Americans are NOT stupid. That’s the sarcastic title of the video below. Well, after watching it, it seems to me that clearly a good deal are. Seriously, this is super hilarious. I guess too many of them are busy watching American Idol and the NFL instead of paying a little attention to CNN or something.
Phew! Thank goodness you’ve got many informed Americans engaged in the political process. Can’t be having those ignoramuses as the only voters. It would be a disaster. Can we unleash a Jihad for reason to enlighten those people, please?
Dear American readers, please don’t hate me for posting this. You know I love you guys! 
Enjoy watching - and laughing - as I untangle myself from all the work I’m tied up in at the moment. Drima will be back soon.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
Heh. On the matter of stupidity: I’m worried that so many Americans - roughly a third! - do not believe in evolution. And another third are “not sure”. And you have American organizations dedicated to pushing Americans back down the pit of ignorance: they’ve actually succeeded in forcing schools to preach young-earth creationism in some states.
Seems like every once in a while, radical anti-science and pro-theocratic Christians have this major campaign against reason in the US of A. Like this whole “In God We Trust” crap. Or bombing abortion clinics. Or stemming stem cell research (pardon the pun
).
Not that things are better in Israel: we have the filthy theocrats entrenched in our democracy, passing anti-democratic laws that force their superstitions and customs on everyone else.
Ah, yes I’ve seen those polls. It’s pretty disturbing mate. The ignorance featured in the video above is due to lack of awareness, but it comes nowhere near the dangerousness of faith-based ignorance.
Horrifying.
Just the thought of these ignoramuses having the power to vote people like them into power is scary.
Btw, did you hear about the rabbis who were distributing religious pamphlets to the IDF recently to justify the invasion of Gaza? Just another example of disturbing shit.
Ah, too many ignoramuses around and religious lunatics too keen on shoving their beliefs into public policy and down other peoples’ throats.
“I guess too many of them are busy watching American Idol and the NFL instead of paying a little attention to CNN or something.”
I know too many people who pay lots of attention to CNN and are still stupid and ignorant. In many cases watching the news is not much better than watching sports. Both are entertainment these days.
LOL. Pretty true.
“Btw, did you hear about the rabbis who were distributing religious pamphlets to the IDF recently to justify the invasion of Gaza?”
???
I am not sure anyone needed to do that, that particular operation had 97% support among Israeli Jews. I strongly suspect the Druze, Bedouin and Circassians felt pretty much the same.
I did hear about the Mother Rachel idiocy that sounds close enough. And that has prompted a funny Sandmonkey post
Same stunt can be pulled anywhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9dCwwzXC4I
Like this whole “In God We Trust” crap.
You are calling the official motto of the United States theocratic “crap”? What’s next? The Founding Father’s and Abraham Lincoln were religious zealots? I understand you are an atheist, Abu Sa’ar, but I suggest you check yourself. Unless you actually want to crank up levels of hostility between the US and Israel? You aren’t insulting only “stupid” Americans - you are insulting ALL Americans.
Drima, this is the first time I’ve ever seen your blog “featured” on toot lol.
In other news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7891410.stm
Taleban fighters in north-west Pakistan’s restive Swat valley have announced a 10-day ceasefire.
The move came after local officials signed a deal with a militant leader to enforce Islamic law in the district.
@Raccoon:
Like this whole “In God We Trust” crap. Or bombing abortion clinics. Or stemming stem cell research (pardon the pun
).
Bashing the first not only results in bashing every single American who happens to believe in the general existence of *some* kind of Creator, benevolent or otherwise, it also insults the vast majority of Americans, period. Good going there, Raccoon. As Craig already said - that was very stupid, what you just said.
Bombing abortion clinics is indeed an abhorrent practice - it’s terrorism in the “The ends justify the means” variety, in that murder and wanton destruction is used to attack what is, to these people, a murder mill, turning them into Judge, Jury, and Executioner all in one. Not a very nice path, to say the least. On this one, I agree with you.
But you know, when you come to stem cell research, a very controversial issue in and by itself even without any connection to abortion… you know, there’s is something rather disturbing in research that, in layman’s terms, grinds up unborn babies so as to clone the best bits, both in terms of devaluing human life and the very slippery slope of cloning in the first place, a hotly debated issue in and by itself… And the fact that the very effectiveness of this research path is debatable merely lowers the hype from it.
Raccoon, did you know that France and Germany don’t allow the production of stem cells, to name a couple of countries? It isn’t at all a matter of “fanatical Americans”.
Not that things are better in Israel: we have the filthy theocrats entrenched in our democracy, passing anti-democratic laws that force their superstitions and customs on everyone else.
As opposed to the filthy secularists entrenched in our democracy who pass anti-religious laws that force their supremacism and customs on everyone else?
*shrug*
You know, the guy waiting next to me at the voting booth’s queue said it best - he said he was looking for a party that would “Help the ignorant Haredim to get away from their illogical nonsense.” At which point, I kindly asked him what he meant by “help”. That’s when he began stammering… because apparently, he wasn’t quite sure himself, he just knew that Haredim “needed saving”. At which point, I was wondering what would come first to those poor, unsuspecting Haredim - the preaching, the psychiatrists giving prescriptions for “religious delusions”, or the part where they have their children taken away to “save the younger generation”.
Some of that actually happened in our country’s not-too-distant past, Raccoon. And pretty much all of it happened in the Soviet Union, and then some.
I think stupid is the wrong word to describe the Americans in this video. It is more likely that they are just dangerously oblivious to the world beyond what immediately affects them. They aren’t lacking the ability to learn just the will.
“In god we trust” is indeed a crap motto that was just added fairly recently. It is a bad motto not because the people that believe it are necessarily wrong but because it doesn’t speak for all Americans or the values found in the constitution.
“As opposed to the filthy secularists entrenched in our democracy who pass anti-religious laws that force their supremacism and customs on everyone else?”
I would hope that secularism is entrenched in our democracy seeing as how the founding fathers thought it important enough to put it in the constitution. I don’t see how this is “forcing” anything on you. You are still free to believe and practice your religion as openly as you want. When it comes to government we need find common values that we can all agree on instead of needlessly alienating large parts of the population.
-Roman Kalik
I just realized that I assumed you live in the United States if I am wrong I apologize but I still think secularism is the ideal system.
Zoxuf, you are quite correct in your second reply correction - I don’t live in the United States. I’m an Israeli who was born in the Soviet Union.
And you’re confusing a secular government with a secularist government - the latter being a government that encourages, through government legislature and policies, secular or atheist views among the populace, whether they like it or not.
For your sake, I hope you never have to live in a place where religious beliefs are carefully monitored, considered against the interests of society as a whole, and are acted against through various branches of the government.
I dont know enough about Israeli politics to make an informed opinion but if what you say is the case you certainly have my sympathy. It shouldnt be the job of government to dictate belief one way or the other.
