Topic: Two-state solution (branched from Obama thread)
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
wait so you'ld disenfranchise the druze? Isn't that going a little far? Some of them serve voluntarily in the military and if TheOtherWiki can be believed there's a "Covenant of Blood" between Druze and Israeli solders.
IP: Logged |
posted
Non just the Druze, but it would seem all non-Jews across the board. It is unclear to me whether she means Jews classified as an ethnic group or as religious practice, but my guess is that it would be the former although I am unsure as to how cases of intermarriage would be handled.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Only 2%? Huh. Thats lower than I'd have expected.
By comparison, during the Taiping civil war in China, roughly 7% of the population died.
quote:By 1851, the population reached perhaps 431,896,000 before the effects of the disastrous Taiping Rebellion brought about a slowing of past growth patterns (Some 30,000,000 deaths occurred between 1851-1864 during the upheavals associated with the attempt to establish the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In some areas of central China, the effects of this were not reversed until the mid-twentieth century).
posted
Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
This, by the way, is why institutionalized racism is always a bad idea.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
However, the Taiping Rebellion is roughly contemporary with the American Civil War which was used as the preceding comparison and approaches the 10% figure that Lisa cited originally for that death toll giving a real life example of the significant difference between a 1% death toll and a nearly 10% death toll.
Plus as a bonus for the spirit of the thread, it is also a religious war.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
This, by the way, is why institutionalized racism is always a bad idea.
But but... but... I wanna score with a red headed Jewish girl
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Oh, bite me. I'd rather they leave altogether. And again, this isn't about Arabs; it's about any non-Jews. The entire raison d'etre of Israel is to be a Jewish state. I can't fathom why it's so hard for you to understand that that means Jews run it.
It's not hard at all, I understand perfectly. I just don't think this is a valid basis for a modern state.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am certainly becoming more and more convinced than anything other than a democratic republic based on equal voting rights for all citizens with a guarantee of religious and ideaological freedom is a nightmare of oppression.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Katharina on this. It's not that I don't understand that many Jews want to have a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine and that they want Jewish control. It's that I think having different standards for basic civil and human rights based on race or religion is fundamentally bad. In that respect, having a Jewish state, or an Islamic state, or a Christian state is inherently wrong and will inevitably lead to oppression and atrocities.
I used to believe Israel could be an exception to that rule. Over the last two decades, Israel has, by its actions, persuaded me that they are not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
<sigh> Who said it was punishable by death? It simply isn't marriage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am oppposed to theocracies in general. I think only one kind would be fine, and that's one actually run by the Lord. For everyone else, the power is clearly abused beyond all sense of human rights, and a democratic republic is the only form of government that doesn't lead to hideous oppression.
At least then if the government is bad, it will be what the people voted for. But theocracies, with Lisa's state as the prime modern examples, are a disaster.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am certainly becoming more and more convinced than anything other than a democratic republic based on equal voting rights for all citizens with a guarantee of religious and ideaological freedom is a nightmare of oppression.
*shrug* Given that Canada is not a republic, period, I can't say I'm particularly convinced that the democratic republic approach is the only way to go to avoid a "nightmare" Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I presume she meant in the practical-conduct-of-government sense, which makes Canada thoroughly a parliamentary republic .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But theocracies, with Lisa's state as the prime modern examples, are a disaster. "
Israel is significantly less theocratic than all its surrounding neighbors. Why is Israel the prime example?
The status of non-jews in israel is significantly better than the status of blacks in this country prior to 1960. Israel is a far younger state than the united states, with far greater existential threats.
Given that there are modern states that are "christian states," where this actually means something, and these states don't have human rights or civil rights issues, I don't think a jewish state of israel is necessarily a disaster, or even bad. I think the real problem is the existential threat that israel faces, not that it is a jewish state.
Israel does have work to do in getting religion out of its laws concerning its citizens. I won't deny that. There are problems (And Lisa wants there to be MORE problems).
But, given history, I think its silly to pretend that jews don't need a safe haven, and the only way for jews to have a safe haven is for a jewish state to exist.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: I'm not sure what that means, I don't think we normally use that term to describe Canada. On a practical level, at least at the end of the year, the Queen's representative in Canada basically determined whether the government would fall or not. That seems to be pretty relevant to practical conduct
In any case, "nightmare" and "hideous oppression" are pretty high thresholds which a decent number of non-democratic regions haven't really met either currently or historically.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Israel is significantly less theocratic than all its surrounding neighbors. Why is Israel the prime example?
It's probably patronizing to the Arab countries, but because I'd think Isreal should know better, and most likely at least some people are trying. It's still bad.
Lisa wants to make it much, much worse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, given history, I think its silly to pretend that jews don't need a safe haven, and the only way for jews to have a safe haven is for a jewish state to exist
I'd dispute both these things. I think a safe haven is unnecessary, and a Jewish state is not necessarily the best way to establish and perpetuate such a safe haven.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: yes, but for almost all practical purposes the Governor General of Canada is appointed by the Prime Minister, and acts on her or his own consideration (not the Queen's).
