Post New

Walz! I was wrong.
Wow. Her first big move, and her first big mistake.

Dude like I said --- I feel the Senate is now more important than the Oval.

If Trump and the Right don't get a clue in a few weeks - they'll give this to her just like everything else has been given to her.

And her and Walz could really speed up turning America into California.

For those who want good for America, hope for Republican Senate if Harris wins.

Which means - I might start wanting Harris, a Dem Senate and a Dem Congress. Give me time - I think I'm gonna get there.

The Hamas wing of the dem party is stronger than I thought.

Walz is America’s 2nd or third worst governor behind Newsom and Jay Inslee. His public safety record is beyond atrocious. He also delivers…nothing…to the ticket. Shapiro would have handed them Pennsylvania. Now they have to work for it.

It's a pick of confidence. No different than Trump picking JD ...... this is a "we got this, so no kissing ass to the right or even center".

If I was a Trump voter I'd be pissed. Not only for the shitty JD pick but because Harris is SO EASILY BEATABLE. But going to Georgia and mouthing off to a Republican Governor tells me that they still don't have a clue.

I was hoping KellyAnne would hit him in the knees with a bat and take control but it seems there's drama between her and Team Trump. That leaves Susie Wiles.

Still time to win this for Trump.


Genuine curiosity is how long does the media give Harris a honeymoon? YES the media is Liberal and anti trump *but* can they, will they sustain the honeymoon until Election Day?


Hopefully the Biden-Harris economic slowdown doesn't hurt oil demand too much. I'd love to see a healthy Putin and well funded Putin enjoy the 4 years like he did with Obama.

Trump chose Vance - do no good

Harris chose Walz - do no harm

Two happy warriors versus two doom and gloom Republicans. Optimism and joy versus pessimism and self pity.

Once again, Harris catches the Republicans flat footed.

It's interesting that her choice is a bit of a mirror of the Vance pick, in terms of what the campaign was trying to accomplish. I mean, they're very different people, obviously - but they seem to serve the same roles in terms of what the campaign was aiming to add.

Both campaigns went for a midwesterner from a non-swing state that they feel will be a good performer on the stump and in articulating the campaign's messages. Both campaigns went for the choice that most strongly signals that they prioritize holding their base tightly to them, rather than a gesture to other parts of their coalition.

Walz will probably end up being the better choice than Vance (though who knows!), given that he's just been in federal politics a lot longer. While some people regard that as a negative, it also means that he's less likely to have made any really impolitic comments over the last twenty years or so, since he's just had the sort of job where people tend to be careful about what they say on social media and in interviews....

Dope1: Walz is America’s 2nd or third worst governor behind Newsom and Jay Inslee.

Yeah, tough choice between running mates: America's Dad or the Couch Humper.

Walz, a former teacher, a high school football coach, served in the National Guard for 24 years, a command sergeant major, will help the ticket in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and blue-collar states.

Here's what Walz delivered as "America’s 2nd or third worst" governor:

- Universal school meals
- Stronger labor protections
- Cannabis legalization
- Stronger LGBTQ+ protections
- Paid leave
- 100% clean energy by 2030
- Reproduction rights
- $1B for housing
- Gun safety
- Cut child poverty by 1/3

If Dope1 says her choice is a "big mistake," breath easy, now you know for sure it's pretty damn good.

Once again, Harris catches the Republicans flat footed.

Uhhhh...okay.

Genuine curiosity is how long does the media give Harris a honeymoon? YES the media is Liberal and anti trump *but* can they, will they sustain the honeymoon until Election Day?

The dems have been doing the Extended Media Honeymoon since 2008. Remember this gem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vod4ls0Q4cs
This was IIRC the day before the election!

Obama never got any hard questioning in 2008 or even in 2012, when Candy Crowley intervened in a debate and bailed him out.
With Hillary!, they tried to make her classified documents scandal vanish but it was too big. Any normal candidate who destroyed evidence the way she did would have wound up behind bars but she managed to escape.

2020. Biden effectively didn't campaign at all once COVID started. They hid him in the basement the entire time.

And here we are. Harris NEVER campaigned. Think about that - the democrat palace coup deposed the guy the people voted for and the replacement has yet to face even a single question in 17 days and counting.

They've been doing this for almost 2 decades now, the "party of democracy".

Wow. Her first big move, and her first big mistake.

Lessee.

Midwestern governor
Gun owner
Football coach
Former Army
Former educator

Hasn’t boinked a couch.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Her first big move, and her first big mistake.

I don't think so. Harris is smart to distance herself from the genocide in Gaza. A Shapiro pick would surely generate protests at the University of Michigan.

intercst

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Not sure why you guys are fascinated with couches. Must be a lib thing. But I digress.

Here's a gem from 2023. Enjoy!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/defund-polic...

Let's not turn the rest of America into Minneapolis.

I don't think so. Harris is smart to distance herself from the genocide in Gaza. A Shapiro pick would surely generate protests at the University of Michigan.

The kids at some schools are rumored to be planning on a new round of protests - that's not going away any time soon.

Oh, and for those wondering about antisemitism in the democrat party:

Look, Josh Shapiro is a class act from beginning to end. He’s a rising star in this party. He's done an extraordinary job. He gets Republican votes, independent voters, moderate votes, smurfs vote for him, muppets vote for him, I mean, the guy is a vote magnet and there's a reason for that. He is a class act.

He's a — he's a true American, and he's going to show up and he's gonna – On the one hand, you have a lot of young people who are concerned about Gaza. You have a lot of Muslims and Arabs and others, they have not felt seen by the Biden administration. You started hearing that genocide joke, that was building that was building and so those folks needed to have a candidate that they could feel comfortable with. This helps him in that regard.

But you also have anti-Semitism that has gotten marbled into this party. You can be for the Palestinians without being an anti-Jewish bigot. But there are some anti-Jewish bigots out there and there's some disquiet now and there has to be. How much of what just happened is caving into some of these darker parts in the party? So that's going to have to get worked out. It’s going to have to get talked through.

That's Van Jones...on CNN.

I don't think so. Harris is smart to distance herself from the genocide in Gaza. A Shapiro pick would surely generate protests at the University of Michigan.

You're going to have protests anyway. And I don't think it's all that likely that the magnitude of the protests will be materially smaller with Walz than Shapiro as the Veep choice....