*shrug* Most of Israel’s truly secularist politics is in the past - back in the glory days of Mapai, The Israeli Worker’s Party. For Social Democrats, they learned a bit too much from the country many of them ran away from…
The Soviet Union, though, was very into erasing the “mental disease” of religion. Three generations of my family were pretty much saturated with the belief that religion is a blight, a disease of the mind that must be cured for a better future to arrive, and the few elderly who could not be reeducated were to be pitied.
OK…let’s turn it over to the expert…
I have lived in the USA almost all my life…given my travels and connections with people from around the world…I would say obilviousness, self-absorption, addictions, selfishness, cruelty and ignorance are spread pretty equally around the world…
I think given their druthers…most humans would sit and watch soaps, sports and kind of whine their way through life in a sleepwalk…
I think if you gave an average fucking bushman in the middle of Tanzania or wherever…a frekin TV, a remote and Tanzania Idol to watch…he would sit under a damn bush and not move until his arteries looked like the Petach Tikvah-Tel Aviv highway at 8:30 AM and his ass was as wide as one of those hippos cruising the local rivers…
Substitute the word American for human on this post…works better.
HEY HONEY…where the FUCK did you put the remote…oh…crap..was sitting on it…
Hey…look its a bushman eating potato chips…cool.
RK …et. al.
BTW…repression comes just as readily from liberal secularists as it does form the right wing….
Lately…the Right has tended to be a bit more violent in their repression…but it easily works both ways…
Like I said…humans…
Oh…shit…I missed the part with the bushman changing channels with the remote..>DAMN THIS BLOG!!!
Whoa, gentlemen, please do not be insulted by this Raccoon.
Craig -
Just to sharpen Zoxuf’s points a bit:
I happen to be an admirer of the United States of America. Its founders were visionaries of true genius; Its constitution, an extraordinary document, improved over the years through hard-gained experience.
In light of the above:
The First Amendment be easily interpreted as separating church and state. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, a man whose opinions I value highly, interpreted it thus. And I am sure that in 1956 he would have been opposed to enshrining “In God We Trust” as USA’s official motto, had he been alive.
Moreover, I believe that the sound principles on which America was founded are what elevated it to its envious position. And one of these principles is, without a doubt, “my religion is my own business”. Which is why I wince every time this principle is eroded, no matter in how small a way.
RK -
I am firmly against ANY involvement of the state with religion - and vice versa. And I am just as firmly against forcing any beliefs on people. Stalin, Khomeini, Bernard Gui - they’re all the same for all I care. To infer otherwise from my comment indicates either a misunderstanding or bias. Come on, man
Please note that in Israel, it is actually illegal for Jews to sell leavened bread during Passover in public. That law is discriminatory in the extreme, especially since from the POV of that law, being Jewish is not a choice. And it’s not the only example of the theocratic assault on Israel’s political system.
Not to mention the humiliation thousands of Jews have to go through every year at the hands of bearded barbarians in the Chief Rabbinate. If you want to get married and happened to have been born in the USSR, these neanderthals would not allow you to marry in Israel until you prove to them you’re Jewish. I have been through this, and let me tell you, it reminded me mightily of a different committee determining whether you’re a Jude, in a country by the Rhine, some 70 years ago. I will never forgive them the humiliation. And it drove home the evil of not separating church and state.
BTW - there is no law, say, forbidding putting teffilin on in public. If there was one, I would be campaigning against it.
As for stem cell research: it’s all in the intent. If a society bans something because they thought about it and decided they’re against it… well, fine. It might be a decision I disagree with, but it’s their decision to make.
If stem cell research is banned, however, because God says it’s wrong… that’s forcing your religious beliefs on others.
I realize that in the case of stem cell it’s arguable since the point when a bunch of cells become human is highly debatable. Personally, I think that up to about 4 weeks (when the heart begins to beat) it is safe to say it’s not a person. After that it becomes open to debate.
We have had a scary trend in this country over the last few years, an anti-science, conservative supported trend. I believe/ hope this is reversing.
I am not going to say the vid isn’t funny, it is, and partial truth, but I have lived in Australia - specifically Tasmania, and also Venezuela, and because of my parents careers I spent a lot of time throughout the world growing up. This is not specific to Americans and either way I find faith based ignorance to be far more frightening and more problematic, only because of the radicalism that sometimes follows.
Very seldom do we see , at least here, radicalism provoked by stupidity alone. That’s a good thing, because as that video clearly shows there is no end to stupidity in the good ole USA.
Raccoon:
Please note that in Israel, it is actually illegal for Jews to sell leavened bread during Passover in public. That law is discriminatory in the extreme, especially since from the POV of that law, being Jewish is not a choice. And it’s not the only example of the theocratic assault on Israel’s political system.
“Theocratic assault”? Pardon me while I chuckle for a moment there. It’s one of the few traditional values of Jewish origin that this country maintains. And no, being Jewish isn’t a choice, in that you’re born with the history attached to your rear end whether you like it or not. You may choose to ignore it, to call it “religious oppression” or the like… but I for one would prefer to have, in Israel, the so-called Jewish Nation, a more hospitable locale for the Jewish religion and the Jewish traditions than in New York.
Not to mention the humiliation thousands of Jews have to go through every year at the hands of bearded barbarians in the Chief Rabbinate. If you want to get married and happened to have been born in the USSR, these neanderthals would not allow you to marry in Israel until you prove to them you’re Jewish. I have been through this, and let me tell you, it reminded me mightily of a different committee determining whether you’re a Jude, in a country by the Rhine, some 70 years ago. I will never forgive them the humiliation. And it drove home the evil of not separating church and state.
Quite. In a country where the sole authority vested in the religious establishments of the faiths in the country are the matters of marriage and burial, and where a bunch of political parties decided to redefine “being Jewish” based on the very same rules of the country by the Rhine 70 years ago, down to the single grandparent required…
So yeah. We got an Aliyah where one in five people, maybe even one in four, is about as Jewish as my cell-phone. Of that forth to fifth, most don’t even see themselves as Jews in the cultural manner.
I still depresses me to no end that we have, quite expertly, managed to bring even the anti-Semites along with us from the Old Country. For a country that was founded as a haven and homeland for a broken and scattered nation, we actually managed to bring the Skinheads along for the ride. Go us.
So it could very well be that the bearded old men, whose laws regarding marriage may be one of the few things that kept us together as a nation over the millenniums, in that they made sure that the community wouldn’t fall apart and assimilate into whatever mainstream happens to come along, have some kind of a point. No other Aliyah had the “Hey, let’s bring all the neighbors over!” mentality of the Russian one - and ever since the big Aliyah ended in the 90s, I’m fairly sure that not one in five of the late-comers from Russia actually has anything to do with Jews or Judaism at all. It’s something Russian mafiosi buy to get a quick ticket out of trouble these days.
If stem cell research is banned, however, because God says it’s wrong… that’s forcing your religious beliefs on others.
