How Trudeau lost my vote

[Shady]

No, it's a semi-theocracy. Look up the definition of a democracy if you need to refresh yourself.See how that works? :lol:Semi -theocracy. Nothing really wrong with it.....for them that is.But hey, youve gone from pretty sure to adamant. Not bad for a first try .

You're confusing a state religion with theocratic government. Israel is a representative democracy.

[guyser]

You're confusing a state religion with theocratic government. Israel is a representative democracy.

Thanksm, but Im not.

Merely answered the question, and yea, pretty much is a semi-theocracy . Only a semi one would have all thos religious rules that everyone has to operate under

[TimG]

Only a semi one would have all thos religious rules that everyone has to operate under

You mean like Canada with all of the various religious rules that prevent consenting adults from signing binding contracts.

[Argus]

Conquerying new territory and dealing with the previous inhabitants is complicated in this day and age.... But Its going pretty well...

Well, right off the bat I know this is wrong. There's nothing in here which accounts for the land Jordan annexed in 1950

[guyser]

You mean like Canada with all of the various religious rules that prevent consenting adults from signing binding contracts.

Such as?

[Bonam]

No they want a Jewish state on the land god promised them. Not in Nebraska... Saskatchewan.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/defining-zionism-the-belief-that-israel-belongs-to-the-entire-jewish-people.premium-1.525064#!

That phrase "The land of Israel" has specific meaning. Its a direct translation from "Eretz Yisrael". This is a biblical definition found in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47.

It looks roughly like this...

The biblical definition is not particularly relevant since religious Zionists are only a small subset of the Zionist movement. As for a state in the land of Israel... yes, absolutely. IN the land of Israel doesn't mean on all of the land.

[Shady]

Thanksm, but Im not.Merely answered the question, and yea, pretty much is a semi-theocracy . Only a semi one would have all thos religious rules that everyone has to operate under

Using your flawed standard, most countries are semi-theocracies. Lol.

[TimG]

Such as?

Child support laws that impose financial obligations with no connection to need on step parents because it 'good for the kids' no matter how unfair the individual circumstances might be. Pure dogmatic religion behind that sentiment. The minority are expected to suck it up. No different than closing stores on the Sabbath. If you accept one you can't really complain about the other. Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

Using your flawed standard, most countries are semi-theocracies. Lol.

Such as?

Not sure why this is so hard to fathom. Its not a slag in any way. For all it matters I could not care less if it was a full on fucking theocracy.

Ive already said its a democracy in many ways and works for them, but even Jews will admit it isnt fully one or the other like it is in most first world countries.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why? Because you prefer states that conform your "secular" religion? It is important that personal liberty be respected, however, any community is entitled to decide what it is important to them.

Secularism isn't a religion.

The problem with non-secular states is that they give preference to a religion and make people of other religions feel like second class citizens. This doesn't help peace. The muslims in Israel for example must consult a Rabbi to get married, can't do certain things on the sabbat, etc.

People should have equal rights under the state and should have freedom of religion. The state should not favour one religious group over another.

[-1=e^ipi]

You mean like Canada with all of the various religious rules that prevent consenting adults from signing binding contracts.

That isn't technically a religious law, even if it is inspired by religion.

Though that law is pretty dumb and Canada isn't secular enough.

[guyser]

Child support laws that impose financial obligations with no connection to need on step parents because it 'good for the kids' no matter how unfair the individual circumstances might be. Pure dogmatic religion behind that sentiment.

Oh...what religion is that ? I dont recall learning that in World Religions class.

The minority are expected to suck it up. No different than closing stores on the Sabbath. If you accept one you can't really complain about the other.

Again, what religion makes that a rule.

This should be fun.

Just as a refresher you said.

You mean like Canada with all of the various religious rules that prevent consenting adults from signing binding contracts

So far....

no religion

no religious rules

Pretty much you say Oranges and show apples.

Ok...

[TimG]

People should have equal rights under the state and should have freedom of religion. The state should not favour one religious group over another.

To understand by POV you have to understand that I consider all dogmatic belief systems to be religions -

even if there is no deity involved.

Every secular state has a myriad of irrational rules which exist only because they reflect community values. For example, plastic recycling is a economically irrational activity yet people will be shamed and/or fined if they refuse to participate. Why is this any different from requiring a pro-forma consultation with a Rabbi before marriage?

Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Again, what religion makes that a rule.

In other words: arbitrary rules which are based on religions with a deity are unacceptable to you but arbitrary rules based on religions without a deity are perfectly acceptable?

I am surprised that such hypocrisy does not give you whiplash.

