(August 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 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.

Fine, I'm not disputing that, except for your use of the word "Jew" as is used commonly by the people to which that term refers to. Now in your post above, you are using "Jews" along with Christians and Muslims. So it's clear in that context, you are using the word "Jews" as a religious group.

All I'm saying is that the word "Jew" can also have an ethnic sense. For instance in the sentence, "The Nazis persecuted the Jews", the word "Jews" is meant in the ethnic sense, as the Nazis didn't care if you were a believer of the Judaic law, that is, even if you were an atheist but of Jewish origin, you would have been sent to the gas chamber.

(August 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

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

WAY TO MISS THE POINT AGAIN

"Ethnic" is the dodge to avoid religion. The Talmud is a religious text, just like the bible and Koran.

Either way you slice it "ethic" or "religious" it is STILL A SOCIAL PECKING ORDER.

"Ethnic" is what Germany thought too. If Germans are not special because of their "race" what makes any of the 7 billion of us living on this planet think by proxy of labels one group is more special than another?

You are playing word games that still end up with HUMANS bad logic that sets up social pecking orders based on labels.

Pointing that out does not translate to "go away" or " no religion" or "outlaw labels".

I am saying it is a bad idea IN OUR SPECIES HISTORY to set up labels as being more important than our common existence.

Civil governments cannot employ language that winks at one group while treating another as a mere guest.

Please explain to me what is wrong with stopping at "religious freedom" and leaving it at that? If there are no words name dropping groups then there is nothing to argue about.

(August 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm)little_monkey Wrote: The words "secular Catholics" do not refer to an ethnicity of a person, but the word "Jew" can.

WAY TO MISS THE POINT AGAIN

"Ethnic" is the dodge to avoid religion. The Talmud is a religious text, just like the bible and Koran.

Either way you slice it "ethic" or "religious" it is STILL A SOCIAL PECKING ORDER.

"Ethnic" is what Germany thought too. If Germans are not special because of their "race" what makes any of the 7 billion of us living on this planet think by proxy of labels one group is more special than another?

You are playing word games that still end up with HUMANS bad logic that sets up social pecking orders based on labels.

Pointing that out does not translate to "go away" or " no religion" or "outlaw labels".

I am saying it is a bad idea IN OUR SPECIES HISTORY to set up labels as being more important than our common existence.

Civil governments cannot employ language that winks at one group while treating another as a mere guest.

Please explain to me what is wrong with stopping at "religious freedom" and leaving it at that? If there are no words name dropping groups then there is nothing to argue about.

But the world is not only divided by religion but also by countries and ethnicities, it's an unavoidable reality, and we do label people as Americans, French, German, Scottish, etc. And "Jewish" is one of those "ethnic" words. You can disagree all you want but it won't change that fact. When people say, "Israel is a Jewish state" it's meant in the ethnic sense.

It is as simple as looking at it this way WORLDWIDE, if one is a minority in a country, any country, would they feel comfortable with that majority winking at the majority with words naming them in law?

If you would not feel comfortable with that, then as a majority you should simply keep the language neutral and agree to protect everyone.

Don't think about your government protecting you, think about what you would want your government to do if you are the minority.

(August 10, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It is as simple as looking at it this way WORLDWIDE, if one is a minority in a country, any country, would they feel comfortable with that majority winking at the majority with words naming them in law?

If you would not feel comfortable with that, then as a majority you should simply keep the language neutral and agree to protect everyone.

Don't think about your government protecting you, think about what you would want your government to do if you are the minority.

I don't disagree with this post, but I disagree with the OP, as it seems to take the sentence, "Israel is a Jewish state" as if the word "Jewish" in that sentence is meant to be religious, when it's not. There are Muslim and Christian minorities living in Israel as citizens of Israel, and they are fully protected.

OH MY GOD! THOR ALLAH AND YAWHEH!

Christians in America use the same flawed logic. YES NON CHRISTIANS ARE PROTECTED, not by Christianity, but by the Constitution. That is the part CHRISTIANS FORGET.

Now again the TALMUD is a holy book, to pretend it isn't IS BULLSHIT. It would be like pretending the bible is secular while at the same time saying "Christian nation". Either you are secular or you are not.

YES THERE ARE NON JEWS PROTECTED THERE, but it is still the same watered down social pecking order bad logic Christians try to claim here when they say non Christians are equal but at the same time say "Christian nation". If America is not bible based then saying "Christian nation" is a contradiction.

