Law of Return
"I'm not ashamed of my faith, but I do not want problems. Who knows? Then my family may have trouble because of me, and no one needs", - she says.
The amendment to the Law of Return, the right of Jews set forth in this Act, "also apply to the children and grandchildren of Jews, as well as the spouse of a Jew, his children and grandchildren - with the exception of those who were Jewish, but voluntarily changed his religion."
Over the years, Jews who hid in obtaining citizenship from the authorities that they have a different religion, converted to Christianity or subsequently declared themselves Messianic Jews, deprived of citizenship. But this year the High Court of Justice accepted the appeal of Messianic Jews and recognized their right to return, if only the father was a Jew, not a mother."
Imagine if the US were to have had restrictions based on the dominant religion (Christianity) which restrictions had been so strong that the above would be considered a huge relaxation. Imagine then that the US were calling itself a modern, strong democracy and that it had been even before the tiny exception to the restrictive immigration based upon one religion and one main (albeit genetically vaguely determinable as of yet concerning "Jewish") ethnicity, say Anglo-Saxon.
Known translator and journalist Israel Shamir - one of the few who are not afraid to speak openly about their faith. In the past, political dissident, he came to Israel as a staunch Zionist, served in the elite airborne troops took part in the 1973 war. Today Shamir, the man with the name of Israel in the world, is Orthodox.
Shamir accused of fascism, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism ... Perhaps no public figure is not in relation to itself such hostility, as Israel Shamir.
I've read plenty of Israel Shamir's writings and watched him in videos, etc. He is no fascist, far from it. He opposes the fascism of political Zionism. Neither is he anti-Jew. He does look at Zionism's history without the rose-colored glasses on. He understands the Nakba.
The Wikipedia Zionistically (deceptively; the Wikipedia is controlled by Zionists) calls the Nakba the "Palestinian exodus" rather than "Palestinian catastrophe." Nakba does not mean "exodus."
This is a vastly better article to understand the Nakba: "The Catastrophe, Al Nakba: How Palestine Became Israel," by Alison Weir. If Americans Knew. Last Updated April 2013.
Read the "Notes" there too. They are packed.
As packed as that article is, it only gives an overview. It doesn't even hit every highlight because there are so many. It does cite enough sources that if one checks into them and then studies the issues raised, one will obtain a very deep understanding of what's been going on, on the political and secular levels. For a religious, financial, and economic understanding, one must deliberately study the religions involved (in addition to finance and economics; especially banking and monetary reform) and do a great deal of thinking for oneself.
If you do want to read the Wiki article, here it is. I'm not saying not to read it. Reading it gives insight into Zionist propaganda to cover up, downplay, and excuse their legal actions and inactions. This section is perhaps the most important: "Debate on the causes of the Palestinian exodus."
You will note the repeated use of the term "balanced." That's a psychological ploy by Zionists. It's designed to attempt to get the reader to falsely believe that the Zionist's have a legitimate side to the story, that the Zionist version is worthy of further consideration or even agreement after reading it.
I'm not opposed to people reading and hearing that false narrative versus the correct narrative. I'm only opposed to people agreeing with the false narrative after having read and heard the anti-Zionist facts.
You will also note who gets the last word in that section. It's the person (Political Zionist Bennie Morris) who excused the clear terrorism used to get the people to flee, people who have yet been allowed to return (which blocking is definitely illegal under international law).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)