Israel-Palestine Conflict
- Thread starter The blue phantom
- Start date
I wonder what the Republican vote would have been if the question omitted "Joe Biden's decision" and just said,
"Do you support or oppose withholding of certain weapons to Israel if the Israeli military moves forward with a major ground offensive in Rafah in Southern Gaza?"
What about those who know it is isn't antisemitic but say it anyway?
Is publishing that story antisemitic? If they'd identified the "group of billionaires and business titans" as Jewish, would that be antisemitic, or just true?
Without the WP paywall (link below), it ends with a comment from the (Jewish) deputy mayor: "“The insinuation that Jewish donors secretly plotted to influence government operations is an all too familiar antisemitic trope that the Washington Post should be ashamed to ask about, let alone normalize in print.”
Herein lies the dilemma. It's antisemitic to say Jews have too much influence in business and politics, even when Jews are exercising that influence. The outcome is that blurring the boundary between criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism has devalued the accusation of antisemitism - while discrimination against Jews (and worse) continues anyway.
Sorry but I don't believe in any of that because religion isn't hijacked, religion demands violence and it demands extremism. Religion does not exist to ensure that human's stop being twats to each other because the irony is that religion is directly responsible for much of human suffering over the last 2000+ years. The only reason why less people are dying and being oppressed by religion is because more and more of us are freely able to reject it.
We can never move on as humans until we reject religion completely because religion mandates division and it even mandates oppression towards those who actually follow it. This becomes extremely dangerous when that ideology forms the basis of law and more so punishment as it is in many countries. The irony is that the most religious countries all mostly retain the death penalty....
I obviously respect anyone's right to religious freedom but we should not respect that when it comes to tolerance of how certain religions oppress people, for example how they treat women and other groups. This is not right, it is not a culture that we can ever tolerate and we should fight it at every corner.
Last edited:
Religion is anaethema to me, but I have no wish to try and change people’s private belief. It is sufficient for me if religion is kept out of public life in our own society. It should not be in schools, politics etc. What is difficult is when the secular West butts up against religiously based cultures elsewhere. Thus, in Muslim societies some aspects clash with our values. What to do? Do we adopt colonial attitudes and tell them they must change or do we encourage enlightenment or just accept that they have values that are different from our own? I tend towards encouraging enlightenment but patience is certainly needed then.
We, on this channel, our highly aware that our principal owner and our chairman both hold influential positions in a Muslim society. We also know that the civil gov is engaged in a delicate dance with the religious leaders. Reform has been actioned and the gov encourages Sufism, a non-political and tolerant form of Islaam. Perhaps that this the best we can hope for and that what we consider progress continues.
Last edited:
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
The world's most moral Army in action again
Israel troops continue posting abuse footage despite pledge to act
Images shared online include Palestinian detainees draped in the Israeli flag and held in stress positions.
www.bbc.co.uk
Yes, we must tell the followers of any religion here that they must change because it isn't a choice, it is law. Often people dress this up as part of tolerance of culture but a culture of oppression is not acceptable under any circumstances. We have laws against it so why on earth would we tolerate it?
I am also for example in favour of abolishing the Church of England's association with our institutions. The knuckle draggers will see this as an attack but they're just racists as opposed to supportive of Christianity.
The fact that certain unwanted facets of religion exist and are tolerated is just dangerous and worrying. The real irony comes from the fact that in the 21st century we may come to rely upon law to protect people from religion.
Yes, but our law‘s writ does not run in others’ society.
Religion demands violence say a guy who says we should fight it at every corner.
Well, again this must be one of the most intolerant pleas against tolerance I've heard.