if it has no functional purpose but to meet the religious needs of a religious sect, than a secular state has no business using public funds to build such a crosswalk.
do you believe in the seperation of Church & State?
General Israel/Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter LashL
- Start date
- Status
if it has no functional purpose but to meet the religious needs of a religious sect, than a secular state has no business using public funds to build such a crosswalk.
do you believe in the seperation of Church & State?
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Here are the precious lungs I want to see more of on this earth.
Actually, Parky, you appear to be using a bit of boilerplate American political theory to judge the Isr/Pal political dispute. You might wish to apply a more apt baseline understanding of the political environment.
Put another way, not every country in the world is run by the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe Architect may have brought that point to your attention previously. Maybe you need to be told more than once.
DR
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
What part of "the Cohanim are tax paying citizens of Israel" do you not understand?
That these people intend to use the road to travel to church IS... NOT... RELEVANT.
For the state (or anyone) to say "You can't have this road because you will use it to go to church" is religious discrimination.
Your prejudice and bigotry have robbed you of all reason.
strawman. nowhere in the article does it say they will just be using this road to just go to church, and I have never claimed they will be using this just road to go to church. please let go of the strawman.
strawman, again. there are already existing roads the Cohanim can use to get to church, the mall, the store, school, etc etc. but the Cohanim don't like those roads cause they pass through/near cemeteries. so, they asked the state to use taxpayer funds to build them a halakhic road that does not pass through/near a cemetary...even though there are perfectly good existing roads.
oh, and btw....how exactly does not wanting to give a religious sect special treatment, equal religious discrimination? maybe in an ass-back wards Islamic or Jewish state this kind of logic is the case, but not in a secular democracy.
saying it four times doesn't make it true, Sword of Truth. Disagreeing with your very strongly held opinions does not make one prejudiced and bigoted, sorry.
Last edited:
you are correct, that I am applying a very American understanding of the Separation of Church & State. But I think its a decent one, as it is strict and clear. I do not support any government funds being used to facilitate purely religious needs or desires.
Does that mean no government funds for Christmas lights and Christmas trees? I guess I could make an exception for simple things like that. But thousands and millions of dollars of capital funds for roads, bridges, etc etc...that are primarily for the purpose of satisfying religious needs? NO way Jose.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
You need to learn what that word means.
Already explained.
Lying through your teeth again.
yeah, its back to ignore you go. goodbye.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
Many churches in my city that are located on busy streets have crosswalks. Their functional purpose is to get pedestrians to their destination safely. There are also crosswalks to other places, such as office buildings. But it seems you have a problem with getting people to their destination safely, if that destination is a religious one. Perhaps you expect that God will protect them?
crosswalks in the middle of the street...and not at an intersection?
though...I might make an exception for things like this as they take safety into concern.
..and yet, what's stopping these folks from just crossing at the intersection like regular human beings?
...and yet, I know many smaller towns and cities have crosswalks made for malls, stores, etc etc.
yeah, as it has a pure safety issue....I'm not going to fight this one.
but back to the issue in Israel:
hypothetically, there are roads in this city that pass through/by cemeteries, and there are other roads that go a very long way around the cemeteries.
the Cohanim ask for a new road to be built that does not go through or near the cemetery, but also is not go as far out of the way as the other road.
so we have perfectly good roads..that go through/by the cemetery. and we have perfectly good roads, that go very far out of the way from the cemetery.
why should the govt. use tax dollars to build a new road, just because the Cohanim don't want to use the roads near the cemeteries, and feel unnecessarily burdened by the road that goes WAAAY out from the cemetery.
the Cohanim, like all religious people, make the conscious choice to follow their religious requirements. no one has forced them upon them, certainly not the state.
they can choose to abandon this one little religious rule....OR they can choose to use the out of the way road.
but no, they want the government and taxpayer dollars, to give them a special solution.
how is this fair? how is this fair to all the other taxpayers...who use whatever road is best and closest to them?
why should taxpayer dollars be used to enable these people's religious requirements?
it seems very unfair to me, and totally against the concept of Church/State separation.