....but choosing Walz keeps the Era of Good Feelings part of the campaign alive through the Veep selection and into the convention, which is enormously helpful for Kamala. Everyone in the Democratic party likes Walz, so you don't risk anyone's feelings getting hurt. Which is critical with only ~100 days left in the campaign, and only 50 days until the first ballots go out in Pennsylvania (the earliest swing state).

Oh, and for those wondering about antisemitism in the democrat party:

I imagine your concern is that the Democrats might siphon neo-Nazi votes from Trump’s base.

Don’t worry, not a problem.

"Everyone in the Democratic party likes Walz, so you don't risk anyone's feelings getting hurt. Which is critical with only ~100 days left..."

Yes, this! There isn't time to calm the Circular Firing Squad aka Democraric Party over nit picking miffs. Unity is a must.

As AOC noted today, for the first time ever, she & Joe Manchin are in agreement on something!

Don’t worry, not a problem.

Antisemtism has always been fashionable among the elite left; what we're seeing now is it taking root in the Foot Soldier left, the great unwashed section of your party.

This is who you are.

Antisemtism has always been fashionable among the elite left; what we're seeing now is it taking root in the Foot Soldier left, the great unwashed section of your party.

Nah - it's still very much a small, elite phenomenon. Even among college students, you'll notice that only a handful of schools had material protests - and then, highly concentrated among elite selective schools. You didn't see folks skipping classes to live in tents at community colleges, for example. It was mainly a phenomenon at a very limited number of elite institutions: elite colleges, literary fora and magazines, and some of the most online of progressive/liberal communities.

Which is why, I think, you'll see most of us Jews will continue to heavily support the Democratic party and the left. We know that between the folks reading Edward Said or Stormfront, we're far better off with the former than the latter.

Which is why, I think, you'll see most of us Jews will continue to heavily support the Democratic party and the left. We know that between the folks reading Edward Said or Stormfront, we're far better off with the former than the latter.

Sure about that?
The Hamasniks you see on college campuses *far* outnumber a couple of losers in some compound in Idaho.

Choose wisely!

Sure about that?
The Hamasniks you see on college campuses *far* outnumber a couple of losers in some compound in Idaho.

Yep. Calling them "hamasniks" doesn't make them such. Nearly all of those kids (and the professors) are there because of their views on Israel/Gaza/Palestine - not any existential beliefs about the place of Jews in American life. Both professors of de-colonialism and folks who are convinced that ZOG is taking over the world can be deeply steeped in beliefs that are anti-semitic....but only one of those two groups is likely to shoot up a synagogue.

Calling them "hamasniks" doesn't make them such.

No. Them chanting "From the river to the sea" and worse is what makes them Hamasniks.

Nearly all of those kids (and the professors) are there because of their views on Israel/Gaza/Palestine - not any existential beliefs about the place of Jews in American life.

You might want to check in on New York.

....but only one of those two groups is likely to shoot up a synagogue.

Think so, eh?
You're smart enough not to fall for the BS that the major terror threat in this country are white supremacists.

No. Them chanting "From the river to the sea" and worse is what makes them Hamasniks.

No, it doesn't. I agree that using that phrase expresses gross insensitivity towards Jews, so much so that by the standards of progressives (ie. racist speech is judged by the effects on the minority, not the intent of the speaker) it is certainly anti-semitic. But it doesn't mean they support Hamas. Even the ones that believe that Israel should not exist in its current form (which I believe constitute a minority of college protestors) aren't "Hamasniks," because that doesn't mean they support Hamas - any more than people in Northern Ireland who supported independents from Britain were necessarily supporters of the IRA.

Think so, eh?
You're smart enough not to fall for the BS that the major terror threat in this country are white supremacists.

I'm smart enough to know that horrific physical violence against individual Jews is far more likely to be committed by the folks who fall down the rabbit-hole of generalized anti-semitic conspiracy tropes about the evil of Jews than those who fall down the rabbit-hole of anti-colonialist theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue...

Don't call them Hamasnicks at all.

They are students and according to MANY in the world, for MANY generations - they are standing against something many find unjust.

Let Progressivism Ring.

Maybe one day they can shout "Free at Last" from the river to the community swimming pool or sea or wherever ......

I personally encourage them online, give them likes, whatever it is they want.

Which is why, I think, you'll see most of us Jews will continue to heavily support the Democratic party and the left. We know that between the folks reading Edward Said or Stormfront, we're far better off with the former than the latter.
***

Which is true.

And, like any voter 100% their right to support who they want.

And for a few more election cycles, the geniuses who think they are protecting a city for God and Jesus (a lord and a savior who can't even hire a security guard) will continue to slavishly do Israel's bidding.

BUT just like trade.....

One day, prominent, mainstream voices on the Right will ask "why".

In the meantime I need more Islam in the West. It should be easy as less and less in the West have heritage, history or faith or even family. Plenty of swaths to recruit from.

This is chess, not checkers. It's warfare on many fronts. Military and money - the usual side has that. The side of right and good and justice - has the population and the growth. They are in the infancy of figuring out that they can use it, and they are still susceptible to being divided and conquered.

Hence, it's the long game. But the trend is unmikstakable. Ask Bibi's kid on Twitter.

Watched "Munich" for the first time in a long time. Back in my naive Bush days I vehemently had one bias. Now, well....."progress" and progressivism is the reality. The monologue on 100 years, and "home"....moved me. Sadly I'm a fat-ass who wants to look at tomorrow's diner specials and plan the next vacation.

Others....I'm confident are more committed.

More and more Americans will stop taking a Right Turn and going straight. They will turn Left....and drive to new alleys and turn them into their enclaves.

But it doesn't mean they support Hamas.

How about wearing Hamas headbands, flying Isis flags, chanting things I won't repeat here and attacking Jewish students physically?

I'm smart enough to know that horrific physical violence against individual Jews is far more likely to be committed by the folks who fall down the rabbit-hole of generalized anti-semitic conspiracy tropes about the evil of Jews than those who fall down the rabbit-hole of anti-colonialist theory

I'll assume you've at least heard about what they say about Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

One day, prominent, mainstream voices on the Right will ask "why".

And everyone will answer, "because the U.S. needs to promote a regional check against Iranian hegemony so that China and Russia do not use their client to monopolize access to economically critical natural resources and global trading lanes."

And all the mainstream voices on the Right, who understand that the greater world exists and is important to U.S. interests and that we therefore have to be an active participant in global geopolitical and economic matters, will nod in agreement...recognizing that our strategy in the Middle East advances our own interests.

How about wearing Hamas headbands, flying Isis flags, chanting things I won't repeat here and attacking Jewish students physically?