Further, I suspect that if the Governor General (or, say, the Queen) acted to use some of the more controversial aspects of the Royal Prerogative, particularly against the advice of the Prime Minister, the reaction would be not at all hard to imagine (since there have been numerous court cases reducing the Royal Prerogative in Canada since independence).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the evidence of history, including the last 10 years, is overwhelmingly against this position. You might have some reason for thinking this way, but I don't know how you can construct an evidence based argument for your position.
"and a Jewish state is not necessarily the best way to establish and perpetuate such a safe haven. "
As long as the dominant political structure is the nation-state, its the only way. If the political structure changes for the better, than I would agree with you.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Paul, when they were discussing Israel as a Theocracy they were referring not to Israel as is, but to Israel as Lisa would make it. In it all non-Judaic peoples would be a different class of citizen, with no representative in government, no vote, no voice and under constant threat of banishment if they did anything to disrupt that theological basis, such as Christian Evangelism.
Lisa, you say that any couple of Jewish and "other" would never be considered married in Israel-as-you-would-make-it. What of children of mixed marriages. Would you just keep to the Judaic law of, if Mom is Jewish, then the kids get all the political rights, if Dad is Jewish, the kids are treated as the Other?
You also make a lot of promises that those of non-Jewish faith would not be treated worse just because they had no representation in the government. We just have your word for that, but when we compare it to such situations historically, they will come out much worse.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, you say that any couple of Jewish and "other" would never be considered married in Israel-as-you-would-make-it. What of children of mixed marriages. Would you just keep to the Judaic law of, if Mom is Jewish, then the kids get all the political rights, if Dad is Jewish, the kids are treated as the Other?
Of course. I didn't realize that would be a question.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You also make a lot of promises that those of non-Jewish faith would not be treated worse just because they had no representation in the government. We just have your word for that, but when we compare it to such situations historically, they will come out much worse.
Not with us. We're the ones whose religion requires it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth Mauve, there are already elements of that in present-day Isreal. Lisa's is just a nightmare version of the present, but there are already restrictions of religious freedom in Isreal now. They should know better.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're nuts. We let the Muslims control the single holiest place in all of Judaism -- the Temple Mount. Churches and mosques and religious cemetaries get protected in Israel, unlike the way that the Arabs turned the Jewish cemetary in Jerusalem into latrines during Israel's first 19 years. Unlike the way they immediately razed Joseph's tomb to the ground the moment we gave them autonomy around Shechem (Nablus).
Missionaries operate freely, and the government won't even enforce the few laws that forbid them from targeting kids.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the evidence of history, including the last 10 years, is overwhelmingly against this position.
For the Jews to remain a distinct ethnic and cultural minority, sure, they need a place to isolate themselves. But I don't think that's what you mean.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Missionaries operate freely, and the government won't even enforce the few laws that forbid them from targeting kids.
Totally wrong. You can't tell a lie like that to someone from a Christian church with missionaries and expect it to pass.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: yes, but for almost all practical purposes the Governor General of Canada is appointed by the Prime Minister, and acts on her or his own consideration (not the Queen's).
Technically, the Governor General is appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister.
quote: Further, I suspect that if the Governor General (or, say, the Queen) acted to use some of the more controversial aspects of the Royal Prerogative, particularly against the advice of the Prime Minister ...
Perhaps in the case of a majority government, but in last year's controversy, if the Governor General had ruled against Harper's advice I believe that would pretty much have been that.
While it is not hard to imagine that there may be a future crisis that may push us fully into a parliamentary republic, the fact is that we haven't reached that step and relevant government documents usually use the term "constitutional monarchy." I don't think you'll find a mention of us as a republic.
On further consideration, I believe we actually have a citizen's advocacy group named "Citizens for a Canadian Republic" that actually advocate what you're describing but we're not there yet.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the Governor General is appointed by the Queen; I was drawing a contrast between that technicality and the actual practice.
edit: and going against the Prime Ministers advice in the recent events would only have required not exercising any Royal Prerogative; I'm talking about the positive use of the Royal Prerogative against the Prime Minister's advice. Even if that were not challenged directly, you can be sure efforts by the Government would immediately begin to strip the Royal Prerogative even further than it has been already.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the current state of affairs is that the Governor General is, for practical purposes, appointed by an elected member of government, and acts for the most part on the advice of that elected member, at most not acting when the Prime Minister wants her or him to act.
That's not much of a monarchy, from the perspective of impact on the conduct of government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, the Prime Minister is not in fact elected. He's appointed by the Governor General and tradition is that he's an elected member of government but this has not always been the case.
In any case, what you speak of as "practically" is merely current tradition which does not have to be the case.
The monarchy still has much of the power of which you mention and while as you say, it is very possible that it may only be able to use those powers a few times before losing them (perhaps ... constitutional wrangling in Canada is unpredictable and politically undesirable), until that day actually occurs, Canada is still not actually a republic.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Totally wrong. You can't tell a lie like that to someone from a Christian church with missionaries and expect it to pass. "
Christian missionaries operate in Israel, and do so within the law. Claiming otherwise is the lie.