In the end, if a large portion of society decide that they are morally opposed to stem cell research because they believe that the Almighty forbids it - that’s the exact same thing. It’s a matter of society’s moral code - how society chooses to define it is society’s choice.
I realize that in the case of stem cell it’s arguable since the point when a bunch of cells become human is highly debatable. Personally, I think that up to about 4 weeks (when the heart begins to beat) it is safe to say it’s not a person. After that it becomes open to debate.
When does it go too far, when we openly encourage abortions for medical research, or when we clone whole people? That’s the whole point - we can improve the lifestyle and health of some people - but at what cost? Some of the medical advances enjoyed by people in the late Forties, the Fifties, the Sixties… was the legacy of mass experimentation on human beings under Nazi Germany.
Where is the line drawn? When does it go too far? Because it’s very easy, going too far. You don’t notice that you got there until it’s too late.
Raccoon,
The First Amendment be easily interpreted as separating church and state. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, a man whose opinions I value highly, interpreted it thus.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I would agree with you that the government has no business interfering with religion, and that likewise religion has no business interfering in Government. How does “In God we Trust”, as a motto, cross that line? I probably shouldn’t have asked you that, because I don’t think you are objective on the matter. So, instead, I will just say that as a libertarian I don’t believe that it does.
And I am sure that in 1956 he would have been opposed to enshrining “In God We Trust” as USA’s official motto, had he been alive.
It’s amazing how many people like to speak on behalf of dead guys! Since Jefferson himself referenced our “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, I think your argument is weak. The difference between a generic reference to God and a generic reference to the Creator is semantic.
Moreover, I believe that the sound principles on which America was founded are what elevated it to its envious position. And one of these principles is, without a doubt, “my religion is my own business”.
Yes. And your religion is atheism. By what right (if you were American, that is) would you be trying to impose it as a matter of Government policy? Isn’t that also a violation of the second amendment?
Which is why I wince every time this principle is eroded, no matter in how small a way.
Seems like you just did erode it, in a small way. “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t mean that the minority has a right to be shielded from any exposure to the beliefs of the majority. It only means the majority has no right to try to impose its beliefs on the unwilling. Its a protection of minority groups against persecution from the majority. It’s not meant to be used as a tool for the minority to persecute the majority, instead.
You know, Raccoon, the main reason there is so much resistance to secular governments in the middle east is because people don’t understand what the concept really means. You aren’t helping with that
-“Since Jefferson himself referenced our “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, I think your argument is weak.”
Just because he believed in God doesn’t necessarily mean he would approve of “In God we trust” being the motto. From what I understand he was likely a Deist. One can be a Deist and still have a strong view that religion should remain out of government.
-“Yes. And your religion is atheism.”
Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color.
Also there is a big difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The declaration is not responsible for the formation of the government so the use of “creator” is irrelevant to his views of church and state separation.
Zoxuf,
Atheism is a religion as much bald is a hairstyle. For some, it’s just the lack of hair. For others it’s *the* defining aspect of their lives, which they fervently advertize to others and sometimes also force on them “for the greater good” of their superior ego.
Not that I’m saying that Raccoon is doing that. He isn’t. The guy I mentioned though, from the voting queue… yeah, most definitely. If only he were given the means.
Also, here’s another Useless Fact from Roman - the motto “In God We Trust” has been on US currency since the time of the Civial War. It has been the unofficial motto of the USA for over a century, having replaced the previous unofficial one because, frankly, I don’t think one man in ten remembered what it meant in Latin…
RK -
Again, I am not saying Israel should have laws forbidding Jews to practice their religion. But I certainly am saying Israel should not have laws forcing Jews to practice their religion. Because it’s our religion, Goddamit, we’ll practice it if we feel like it and won’t if we don’t. Moreover, who are you to force other Jews to follow this or that tradition? Which tradition - Sepharadi or Ashkenazi? Which stream in either? To which extent to enforce this or that religious law? It’s a slippery slope ending in Muttaween. Since we’re Jews, it also leads to Kanaim and their Sicarii. No, man, the most hospitable climate for the Jewish tradition is one of no coercion.
As for Russians masquerading as Jews to come to Israel: it is a real and unfortunate problem. The Sokhnut must be reformed ASAP, perhaps replaced altogether with a different, more reasonable body. This is no excuse for the humiliating ordeal at the hands of these ecclesiastic bureaucrats. Moreover, who are they to decide that Reform weddings, for instance, do not apply in Israel? The slippery slope again, Roman, with the knives of the Sicarii at the bottom.
Craig -
Thomas Jefferson referred to the First Amendment as a wall separating church and state. I tend to agree with his view.
And as for the Declaration of Independence: mind you that it is meticulously worded. The specific choice of “Creator” rather than “God” as having endowed men with certain unalienable rights is important. First, it is more appropriate rhetorically. Second, a creator is not a monotheistic God. A Creator can be pretty much anything, from Shiva to a sentient Universe.
The Constitution, by the way, has no references to God, Creator and so on.
My religion, by the way, is my own business. But I am not an atheist - I do not deny the existence of divinity. Nor do I confirm it.
And having E pluribus unum as USA’s motto doesn’t strike me as atheist coercion. Religion, however, is a private matter. And a dollar bill is not a fit place for God’s name - or so I would think were I a religious Raccoon.
I suppose it depends on your defintions of atheism and religion.
To me atheism is just the absence of a belief in gods. If you break down the word you get “a” -without “theism”- belief in gods. It being a hairstyle would imply that it is making some sort of assertion when it is simply the lack of one. I consider myself an atheist but I dont claim any sort of absolute knowledge as to the possibility of gods existance. I just find it unlikey and see no reason to hold a belief I cant justify.
Germany has laws against working on Sundays.
Similarly both Germany and Ireland observe Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter, despite the burden this creates for those who really don’t care about either holiday.
The reason is that Germany is a Christian nation. But few people would call the law a “theocratic assault”. (Ireland is not officially Christian, so I’m not sure why Ireland has these holidays. And why do the US have a Christmas holiday???)
I see the danger Raccoon sees; however, I also see, and agree with, Roman’s point. The bearded barbarians are both a problem (for example when it comes to marrying someone in Israel) and a blessing (when it comes to keeping traditions alive). I didn’t even know about the leavened bread on Pesach thing. But I do find it strange that the law is for Jews only. I prefer laws that are either for all or that allow for religious communities to follow their more restrictive practices. For example, while I am totally against laws forcing every restaurant to be kosher, I am totally for laws that regulate that all eateries in public buildings including schools and universities must be kosher. The leavened bread law certainly makes Pesach easier.
As for “In God We Trust”, it’s religion. It’s just as wrong as “We Trust There Is No God” would be. Either are government endorsements of religious positions. And it doesn’t matter what the majority want as long as the constitution says that the state must not endorse religions.
