About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

11 Replies to “JDL National Director on recent violent attacks on Jewish people in Toronto and Montreal”

  1. Two days ago, I read about another Jewish teen sitting in a Tim Horton next to the window. The guy posted his uncomfortable incident on his FB account. If I remember correctly, it occurred in a place called Outremont in Montreal.

    He hears a knock at the window and there is this bearded guy in his mid-forties, a Muslim (although he didn’t say it), pointing at his kippa and making neck-slicing motions while hurling insults and threats. This lasted for at least 30 minutes.

    The young Jewish guy didn’t file a police complaint although some customers told him to ignore the guy outside. The staff is aware also. A couple accompanied the Jewish teen outside to his vehicle to ensure his safety.

    The problem: The teen didn’t file a police complaint although he had many witnesses of which the staff. How many more cases are not filed? Many, I am certain.

    Another problem: Witnesses are weary to come forward because we are now frightened of Muslim retribution.

    I’ve been saying for many years that Jews and Christians and Atheists must band together in this fight. And Jews and Christians must agree on foregoing their religious symbols in public so that we can all appear to be one big united mass.

    For now, many Jews are fighting against secularism. So, we all appear to be divided against one severely visible united minority.

    • I followed you up to the last but one paragraph, but I disagree with that. Religious freedom includes freedom to practice your religion out in the open, in the public square. Some politicians like Hillary Clinton and Obama for instance spoke of freedom to worship. That’s not freedom of religion, which is “guaranteed” under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of most democratic countries. Once you start having to hide who you are, you are not free.
      So rather than Jews and Christians foregoing their religious symbols in public I have a better idea:
      Let Atheists show their solidarity with Christians and Jews and start wearing a Star of David/kepah, and or a Crucifix/Cross, after all Atheists have benefitted from living in a civilization founded on Judeo Christian values, and go back far enough your ancestors would have been one or the other. You would be paying tribute to them too.
      I think it was in Denmark during the Second World War that, from the King on down, the citizens wore a Star of David in solidarity with the Jews when the Nazis asked them to turn the Jews over to them.
      Noblesse oblige.

      Mr. Weinstein is a good man, I like the idea of patrols. I hope the Jewish community in Montreal does the same.

      • Years ago, Meir tried to set up a JDL branch in Montreal. The meeting was penetrated by leftists and it was a disaster. I suspect if he tried again and it was organized better, he may have some success.

        But it should also be noted that Reform temples are pretty much all Marxist suicide cults at this point and Orthodox Jews are 100% spot on with us at this site, but tend to deemphasize politics. So less likely to support a JDL in that more or less ‘inche allah’ (sp) way to a degree.

        (Correction) Some Orthodox would do it, but I was thinking of the Hasids. They likely would not.

      • Atheists banding with Jews and Christians: You are dreaming.
        And yes, Weinstein is a good guy.
        Meanwhile, who is visible in the public square? ISLAM.
        Who is taking up space in the public square for their religious rituals? ISLAM.
        No society, except Israel for its IDF, has survived visible Islamic cohabitation.
        So, let’s just keep on being divided via religious symbols: Jews with their small kippas and Christians with their tiny crosses.
        BTW: I admire Quebec’s Premier Legault to having the guts to follow through on banning religious symbols in taxpayer-funded institutions. It’s a good first step.

    • My comment just went poof, so I’ll start over…

      I like this Weinstein too.

      Unfortunately none of us is now free to express ourselves without exposure to danger. My son only wears his MAGA hat at the cottage. Practicality is king. These incidents illustrate a world of a million small borders.

  2. Pope Benedict says it better than I can, this is from his speech in Westminster Hall, London, to members of the British Parliament:

    “Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.”

  3. This is the paragraph before the one quoted above. Benedict explains the Catholic understanding of the relationship between Faith and Reason. I’m posting this because so often religion is portrayed by Atheists as something irrational. That’s not even Biblical. (Read Paul’s letter to the Romans), and it’s not the Catholic position.

    Here’s Benedict again:

    “The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.”

    Me: “Amen.”

  4. Sorry for the mix up in the previous post, I tried to underline the last sentence and it was deleted, so I repasted and it repeated the whole thing. Here it is, from Benedict: the paragraph before the one first quoted above:

    “The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.”

    Me: “Amen”

    • An intelligent guy, Benedict. They got rid of him. There was a banking corruption scandal that was revealed, a Vatican guy Ambrosio, and shortly after, Benedict was forced into retirement. And we never heard of the scandal again. The Vatican is not a place of God, it’s the temple of corruption.

  5. Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutb:
    “The jihad of Islam is to secure complete freedom for every man throughout the world by releasing him from servitude to other human beings so that he may serve his God, who is One and Who has no associates. This sufficient reason for jihad.
    We ought not to be decieved or embarrassed by the attacks of the orientalists on the origin of jihad, nor lose self-confidence under the pressure of the present conditions and the weight of great powers of the world to such an extent that we try to find reasons for Islamic jihad outside the nature of this religion, and try to show that it was a defensive measure under temporary conditions. The need for jihad remains, and will continue to remain, whether these conditions exist or not”!