Super tiny minority of the folks involved. Execrable and worthy of condemnation, but not materially threatening.

I'll assume you've at least heard about what they say about Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course. But there are different types of anti-semitic beliefs out there.

The settler-colonialist theory of the foundation of Israel - which flattens Jewish history and delegitimizes the rights of the Jews as indigenous people to the area to have a nation - is an anti-semitic belief. But it's one that's very specific in its context, and the ignorance that underlies it is not one that's especially dangerous to Jews in the U.S. Because the longed-for solution stemming from that anti-semitic belief is applicable only to that one spot in the world.

However, belief that Jews represent a threat to the cultural integrity or religious identity or "purity" of the Homeland (wherever that Homeland is) is far more dangerous. Because that's an anti-semitic framework that's actionable here - and everywhere. Which is why Christian nationalism scares me far more than folks who apply settler-colonial theory in an inappropriate situation. Concern about purity, and claims that the nation requires adherence to a common and shared set of values and customs, are far more likely to come from the conservative rather than liberal side of the spectrum - and those are the things that usually fare pretty badly for Jews.

We do far better in a culture where minority rights trump community values, which is a liberal framework, than vice versa - because we're a religious minority. We're on the 'wrong side' in the War on Christmas, doncha know....

Super tiny minority of the folks involved. Execrable and worthy of condemnation, but not materially threatening
****

Excellent description also for those perpetrating gun violence. Elements within MAGA saying or doing bad things.

But it seems be it Trump, OR Progressive Leaders, there is token repudiation or stand back and stand by in many forms.

From the Left - I hope they keep getting away with that attitude.

The VP pick is a win for them albeit a small one.

Certainly the Jews have a claim on "indigenous", but I think so do the Palestinians also. Though, as you said previously, the two-state solution isn't going to happen any time soon (i.e. probably never...I think the Palestinians will be driven out, possibly within my lifetime).

However, a lot of the xian nationalists support the Jews. They want to bring on Armageddon, and one of the prerequisites for that (under some interpretations) is for the Jews to get all the land. The entirety of the former Judea.

Don't remember where I saw it, but one of those pastors was actually saying that when that finally happens, all the Jews will see the light and be saved, along with believing xians.

However, a lot of the xian nationalists support the Jews. They want to bring on Armageddon, and one of the prerequisites for that (under some interpretations) is for the Jews to get all the land. The entirety of the former Judea.

Don't remember where I saw it, but one of those pastors was actually saying that when that finally happens, all the Jews will see the light and be saved, along with believing xians.

On balance, religion is not a force for good.

Certainly the Jews have a claim on "indigenous",
A claim? More than that.

, but I think so do the Palestinians also Not after they bailed in 1948 and then tried to take the place by force. When you keep starting and losing wars your claim to legitimacy kinda fades.

think the Palestinians will be driven out, possibly within my lifetime).</iL
Driven out of what? You realize that Arabs enjoy full citizenship in Israel, right?

However, a lot of the xian nationalists support the Jews.
Fascinating, but not for the reason you think.

Certainly the Jews have a claim on "indigenous", but I think so do the Palestinians also. Though, as you said previously, the two-state solution isn't going to happen any time soon (i.e. probably never...I think the Palestinians will be driven out, possibly within my lifetime).

However, a lot of the xian nationalists support the Jews.

Yes, the Palestinians also have a valid claim to be indigenous to the area. Which is why the UN plan for the area was Partition - like India and Pakistan.

As for the xtian nationalists, they support Jewish territorial claims in the Middle East - which is not the same as supporting the Jews (a distinction that sometimes eludes DJT as well). As noted above, there are lots of distinct anti-semitic beliefs out there. One can believe (falsely) that Jews are a pernicious scourge on American society and culture while simultaneously hoping they drive the Arabs out Judea.

Again, Jews tend to thrive in a society with a strong commitment to a secular government, that values discrete minorities without pressuring them to assimilate to majority norms, and that emphasizes the norm of acceptance and tolerance over cultural or societal purity. Which are generally more left-wing, rather than right-wing, values. Which is why efforts to peel off Jewish voters over Israel (or a "snub" of Shapiro) are unlikely to be successful. Many older Jews in America are quite repelled by some of the discourse surrounding Israel, but they're not going to start voting for the party that more strongly centers Christian identity....

albaby1,

"The settler-colonialist theory of the foundation of Israel - which flattens Jewish history and delegitimizes the rights of the Jews as indigenous people to the area to have a nation - is an anti-semitic belief."

Not even close. Settler-colonialism is an accurate description of the birth of Israel. The promulgation of tropes like "a land without a people for a people without a land" flatten Palestinian history and are an admission of lies to justify the usurpation of Palestinian territory. The Jewish mythology of connection to the biblical territories, ab initio, delegitimizes any other occupants. It is abundantly clear that the lands of Palestine/Israel were neither empty at the time of foundation of Israel nor were Jews, historically, the original nor the only inhabitants of this area. Nor did Israel make the desert bloom, it was already blooming, and it is not a desert. These are further tropes to justify colonization, as nobody was there, and they were not using the land fully anyway. The modern Israeli narrative is full of such justifications.

After years of teaching this narrative, not only to the world, but also in their schools, there are two generations of modern Israelis with disdain for Palestinians, and young Israelis are comfortable inflicting terrible injustice on Palestinians, who are openly referred to as vermin in the Knesset, where extermination is openly discussed. Where is the acknowledgement of Palestinian history, and why are they denied a nation? That doesn't fit with the aims of Israeli Zionists.

The situation is not complicated. Hamas is not the only nor even the principal villain here. The current debacle is the result of European immigrants to the area, setting in motion a long string of injustices without redress, empowered by a belief they are God's chosen. It is incumbent on Israel to understand the horror they have visited on the people of Palestine and make amends. A first step is to acknowledge that they are colonists, and not the 2000 year absent landlords they claim to be.

I am not hopeful, but it is the only road to peace.

We do far better in a culture where minority rights trump community values, which is a liberal framework, than vice versa - because we're a religious minority. We're on the 'wrong side' in the War on Christmas, doncha know....

America is founded on...wait for it...Judeo-Christian philosophical values which were the backbone of Classical Liberalism.

I'm fascinated by the anti-Christian attitudes on this board; I can't remember the last time I ran into one that went on a rant about non-Christmas holidays. How are you on the wrong side of the 'war on Christmas'? Are you out there trying to cancel Santa Claus or denigrate the holiday?

