"Jewish state"..........

[Brian37]

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.