a quote for the girl you once knew: The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: "It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?" declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty. The LORD says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles. Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."
I´ll admit, too, that I´m not seeing your point here. Does this man actually think that every black person on earth came from Africa? I guess I can´t really say he´s completely wrong. But according to that kind of theory, every white person on earth must be of Eurpoean descent (even though more than half of the white people in Russia are from Asia). To me, it sounds like he´s trying to categorise people into groups to which they do not belong. And it´s pretty absurd to say that Indians are African, too. I´m positive that they would feel particularly insulted my that statement. Could it be that this guy (Akyaaba Addai-Sebo) is just trying to find a place where he fits in?
I´ve known a few people from Jamaica, and they tend to get insulted when you call them African-American. They tend to look down on people from the continent of Africa because they (at least the ones I´ve known) consider them to be backwards savages. And there´s a kind of confirmation of that in the link that I posted. The Jamaicans are making a big deal of all of the Jewish culture there, not all of the African culture there.
Maybe both of these young stars now know just how gay people feel -- with religious fanatics in the US doing everything possible to reverse the gains made by the gay community in six jurisdictions, and to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal in other jurisdictions. Maybe these young people -- who hold considerable clout in the social arena -- will understand the full viciousness of organized religion, and maybe they will become genuine allies of the gay and lesbian community throughout the US...
This is what happens when any religious group or sect obtains the power to craft law and public policy, instead of confining itself to pastoral issues.
Evil against evil.
I hope these young people learn from this, and come out in favor of gay marriage...
The church has no power over the law. However, they can, and do, tell their followers how they should behave, and what´s right and wrong. If your priest or pastor tells you that performing homosexual acts is wrong, you really only have a few choices: you can blindly follow; you can ingore him in which case you probably shouldn´t be a member of that religion; or you can quit that church (which really goes hand in hand with number 2). But, it´s always a choice. If a senator or congressman is a member of a congregation where the pastor is telling them that certain things are right or wrong, then it´s still not the church making law. It´s the senator or congressman who is adhering to the tenents of his religion that is making the law.
My opinion is that almost every religion that´s based on Judaism will always be against homosexual acts, because they all share the old testament where it explicitly says that men who commit homosexual acts should be put to death. There´s not option that if his neighbor says it´s ok, he can do it. There´s no option that says that if the government says it´s ok, he can do it. And there´s nothing in there that says that if he´s part of a certain community it´s oke for him to do it. You can say that any god who would put someone to death for it isn´t a fair god, but that´s really a matter of opinion. To the people who think that their god means what he says, it probably seems extermely fair.
Personally, I don´t care who does who. It´s none of my business, but no matter how many times it´s explained to people, they still don´t seem to get how the followers of a loving god could be so intolerant of homosexuals. It´s because it´s in their holy book.
You write "My opinion is that almost every religion that´s based on Judaism will always be against homosexual acts, because they all share the old testament where it explicitly says that men who commit homosexual acts should be put to death. There´s not option that if his neighbor says it´s ok, he can do it. There´s no option that says that if the government says it´s ok, he can do it. And there´s nothing in there that says that if he´s part of a certain community it´s oke for him to do it. You can say that any god who would put someone to death for it isn´t a fair god, but that´s really a matter of opinion. To the people who think that their god means what he says, it probably seems extermely fair."
************ Response: ************
Leviticus also demands that those who eat shellfish be stoned to death; that those who wear clothes made of two different crop fibers be stoned to death; that those who blaspheme be stoned to death; that those who dishonor their parents be stoned to death; that those who fail to honor the Sabbath be stoned to death; etc. -- I could go on all night.
Whenever church and state mix, the result is invariably a bloody shambles. I know whereof I speak.
I was born and raised in South Africa, where the South African version of the Dutch Reformed Church referred to scripture as justification for the abomination known to the world as apartheid. This policy was a catastrophe, and a gross human rights violation.