....a person should not choose to live in an area that has many cemeteries, if he chooses to not pass near or through one. and if that person then has the chutzpah to demand that the government use tax dollars to build him a new road, because the existing roads through/by the cemetery are not to his liking, and the other road is just too out of the way, then this person sure does have a great sense of entitlement.
Last edited:
boyntonstu
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 908
Forget Arab Democracy, Let’s Pretend It’s about Israel
Forget Arab Democracy, Let’s Pretend It’s about Israel
By Anne Bayefsky & Benjamin Weinthal
February 21, 2011 11:23 A.M.
For Immediate Release:
February 21, 2011 Contact: Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...y-lets-pretend-its-about-israel-anne-bayefsky
"..It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government, a non-standing member of the U.N. Security Council and an Iranian subsidiary, sponsored a resolution last Friday condemning Israeli housing construction in the disputed territories. The anti-Israel-resolution activity diverted the U.N. Security Council from passing resolutions against such authoritarian regimes as Iran and Libya for shooting their citizens and suppressing pro-democracy efforts.
Arab despots — and Iran’s regime — have a tried-and-true method for deflecting attention from their profoundly anti-democratic and repressive political systems: Formulate a U.N. resolution to condemn the Jewish State and its vibrant democracy. The fact that EU countries — for example Germany, which asserts that Israel’s national security is integral to German interests — joined the diplomatic assault on Israel is nothing short of a major body blow to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process."".....
Will the world ever get rid of the despots who are ruining the U.N.?
Jews, always the Jews.
Forget how many Libyans were killed by their government, let's worry about a hotel in Israel.
Forget Arab Democracy, Let’s Pretend It’s about Israel
By Anne Bayefsky & Benjamin Weinthal
February 21, 2011 11:23 A.M.
For Immediate Release:
February 21, 2011 Contact: Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...y-lets-pretend-its-about-israel-anne-bayefsky
"..It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government, a non-standing member of the U.N. Security Council and an Iranian subsidiary, sponsored a resolution last Friday condemning Israeli housing construction in the disputed territories. The anti-Israel-resolution activity diverted the U.N. Security Council from passing resolutions against such authoritarian regimes as Iran and Libya for shooting their citizens and suppressing pro-democracy efforts.
Arab despots — and Iran’s regime — have a tried-and-true method for deflecting attention from their profoundly anti-democratic and repressive political systems: Formulate a U.N. resolution to condemn the Jewish State and its vibrant democracy. The fact that EU countries — for example Germany, which asserts that Israel’s national security is integral to German interests — joined the diplomatic assault on Israel is nothing short of a major body blow to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process."".....
Will the world ever get rid of the despots who are ruining the U.N.?
Jews, always the Jews.
Forget how many Libyans were killed by their government, let's worry about a hotel in Israel.
Oh, I'm sure the UN human rights committee -- whose 50 past resolutions have Israel as their target 35 times and not once had condemned Egypt, Libya, or Tunis -- is going to right away condemn Quaddaffi's actions in Libya.
I mean, it says "Human Rights" right in the committee's title, doesn't it?
I mean, it says "Human Rights" right in the committee's title, doesn't it?
bikerdruid
Philosopher
which is why israel has been a prime target.
israel's treatment of palestinians is a human rights nightmare.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=209297
PM Netanyahu advocates for a Palestinian state. This is a good start. Now its time for the Knesset to pass a resolution accepting the goal of a Palestinian state next to Israel and Jordan.
and the PLO can finally print/publish one copy of new ammended charter.
PM Netanyahu advocates for a Palestinian state. This is a good start. Now its time for the Knesset to pass a resolution accepting the goal of a Palestinian state next to Israel and Jordan.
and the PLO can finally print/publish one copy of new ammended charter.
Last edited:
Cobalt
Tobikan Judan
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,685
Your focus on the religious aspect makes it seem this way.
They asked as taxpayers. Not as a religious group. This is where you're mistaken.