The Jewish mythology of connection to the biblical territories, ab initio, delegitimizes any other occupants. It is abundantly clear that the lands of Palestine/Israel were neither empty at the time of foundation of Israel nor were Jews, historically, the original nor the only inhabitants of this area.

That's incorrect.

The historically documented connection of the Jewish people to the Mandate territories doesn't delegitimize other occupants. The fact that the Jews are indigenous to the region doesn't mean that no one else is. Nor does the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the area depend on there being no other inhabitants in the area.

Zionism does not require denying the rights of the Palestinian people to their own homeland as well. That's why the original plan - approved by the UN - was Partition. Exactly what happened in India - two peoples living in a former colonial area, and the solution to give both peoples self-determination was to partition the area. A wrenching and disruptive process, to be sure - the Partition of India was traumatic for nearly everyone involved - but one that ended up having at least a somewhat positive outcome. That process was short-circuited by Egypt and Jordan in the Mandate area.

Where is the acknowledgement of Palestinian history, and why are they denied a nation? That doesn't fit with the aims of Israeli Zionists.

Sure it does. Most Israeli Zionists have historically favored the two-state solution. The Palestinians were denied a nation because Egypt and Jordan seized all the lands that were supposed to be the Palestinian nation as part of their effort to kill or expel the Jews entirely from the region, and decided not to give the Palestinians that land (or any autonomy) because Palestinian suffering was an effective lever to try to expel the Jews from the area.

That's why the Oslo Accords went as far as they did. Most Israeli Jews were aware that the Palestinians were indigenous to the area, and were aware - even after all the efforts to kill and expel them - that Partition was the solution.

A first step is to acknowledge that they are colonists, and not the 2000 year absent landlords they claim to be.

They are not colonists. They are from there. Jews lived in the area for centuries before the Romans and Muslims (successively) colonized them and threw them out. It's wrong to disparage their indigenous history in that land by describing them as "absent landlords," rather than persecuted minority that was driven out by the imperial colonists of the era. They have the same right to live in those lands and have self-determination as an autonomous people as the Palestinians - and denying that right, when it is accepted for all the other peoples of the world, is why most Jews regard anti-Zionism (as opposed to promoting a separate Palestinian state) as being rooted in anti-semitic beliefs.

"Nah - it's still very much a small, elite phenomenon. Even among college students, you'll notice that only a handful of schools had material protests - and then, highly concentrated among elite selective schools. You didn't see folks skipping classes to live in tents at community colleges, for example. It was mainly a phenomenon at a very limited number of elite institutions: elite colleges, literary fora and magazines, and some of the most online of progressive/liberal communities."

You are of course correct on this, but I also want to prevent Dope from doing his usual dishonest slight of hand by conflating the college campus protests with antisemitism.

They were not necessarily the same. Sure there were some small subset of protestors who were antisemitic. No doubt, however most of the people there were protesting the actions of Israel in its war in Gaza against Hamas. That isn't antisemitic. Protesting the dropping of a 500 lb. bomb into the middle of a refugee camp (refugees Israel was at least partly responsible for help creating) in order to kill a couple of Hamas fighters is not antisemitic.

Dope has a long history of being dishonest and pretending that any criticism of Irael's actions is automatically antisemitic.

They are not colonists. They are from there.

Not really. They’re “from” wherever they’re from. If I follow your logic, then I’m “from” Germany and have the right to go back and demand land and housing in Germany. Or at least ask them to move aside and “share” since they’re “from there” also, even though they’re “actually already there.” Likewise England, where I have forbearers. And if DNA tests are at all accurate, then I have some claims in France, Sweden and Denmark too.

No. I’m “from” where I’ve been for the last 50 years. Saying people who are “taking back” land because possibly someone they’re distantly related to 2000 years ago lived there is nonsense. We might as well welcome the Navajo to reoccupy Arizona and Utah, and forcibly remove the white settlers who have been there for the last 200 years.

How are you on the wrong side of the 'war on Christmas'? Are you out there trying to cancel Santa Claus or denigrate the holiday?

The reason that many retailers and employers and governments shifted away from "Merry Christmas" messages and towards "Happy Holidays" messages is recognition that not everyone is Christian. Not everyone celebrates Christmas.

So the "War on Christmas" is a nice little metaphor for the tension between two different ways that a majority can treat a minority.

On the one hand, you have the "Christmas Warriors" side. The overwhelming majority of people celebrate Christmas, and it's not fair or right to tell the overwhelming majority that they can't incorporate their celebration into nearly every setting, simply because there are a few people who might not celebrate. It's incumbent on the minority to adapt or tolerate, rather than the majority giving up something that they want to do because of the minority.

On the other hand, you have the religious minorities and the people who want to be considerate of them. It's polite and inclusive for the majority to recognize that not everyone shares their religion. They don't think it's right to default to the assumption that everyone celebrates Christmas without any effort to adjust the community approach to the holiday.

It's an snapshot of how people think the society should value the beliefs of the majority vs. the beliefs of the minorities. Fervent insistence that no one should accommodate minority viewpoints (ie. criticizing companies for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas") signals that they think everyone should have to participate in the majority culture, even if they're a minority; insistence on the opposite signals they think that the majority should restrain itself so that they minorities have "space" for their own beliefs.

There are valid points for both positions. But as a religious minority, it's pretty clear which of those two perspectives is the safer one for us.

The reason that many retailers and employers and governments shifted away from "Merry Christmas" messages and towards "Happy Holidays" messages is recognition that not everyone is Christian. Not everyone celebrates Christmas.

It's not that simple, but sure.

Fervent insistence that no one should accommodate minority viewpoints (ie. criticizing companies for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas") signals that they think everyone should have to participate in the majority culture, even if they're a minority; insistence on the opposite signals they think that the majority should restrain itself so that they minorities have "space" for their own beliefs.

And literally no one says there should be no 'space' for other beliefs in today's society.
Not everything has to be a ridiculous culture war.

The other side of this has been an aggressive campaign to disrespect Christianity and denigrate Christian symbols and traditions. Look at the lame mocking that takes place on this board every 5 minutes. I'd love to see our resident, super-tolerant and safe space practicing atheists walk up to a mosque and start disparaging Islam or Mohammed, or try to pull that stuff at a Diwali gathering. There's a reason why all the anti-religion energy is focused on the Turn The Other Cheek Set.

We might as well welcome the Navajo to reoccupy Arizona and Utah, and forcibly remove the white settlers who have been there for the last 200 years.