In America, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States -- NOT the Bible, and certainly not the Old Testament. The Constitution includes, inter alia, the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment mandates that the state not meddle in ecclesiastical matters, and that the church not meddle in affairs of state (see Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), etc.). When the Senator or Representative to whom you refer uses the Bible as the basis for crafting law and public policy, in violation of provisions of the US Constitution, the federal courts can and do strike down such legislation on Establishment Clause considerations. This happens all the time. The US Supreme Court struck down all laws prohibiting gay persons from having sex in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), following an earlier ruling in which the Court explicitly forbad the State of Colorado (and, by extension, all other states) from enforcing a constitutional amendment which would have prohibited any branch of the state government from passing or enforcing any statute or policy intended to protect gay persons from discrimination (Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)). These two decisions demonstrate the reach of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, respectively.
Right now, a federal court in San Francisco is considering the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which robbed gay couples in that state of the right to marry.
Ten years ago, not one state recognized gay relationships at the statewide level, to any extent whatsoever. Today, a total of 16 states now recognize gay relationships, up to and including full gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia; also, gay marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal are recognized in the states of New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland. Five states (California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey) recognize gay marriages in all but name; and another four states (Wisconsin, Hawaii, Maryland, and Colorado) grant to gay couples a limited subset of the rights of marriage.
Within a decade, the number of jurisdictions in the US recognizing gay relationships to some degree, up to and including marriage, jumped from zero to 16.
The so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment” is dead in the water, with Democrats holding sway in both houses of the national legislature.
I therefore disagree with your somewhat pessimistic assumption – and I believe that time will prove me right.
I´m really not on either side of the fence when it comes to gay marriage. I just don´t care enough about it. I was only trying to explain where the intolerance comes from.
However, a quick google search came up with following (I didn´t recall reading about a death sentence for eating shellfish, only a purification ritual, so I looked it up):
And here´s the actual quote from the old testament (it took me a while to find it): "You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening"
If the Wiki can be believed, there really are only a few offenses that can result in a death sentence, according to the Torah. Of course, the Quraan has a much longer list. My religious education was early in my life, and I have since rejected most of it. I always like a good religious argument because everyone is always right. It´s all a matter of which church you belong to.
Again, I´m not saying that these beliefs are right or wrong. I´m only saying that this is the basis for it.
Thank you for the clarification. I have been somewhat on edge recently, because of the efforts of Maggie Gallagher (of the "National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), which is an anti-gay propaganda-spewing web site) to reverse the gains we made recently in New Hampshire. Cities, towns, and villages throughout the state recently held a non-binding referendum to determine whether the state constitution should be amended to outlaw gay marriage. Fortunately, the resolution went down to massive -- literally unprecedented -- defeat, with more than 70% of the jurisdictions which considered the resolution voting against it! This was unexpected in the light of the first few results derived from the first few villages (these results were very grim) -- but these results were subsequently deluged by a flood of votes against the proposed state constitutional amendment. Gallagher and her evil acolytes are still struggling with the issue of how to spin these results, which are pretty unequivocal. Nevertheless, these truly evil men and women (and I do not use that term lightly) will do everything in their power to explain these results away as an aberration – perhaps by arguing that the public is presently more concerned about other issues and didn’t really wish to address the merits of this particular issue. Believe me – if they can find a way to spin these results in their favor, they will do precisely that. They have no honor – no loyalty to constitutional principles, no decency, no commitment to any part of Christianity other than theocratic dogma – they are political prostitutes, reminiscent of the Pharisees…
I didn´t find the verse that says that people must be hunted down and killed because they do this or that thing that is prohibited. In fact, no where in the old testament is there a proselytizing effort to cleanse the world of this or that practice. The old testament only refers to Canaan and the Israelites. That is anybody who got in the way of getting the land and anybody within the israelites that broke the law. Where you guys get this all people must do this or that... i don´t know.
In fact, what a person does with his or her body is that person´s business. What he or she does under the power of others - well, i´m not sure who´s business that is. Where´s the line there? I know, there´s no line.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)"
Once again, I´m not saying that it´s right or wrong, but it is there.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman´s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the lord thy God.” Deuteronomy 22.5
Ever been married? Ever see your wife wearing pants? Ever not bludgeoned her to death with a rock for doing so?...
...You haven´t? Good on you for not being a "good" Christian.