If Israel is secular then claiming to base it on the Talmud is just as contradictory.

It is still winking at one group and setting up a social pecking order. "We are not fascists" and "we protect the minority" IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Again, speaking only for America's history and it's long struggle for inclusion, has unfortunately had to always be drug kicking and screaming into more inclusion. IT is because of bad human logic in using the term "Christian nation". That argument no matter how someone wants claim it is secular is an attitude that puts Christians at the top of the social pecking order. Otherwise if there would be no one saying it at all.

"Jewish state" is simply the same flawed logic I see when I hear "Christian nation". It sets up a social pecking order, EVEN IF IT PROTECTS MINORITIES. It is still saying "Yea we will let you live here". It isn't just a matter of "letting someone" it is a matter of seeing them as equal, and not merely a house guest.

Now again, just this week Netenyahu said that the "Jewish state" would be law based on the Talmud. If the Talmud represents Jews FOR WHATEVER REASON, ethnic or religious, the book itself is a religious book. No different to me than when Christians like to claim our laws are bible based.

You do not treat minorities as equal by winking at a majority in law language. It is tokenism and a social pecking order no matter what excuse you give.

---

Race religion whatever, all you have to do to be secular is to keep government out of name dropping and make the common law equal. You start winking at group names in law language outside "equal protection" you are setting up a social pecking order. Just say "freedom of religion" and leave it at that.

(August 10, 2014 at 2:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "Jewish state" is simply the same flawed logic I see when I hear "Christian nation". It sets up a social pecking order, EVEN IF IT PROTECTS MINORITIES. It is still saying "Yea we will let you live here". It isn't just a matter of "letting someone" it is a matter of seeing them as equal, and not merely a house guest.

Perhaps, some historical context is needed to understand what's behind the words "Jewish State" as you keep thinking it's religious. When the state of Israel was established, note they didn't call it Judea, as it was referred in the bible, and that's because the word "Jewish" can be confusing to some people. So "Israel" was chosen. In fact, many Jews in many countries, before the state of Israel was founded, were called Israelis and not Jews. But in the aftermath of Germany and the Nazis persecution, the word "Jew" (Jude in German) was all over the world. Also, since the Jews had been dispersed all over Europe by the Romans, there was a great push to open Israel to all those of Jewish ancestry ( Note: Jewish in the ethnic sense). So a policy was formulated that any one of Jewish ancestry can automatically immigrate to Israel. As an example, Woody Allen is of Jewish origin. He could, if he so chose, immigrate to Israel even though he is an atheist and has spent most of his life ridiculing the Jewish faith. His entry into Israel would be based on his Jewish origins, not his religious belief.

In regard to Bibi, he is simply pandering to the religious right, just like any Republican politicians in the US pandering to the Christian Right. His words are not to be taken as exemplary of what most Israelis believe.

HISTORY

Canaanite polytheism gave rise to Hebrews, Hebrews wrote the Talmud. The Talmud is a holy book. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THAT.

Getting caught up in the varies excuses humans use to set up social pecking orders after the fact does not change how it started in the first place. If the Hebrew religion was never started the Talmud never would have been written, thus there would be no Jews(claiming race) or Jews(claiming religion).

JUST LIKE if the Koran were never written, there would be no Arab Muslims or secular Arabs claiming race or religion.

Just like if the bible were never written you would not have right wingers claiming bible based laws and secular liberal Christians claiming "Christian nation".

It still amounts to setting up a social pecking order.

There is no way to protect religious freedom once a government winks at one group in it's language. The only way to protect religious freedom is to leave it at "freedom of religion" DO NOT ADD anything to it.

How does "Jewish state" being an ethnic reference make any difference? Would it be ok for Britain or the USA to state that it is a "White state?"

Brian37 is right; the language of the government has no reason to make reference to specific groups of people under any circumstances (I might make one exception for the age of consent/responsibility).

(August 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm)davidMC1982 Wrote: How does "Jewish state" being an ethnic reference make any difference? Would it be ok for Britain or the USA to state that it is a "White state?"

Brian37 is right; the language of the government has no reason to make reference to specific groups of people under any circumstances (I might make one exception for the age of consent/responsibility).

Thank you. I am catching shit from all sides saying this.

All you have to do in law is say "equal protection" and "freedom of religion", without adding a group name to the language.

No winks to anyone by name in the law, then there is nothing for anyone to argue over. It is not a ban on participation, it is simply saying you cannot be included or excluded. Only neutral language can do that.