I was pushing back on the settler-colonial framework being applied to Israel. Under that framework, your statement above is absolutely correct. It might not be practical to do that, but the Navajo are indigenous to Arizona and Utah, were wrongfully dispossessed of their lands, and would legitimately have a claim to autonomy in that region if it were practical. If the Navajo were to return to Arizona and Utah, it would be completely wrong to describe them as "colonizing" that area.

By the time the UN resolution on the partition of the Mandate rolled around, some of the Jews living in the area had been there for centuries (the original Yishuv), many more had been living there for several decades, and a large number of them had been born there. So even under your framework, they're "from" that part of the world.
But even under settler-colonial theory, because the Jews are an original population indigenous to that area, they are not "colonizers" of that area when they return.

Heh. Jake Tapper having to squirm as Shapiro is being discussed:

https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1821157893502...

PHILLIPS: And I think ultimately, Shapiro, I think fit is important, but, you know, I also think when you look at the principle of "do no harm," maybe they did say in a state like Minnesota, do we want to, there were 100,000 uncommitted voters who came out about the Gaza war, do we want to antagonize those voters? Those are part of the question as well.

TAPPER: Can I just say...

CORNISH: Tim Walz also spoke conciliatorly towards those people. He said, look, that uncommitted vote is significant, and those people should be heard. So having that kind of response, I think, is probably more of an open door to the parts of the party that have been very frustrated with the Democrats.

Tee, hee.

TAPPER: So, but, just to, just to, one point on the Gaza war. Shapiro has the same position on Israel that Gov. Walz, that Sen. Kelly has. He's actually been more critical of Netanyahu than the other two, but, he is Jewish.

CORNISH He's also the face of the crackdown on the protests, right? He spoke very vehemently about those protests as being antisemitic.

TAPPER: Not all of them. The ones that were antisemitic he criticized for being antisemitic.

CORNISH: Of course, but he was out front on the issue. So, I'm wondering if that's the kind of thing, again, for the activist wing of the party was a slap in the face.

And literally no one says there should be no 'space' for other beliefs in today's society.
Not everything has to be a ridiculous culture war.

But the "War on Christmas" fight was a pushback against businesses and other institutions deciding to provide that space for other beliefs. People stopped overtly describing their celebrations as "Christmas" observances, instead defaulting to more neutral "holiday" celebrations. Conservatives got very upset by that, arguing that it was not appropriate (or necessary) for the overwhelming majority of the population to retreat from those overt declarations of faith just to accommodate the small minority of folks who don't share that faith.

There's a tension there. How much do you value the public displays of the majority faith, vs. how much you value minimizing overt references to faith to accommodate minority religions?

Again, if you're a member of a discrete religious minority in that culture, it's pretty obvious which perspective is more solicitous to your interests.

If I willingly move abroad for what I feel is a better life, and I KNOW what the majority religion or even majority tradition is - --then suck it up and so be it. And learn to ENJOY it.

So whether I get invited to break the fast with lamb and beef, or if they want to toss colors on me for Holi or blow fireworks on Diwali or they wear poppies on their lapel at certain days..... frigging participate and be one with them.

Don't push my stuff on them - if I want that, I can go back where I came from.

Tis what I believe.

Mind you the world has changed. I want Islam to blitz all of you - especially in Europe.

Hopefully Harris and Walz help allow more of it - I think they will.

But the "War on Christmas" fight was a pushback against businesses and other institutions deciding to provide that space for other beliefs.

More like a built-up response for years of attempting to erase all the religious significance of the holiday and replace it with generic consumerism.

Again, if you're a member of a discrete religious minority in that culture, it's pretty obvious which perspective is more solicitous to your interests.

So Christians aren't allowed to loudly proclaim their faith on one of their most holy days?
This argument assumes the worst in other people.

If I willingly move abroad for what I feel is a better life, and I KNOW what the majority religion or even majority tradition is - --then suck it up and so be it. And learn to ENJOY it.

What if you didn't willingly move abroad? What if you were born here to a minority religion (as most American Jews were)?

So whether I get invited to break the fast with lamb and beef, or if they want to toss colors on me for Holi or blow fireworks on Diwali or they wear poppies on their lapel at certain days..... frigging participate and be one with them.

Rather the celebrate that we're in America and you can worship trees if you want, left wingers insist that certain groups get shoved in the closet and stay there because of what they *might* do. Never mind the structural protection inherent in every institution and tradition (that they often reject).

I've been to Hannukah celebrations and had a blast. Had Jews over for Christmas and they've had a blast. But some just can't have fun, I suppose.

More like a built-up response for years of attempting to erase all the religious significance of the holiday and replace it with generic consumerism.

That's exactly the point. The holiday didn't lose any of its religious significance in private worship, or within Christian churches. What happened is that in secular spaces - workplaces and retail stores and other institutions - the people who operated those secular spaces moved away from presenting it as a religious matter and instead a more "generic" celebration. Again, because not everyone in those secular spaces was Christian or observed Christmas.

So Christians aren't allowed to loudly proclaim their faith on one of their most holy days?

They are absolutely allowed to. No one thinks its wrong for a Christian to proclaim how excited or devoted they are to the celebration of the birth of their deity.

But that's different than debates over whether the big department store in town should greet their customers with "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays." It's one thing to proclaim your own faith; it's another matter to interact with people in a way that assumes/presumes that they share your faith, or want to participate in a religious (as opposed to "generic consumerist") observation.

I've been to Hannukah celebrations and had a blast. Had Jews over for Christmas and they've had a blast. But some just can't have fun, I suppose.

I think the key is that you were invited to those celebrations, and chose to go. You've had people over for Christmas, and they chose to go. No one just came up to you at your place of work, or some other secular context, and assumed that you wanted to celebrate a religious holiday with them.

albaby1

Your statements about Jews living in Palestine prior to WWll is completely accurate, but it is not right to conflate immigrant Jews from Europe in the 1940's with the prior group. Religious ties are not the same thing as physical tenancy in my view. There were no problems of this magnitude before the immigration of large numbers of Eastern European Jews.

It appears, that motivated by a desire for a principally Jewish state, and in fact, Palestinians are given a lesser citizenship, if any at all, expulsions were the order of the day. That has continued unabated from the founding of Israel. That is the definition of colonization. Move in and move the other out.

There are many reasons for the failure to the two state solution, and Jews deserve a state of their own, though I am leery of mixing politics and religion. However, despite the multitude of actors who derailed the two state solution, in my view, it is morally incumbent upon Israel to make it happen, as the state of Israel set everything in motion that led to today. Israel is not the victim here.