Oh. You mean its illegal to force conversion? Good. Every country should make it illegal to coerce religious conversion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For the Jews to remain a distinct ethnic and cultural minority, sure, they need a place to isolate themselves. But I don't think that's what you mean. "
I mean that for people who identify as jews either religiously or ethnically, or can be identified religiously or ethnically as such, historical evidence indicates that no non-jewish government can be trusted to protect its Jewish citizens when they are targeted as a group, nor is there much evidence that those governments themselves can refrain from targetting jews.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie.
I am actually flabbergasted that you were so incredibly dishonest as to pretend that was what I meant.
You are also wrong - missionaries may be tolerated kind of, but are greatly, institutionally, systematically discouraged and definitely not protected. There is not religious freedom in Israel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie.
You are also wrong - missionaries may be tolerated kind of, but are greatly, institutionally, systematically discouraged and definitely not protected. There is not religious freedom in Israel.
Since when is freedom of religion to automatically mean freedom to spread your yap on the soap box?
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pointing out that the only illegal missionary acts are coerced conversions (yeah, I include converting a minor as a coerced conversion).
Missionaries are tolerated by the general populace less well in israel because the majority of people belong to a religion that does not proselytize, unlike here where the vast majority belong to a religion where prosylezation is considered a strongly positive behavior.
But the laws do not reflect that difference, nor does the manner in which offenses are prosecuted reflect that difference.
There is at least as much religious freedom in israel as all but a small handful of countries in the world, and significantly more religious freedom than in the vast majority of places.
Hell, there are ways you could look at that would show Israel having more religious freedom than the United States.
"No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie"
Its the only possible interpretation of your statements that is in line with reality. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freedom of Religion means that those seeking faith can vote with their feet. If one denomination or religion does not seem right to them, they can listen to others and find one that does.
Its the democratization of religion.
It can be the commercialization of religion. (Come to our pew for 50% off salvation, and a free set of John The Baptist carving knives)
Judaism is a clannish faith, who does not gather faithful through preaching, or evangelism, but through the old fashion method of genetics. You don't have to be born Jewish, but it helps. Once born however, you can not be anything but Jewish in the eyes of others of that faith. You can be one who is failing in the eyes of the Lord, but you are still Jewish.
The religion is the race.
This explains how they have been able to remain a people despite centuries of wandering. However, it doesn't help them in any religious vote-off. Freedom to seek converts from the Jews of Israel is a one way street that some would have closed.
Which I find amusing since many Christians aid Israel not because of their heartfelt appreciation of a people who have suffered, but for an almost greedy desire to hurry the second coming of Christ. Since in the Bible it clearly promises the Promised Land shall be returned to the Jewish people before the end of time, what better way to bring about the end of days than by making sure the Jewish people are back in Jerusalem.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: Not exactly what I was going for.
However, the Taiping Rebellion is roughly contemporary with the American Civil War which was used as the preceding comparison and approaches the 10% figure that Lisa cited originally for that death toll giving a real life example of the significant difference between a 1% death toll and a nearly 10% death toll.
Plus as a bonus for the spirit of the thread, it is also a religious war.
I was just teasing, I thought it was an apt comparison.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are so far from speaking in good faith that you are not worth speaking. Your attempt to put horrible things in my mouth and pretend they were there all along is astonishingly dishonest. Holy crap. What's wrong with you?
Religious freedom IS meaningless if it includes a muzzle - even if the muzzle is of the "winkwink - if you want to stay on our good side" variety.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're a bitch katharina. Always have been. Its your hatrack personality, and I've never seen it be anything other than. That's whats wrong with me.
That said, I'm not trying to put anything in your mouth. You're SAYING horrible things that aren't true. OR, you're saying horrible things that are true. I choose to believe the later.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not saying the horrible things (forced conversions) that you claimed I was, and to claim it is so dishonest I don't know how you can live with yourself. Is the only way to retain your worldview is to make up wholesale lies about other people? If you were actually honest, it would all fall down?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a completely different note, katharina, why do you hang out here? I have yet to see you have any interaction with anyone on this board that could be described as pleasant. It seems to me that your ratio of reward to effort must be remarkably low.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever, Katharina. As I said, you're a bitch. Its what you do. Its the ONLY thing you do on hatrack, as far as I can tell ( I don't read the fluff threads, so maybe I'm wrong).
If you want to believe that I'm saying you think forced conversions should be allowed, thats your perogative. Its wrong, but you can believe it.
What I'm saying is that the restriction on missionary activity in israel is against coercive activity. This is indeed a restriction on missionary activity, and aligns with your statement. My intent was not to put words in your mouth, it was to present a statement that was in line with reality, and with what you said.
You should note that your exchange with me started because you claimed Lisa was lying about missionary work in israel. Oddly, you haven't even tried to demonstrate that she's wrong. Not only wrong, but lying. Accusing people of lying is a fairly serious accusation that, in order to not itself be a lie, requires you to know what is going on inside someone's head.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
