Peace in Occupied Palestine

[M.Dancer]

Show me a pluralistic Muslim country? There isn't one.

Turkey.

I bet a Kurd or an Armenian wouldn't agree with you on that one.

yet they can and do vote in their multi party elections.....

The thing is though, Turkey is a secular society and not an islamic state.

[buffycat]

By definition a 'Muslim' state or 'Jewish' state cannot be pluralistic.

[M.Dancer]

By definition a 'Muslim' state or 'Jewish' state cannot be pluralistic.

Except when the state has universal suffrage and is a multi party parliamentary democracy.

[Rue]

By definition a 'Muslim' state or 'Jewish' state cannot be pluralistic.

In that case no country is truly pluralistic. If you use it as an absolute definition as you have then its no different then using the word perfect or enlightened or completely fair to all. The very nature of the definition makes it something to strive for so its an ideal one hopes to achieve but no country can say they have completely achieved it. So it is in fact by its vary nature variable. Countries can be pluralistic in degrees.

Any state that will not seperate religion from state, obviously by that very act, impacts on their ability to be pluralistic but many nations claim they can be without completely seperating their religious and political views. In Canada and the United States, we claim to seperate religion from state, but in reality politicians make it known what there religious beliefs are to get votes and in Canada we give special rights to Catholics for their schooling we give no one else.

Do you note the poster who gave an example of Turkey as pluralistic? He did so as many do, becaiuse the concept wasw used subjectively to suport his opinion of what pluralism is. In Fact Turkey has never been pluralistic to its Armenians or Kurds or its Romanos, gays or its communists or labour leaders. Turkey is not a good example at all of a truly pluralistic society for those reasons.

How we define whether a country is pluralistic or not often because subjective and based on the definers personal preconceived cultural or political biases projected on the country we analyze. What appears pluralistic to one, may appear racist to another.

I have yet to see the same objective standards be used on all nations equally when defining how pluralistic they are, and so until that is done, it is just another label people use when they like or do not like a country and wish to either complement it or insult it.

[Rue]

By definition a 'Muslim' state or 'Jewish' state cannot be pluralistic.

Except when the state has universal suffrage and is a multi party parliamentary democracy.

You again establish the fact that in reality pluralism is a fluid and relative concept. It is an ideal to strive for and countries can to a certain degree be pluralistic and in other ways not be.

In the case of Israel its doctrine which allows Jews the automatic right to citizenship is not pluralistic, but it is in most other ways. Its Rabbinical Courts and therir definition of who is a Jew and its influence on say family law, abortion and homo-sexuality makes it an anti-pluralistic element in regards to Israeli society when it tries to dominate the approach to be used to such issues. That said modern Israel limits very much how far it will let its Rabbinical councils influence it and if they do have power it comes not necessarily from their religious influence, but their political infliuence, i.e., electing its members to the Knesset. The Rabbinical Conservatives have in fact turned into a political entity precisely because of their lack of influence on religious values. To now get their views across they need to engage in the same politicing the Muslim and Christian Jews do, so in that sense its political participation reflects pluralism although its views might necessarily be against pluralism.

Cetainly the Ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not recognize the existence of Israel and do not mix with others are far from pluralistic but their very insulated manner makes them an ineffective agent to prevent pluralism while their being able to be left to practice what they do without interference is an example of pluralism.

People who use religions in an orthodox and fundamentalist manner, tend to be anti-pluralistic but this does not mean there are not moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., who are very much believers in pluralism and do not use their religion to set up ghettoes and segregation but use it to find commonality with other groups. We have to be careful not to generalize and immediately assume since one is Muslim or Jewish or Christian they can't be pluralistic in beliefs.

However I concede if it was Buffy's point that the orthodox fundamentalists in the Middle East, particularly those claiming to speak on behalf of Islam to justify their terror prevent pluralism or the extreme right wing fanatics in Israel who cheered Yitak Rabin's death and claim to be good Jews following their religion, are the anti-thesis of pluralism and try prevent pluralism or agitate against it.

I myself am a Reform or Liberal Jew the same reason there are Christians or Muslims who feel the same way, precisely because we wish to be pluralistic and rejectvorthodox beliefs which would otherwise segregate us and prevent pluralism and do not lend to the vision of humanity we wish to be part of.

I could not imagine being able to be a Jew, if I could not learn how to be a Jew with the assistance of Buddhists, Taoists, aboriginals, Unitarians, agnostic Christians, Wiccans, certain Hindus and Muslims, Bahaiis, atheists, certain Anglicans and Jesuits, and so many others I have lost track of who have shared their beliefs to help me be a better person by providing wonderful approaches to looking at mystical concepts. I do not wish only to look to a certain book or passages and only follow those. I think it would suffocate me.