Look at the lame mocking that takes place on this board every 5 minutes.

This is an open forum. Not a house of worship.


I'd love to see our resident, super-tolerant and safe space practicing atheists walk up to a mosque and start disparaging Islam or Mohammed, or try to pull that stuff at a Diwali gathering.

Why would Dope assume atheists on these boards would do such a lame thing? We're not MAGAts, for chrissakes.

Yes, talk of "purity" in any form is not going to appeal to Jewish voters. For obvious reasons (i.e. they've heard that sort of talk before, and know what happened). If the election is close, that could make a difference. But Jews are only about 2.4% of the population, and spread-out so that the electoral college would dilute the influence further. Though down-ballot races wouldn't suffer that, so communities of Jews would have more influence on the outcome (e.g. NYC).

The other side of this has been an aggressive campaign to disrespect Christianity and denigrate Christian symbols and traditions. Look at the lame mocking that takes place on this board every 5 minutes. I'd love to see our resident, super-tolerant and safe space practicing atheists walk up to a mosque and start disparaging Islam or Mohammed, or try to pull that stuff at a Diwali gathering. There's a reason why all the anti-religion energy is focused on the Turn The Other Cheek Set.

That's because an unknown investment board on the internet where politics is a side for a few speakers works out to be a good place to do some open discussion of the religious effect by atheists. I'm an atheist and I'm usually not mocking religion, but I understand full well why it's occurring, and it's deserved. We don't go into someone's house of worship and criticize because we're respectful that that is a house of worship. When I'm in church,I pray along with everyone else. On Christmas day, I celebrate Christmas.

And I wouldn't want to see a Christian walking into a Mosque in the Middle East and go on an anti-Muslim rant as I've seen them do on the internet.

Your statements about Jews living in Palestine prior to WWll is completely accurate, but it is not right to conflate immigrant Jews from Europe in the 1940's with the prior group. Religious ties are not the same thing as physical tenancy in my view.

Again, though, that comes really close to "othering" Jews. It's just wrong to say Jews can't be a people or an ethnos entitled to self-determination (even though we've been a discrete and distinctive group for millennia). And generally, we never say that people who were driven out of their homeland by invaders or colonizers (like, say, Native Americans) are no longer indigenous to that area because they were conquered and exiled....except maybe the Jews? Because we were mostly driven out by the Muslims (but still living there in a remnant), we no longer get to be indigenous to our homeland in the same way that Indian nations that were driven off their lands centuries ago still are?

And again, it's flattening the history of Jews in the region to talk about them as being "immigrant Jews from Europe in the 1940's." Repatriation of the area by Jews began in earnest under Sultan Abdul Hamid II of the Ottoman empire in the late 1800's - he welcomed Jewish emigres, and they were lawful immigrants to the area. By the time the Empire fell, there were about 60,000 Jews in the Mandate area - roughly 10% of the population. Large enough that Partition would probably have been required/appropriate, just as it was in India (where a Muslim population of 20% was enough to require partition of the country).

That is the definition of colonization. Move in and move the other out.

No, it's not. People can't colonize the lands they're indigenous to. If Native Americans started all moving back en masse to historically tribal lands that they were driven off of, we would not refer to that as colonization.

However, despite the multitude of actors who derailed the two state solution, in my view, it is morally incumbent upon Israel to make it happen, as the state of Israel set everything in motion that led to today. Israel is not the victim here.

Again, to coin a phrase, history did not begin in 1948. Israel did not set everything in motion that led to today, because the events that led to today go back far, far longer than Israel has existed (using "Israel" to refer to the modern Westphalian system nation-state, not the "nation" of Israel that dates back to the 9th century BC).

The holiday didn't lose any of its religious significance in private worship,

Nuance, subtlety, and respect for differing opinions is something that is lost on a very vocal minority of people in the US. They seem to revel in their overly simple, black and white world.

--Peter

What if you were born here to a minority religion (as most American Jews were)?

Then I'd learn that I live in a tremendous country that
a) features the inalienable right to practice any religion I want
b) is steeped in the tradition of honoring the rights of everyone (and to others reading this, I'm not going to respond to the inevitable stupid reply about bbbbut slavery and Jim Crow. Welcome to "I'll take Missing the Point for $1,000 Alex")
c) consists of a melting pot where you can contribute to and take from the overarching culture...or just do your own thing absent judgement
d) is pretty much the only place on the planet like that

They are not colonists. They are from there.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, here.

How does that differ from me saying that I can prove ties to Germany, therefore I should be able to return to Germany? Because I can (g-ma on mom's side was 1st generation American).

People move around, immigrate to new areas, etc. The only difference I can see is that the Torah says that god says those lands belong to the Jews. I can't point to any such tome for my claim to be able to return to Germany after 150 years. Needless to say, I put zero stock in a religious tome that proclaims to know a deity's wishes/plans.

For the record, I have no longing to return to Germany. I didn't even visit the country until I was 50. I'm American. I think it would be weird if I claimed to be German-American (which would get really messy since I also have some UK ancestry...lots of hyphens).

I think the key is that you were invited to those celebrations, and chose to go. You've had people over for Christmas, and they chose to go. No one just came up to you at your place of work, or some other secular context, and assumed that you wanted to celebrate a religious holiday with them.

So someone put a gun to your head and made you celebrate Christmas? Made you hang a manger scene in your office or cubicle?

Or did you politely inform them that you don't roll that way, and that you'd be happy to explain the symbology of the candles instead?

Not everything is a political expression or an intention to convert...some people really do want to spread joy in the holiday season. For a lot of democrats, that's a bad thing. Shame. Because removal of joy is how you kill a culture.

How does that differ from me saying that I can prove ties to Germany, therefore I should be able to return to Germany? Because I can (g-ma on mom's side was 1st generation American).

Because we're not talking about whether you "should" be able to return to Germany. It's about whether your returning to Germany could be considered colonization. Germany doesn't have to let you emigrate to Germany - but if Germany adopted a policy that folks with direct immediate German ancestry were allowed to emigrate to Germany, we would not describe that as "settler-colonization."

The only difference I can see is that the Torah says that god says those lands belong to the Jews.

Again, this is not dependent on a religious argument. Irrespective of what the Torah says, the archaeological and historical record is irrefutable that Jews are indigenous to the area. We're from there. There are plenty of zealots who also point to the Torah for their claims....but there's no dispute about the historicity that the Jewish people originated in the area.