When Israel defined being Jewish like the Nazis did, it was done because those were the people who needed a country. Saving only the son of a Jewish mother is a good beginning but it doesn’t help the non-Jewish half-brother, who is Jewish enough to be killed by some European government but not Jewish enough to be allowed into Israel. The correct answer is to try to persuade those non-Jewish immigrants to learn and convert, not to dismiss them. (In fact I do think the immigration law should have required such a scheme. It would have satisfied both the requirement to get everyone Jewish enough to be killed OUT of hostile countries and the requirement to get only Jews INTO Israel. Maybe it is time to change the law?)
I understand Israel has a law that prohibits people who are halachicly Jewish but converted to some other religion (usually Christianity) from immigrating. Go figure.
“Moreover, who are they to decide that Reform weddings, for instance, do not apply in Israel?”
I am sure some paragraph in Tanakh or Talmud prohibits specifically marriages officiated by Reform rabbis.
“The specific choice of “Creator” rather than “God” as having endowed men with certain unalienable rights is important.”
No. You are missing the point.
What is important is that the Declaration of Independence is a document written by several authors voicing their own personal opinion. The document has no legal standing in the United States. Anyone can write a declaration and hope that it convinces people to fight for their freedom. And if you believe in a creator, like the Deist Jefferson did, you can certainly mention that creator, and call him Creator or G-d or whatever you want. None of that has any relevance.
Perhaps you believe that G-d wants you to found a secular country. That would certainly make you mention G-d in your declaration and then make sure that He is not mentioned in the constitution for the country you want to found.
Jefferson is a good example for the meaning of the separation of religion and state. Even though he himself believed in a creator, he advocated that the nation he founded does not have an opinion on that creator’s existence or meaning. The United States were founded as a secular country with no official opinion on specific religions. They were neither Christian nor Islamic or atheist, they just were. And US citizens can practice whatever religion they want. It has only been recently (in the last 150 years) that the principles began to erode, with religious holidays becoming state holidays (and the government hence having decided to promote one religion over others), and religious truths becoming state mottos. It shouldn’t have happened.
But then I’m not sure whether a real secular state can even work. Who says which holiday is religious and which is not? Why is some dudes fighting the British non-religious while some dudes fighting the Greeks is religious?
Drima, as an American, I found the video very amusing and I was not surprised by its content one bit. You see, I teach school, or try to teach. Education is getting worse by the day in the US. Getting a teaching degree is by far the easiest degree to obtain, and research has shown that mostly C students go into teaching. Thank goodness, there are exceptions and still some good teachers out there. Not too many though. The bureaucracy is ruining education. The bureaucrats decided that everyone should get an education, so as a result, education is watered down. There are seniors in high school who cannot tell you the main idea of a reading passage. The curriculum is trite, dull, and jejune. Students leave school without basic knowledge in many cases.
So, the man on the street may or may not be educated or well-informed. Many people are focused on their immediate concerns and not world events. Too many people rely on the TV (and the vapid programs) for their entertainment. They care not at all about matters outside of their narrow existence.
Thomas Jefferson referred to the First Amendment as a wall separating church and state. I tend to agree with his view.
But what exactly does that mean, Raccoon? A “wall” in what way, exactly? That is totally open to interpretation. It could easily be taken to mean that the religious should be prohibited from serving in government, couldn’t it? Reasonable people have assumed it means there must be no interference between the two. No meddling.
And as for the Declaration of Independence: mind you that it is meticulously worded. The specific choice of “Creator” rather than “God” as having endowed men with certain unalienable rights is important.
In what way is it important?
First, it is more appropriate rhetorically. Second, a creator is not a monotheistic God. A Creator can be pretty much anything, from Shiva to a sentient Universe.
So can “God”
The Constitution, by the way, has no references to God, Creator and so on.
Point?
My religion, by the way, is my own business. But I am not an atheist - I do not deny the existence of divinity. Nor do I confirm it.
You seem very fixated on the idea that your religion is your own business. You might wanna stop attacking other people’s views, if you don’t want them to come back at you. If you really want to keep your opinions private, then keep them private, eh?
And having E pluribus unum as USA’s motto doesn’t strike me as atheist coercion. Religion, however, is a private matter. And a dollar bill is not a fit place for God’s name - or so I would think were I a religious Raccoon.
Why is a dollar bill not a fit place for God’s name? It’s currency, after all… not the US Constitution
Andrew, you said a lot of stuff that I don’t agree with, and I’m not going to open yet another can of works, so I’ll just say this:
What is important is that the Declaration of Independence is a document written by several authors voicing their own personal opinion. The document has no legal standing in the United States.
Of course it has legal standing in the United States! It is the very document that asserted the EXISTENCE of the United States. As for “personal opinions”, no, it was an affirmation of natural law as the humanist philosophers of the day saw it - the “self evident truths”. The authors believed what was stated in the declaration of independence was so obvious, that they didn’t need to bother with explanations. And you call what they considered “self-evident” to be personal opinion, nothing more? Well, OK. Fine.
This whole argument is somewhat ridiculous. Tyranny of the minority, that’s what you guys are all about. Really glad neither one of you is American.
Clarification for Raccoon:
English may not be your native tongue, so I suggest you look up the word “creator” in a dictionary. The primary usage refers to the “one who creates a particular thing or invention”. The secondary usage is as a synonym for God. I’ll leave it to you, to decide which usage Jefferson had in mind
And one last thing! Do you use your subtle interpretation of “Creator” when you ridicule Creationists, Raccoon? Can they not be referring to an “intelligent universe” as you put it? I believe in evolution, which means I don’t really believe in Genesis as anything more than a fable, but that doesn’t mean that I reject the notion that there is a divine source for all that we know as reality. Would you call me a Creationist, too?
“Of course it has legal standing in the United States!”
No, it doesn’t. You are perhaps confusing it with the Lee Resolution.
Are you suggesting it was illegal for the United States to declare independence from Great Britain, Andrew?
“Are you suggesting it was illegal for the United States to declare independence from Great Britain”
Under British law yes it was. American law as it applies now didn’t exist until after the constitution laid the framework.
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-declaration-of-independence
That’s to take up what I think you meant to claim: that the Declaration of Independence doesn’t have any part in domestic law. You can go argue with legal scholars about that, if you wish, but it isn’t a given.
Zoxuf,
Under British law yes it was. American law as it applies now didn’t exist until after the constitution laid the framework.
That is of course, untrue. You do know what a congress is, correct? You know what the function of a congress is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress
Read it for yourself.
And no, I’m not letting you get away with that “as it applies now” dodge
Just happened to see this on Iranian.com and it seems relevant, since we have a few “Bill Maher” types in here:
http://iranian.com/main/2009/feb/who-religulous
Touches a bit on the religious nature of atheism as well:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
Do you really think that doesn’t apply to atheists, Zoxuf? I seldom meet Christians who are as utterly convinced about the true nature of reality as many atheists seem to be.
I think there is an overall healthy tension in Israel between secular and religious…a little dogfight/cat and mouse game…each trying to wrest a bit more control from the other…each keeping the other from getting too big a bite.
