Hi Mark,

No of course I haven’t, that sort of money probably like most people represents the bulk of my disposable income for a year! But if any one is
offering who am I to say no…..

Steve.

Unfortunately some subjects are just not open for discussion, and this includes the Holocaust, which is invariably reduced to innocent Jews and evil Nazis, where anyone who questions the orthodox view automatically risks being branded a Nazi.

There have been genocides both before and since, Rawanda, Bosnia, the ongoing crisis in Darfur etc etc etc. Indeed Hitler once said on the subject ‘who remembers the Armenians?’ Historically genocide seems almost to be a common human pastime, and perhaps the one thing that distinguishes the holocaust is the way in which it was industriallised.

We therefore do need to discuss genocide fully and openly, so that in the future we understand its true causes, and can thus hope to avoid the past’s attrocities

If we look at the holocaust we must note that this was certainly not the first time that anti-semitism had boiled over into murder, just look at the pogroms in Tsarist Russia. Nor indeed were the Nazis the first Jew haters in Germany, the relationship between Jews and Germans having broken down some time previously, a fact that the Nazis took full advantage of. Were the problems that lead to this state of affairs ecconomic, jealousy, lack of integragtion, some inherant racist instinct (probably the most scary suggestion) or a combination of some or all of these factors? Why are the Jews the most hated and persecuted people in history? Because only be answering these tyes of questions can we hope to avoid the repeating pattern of genocide that sems to stalk through human history.

That this conference seeks to deny the holocaust may seem strange and repugnant but at least they are talking about it. Who knows perhaps evidence will be presented that might make them accept at least in part what we take as historical fact.

Certainly as one person in my office commented of Austria ‘if they have to make holocaust denial criminal, what are they hiding?’ I think this Iranian conference is the other extreme, but whilst they’re talking there is hope they will accept the ‘Truth’.

Steve

As an ‘arch’ joyrider, I have to say that if one looks hard enough there are plenty of opportunities to fly in vintage aircraft. The observations made earlier in this thread that Spitfire flights can be arranged are to the best of my knowledge accurate, and other types can be enjoyed as well, all be it in many cases overseas.

Based upon the prices for Harvard/Tiger Moth flights, I would think that very few enthusiats would be able to afford the £1000+ that even a short Spitfire jolly would be likely cost. So from my view point the licensing of Spitfires for fare paying passengers would be purely accademic.

I would also make a more subtle point. Spitfires (excepting a few two seat conversions) are single seat fighters. So how close would the experience of being in the back of Grace Spitfire be to the experience of a young fighter pilot in the forties? I would suggest not very, and would have to agree with Janie if you want the true Spitfire experience work hard, learn to fly and buy yourself a single seater.

Personnally I prefer trainers where even the complete novice can experience the aircraft doing what it was designed to do……………

Steve.

Hi SOC,

I think there are two responses to your question, my personnal view and that which theologians might argue, such as …….

That when God was suppossed to have given land to the Jews it was a very different religion to that we see today – being centered upon a sacrificial cult. Later after the building of the temple, this cult was centered upon the temple and had a rigid hierachy of priests. This is very different from Jewish observances of today, indeed there was a time when Judaism was evangelical (Herod the Great’s family being notable converts). Therefore it could be argued that we are talking about two religions related in the same way as Judaism and Christianity, and as such the original covenant is no longer applicable. Some have argued that the Roman expullsion of the Jews is confirmation of this thesis. Certainly the Koran also contains verses which by their apparent anti-semitism can by interpreted as contradicting the verse you have highlighted.

There are many variations upon the theme above (and many entirely different theological arguments extant), all of which see the relationship between God and humanity, including his choosen people, as dynamic. This idea is of course enshrined in the B’hai world faith. Many hasidic Rabis however would argue the original covenant stands and this gives the Jews and absoloute right to the land of Isreal. In other words scriptures and events are generally interpreted to support the view point of the interpreter. This makes resolving the problems of religious conflicts exceptionally hard as it often invloves getting one or both sides to alter their world view.

I’m a Pagan, a word that covers a very wide range of beliefs and belief systems – so lets not there now. I generally hold the moderate adherants of most religions in very high regard. However I do believe that organised religions and their scriptures are purely a human creation (replacing spiritual growth with dogma). As such what holly books say, is relevant only because adherants use it to justify their stance, and so we need to understand such texts to understand the world view of adherants.

