As it was already pointed out, the word has two meanings: one that is secular/cultural and the other, religious. Woody Allen is both Jewish and atheist. Secondly, approximately 20 percent of Israel's population, about one million people, are not Jewish, comprising primarily Arabic-speaking groups, which are afforded all the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship. In certain elections, up to nine members of Israel's Arab parties in one of those elections were elected to the Knesset.

(August 10, 2014 at 10:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: I wasn't speaking so much to you but to any potential reader no matter their background or leanings.

---

(August 10, 2014 at 9:36 am)Diablo Wrote: Any fair and reasonable state should have a secular government, since that is the only way the rights of minorities can be preserved. That's why the leaders in the Middle East fear political Islam, since it would produce an Islamic state with the persecution of Christian and other minorities. Look what happened in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood power-grab. Imagine what kind of state ISIS would implement.

So?

"I am not like the others" is not my argument. No Israel is not a religiously fascist state, but it is till setting up a social pecking order just like when Americans say "Christian nation". A watered down social pecking order is still a social pecking order.

You can have freedom of religion and equality for all races WITHOUT putting language in law that favors one group over another.

Your last sentence doesn't really make sense. The only way you can have freedom of religion and equality is by legislating for them.

(August 10, 2014 at 11:07 am)Diablo Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 10:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: I wasn't speaking so much to you but to any potential reader no matter their background or leanings.

---

So?

"I am not like the others" is not my argument. No Israel is not a religiously fascist state, but it is till setting up a social pecking order just like when Americans say "Christian nation". A watered down social pecking order is still a social pecking order.

You can have freedom of religion and equality for all races WITHOUT putting language in law that favors one group over another.

Your last sentence doesn't really make sense. The only way you can have freedom of religion and equality is by legislating for them.

Um No,

"Legislating for them"

On a highway there is no special lane for Christians or Muslims or Jews or atheists"

"Christian nation" is advocating a special lane as far as social pecking orders. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exorcise thereof" is not anti Christian, it it is not saying no religion at all, it is simply saying there is no special highway lane.

Legislating for pluralism cannot use religious language specific to one sect of a population. It can only say " freedom of religion"

"Jewish state" to me is no different than "Christian nation ". If you value pluralism then you should be able to understand the analogy. A westernized social pecking order is still a social pecking order.

You know why for example, in America, there has never been a Muslim President, or atheist president, or someone of Chinese dissent, even if born here? Not because the Constitution forbids it, but because of the majority's mindset projecting their own favoritism into law when the Constitution does not set up favoritism.

"Christian nation" despite "No religious test" is why. So if you want your fellow human to see the individual first, then the laws of that society cannot have language in it that winks at one group and treats the others as mere guests.

I think maybe you stupidly think I want to rid the world of religion. No, I am saying there is a way to write law language and a way not to write it.

"E-pluribus Unum" is the attitude.

Out of many one.

"Jewish state"
"Islamic state"
"Christian state"

Reflects one group from that point of view of each no matter how you slice it.

I defy you where in this example to show me how I am not protecting pluralism.

If I am correct in saying America's laws are not ripped out of the Christian bible, how is that different than also saying, they are not ripped out of the Koran or Talmud either?

YOU CAN protect pluralism and diversity, but you cannot do that by favoring one group by incorporating that specific group's language. "Freedom of religion" is where you leave it.

I think that you are seriously confused.

No I am not confused.

"Jew" is a description of one sect of a population. Just like "Christian" is one sect of a population, and even within both you have sub sects of those populations.

If you can accept that America's laws are based on freedom of religion, and not taken out of the bible, then you can accept that it is not a good idea to insert the language of one sect of a population into that law. You simply stop at "freedom of religion" without naming a particular group.

Consider the lack of naming a particular group like an anti monopoly law. Such anti monopoly concepts do not include or exclude participation because the language is neutral.

(August 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No I am not confused.

"Jew" is a description of one sect of a population. Just like "Christian" is one sect of a population, and even within both you have sub sects of those populations.

"Christian" is a religious term, but "Jew" has a double meaning just like the word "light" can mean light/dark or light/heavy. So depending on the context, "Jew" can mean one that follows the Judaic law (religious), or one that is Jewish like in being French, German, etc.

So it is OK to have a whole group of Muslim nations on the earth,
but it is a constant topic of contention to have a Jewish one?
Seems to be a double standard here.

And don't say the US doesn't give bucks to Islamic nations because that would be a lie.

I'll tell you what- the proof there is a real devil is antisemitism.
Nothing else makes any sense.

Yes, the devil infected Martin Luther, the Catholic church, Hitler,Islam and you can add whoever to the list.

(August 10, 2014 at 11:06 am)little_monkey Wrote: As it was already pointed out, the word has two meanings: one that is secular/cultural and the other, religious. Woody Allen is both Jewish and atheist. Secondly, approximately 20 percent of Israel's population, about one million people, are not Jewish, comprising primarily Arabic-speaking groups, which are afforded all the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship. In certain elections, up to nine members of Israel's Arab parties in one of those elections were elected to the Knesset.

So the fuck what? You can also have secular Catholics too, people who like the rituals without believing in a god.

That still does not change how all of this started. Canaanite polytheism gave rise to the Hebrew god Yahweh, in turn Hebrews wrote the Talmud. The Talmud is RELIGIOUS TEXT. For one to claim it isn't would be like claiming the bible or Koran are not religious texts.

All you have to do in law language is say "freedom of religion" without naming any group or religious texts.

Once you start naming groups instead of making it a general anti monopoly law you are setting up a social pecking order.

(August 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 11:06 am)little_monkey Wrote: As it was already pointed out, the word has two meanings: one that is secular/cultural and the other, religious. Woody Allen is both Jewish and atheist. Secondly, approximately 20 percent of Israel's population, about one million people, are not Jewish, comprising primarily Arabic-speaking groups, which are afforded all the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship. In certain elections, up to nine members of Israel's Arab parties in one of those elections were elected to the Knesset.

So the fuck what? You can also have secular Catholics too, people who like the rituals without believing in a god.

The words "secular Catholics" do not refer to an ethnicity of a person, but the word "Jew" can.

Skip the labels for a second, and think, it is 2014 would it make sense to write laws based on the Rig Vedas or the Egyptian book of the dead? No. So Muslims nor Christians or Jews should be going around claiming their nation's laws are based on ancient books, cultural or religious, it is still tribalism having nothing to do with modern western pluralism. You cannot rid a pluralistic society of it's likes, but you can insist the government not play favorites.