Raccoon…I got married in Israel to an Israeli when I lived there…the Rabbanut was disgusting overall…but it was kind of entertaining as well. I had to bring witnesses to prove I was Jewish…Well…I was alone there and did not know a soul…so I trained a couple of guys I knew there to pretend they knew be back in the USA…The rabbis got some shkels out of it and I wasted and day and had some laughs. Then there was the guy that thought I should not marry my lady because she is a darkie Jew and me a whitey Jew…we got a laugh out of that…and then there was the lecture on marital intimacy…very cute…even had some truth to it…
I think Israel would be a terrible place without the blackhats…just like I think it would be a terrible place with nothing BUT blackhats…
So let them go ahead and fight about kosher laws, and driving on Shabbat and I like that Israel feels Jewish…I hate repression…repression from religious and non-religious. And yes, Raccoon is right about the slippery slope…but things have not changed all that much in Israel in the 30 years I have been aquainted with her…goes back and forth…like a democracy a funny democracy in that is the Jewish state and that is pretty cool…and for those racist concious folks…it is a jewish state that allows all kinds of folk to practice all kinds of religions; Druze, Moslem, Christian, Bahai, a couple funny off-shoots of Judaism…I forget the names…
So…like any democracy…you keep your eye on things and if you feel strong enough about it…go fight for your rights, go organize, go vote or shut up.
BTW…
Raccoon…did you take off with my remote? Damn Raccoons…damn them!!! And Street Smarts re-runs are on…
SHIT!!!
What’s wrong with “as it applies now”? It was a legitimate clarifier. Yes there was pre constitutional law but the constitution replaced it and established the current role of government, which includes the separation of church and state.
-“Do you really think that doesn’t apply to atheists, Zoxuf?”
Again it depends if you define atheism as the belief that God does not exist or the lack of a belief that God does exist. I prefer the latter which is what I use to describe my position. Now there is a difference between not being able to rule out the possibility of God and not being able to rule out the possibility of specific Gods. Many people that fall into the second definition of atheist may still harshly go after specific religions which I think is what you are referring to. I encourage the debate and think that it is good for people on both sides to have their beliefs challenged.
Craig - I take care to mention the specific kind of creationists just because someone might possibly misunderstand me otherwise. So I call them young-earth creationists, a very precise definition, I believe. And creationists in the sense discussed above (i.e. political) are notoriously not into intelligent universes - they’re more into hardcore fire and brimstone stuff.
As for the rest of your comments: sorry, too pugnacious. It doesn’t seem like a debate is your intention.
Howie - I am all for the blackhats. Actually, I am all for anyone who has no interest in forcing me to do anything. If they’re trying to do good, I am even more for them. Moreover, the blackhats are (ethnically and culturally) Jewish. This is their home as well as mine. And yes, they are a good counterbalance for the sitra akhra - the Jewish anarchists at Bil’in. The resultant vibrancy is a great asset. Or so I hope
As for your remote - a member of the Raccoon Tribe ran off with it indeed. The Council decided you watch too much TV
Seems like every once in a while, radical anti-science and pro-theocratic Christians have this major campaign against reason in the US of A. Like this whole “In God We Trust” crap.
Always careful? lol.
Pretty pugnacious stuff coming from you there as well, Raccoon. You’re right, I don’t want to have a debate about this. I didn’t even want to discuss it at all. However, I felt it necessary to defend myself and my country from your attacks.
“That’s to take up what I think you meant to claim: that the Declaration of Independence doesn’t have any part in domestic law.”
What I mean is that what the DoI says is not law in the US.
There is no right to organise a revolution, for example; even though the DoI says so. And the same rule applies to the mention of a creator or god in the DoI. It’s not an endorsement of the existence of a certain god by any state, merely by people who published a declaration about an act of congress.
This was before the US were even founded. Perhaps it might have had relevance to the union the preceded it. Also note that the DoI was published by representatives of what was then individual colonies or states. As far as I know individual US states can still institute a state religion for themselves or endorse specific or all or no religions. But the federal government (the US) cannot.
“Do you really think that doesn’t apply to atheists, Zoxuf?”
Christians/Jews/Muslims believe in a god but not, according to their basic faiths, in pink rabbit monsters. Both are aspects of their religion and neither are proven facts.
Atheists believe that there is no god and might or might not believe in pink rabbit monsters. Both are aspects of their religion and neither are proven fact.
Whether you believe in no gods, one god, many gods, aliens, pink rabbit monsters perhaps doesn’t matter. But once any of these beliefs influences the way you live, it’s a religion.
An atheist who acts in a certain way because of his belief that G-d doesn’t exist may be just as religious as a Muslim who acts in a certain way because of his belief that G-d does exist.
Craig -
Not you nor USA were attacked by me, as I explained above. And now… “I don’t want to have a debate about this. ” your wish is granted
Raccoon:
Moreover, who are you to force other Jews to follow this or that tradition? Which tradition - Sepharadi or Ashkenazi? Which stream in either? To which extent to enforce this or that religious law?
We take the most common aspects shared and accepted by the vast majority, without any undue burden on minorities. That’s basically what we had for the past 60 years, and I have yet to see the slipperiness of this supposed slope.
As for Russians masquerading as Jews to come to Israel: it is a real and unfortunate problem. The Sokhnut must be reformed ASAP, perhaps replaced altogether with a different, more reasonable body.
I agree entirely. The current model of its funding, for one, pretty much ensures corruption or self-inflicted blindness.
This is no excuse for the humiliating ordeal at the hands of these ecclesiastic bureaucrats.
The ecclesiastic bureaucrats in question have sufficient reason to doubt the validity of your claim to be Jewish based on your point of origin and the handling of Aliyah from that point of origin.
Moreover, who are they to decide that Reform weddings, for instance, do not apply in Israel?
That’s an authority that the State defined. And I for one am glad for it - Reform weddings directly contributed to the fact that American Jews are in steady decline and every second Jew in the United States is married to a person of another faith. The children rarely continue the traditions of the single Jewish parent they have, as becoming part of the mainstream is simply much easier.
And before you say that we can only integrate into ourselves here… read Ha’aretz one of these days. I still remember the opinion column stating that the Pathway to Peace and Acceptance is through “marrying into the clan” - which is to say, by marrying Arabs en-masse.
Andrew:
But I do find it strange that the law is for Jews only. I prefer laws that are either for all or that allow for religious communities to follow their more restrictive practices.
Israeli law is built around permitting religious minorities to maintain their own days of rest and religious holidays. Hence a Christian is legally exempt from work on Sunday, and a Muslim on Friday, for example. Each religious minority receives its due consideration in school holidays, holidays from military service, further considerations in prison, and so on… The matters largely do not reflect on the outlook of the country as a whole, which still remains Jewish, but these larger matters are not enforced on other parts of the populace.