This is not special treatment. This is not a church and state issue. A group of TAXPAYING CITIZENS made a request. That they're of a religious nature is of little consequence. If you're that concerned about the trees, you could go plant a few around here.
The fact that you are unhappy with a group of taxpayers BECAUSE they're religious is evidence of bigotry.
the issues here have been spelled out numerous times. its not my fault if folks are unable to understand them
yes, they are tax payers. but their need for a new road is PURELY for religious reasons. they have decided that the existing roads are not good for them, for religious reasons. they have no issues with the quality, length, material used for the road. their objection is purely of a religious nature.
oh, it is indeed special treatment. they want the govt. to use taxpayer money to build a new road even though perfectly good roads already exist. they want the state to spend capital funds PURELY due to their religious choices. there is no practical, safety, or political reason to build this new road. it is purely due to the religious desires of a religious interest group. building this road clearly violates the principle of seperation of Church & State.
do you consider the concept of the seperation of Church & State to be a bigoted one? it appears you do. I do not believe that the government should be spending capital funds for purely religious needs. this road is for purely religious needs, therefore I oppose it. if you find my objection to be bigoted, than you find the seperation of church & state to be bigoted, and that's your problem...not mine.
a state cannot consider itself to be a secular one, when it is spending millions of dollars on roads that have a purely religious purpose.
Cobalt
Tobikan Judan
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,685
Yeah, you're missing the point alright.
Yet it will still be a PUBLIC road that ANYONE can use. If the government found this to be an unreasonable request they would have denied it.
There is nothing preventing other taxpayers from protesting this road being paved. It is not special.
And they, as TAXPAYERS, got their request.
Again, it will be a public road.
Just as you told SoT, repeating it doesn't make it true.
Oh boy, here we go.
You're incorrect.
It was a request of taxpaying citizens. Your article has no actual source outside "according to x" suggesting this was a religious lobbying.
My answer to that would be:
And I do.
I do not. I believe firmly in it. The key is, I get what the separation of church and state is about. You do not. Google is your friend.
Whatever, kiddo.
Again, see above.
A couple of notes.
Bikerdruid thinks the UN human rights commission (some current and historical members: China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda, Vietnam...) actually gives a damn about human rights because that's what they claim to do. He also believes communism works because communists say it does. I always wondered who believes some emailer is really the son of a deposed Nigerian dictator just because he says so; that's one mystery solved, I guess.
2). I wonder what Thunder would have said if a group of Muslims with special religious needs asked for a road to be built and the Israeli government refused because it would mean trees would have to be cut down. Would he then support the Israeli government standing up for the environment and not giving in to special religious demands? Or would he rant about "evil Israeli racism"? I think we all know the answer.
Bikerdruid thinks the UN human rights commission (some current and historical members: China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda, Vietnam...) actually gives a damn about human rights because that's what they claim to do. He also believes communism works because communists say it does. I always wondered who believes some emailer is really the son of a deposed Nigerian dictator just because he says so; that's one mystery solved, I guess.
2). I wonder what Thunder would have said if a group of Muslims with special religious needs asked for a road to be built and the Israeli government refused because it would mean trees would have to be cut down. Would he then support the Israeli government standing up for the environment and not giving in to special religious demands? Or would he rant about "evil Israeli racism"? I think we all know the answer.
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
Thunder,
Will this road be forbidden to non-believers?
If not, what's the issue?
How far are you willing to go with this bigotry? Would you deny religious groups from purchasing items from government auctions, because they -could- be used for religious purposes?
very stupid question.
I'm sorry that you consider the seperation of Church & State to be bigoted. hopefully someday you will learn why you are in error.
in a secular state, govt. funds should not be used to build roads that have a purely religious justifation for being built.
....oh, and if an Atheist organization wants a new road built, because the only existing road passes by a Church and the Atheists find this to be offensive, I would be against THAT road too.
roads should not be built for PURELY religious purposes..or for purely ANTI-religious purposes.
Last edited:
- Status