[dre]

The biblical definition is not particularly relevant since religious Zionists are only a small subset of the Zionist movement. As for a state in the land of Israel... yes, absolutely. IN the land of Israel doesn't mean on all of the land.

Yes it is relevant because thats the definition that zionism is based on, and you can see Israeli policy designed to aquire that land unfolding before your eyes.

[-1=e^ipi]

To understand by POV you have to understand that I consider all dogmatic belief systems to be religions - even if there is no deity involved.

Personally, I would add an additional trait that religions tell people what their purpose in life is, but anyway...

Every secular state has a myriad of irrational rules which exist only because they reflect community values. For example, plastic recycling is a economically irrational activity yet people will be shamed and/or fined if they refuse to participate. Why is this any different from requiring a pro-forma consultation with a Rabbi before marriage?

Sure there are irrational rules. But these irrational rules are not favoring 1 group of people over another to the extent that one group feels like second class citizens.

[Bonam]

Yes it is relevant because thats the definition that zionism is based on

Not really, the origins of Zionism are largely secular.

[-1=e^ipi]

In other words: arbitrary rules which are based on religions with a deity are unacceptable to you but arbitrary rules based on religions without a deity are perfectly acceptable?

I am surprised that such hypocrisy does not give you whiplash.

Or... arbitrary rules are all unacceptable, some are just less acceptable than others.

[overthere]

And you get a clue from a glance at the flag or a scan of their national anthem. All about zionism/Judaism and nobody else.

I count a total of TWENTY NINE national flags with crosses on them. Would you consider all of them to be Christian theocracies? Take your time in a review.

Canada does not have a cross, but they do mention God in their anthem. Another theocracy? The UK has both a cross in the flag AND mentions God in the very title of their anthem. Do you fell they are on a par with Iran?

[TimG]

Sure there are irrational rules. But these irrational rules are not favoring 1 group of people over another to the extent that one group feels like second class citizens.

Really? Have you ever looked at the irrational rules surrounding child support (all based the dogmatic belief that "best interests of the child" trumps all other considerations)?

They definitely make non-custodial parents feel like second class citizens.

Doubly so if they were step parents.

The nature of human society is to create rules that reflect community values. The best societies are those that keep them to a minimum and place a priority on respecting individual choices. I don't see any evidence that Israel's religious rules impose hardship on those that do not follow the religion. Muslims are still free to practice their religion. They can still run for political office.

Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

Not really, the origins of Zionism are largely secular.

That may be partially true, but the movement is still based on a jewish state in the "Land of Israel", that was promised to them by god.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tsiyonut) is a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel

The common denominator among all Zionists is the claim to Eretz Yisrael as the national homeland of the Jews

Eretz Yisrael is the territory shown on the map I posted (at least roughly)

[-1=e^ipi]

I count a total of TWENTY NINE national flags with crosses on them. Would you consider all of them to be Christian theocracies? Take your time in a review.

The cross is a very common geometric shape, so not necessarily religious. The Scottish and Jamaician flags have crosses, but these crosses are not religious. Admittedly, the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Finnish and English flags all have crosses that are religious in origin.

Canada does not have a cross, but they do mention God in their anthem. Another theocracy? The UK has both a cross in the flag AND mentions God in the very title of their anthem. Do you fell they are on a par with Iran?

Yes references to the God should be removed. But that doesn't mean that the UK is a theocracy on par with Iran. However, the monarchy should be abolished (having the head of state be the head of the Anglican Church is not very secular).

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't see any evidence that Israel's religious rules impose hardship on those that do not follow the religion.

Can people get married without the consent of a Rabbi?

How about working on the Sabbat?

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=18487

[TimG]

Can people get married without the consent of a Rabbi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel

Marriages in Israel can be performed under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, or for people who have proven to lack any religion, a "couplehood union" with rights and responsibilities akin to marriage, can be performed.[1][2][3][4] Matrimonial law is based on the Millet or confessional community system employed in the Ottoman Empire, which was not modified during the British Mandate and remains in force in the State of Israel.[5]

How about working on the Sabbat?

No different than Germany but there the laws are more a result of the powerful unions than religion.

http://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/germany-for-tourists/shopping-in-germany/shopping-hours-in-germany/

Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

That may be partially true, but the movement is still based on a jewish state in the "Land of Israel", that was promised to them by god.

Eretz Yisrael is the territory shown on the map I posted (at least roughly)

Like I said, in the land of Israel, not necessarily on all the land. Israel makes no claims to the territories east of the Jordan river that were part of its historical kingdom in ancient times. Furthermore, most self-identifying Zionists do not support annexation of Gaza or of the West Bank, which is really what matters.