Personnally my views?

‘If it harms none, do as you will,’ certainly much harm is being done by both sides which is a horrific state of affairs and needs resolution.

For the reasons above I don’t accept the Jews’ Biblical claim to the land of Israel, certainly the displacement of the Palastinains is utterley wrong. I do however accept the Jews have become a persecuted racial group (witness the proverb; you’re only a true Jew if you mother’s a Jew. And Israel’s occaisional use of genetic tests to decide immigration questions), and as such they should have their own homeland, but then so should various other groups, ie. the Kurds.

Do I have a solution? I’m affarid I don’t. Israel exists, I can’t see that changing. The Palastinians want there land back, that won’t change either – so welcome to the wonderful world of human conflict and intransegance.

However there is always hope; Peace is a process, as we have seen in Northern Ireland. If it can work there, can it work in the Middle East? I hope so.

Steve.

Sealordlawrance

If you bother to actually read my post you will find that I am NOT excusing violence, and certainly not in terms of ancient scriptures. What I am doing is exploring the reasons behind atrocities commited by both sides.

Only by understanding the root causes can this problem be solved – in the same way that you can only fix a car if you understand its mechanics! Any form of dogmatic approach (ie Christianity/Islam/Hinduism is pure good or evil) rules out compromise and stunts understanding, thus increasing the risks of violent responses and aggrevating human suffering.

SOC your argument is deeply flawed; One could find just as many objectionable verses in the Bible, one can also find passages of great compassion and mercy in the Koran – have you ever read it? I did for my degree and your selective quotation is highly unrepresentative.

Steve.

What I would like to know is, how many Muslims does Sealordlawerance know? I live in Luton and know a large number of Muslims. NONE of whom condone murder or terrorism so to say that a ‘large proportion seem to support terrorism,’ is from my experience imagination run wild.

What I would say however is that many are very upset by the ongoing situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which many seem to see as a modern crusade against Islam,
especially given Bush and Blairs overt Christian credentials.

As for my reactions if my family were murdered as unbelievers; I would react angrilly if my family were murdered or killed for any reason. This is exactly why we have effectively lost the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq. Even the head of the British armed forces making a statement some weeks back that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems” and they should “get out some time soon”. (See link below)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm

Or put another way it is natural that innocent Muslims who loose family members because of our military actions will react angrily, some violently. Do not mistake this for general aggression from the Islamic world, which I have travelled again in the last month and once again met with nothing but warmth and hospitality.

So go there, meet muslims, read both our Bible and there Koran (both of which contain extreme violence and rank intollerance, as well as much love and compassion ), look not just at the violent acts they have perpetrated by also those we have; and for everyone’s sake realise that we have extremists in the west too – because if people don’t realise this, we face a conflict thats going to make World War II look like a church/mosque/synagogue picnic!

Steve.

The real problems are these……

If you worship a god who commits/promises genocide (witness the flood, Sodom & Gomorah, book of Revalation etc), some people will use this to justify extreme acts of violence against God’s enemies. This has happened on many occaisions, indeed until a few years ago Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering one another in Northern Ireland. To claim that Christianity is a religion of peace and love is totally at odds with it’s history. The same is also true for Judaism and Islam.

Christianity also has a major problem in that; if Islam is correct then its central tennant that Jesus was simultaneously man, god and saviour is incorrect. Therefore Christianity can not sensibly co-exist with Islam. One must here of course give great credit to the many Christians who try to build bridges, but few within the evangelical community are willing to attempt even token tollerance. I am sure that such groups also exist in both Mosques and Synagogues. It is these groups who are responsible for the current brewing conflict, and who hog the headlines.

Is there a solution? Sadly the history of religon tells us no, because of the psychology of a certain kind of believer (on both sides of the religous divide), who has to posses an abosolute truth, which precludes this.

However one should also note that one does not need to be religous to be good, indeed I would strongly argue that a secular person who does good without thought of reward is far better than someone who does it out of fear of hell or desire for heaven.

Please reflect upon these observations.

Steve.

Its good to see the ‘Hairyplane Collection’ growing, I take my hat of to you and congratulate you upon this fantastic news.

Steve.