RE: "Jewish state"..........
August 10, 2014 at 9:40 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2014 at 10:30 am by Brian37.)
Nope sorry. "Hebrew" and "Talmud" are religious terms and religious traditions, just as "Christian" and "Bible" are. Whatever good intent of pluralism Jews say they have still ignores our species ignorance of wanting to set up social pecking orders. So even if they want to claim it is not about religion, it still is no different than the behavior of other primates in a social structure. It is the same when any group of humans do it.
You cannot put language into common law that favors one group over another, you can only agree to equal protection under the law. Protecting pluralism cannot involve playing favorites based on anything.
"Jew" is a word denoting a sect of our species population, just like "Christian". I say this because I know Americas history and how hard it has been constantly for our minorities to fight to be part of the mainstream. It wasn't the founders fault. It has been the fault of Christians thinking they set up a social pecking order favoring them, and they did not. Their intent was to avoid the conflict even within the same label, which is just as diverse as people who don't share the same label.
"Christian state" "Islamic state" "Jewish state". People get lost in the argument of the moment. You can argue too much of the East is dominated by fundamentalists, and they would be right.
But when you look at the history of Christianity, it had it's own dark ages. It oppressed blacks, Native Americans, women and gays. And even today our right wingers are trying to turn back the clock on voting rights and women's rights.
I am not seeking a godless utopia or "atheist state" either. Just pointing out society does itself better when the government a plural society lives under does not set up social pecking orders.
If the Canaanite polytheists never existed there would have not been a Hebrew splinter group started, nor Talmud written. Just this week Netenyahu stated that the "Jewish state" would be founded on the Talmud. The Talmud is a specific book referring to a specific group of people. That is sectarian, regarding a specific sect of a population. There is no way to avoid calling it social favoritism putting one group above another group.
I really have no desire to tell any religion in the world to go away, I am merely talking about human logic and bad logic, even with the best intent without realizing it sets up social pecking orders.
The only way you can protect pluralism is to agree to protect pluralism, and you cannot do that by inserting language into law that favors one group over another.
If Jews, in America understand our history of discrimination against minorities, I would suggest if they understand that, then they should understand there is no good way to play favorites in law language.
America's constitution was not taken out of the bible, that is not anti Christian, anymore than saying our public highways are not Muslim highways or atheist highways, they are open to everyone with no special lane for one group.
You cannot put language into common law that favors one group over another, you can only agree to equal protection under the law. Protecting pluralism cannot involve playing favorites based on anything.
"Jew" is a word denoting a sect of our species population, just like "Christian". I say this because I know Americas history and how hard it has been constantly for our minorities to fight to be part of the mainstream. It wasn't the founders fault. It has been the fault of Christians thinking they set up a social pecking order favoring them, and they did not. Their intent was to avoid the conflict even within the same label, which is just as diverse as people who don't share the same label.
(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.
"Christian state" "Islamic state" "Jewish state". People get lost in the argument of the moment. You can argue too much of the East is dominated by fundamentalists, and they would be right.
But when you look at the history of Christianity, it had it's own dark ages. It oppressed blacks, Native Americans, women and gays. And even today our right wingers are trying to turn back the clock on voting rights and women's rights.
I am not seeking a godless utopia or "atheist state" either. Just pointing out society does itself better when the government a plural society lives under does not set up social pecking orders.
(August 10, 2014 at 9:32 am)Blackout Wrote:No that still is moving the goal post.(August 10, 2014 at 9:28 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Well, I always took Jewish to be--in this respect unique--either applicable to one's ethnic or religion. No? After all, many atheists claim their Jewry by heritage.
Jewish is an ethnicity, Judaism is a religion, it can apply to both. I think that even without the religion of Judaism, jews are very united, and they have the reputation of making lots of money. They still do it. It's impossible for the white house to not have any jewish inside otherwise I don't see reasons for the USA to keep supporting Israel for this long.
If the Canaanite polytheists never existed there would have not been a Hebrew splinter group started, nor Talmud written. Just this week Netenyahu stated that the "Jewish state" would be founded on the Talmud. The Talmud is a specific book referring to a specific group of people. That is sectarian, regarding a specific sect of a population. There is no way to avoid calling it social favoritism putting one group above another group.
I really have no desire to tell any religion in the world to go away, I am merely talking about human logic and bad logic, even with the best intent without realizing it sets up social pecking orders.
The only way you can protect pluralism is to agree to protect pluralism, and you cannot do that by inserting language into law that favors one group over another.
If Jews, in America understand our history of discrimination against minorities, I would suggest if they understand that, then they should understand there is no good way to play favorites in law language.
America's constitution was not taken out of the bible, that is not anti Christian, anymore than saying our public highways are not Muslim highways or atheist highways, they are open to everyone with no special lane for one group.