So there is no law preventing Muslims from working on Saturday, and due account for their own weekday of rest and religious contemplation. It prevents the situation Jewish immigrants faced in the United States back in the day - where you either worked on Saturday or you didn’t have a job.
When Israel defined being Jewish like the Nazis did, it was done because those were the people who needed a country. Saving only the son of a Jewish mother is a good beginning but it doesn’t help the non-Jewish half-brother, who is Jewish enough to be killed by some European government but not Jewish enough to be allowed into Israel.
Not quite the reality at hand. By and large, Jews who assimilated enough to the point of intermarriage, and their children in particular, did not hold a Jewish self-identity at all. They had little, if any, interest in Israel - and they found their refuge in assimilating further into the postwar society of Europe and the United States. Israel, in and by itself, did not have a noticeable population that fit the Theory of Race definition of a Jew until the Aliyah began from Soviet Russia en-masse.
What resulted was a situation wherein a noticeable population came to Israel seeking economic prosperity and freedom - but they came as Russians, not as Jews. And from what I see daily, they are not interested in changing to fit their new society - they much prefer changing the society to suit their tastes.
Hence a Christian is legally exempt from work on Sunday, and a Muslim on Friday, for example.
Yes, but are Christians FORCED not to work on Sunday? It seems to me that that is the issue here with the bread during Pesach. Nobody is saying that Jews shouldn’t be allowed to celebrate Pesach as they should. It’s whether or not they should be forced to do it, I thought is what Raccoon brought up.
Reform weddings directly contributed to the fact that American Jews are in steady decline and every second Jew in the United States is married to a person of another faith.
You know what? I agree with your argument. I too believe that Jews should not marry outside their faith. (Call me intolerant if you must. I know you won’t but others might.) However, I disagree with your conclusion. There is nothing inherent in Reform weddings that makes one of the couple non-Jewish. Quite in contrast, Jews who bother to have a rabbi of any denomination officiate at their wedding are much more likely to care about their Jewish identity than those who have to choose between an orthodox rabbi and a civil wedding and chose the latter.
You cannot tell me that a Jewish couple in Israel who, despite their own wishes, get married in an orthodox ceremony are somehow closer to Judaism than a Jewish couple who make a conscious decision to get married in a Reform or conservative ceremony.
The bearded barbarians (I love the term) kept Jewish culture alive and still do. But they did so because people came to them because they could; not because people came to them because they have to. Once they use or need to use the state’s law to force people to come to them, they have lost their legitimacy, I think.
“Once they use or need to use the state’s law to force people to come to them, they have lost their legitimacy, I think.”
Amen.
I will reply in greater length when I return home, as Roman’s position demands an answer. Just a thought, however:
“The ecclesiastic bureaucrats in question have sufficient reason to doubt the validity of your claim to be Jewish based on your point of origin and the handling of Aliyah from that point of origin”
And I have sufficient reason to doubt the validity of their claim to be Jewish (or even human) based on their attitude and demeanor. In fact, from said demeanor and attitude I conclude that they’re either Third Reich officials or a strange species of black, hairy toad. Does that mean I will sit on a tall chair in a darkened room somewhere, force them to do backflips through bureaucratic hoops and then have them stand before me while I question them on whether they can speak, use tools and interact in social environs? Oh, why don’t I also force them to drag their elderly grandparents half across the country to prove to me that they did not have sex with animals? And for each humiliation they are subjected to, I’ll force them to pay lots of money to an uncaring Raccoon clerk who couldn’t give less of a fuck whether they’re even alive.
Yes, the fact that I have sufficient reason to doubt the validity of the bearded barbarians’ claim to be Jewish (or even human) certainly gives me all of these rights, doesn’t it?
RK, Abu, AB..
You see…the discussion here is a perfect metaphor for what I stated earlier…people get fired up and some occasionally push through their way…then people fight back…nadnedah-nadnedah…and it is actually good and healthy for Israel in many ways…
Either side with too much power would be very bad news for Israel and for the Jewish people. Either side has those that would abuse the hell out of their power…little Jewish Hitler’s or little Jewish Khomeni’s… Either one is a nightmare…
I lived next door to the Belz yeshiva for two years…some were good neighbors…some were horrible people…horrible. The other people in the neighbor could be wonderful…along with many non-religious that were selfish, criminal, and flat out vicious (damn the Kurds AND the Raccoons I say)…
The bellshape curve will forever rule all aspects of human behavior…but the extremes will take over if not watched by the middle.
Andrew:
It seems to me that that is the issue here with the bread during Pesach. Nobody is saying that Jews shouldn’t be allowed to celebrate Pesach as they should. It’s whether or not they should be forced to do it, I thought is what Raccoon brought up.
The Chametz Law, or as it is officially known - The Matzoh Holiday Law, does not prohibit the sale or consumption of bread on Pesach. It does not force Jews to observe the religious customs of Judaism. What it is, by and large, is a gesture law.
Why a gesture, you ask? Because this is what the law says - “A business owner will not publicly present leavened products for sale or consumption.” The law later defines “leavened products” as pertaining to bread in its various forms. The law further defines that it will not be applied in a town whose majority populace are not Jews, a quarter of a city where the majority populace are not Jews, and communal settlements where the business is solely for local purposes.
In short, the law assumes a majority Jewish populace for it to apply. At which point, it requires of shopkeepers within that area to refrain from publicly presenting bread for sale. That’s it. That’s all she wrote. It’s a law that has, at its heart, two issues - one of them is allowing religious Jews to go to stores in their nearby area and buy food on Pesach. The other is a matter of giving a modicum of respect to a religious event that is important to a large part of the populace.
That’s all it is.
There is nothing inherent in Reform weddings that makes one of the couple non-Jewish. Quite in contrast, Jews who bother to have a rabbi of any denomination officiate at their wedding are much more likely to care about their Jewish identity than those who have to choose between an orthodox rabbi and a civil wedding and chose the latter.
Of the American Jews I mentioned, the ones of whom 50% married outside the faith? The vast majority of them married in a Reform marriage, with the full approval of the Reform Jewish community. You know how it goes as well as I do - a promise to parents who think it’s “the right thing to do” in some vague manner, or grandparents who sulk at the whole event but still have hopes about the kids.
In the end, most take after the stronger current - the non-Jewish half of the family, which is closer to the mainstream. Couple this with the inherent liberal trends of Reform Judaism, which result in a very small number of children, and the American Jewish population is decreasing.
You cannot tell me that a Jewish couple in Israel who, despite their own wishes, get married in an orthodox ceremony are somehow closer to Judaism than a Jewish couple who make a conscious decision to get married in a Reform or conservative ceremony.
See above. It is not the form of the ceremony itself that is my primary concern.
The bearded barbarians (I love the term) kept Jewish culture alive and still do. But they did so because people came to them because they could; not because people came to them because they have to. Once they use or need to use the state’s law to force people to come to them, they have lost their legitimacy, I think.