Minor quibble: the Navajos moved around a bit. They didn't move into the New Mexico region until around 1000AD, splitting off from the Atabaskans (sp?) at that time. The present-day Navajo nation wasn't where they originally were, ever after 1000AD...the US government allotted some of the worst land they could find as "reservations" and made the natives move there (e.g. the Seminoles in OK were originally from FL, but were force-marched to OK).

Today, we do have a sort of two-state solution. The Navajos are autonomous. They have their own government, their own police force, etc. They have to abide by the Constitution, and are regarded as American citizens by birth. But the Navajo nation is in some ways a foreign country, and visitors have to abide by their rules (which, fortunately, closely mirror white-American rules).

We definitely are the colonists on these lands. The native Americans are the original inhabitants.

Note: not just the Navajos. All the reservations are autonomous.

So someone put a gun to your head and made you celebrate Christmas?

Nope. And no one put a gun to Macys' head and made them change their greetings from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays."

They did it because it's polite not to assume that all your customers are Christian. That some of them might appreciate Macy's recognizing that not everyone in the area is Christian. That while it's fine for secular spaces (like a Macy's) are perfectly fine for generic holiday celebrations, it's not inclusive or welcoming to turn them into celebrations of a specific religion. So they choose to spread joy during the holiday season - but secular joy, rather than religious joy.

Not everything is a political expression or an intention to convert...some people really do want to spread joy in the holiday season. For a lot of democrats, that's a bad thing. Shame. Because removal of joy is how you kill a culture.

But the "War on Christmas" involves conservatives getting upset that these secular actors choose to be...well, secular instead of religious. Need to get the "Christ" back in "Christmas," doncha know. That's not a criticism about removing joy from the culture - it's a criticism of removing religion from the culture. That it's not enough that everyone is experiencing joy and communally celebrating the holidays - that it has to be religious and specifically about the religious basis for Christmas, and not just "spreading joy in the holiday season."

Again, you can see how members of a minority religion would feel like that's not really the team they want to be on. Wanting the culture to be more religious, believing that a specific religious faith is an integral part of the culture - that's not great for religious minorities.

I think the "holidays" have lost a lot of religious significance. They are more a time for family than anything else. Certainly, both xians and Jews have segments that take the religious aspects very seriously. But a lot of people just want to see the brother they haven't seen since last year because he lives 4 states away, and have some sort of feast, and see the nieces/nephews, etc.

I think the gift-giving is largely a marketing scheme of big business. The traditions were for small tokens, but that has expanded to multiple gifts per person (especially kids).

I'd love to see our resident, super-tolerant and safe space practicing atheists walk up to a mosque and start disparaging Islam or Mohammed, or try to pull that stuff at a Diwali gathering.

Why would we do that? If they leave us alone, I don't care. They have freedom of religion, and I respect that. Even if I have zero respect for the religion, I have respect for a person to have that belief. 1poorlady is theist. I have zero respect for her beliefs, but I respect her right to have those beliefs. I never try to make her not believe, or not attend some function.

When queried I will point out factual errors, logical inconsistencies, etc. But I don't camp out at Baptist churches, or mosques, or Jewish temples, and heckle people as they come and go. Again, why would I do that? It would be stupid and a waste of time (and rather boorish).

Nuance, subtlety, and respect for differing opinions is something that is lost on a very vocal minority of people in the US. They seem to revel in their overly simple, white world.

Fixed that for you. That vocal minority are largely right-wing xian nationalists.

So Christians aren't allowed to loudly proclaim their faith on one of their most holy days?


Of course they can. But I don't want any religion trying to dominate government institutions with their beliefs.

Stop playing the victim card.

Not everything is a political expression or an intention to convert...some people really do want to spread joy in the holiday season. For a lot of democrats, that's a bad thing. Shame. Because removal of joy is how you kill a culture.


Silly, nonsensical bullshit.

It's the Christian right that wants to force their view of the world on everyone else.

Get real.

It's about whether your returning to Germany could be considered colonization.

Yes, I get that. Both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to that area. Neither are "colonizing", but both -at different times- have pushed the others out.

Just as I could make a claim that my ancestors were indigenous to Germany (or Wales, or Scotland, or a few others...several hyphens). Does that mean I have a right to return? That was my point. The present masters in Germany would have that say-so.

So, again, the only difference I see is a religious tome. You and I can both prove ancestry from those regions (simply a matter of how far back we have to go). I have no tome that declares I have a right of return. The Jews do (conveniently a Jewish tome).

In my view, I have no claim to be able to return to Germany. I was born her. My parents were born here. My connections to Germany are several generations back.

Again, just playing Devil's Advocate. I don't have a dog in this fight, and will almost always come down in favor of innocent civilians (Jewish, Palestinian, Navajo, or whomever). Though I do recognize the check on Iranian hegemony in the region, but it's difficult to use that as a justification for killing thousands of non-combatants if we aren't in a "total war" (like WWII).

albaby1

Your disavowal of the term "colonizers" for the Jews that moved to modern day Israel is a distinction without a difference. Use any term you like, but people with a perceived religious link to the area moved to the area and displaced tens of thousands forcibly to make room for themselves. That action cannot be disavowed, is the root of the current conflict, and is not related to prior history. j

Prior to the mass immigrations post WW11, there was relative harmony in the area with no real ethnic or religious tension. You only need to look at the events through the prism of a non-militant Palestinian to see reality. Hundreds of thousands have lost everything without compensation. Where is the justice in that. If your God promised this land to you, is that how he intended you to have it? What kind of God is that?

Just as I could make a claim that my ancestors were indigenous to Germany (or Wales, or Scotland, or a few others...several hyphens). Does that mean I have a right to return? That was my point. The present masters in Germany would have that say-so.

So, again, the only difference I see is a religious tome.

I understand your point, but nobody ever really made the "religious tome" argument.

Nearly all Jews that went to Israel from other nations did so legally, with the permission of the government in charge at the time. None of them argued that they had some right that trumped the ruling government's power to exclude them. I mean, sure - some Jews were personally motivated by a religious reason. But the various governments involved made their choices based entirely on secular considerations.

Emigration by Jews to the area began in earnest in the late 1880's with the full permission of the Ottoman empire. It was allowed by the Sultan was delighted to admit the Jews - he felt that they were a valuable addition to the area. The Ottomans were perfectly happy to have people willing to move there. That continued for several decades until 1914 (when the Jewish population was around 12-13% of what would become the Mandate area) - this part of the world was an active theater of the conflict, and Jewish emigration dried up.

