General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

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.

I am against any govt. funds being used for religious or even anti-religious purposes.

that is unless there is also a safety element to this new request.

but if its just for religious OR anti-religious reasons, then no..that is ridiculous and violates the seperation of church and state.

does this mean I am bigoted against atheists too?

 

[IDB87]

very stupid question.

To which you don't know the answer. Fair enough. Could have said as much.

in a secular state, govt. funds should not be used to build roads that have a purely religious justifation for being built.

Irrelevant. Any community could have petitioned the state to build that road, but since it was a religious community, it's now taboo and their desires (and tax money) can't be used to accommodate their collective desires. Never mind the fact it's a public road that everyone can benefit from.

....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.

If enough of them petition the state and pull some strings to get it built, it will get built. It's a frivolous waste of tax payer money, but it is the tax payers money, correct?

roads should not be built for PURELY religious purposes..or for purely ANTI-religious purposes.

Roads have a way of benefiting those who use them. Roads themselves cannot be religious in nature. Would you argue that maintaining a road that houses churches, synagogues and mosques be in violation of "separation of church and state"? After all, religious observers are using those roads to be religious.

 

[IDB87]

I am against any govt. funds being used for religious or even anti-religious purposes.

The road itself is not religious.

Refusing to build this road because the people who want it are religious IS a violation of Church and State.

 

[Thunder]

Roads have a way of benefiting those who use them. Roads themselves cannot be religious in nature. Would you argue that maintaining a road that houses churches, synagogues and mosques be in violation of "separation of church and state"? After all, religious observers are using those roads to be religious.

do you believe that the govt. should be in the business of building roads for Atheists that do not pass by Synagogues, because some Atheists are offended by the sight of a Synagogue?

what if Christians want to have a new road built because the existing road passes through a Jewish neighborhood and some Christians are offended by the sight of Jews?

what if Atheists want a new road built because the existing road passes by a Christian cemetery with a large prominent cross, that they find offensive?

what if Muslims want a new road built because the existing road passes by a Holocaust memorial and some Muslims find the memorial offensive?

where does it end?

 

[Thunder]

Refusing to build this road because the people who want it are religious IS a violation of Church and State.

strawman. I am not against this road because the people are religious.

I am against the road because the JUSTIFICATION for the road is of a religious nature.

the govt. should not be building roads for purely religious or even anti-religious reasons.

 

[IDB87]

do you believe that the govt. should be in the business of building roads for [religious groups]?

where does it end?

Slippery-slope fallacy.

I would say I agree with you in principal and morality, but that is not the business of the government. To deny any of those groups their roads simply because it's desired for religious convenience is discrimination of a sort.

 

[IDB87]

strawman. I am not against this road because the people are religious.

I am against the road because the JUSTIFICATION for the road is of a religious nature.

the govt. should not be building roads for purely religious or even anti-religious reasons.

You really should learn what a strawman is.

Since the road itself is not religious (nor can it be unless it's denied to non-believers), then your argument lays solely on the fact that a public road was built for the convenience of a religious group.

 

[Thunder]

I would say I agree with you in principal and morality, but that is not the business of the government. To deny any of those groups their roads simply because it's desired for religious convenience is discrimination of a sort.

listen, if Jews...Christians...Atheists...Mormons..Buddhists....get togetehr and petition the city counsil for a road because they feel a road is needed, that's one thing.

but if said groups petition the govt. for a new road because they have a purely reliogious or anti-religious reason for building the road, that is a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

the govt. should only be building roads that have a purely transportational and convenience motivation. wanting to build a new road because the existing one passes by a cemetery, or a Synagogue, or a Holocaust memorial, or a Church, is a frivilous use of public dollars and not the business of the govt. if a community wants a road build for such a reason, let THEM raise the funds to pay for it.

I will state this again: I don't care if its Cohanim that desire a halakhic road, or Christians who want a road that doesn't pass by Jews, or Atheists who want a road that doesn't pass by a Church, or Muslims who want a road that doesn't pass by a Synagogue. such reasons are not appropriate for the use of govt. funds.

it doesn't matter who is making the request, or their religion..or their lack of religion. all that matters is their REASON for the request.

but if some folks find the very admirable concept of the seperation of Church & State to be "bigotry", that's not my problem nor my burden.

I can't be any clearer. and I'm done answering questions.

 

[IDB87]

listen, if Jews...Christians...Atheists...Mormons..Buddhists....get togetehr and petition the city counsil for a road because they feel a road is needed, that's one thing.