You have a point here, I agree. When one mixes religion and politics, it’s often not the politics that suffers as much as the religion in the long run. Some among the ultra-Orthodox advocate a total separation of religion from the state to better preserve it.
As for myself… I don’t know. Not as of yet, anyway.
Raccoon:
And I have sufficient reason to doubt the validity of their claim to be Jewish (or even human) based on their attitude and demeanor.
*shrug* My own dealings (on another subject entirely) with the Israeli Rabbinate were of a rather kind and helpful manner… that is to say, when they actually got around to handling my issue. I had to… wait a while. A long while.
In terms of bureaucratic efficiency and, from other accounts on the matter, basic kindness to the public they serve, the Israeli Rabbinate fails very noticeably. It’s something I see as a problem, and would very much like to see mended.
But by and large, I have the exact same feeling on every other bureaucracy in Israel that serves the general public.
Read my words, Raccoon.
Every. Single. One.
My next door neighbor? He survived a stroke that left half his body paralyzed, went through extensive recovery treatments, can’t walk properly and still has noticeable problems with everything in the right half of his body, and needs monthly shots that kill his nerves in various parts of his body. Without them, he can’t handle the never-ending pain.
He had the state funding for this treatment canceled and re-instated on several occasions, depending on some mysterious clerk’s mood. He had his disability reevaluated on several occasions without being informed - which is probably even illegal. He had his National Insurance branch changed based on a whim, which means he now has to where his parents live rather than where he does.
I have helped him formulate and write, in Hebrew, (his written Hebrew is lacking) about a dozen letters to various officials within various branches of various sub-bloody-committees of the executive branch government. At the current rate, I expect to help him write several more.
And when it comes to getting financial aid for housing for my grandmother… my mother will likely go insane soon due to the paperwork, walking around, and messed-up little twits who make the process so much more… enjoyable.
But my solution to the above issues is not to eliminate the institutions altogether. They to be improved, overhauled, streamlined…
It’s the leftovers we have from Socialism, Raccoon. Obese bureaucratic monsters with people who think their position means they’re better than you. In time, they will improve.
*They need to be improved, overhauled, streamlined…
Also, Howie,
I tend to agree with you that a single point of view given absolute rule will be disastrous in the long run. Unfortunately, we also have a problem these days here in Israel that we argue *too much*.
We have developed a new kind of extremist, man - the kind who like to argue all the time and never agree on anything.
As much as the blackhats have annoyed the HELL out of me…I lean towards RK in this argument though I do understand the paranoia of a Raccoon.
Yeah…there are a lot of messed up things in Israel…some get solved, some get worse, new ones appear…
It is not the form of the ceremony itself that is my primary concern.
Good. Then we are close to being in agreement.
Because this is what the law says - “A business owner will not publicly present leavened products for sale or consumption.”
Ok. That’s fine with me. I thought the law actually forbade the sale of leavened bread.
Howie -
I think you misunderstood me, man. I have nothing against the Ultras. It is their right to live their lives in whichever ridiculous way they choose. My issue is with religious coercion and lack of church/state separation - not any particular person or group of people.
Regarding the Chametz Law:
If there was minor law forcing secularism on religious people in an equally minor way - say, a law prohibiting the wearing of yarmulkes in public places during Speak Like A Pirate Day, in cities with secular/non-Jewish majorities… Well, I believe you’d have a different opinion on that.
The point is that religion is a private matter. The state has no right to pass laws because of religion, whether pro or against. Since it’s a private matter, a religious person has the right not to eat leavened bread during Passover. And stores have the right to sell bread whenever they want to: if people are religious enough, they won’t buy the bread or enter these stores.
Which brings me to the ecclesiastic bureaucrats. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the rot of Israel’s government institutions and its sources. And I also agree with the need to reform and streamline these institutions.
But the state has no right to tell me whom to marry in the first place. It’s between me and my wife - and if we want an Orthodox, Reform, Buddhist or Discordian marriage, we have the natural right to it. Because religion is a private matter. A government has the same right to tell me how and whom to marry as to tell me how and where to urinate. Any government organ doing either is an abomination that should be forbidden by law.
So yes, allowing quantities of Slavic bandits into Israel is a colossal failure that should be investigated and prevented as soon as possible. But even to Slavic bandits - who are citizens of Israel - the government has no right to dictate how or whom to marry. This situation is toxic to Israel, I believe, because of the aforementioned slippery slope. And we did not yet slide down it, Roman, because thankfully we are a secular majority state. And because we’re argumentative bitches who bicker and disagree at the drop of a hat.
Raccoon:
If there was minor law forcing secularism on religious people in an equally minor way - say, a law prohibiting the wearing of yarmulkes in public places during Speak Like A Pirate Day, in cities with secular/non-Jewish majorities… Well, I believe you’d have a different opinion on that.
Israel has a myriad of secularist laws and regulations, Raccoon, as well as prevalent policies. How many legal religious radio stations do we have, eh? One, and even that because Shas held the Ministry of Communications in the last three years. Until then we had zero. And my taxes still fund the Broadcasting Authority - whose content is mostly quite unsuitable for religious consumption.
My taxes also fund a myriad of “cultural” events of a prevalent secular nature, of which no ever asked me about. But hey - that’s life, right? So are billboards with sex-based advertising at every highway and street corner that happened to be, by some miraculous mistake, to be free of them for ten seconds. Most places in Israel intended for *all* the public are also in a similar vein - the environment, in terms of visual and sound, is set by the standards of the secular public, and the standards of other members of the Israeli public are ignored - or decried as “religious coercion”.
Or how about a controversial issue, the siren on memorial days? Religious Jews find themselves in a Catch 22 - they have their own traditional means to respect the fallen and their memory, but the secular establishment imported customs completely alien to them, from the siren to placing wreaths, the wreath imported directly from Christianity, which itself imported it from Roman customs. But if they don’t stand at the siren, they are seen as “not respectful to the fallen”. If they stand by it, they feel that they’ve gone against their own religion and *actually* respecting and remembering the fallen.
But the state has no right to tell me whom to marry in the first place. It’s between me and my wife - and if we want an Orthodox, Reform, Buddhist or Discordian marriage, we have the natural right to it. Because religion is a private matter. A government has the same right to tell me how and whom to marry as to tell me how and where to urinate. Any government organ doing either is an abomination that should be forbidden by law.
And this is the difference between a democracy with consocietal trends, and a fully secular liberal democracy where the individual is above all.
We have the former, Raccoon. This is because the general public sees many issues as important for *everyone*, and not just the individual, so compromises are made on those issues to insure that while everyone is unhappy about them, no side is *too* unhappy.
This situation is toxic to Israel, I believe, because of the aforementioned slippery slope. And we did not yet slide down it, Roman, because thankfully we are a secular majority state.
We haven’t had a secular majority since the Fifties, when the major Aliyah from Arab countries began. It was because of this that Mapai desperately tried to prevent the formation of religious schools in the temporary camps for new arrivals, doing its best to secularize a predominantly religious populace.