After the elimination of the empire and the League of Nations mandate began in 1917, the British were in charge of the area. They also authorized Jewish immigration to the Mandate, not because of some holy book, but because they was the promise they made with the Balfour Declaration as a way of getting Jewish (read: American) support in WWI. Immigration continued, with the support of the Mandatory Government. The Jewish population rose to about 17% of the overall Mandate population by around 1931. At that time in the early 1930's, when the Jews and Arabs started really fighting against the Brits and against each other - the Brits shut down legal immigration by Jews to the area. Immigration continued, though, as Jews escaped the ravages of the pogroms in Russia/Poland and the rise of Nazism in Germany (coupled with American shutting out immigration). But they were fleeing to that area because it was one of the few boltholes in the world where a Jew could escape to, not because of any biblical command.

None of that involved Jews showing up and saying, "We are allowed to live here because the Bible says so." Up until the 1930's, all Jewish immigration to the area was authorized by the in-power government based on purely secular considerations.

Your disavowal of the term "colonizers" for the Jews that moved to modern day Israel is a distinction without a difference. Use any term you like, but people with a perceived religious link to the area moved to the area and displaced tens of thousands forcibly to make room for themselves.

Again, that's false and flattens the history of the area. Many of the Jews that moved to the area, inarguably the ones that moved there from the 1880's through 1914, just legally moved there. It was no different than what we see with any other legal immigrant flows. During the Ottoman years, Jews were simply allowed to move to the area - they weren't driving anyone out, just adding to the population growth in the region.

Prior to the mass immigrations post WW11, there was relative harmony in the area with no real ethnic or religious tension.

That's just....staggeringly wrong. I mean - just incredibly wrong. The area was in a constant state of conflict just shy of open warfare, starting almost immediately after the beginning of the Mandate in 1920, even before the British were assigned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_confli...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Ar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in...

There was massive ethnic and religious tension, because the Sykes-Picot powers had made mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable promises to both the Jews and various Arab groups that they would have their own countries in exchange for their help during WWI. The whole region was inflamed in the aftermath of the end of the Empire and the revelation of Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration.

Hundreds of thousands have lost everything without compensation. Where is the justice in that. If your God promised this land to you, is that how he intended you to have it? What kind of God is that?

Responding to this separately...

There is no justice in those folks having lost everything without compensation. There is no justice in the literally one million people who died in the Partition of India, either - or the 14 million who became refugees because of it. The decolonization of the former Empires wreaked massive havoc on all of the people who lived in those areas, whether the British or Ottoman Empires - and none of the people who suffered during those times deserved it. By the time WWII ended, roughly a third of the population of the Mandate was Jewish and two-thirds was Arab - which is why the UN decided to partition the Palestinian Mandate.

That alone would have been traumatic even if it had gone according to plan (again, see the Partition of India). But instead, the area erupted into open warfare, when the Arab League nations declared war immediately and all collectively invaded the area - and decided to take all of the lands allocated to the Arab state for themselves. There were about 400,000 Arabs living in the area that was to be the Jewish state, and 800,000 Arabs living in the area to be the Arab state - so the Arab League invasion and territorial seizure inarguably contributed to the immiseration and dislcation of huge swatches of that population. Abdullah I has a lot to answer for (or would - he's been dead for quite a long time now).

I don't believe G-d promised the land to the Jews. Rather, I believe that the Jewish people have the same rights to demand self-determination and governmental autonomy as any other people that are indigenous to an area after the pullback of the imperial powers that formerly governed them. The Jewish people in Palestine in 1947, at the end of the Mandate, had the same rights to form a government and a nation as the Palestinian people. Not based on biblical edict or divine right, but based on their status as an indigenous ethnic group and the lawful approval of the Partition plan by the UN. The Israeli forces had no right to attack any Palestinian civilians and/or drive them from their homes, and the Arab League nations had no right to invade Israel and try to kill or expel every Jew living there.

"So Christians aren't allowed to loudly proclaim their faith on one of their most holy days?" - Dope.

Name one person who has said otherwise?

You need to be able to do better than fight the weak strawmen you create. You are embarrassing yourself. Why are you ok with becoming a laughingstock?

On balance, religion is not a force for good.

Agreed. It almost never is, especially organized religion. Those folks want to tell everyone else how to live based on whatever ancient tomes to which they adhere. It's not about "good". As I once heard it said, the First Commandment violates the First Amendment (i.e. freedom of religion).

Which is one reason why I favor taxing all churches. The bigger ones don't even hide their political activism (e.g. LDS church and prop 8). So tax them. Whatever funds they use for actual charitable work, let them write it off like anyone else could. The rest should be taxed. But I digress...

Agreed. It almost never is, especially organized religion.

Right. There are literally hundreds of Christian hospitals that have done more for humanity than anything, but atheists gonna atheist.

Which is one reason why I favor taxing all churches.

So in one breadth you try to hide behind the First Amendment, then in literally the second paragraph you want to tax churches out of existence and regulate what they say. Talk about the 1A two-fer.

So in one breadth you try to hide behind the First Amendment, then in literally the second paragraph you want to tax churches out of existence and regulate what they say. Talk about the 1A two-fer.
****

The Right's Atticus Finch takes down the anti-Constitutionalist.

Right. There are literally hundreds of Christian hospitals that have done more for humanity than anything, but atheists gonna atheist.

There are also hundreds of secular hospitals (i.e. not affiliated with any sect) that have done the same. Though my experience with a catholic hospital was not particularly favorable. However, that is anecdotal and a single data point.

So in one breadth you try to hide behind the First Amendment, then in literally the second paragraph you want to tax churches out of existence and regulate what they say. Talk about the 1A two-fer.

Not what I said, nor implied. Taxing them like any other corporation will not drive them "out of existence". Like anyone, they would only be taxed a percentage. And they get deductions for charitable works, which was the entire idea behind making them tax-free in the first place. But some DON'T do any charitable work. Scientology, for one. The JWs for another. No soup kitchens, or homeless shelters, or hospitals. I'm not saying they are bad, but they aren't doing charitable work. They should be taxed just like any other money-making venture.

And, no, Mormons...funding "missions" (which, from the Mormons I have known, are often funded by the missionaries, not the LDS church) doesn't count as "charity". Build some homes in Guatemala (which a church-going coworker used to do). THAT is charity.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.