And progress, of a sort.

but if said groups petition the govt. for a new road because they have a purely reliogious or anti-religious reason for building the road, that is a violation of the seperation of Church and State.

It's not a new road, per se. It's an addition to an already existing road.

the govt. should only be building roads that have a purely transportational and convenience motivation.

And that's exactly what this road will do. Not only the group in question will be using it, remember?

 

[Thunder]

And that's exactly what this road will do. Not only the group in question will be using it, remember?

yes, the road can be used by everyone. jew & muslim, black & white, gay & straight, religious & secular.

....but that's not the issue...now is it?

the road was requested for a purely RELIGIOUS reason. that is my objection. i would have the same objection if it was requested for a purely ANTI-RELIGIOUS reason.

 

[IDB87]

the road was requested for a purely RELIGIOUS reason. that is my objection. i would have the same objection if it was requested for a purely ANTI-RELIGIOUS reason.

Could you quote the request perhaps?

 

[IDB87]

delete

 

[Thunder]

Could you quote the request perhaps?

read the article in the OP.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-cohanim-eucalyptus-trees-have-to-go-1.343448

the trees were removed not because of plans to create a four-lane road. The plan is to pave a street for Cohanim - Jews who, according to custom, face certain restrictions such as avoiding graveyards.

"According to the document, "Tiberias is an ancient city more than 2,000 years old .... In Tiberias there are cemeteries that cover most of the area around the old city. So Cohanim do not use the roads in the center of Tiberias. The Israeli government decided to fund a project for making halakhic roads that would enable the passage of Cohanim."

 

[IDB87]

read the article in the OP.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-cohanim-eucalyptus-trees-have-to-go-1.343448

I've read it. No request by the Cohanim is made. Perhaps you linked to a different article?

 

[Thunder]

I've read it. No request by the Cohanim is made. Perhaps you linked to a different article?

hmm..I did a search and I indeed can't find an article saying that the Cohanim made an actual request.

it may be that the govt. was simply aware of the "problem", and acted on their own initiative to build a "halakhic road".

i don't consider that to be any better, though. using govt. funds just to fulfill the purely religious or anti-religious needs of a community, is a violation of the very admirable concept of the seperation of church & state.

 

[IDB87]

i don't consider that to be any better, though. using govt. funds just to fulfill the purely religious or anti-religious needs of a community, is a violation of the very admirable concept of the seperation of church & state.

It's also about preserving the graves beneath the road (not to go around a graveyard), expanding the highway to accommodate an increase in traffic, and eventually bring in more tourism by enabling an easier way to get about the city.

 

[Thunder]

It's also about preserving the graves beneath the road (not to go around a graveyard), expanding the highway to accommodate an increase in traffic, and eventually bring in more tourism by enabling an easier way to get about the city.

the trees were removed not because of plans to create a four-lane road. The plan is to pave a street for Cohanim - Jews who, according to custom, face certain restrictions such as avoiding graveyards.

"According to the document, "Tiberias is an ancient city more than 2,000 years old .... In Tiberias there are cemeteries that cover most of the area around the old city. So Cohanim do not use the roads in the center of Tiberias. The Israeli government decided to fund a project for making halakhic roads that would enable the passage of Cohanim."

 

[IDB87]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...i-the-top-priority-was-paving-a-road-1.118373

The street, known as "Cohanim [Priests] Road" was built above ancient graves, and has recently been repaved in such a way that will allow cohanim to drive on it despite the biblical prohibition against their approaching a dead body.

Same author as the one you linked to. So either they're building a new road for them, or they're modifying an existing one to preserve the graves beneath it?

"Whoever thinks only about the money going down the drain will ultimately go down the drain himself. The righteous people whose sanctity we are preserving will also bring us a livelihood. As a result of the new road, many people who had refrained from visiting the city will now visit. People will stream into the city a thousand times more than they do now, to the extent that we won't even need the external tourism of non-Jews."

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What a strange little world Thunder must live in. Wherein on sundays, atheists and agnostics can drive to nudie bars on six-lane divided freeways but people going to church must either pick their way through undeveloped wilderness or be airlifted in via helicopter (at their own personal expense, of course).

 

[Thunder]

Same author as the one you linked to. So either they're building a new road for them, or they're modifying an existing one to preserve the graves beneath it?

this issue has been debated ad nauseum. its time for folks to do their own research rather then asking every possible question under the sun.

my opinions are known. we all have a right to them.