Pluralism really comes down to how each individual citizen in a state choose to pursue their life and whether the politicians they elect reflect an attitude that includesor excludes. In reality societies are a pendelum that swing from inclusion to exclusion depending on the prevailing influences. Certainly after 9-11, we could see how it suddenly had a strong influence on pluralism and brought home the fact if you lived outside the Middle East and your name was Arabic or you looked Arabic, suddenly the concept of pluralism quickly mutated to exclude these people from trust and to this day when any of us get on a plane, be truthful, if you see a man who looks like he could be both a Muslim and a Muslim it may make us think twice. But then if you are a visible minority or someone with a disability struggling to gain access, this is stating something they know far too well.

Within Israel, there is a struggle to define the country's identity and its not between Jews and non Jews, its within the Jewish communities. Israel figured out how to treat Muslims and Christians in its country, but with its own peoples it struggles to try figure out how one can be democratic and religious at the same time.

The two by their bery nature clash just as they have in our Western countries when certain religious communities want their version of religion to dominate the political landscape and its institutions.

In the West we claim to be pluralistic but of course we debate just how pluralistic one can be and still remain a state. Isn't the whole debate on how multi-cultural we should be based on a debate as to how pluralistic we should be?

[jbg]

Show me a pluralistic Muslim country? There isn't one.

Turkey.

Less so than Israel. They allowed a horrific synagogue bombing, during a Bar Mitzvah, to occur.

[scribblet]

If Abbas and the PA don't think you can negotiate or talk reasonably to Hamas, why in the world we believe the U.S., EU, U.N. or Israel could?

...hold on - I thought Palestine democratically elected these terrorists !

So, Hamas violently takes over Gaza, enforces shari'a, law, tosses Fatah guys off ten story buildings, beheads a few, shoots a few hundred or so in public and now Abbas calls Hamas 'murderous terrorists" - So this is some miraculous revelation which has just hit the Palestinians 10 years after Hamas was designated a terrorist org. duh!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...415512,00.html

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, addressing his people on TV Wednesday, harshly criticized the Islamic Hamas for attacking "national symbols" during its takeover of Gaza last week, referring to them as "murderous terrorists."

In an uncharacteristically fiery speech, Abbas said Hamas replaced the "national project" with "its project of darkness," attacking the symbols of government in Gaza, including the house of the late leader Yasser Arafat.

Abbas declared, "there is no dialogue with those murderous terrorists," and accused them of attempting a coup.

-snip-

"The coup seekers through their madness have given a golden opportunity to those who want to separate Gaza from the West Bank," he said.

[Black Dog]

Less so than Israel. They allowed a horrific synagogue bombing, during a Bar Mitzvah, to occur.

Allowed?

[jbg]

Less so than Israel. They allowed a horrific synagogue bombing, during a Bar Mitzvah, to occur.

Allowed?

I don't recall the Turkish government rallying to show solidarity with the Jews. At least Martin said, "this is not my Canada" when a (non-lethal) attack on a Montreal synagogue occured.

[M.Dancer]

Less so than Israel. They allowed a horrific synagogue bombing, during a Bar Mitzvah, to occur.

Allowed?

I don't recall the Turkish government rallying to show solidarity with the Jews. At least Martin said, "this is not my Canada" when a (non-lethal) attack on a Montreal synagogue occured.

Your lack of recall does not equal or imply complicity.

[M.Dancer]

... Neve Shalom had been targeted in two earlier attacks: In 1986 gunmen opened fire, killing 22 people, and in 1992 the Iranian-backed Turkish Hezbollah organization set off a bomb; no one was killed... Ovadya said the community was looking for a new plot of land to build a more secure community center and synagogue. He said the prime minister had expressed support..."

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispat...ves/000065.html

[Black Dog]

I don't recall the Turkish government rallying to show solidarity with the Jews. At least Martin said, "this is not my Canada" when a (non-lethal) attack on a Montreal synagogue occured.

Whatever. Allowed?

[jbg]

... Neve Shalom had been targeted in two earlier attacks: In 1986 gunmen opened fire, killing 22 people, and in 1992 the Iranian-backed Turkish Hezbollah organization set off a bomb; no one was killed... Ovadya said the community was looking for a new plot of land to build a more secure community center and synagogue. He said the prime minister had expressed support..."

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispat...ves/000065.html

Going to the link, the sentence was cut off. The strength of the support is very much the issue.

[Black Dog]

Going to the link, the sentence was cut off. The strength of the support is very much the issue.

Subjective evluation of the sufficiency of the support for the Jewish community /= allowed a horrific synagogue bombing.