Since then, we had only a single major “bump” to change that - the big Aliyah from the Soviet Union. To this day, an amusing by-product of that is a Sephardic/Religious conspiracy theory that says that secular elites brought so many secularized Russian Jews (mixed in with people who aren’t Jewish at all) to keep itself in power.
That “bump” has already straightened out, by and large.
Raccoon, keep in mind that I include those who consider themselves “traditional” under the definition of religious, rather than merely those who adhere to Judaism at *all* times. I include them for a simple reason - these are the same people who don’t like seeing cars driven around on Yom Kippur. Or bread being publicly sold on Pesach. They marry by the Rabbanut, get buried by the Hevra Kadisha, and look for the basic Kosher certificate when eating out.
And because we’re argumentative bitches who bicker and disagree at the drop of a hat.
To that I agree entirely.
that I include those who consider themselves “traditional” under the definition of religious, rather than merely those who adhere to Judaism at *all* times. I include them for a simple reason - these are the same people who don’t like seeing cars driven around on Yom Kippur. Or bread being publicly sold on Pesach. They marry by the Rabbanut, get buried by the Hevra Kadisha, and look for the basic Kosher certificate when eating out.
That pretty much describes me.
(Except I am currently neither getting married nor dying.)
RK -
I will get back to you on this when I get home. In general, however, you seem to be confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion (if we define “secularism” as religion). Moreover, Israel is the ETHNO-NATIONAL homeland of the Jews. Which is why people who are Jewish by blood but not by Halacha are welcomed into Israel.
Don’t you think it would be better if there was no coercion in matters of religion AT ALL?
Some 60% of Israelis define themselves as secular (חילונים), by the by.
Raccoon:
In general, however, you seem to be confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion (if we define “secularism” as religion.
Quite the contrary, you seem to be confusing them yourself, and forgetting that by and large the two concepts are inseparable. And while I would not consider secularism to be a religion in and by itself, it is most certainly a belief system and way of life - a far more suitable definition for when you want to measure the relative freedoms of people’s life and expression.
There is a mistaken belief, in my opinion, that sees secularism as neutral in these affairs. As a playing field for all other aspects of human existence - a kindergarten where the rules are defined so that the children don’t beat each other up. Unfortunately, the teachers in the kindergarten are little more than children themselves, and so they begin teaching the children the Way of the Gan.
Moreover, Israel is the ETHNO-NATIONAL homeland of the Jews. Which is why people who are Jewish by blood but not by Halacha are welcomed into Israel.
And who, pray, is Jewish by blood? Since when do we define “Jewish by blood” based on the definition of a bunch of anti-Semitic racists? Why do we let them redefine our identity?
Don’t you think it would be better if there was no coercion in matters of religion AT ALL?
Coercion in the matters of human beliefs is unavoidable regardless of how you look at it. You simply advocate lack of coercion from the “old” religions here without even noticing. Raccoon, this is because to you secularism is neutral - it’s the standard way of life. This is not really the case. People will always project some aspect of their beliefs on others when they’re in power. It will become apparent through public schools, bylaws regarding public areas, standards on what can or can’t be done outside and inside the house…
There will always be some kind of consensus, like it or not. Enforcing a purely secular framework for society will merely set in stone advantages to one point of view within that society. It will be their playing field, they’ll define the rules of the game.
Better a society that recognizes its differences than one that ignores them.
Some 60% of Israelis define themselves as secular (חילונים), by the by.
And of the same 60%, two-fifths keep Kosher, light Shabbat candles, go to a synagogue (and of those two-fifths, half go regularly).
It’s all a matter of how you phrase the questions when you conduct the survey, Raccoon. The most general definition of secular in Israel also eats up the traditionalist crowd - and frankly, that really isn’t accurate at all.
You avoided my question, RK. A simple yes or no would suffice: do you consider religious coercion to be a legal or desirable function of the state?
Sorry, that came out somewhat brusque… No offense meant, I am just wondering about your stand on this.
Raccoon:
You avoided my question, RK. A simple yes or no would suffice: do you consider religious coercion to be a legal or desirable function of the state?
Desirable? No.
Avoidable? Also no. There is no neutral path here. All there is, is an attempt at finding some semblance of balance and common ground. Secularism does not avoid coercion - it merely defines its own coercion to be outside the boundaries of the debate.
In which case, I find that giving the government the ability to define societal status-quo, even if said status-quo pertains to religious matters, a better reality than the alternative - where some of *my* considerations regarding society would be ignored by default if they are not of purely secular origin.
Religion is part of society. It’s part of people’s self-definition in said society, and it was never a purely private affair. So no, I don’t find giving the government say regarding religious matters desirable.
I simply find it the lesser evil. Nor do I intend to ever give the government major say in religious matters - that’s the whole point, in the end, that it resolve friction points through legislature rather than enforce religious law.
I think it is important to differentiate between belief and religion. Belief is a private matter (or at least is a private matter in non-totalitarian societies). But religion is a type of behaviour. Behaviour can be, is, and should be dictated by the state to some degree.
The argument should really be about the degree of such dictation.
“There is no neutral path here. All there is, is an attempt at finding some semblance of balance and common ground. Secularism does not avoid coercion - it merely defines its own coercion”
“The argument should really be about the degree ”
These are my points exactly…like people in mixed neighborhoods trying to insist their non-religious neighbors not smoke on Shabbat or play the radio…and I have seen the non-religious go out of their way to “push” their rights in the face of religious people that were not looking for any trouble
There is a balance point and the lines are blurred…Either extreme bugs me…
To me…maybe the real issue has to do with honor and respect…if both sides had a bit more of each…then the debate would be unnecessary. Me?..since I am right in the middle of both sides…I am quite torn…I have direct experience with both sides being selfish, inconsiderate, dictatorial and abusive…and B”H…I have seen respect and decency from both sides…
A great discussion.
“like people in mixed neighborhoods trying to insist their non-religious neighbors not smoke on Shabbat ”
And usually it was direct at Raccoons with weed.
All I can say is WOWWW. This is just as heretical as it can get
I LOVE the Chaser’s!!!!!!! Go Australian Entertainment!!! ABC! ABC! ABC! (That’s Australian Broadcasting Company, not America’s, notice the capitals.)
Ha Ha…RK is going to make Abu wear a yamulke
Watching this video made me cringe. I’m a 15 year old Sudanese girl living in the US, and I knew the answers to those questions…
Hey Drima,
Thought you may be interested in reading this article at WSJ.com:
Where to Hear the ‘Aretha of Sudan’
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508738164327855.html
Looks like ‘Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World’ is going to be an unforgettable show at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. Who knows, perhaps it may help educate a few of those ‘ American ignoramuses’ you are so concerned about. Can’t quite figure out which performer is the so-called ‘Aretha of Sudan’ Is it the singer named Salma El Assal?
Leave a Comment