If we legislate laws in U.S. based on the Bible . . .

[Zevico]

I've heard it before, and it makes no sense. Why don't the ultra-orthodox serve in the IDF?

Basically because there is a large section of the ultra-orthodox population that views the Israeli state as a secular nation-state which they do not identify with.

[Zevico]

They have 15 out of 120 seats, so that's a sizeable presence, especially compared to Shinui that has 0.
Shas has 10. United Torah Judaism has 5.

Shinui has zero because of internal political in-fighting that led the party to implode. Also, it's hardly the sole standard bearer of secular-democratic politics in Israel. Most of the major political parties are.

[Az]

They do, and they breed like rabbits. They are a much more important threat to the existence of Israel than Arabs, as they are a money drain, don't serve in the army, are a growing voting block and you can't kill use armoured dozers against them.

I was thinking the same way, for quite some time, but not I realize I was wrong. What you need to do is to put pressure to increase teenage flaking from religion. This way you get healthy population growth rates, and a vibrant society. Think of them as breeders.

[Sava]

most if not all of that is old testament garbage
if anything, it's jewish belief, not christian
those fundies aren't real christians any more than mormons

[molly bloom]

VJ, actually that's not correct. You cannot understand the books seperately like that. You have to read the whole Bible and understand it in context.

Well that's you finished as a Christian. Take up something you actually could understand- like Patience or Snap.

[Uncle Sparky]

If God doesn't pay taxes, He shouldn't be allowed to vote or participate in the political system.

[Jon Miller]

God doesn't.

It is against freedom of conscience to say that people can't use their beliefs in religion (like they do in everything other belief) to make political choices.

JM

[giblets]

It is against freedom of conscience to say people can't seek to destroy freedom of conscience.

[Jon Miller]

So?

JM

[giblets]

Obviously people who like freedom of conscience won't necessarily support it in all circumstances.

[Jon Miller]

You don't make any sense at all.

It is like you are trying to use the argument that those who are tolerant should be tolerant of intolerance. People having freedom of conscience means that people can think and believe as they think and believe. This is entirely different than tolerance. You argument or point is nonsense.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You are confusing an action versus a belief/thought.

Tolerance is an action.

Freedom of conscience is a belief.

There is action that goes with that belief, but that is not freedom of conscience.

Therefore there can be action (action against other actions which might harm freedom of conscience), but this isn't invalidating freedom of conscience since it is acting on actions and not thoughts/beliefs.

Tolerance on the other hand is an action. The action of acting against other actions which might harm tolerance is in actuality intolerant (it is an action).

One is thought, one is action, see the difference?

See the difference?

JM

[giblets]

Speaking of nonsense, some people apparently think "freedom of conscience" is a good reason to not complain when religious people want their religious beliefs endorsed by the government (also known as theocracy).

[giblets]

You are confusing an action versus a belief/thought.

Tolerance is an action.

Freedom of conscience is a belief.

There is action that goes with that belief, but that is not freedom of conscience.

Therefore there can be action (action against other actions which might harm freedom of conscience), but this isn't invalidating freedom of conscience since it is acting on actions and not thoughts/beliefs.

Tolerance on the other hand is an action. The action of acting against other actions which might harm tolerance is in actuality intolerant (it is an action).

One is thought, one is action, see the difference?

See the difference?

JM

This post isn't very clear and adds nothing to the discussion.

[Jon Miller]

Speaking of nonsense, some people apparently think "freedom of conscience" is a good reason to not complain when religious people want their religious beliefs endorsed by the government (also known as theocracy).

I didn't say you can't complain.

I did say that they should be able to make decisions based on their religious beliefs, just like people make decisions based on all other sorts of beliefs. If you don't want them to make decisions based upon religious beliefs than feel free to try to convince than to be atheists. Some of them do the same thing to atheists to try to convince them to be theists.

Why is it that when a democratic country has voters who make decisions based on all sorts of beliefs (but not ones that are classified as religious), this is a good thing and it is a democracy. But when the voters make decisions based on all their beliefs (including ones classified as religious) it is suddenly a theocracy?

I think that your position is nonsense and unreasonable.

You saying that people should not be able to vote based upon their beliefs is an action against freedom of conscience and it is entirely consistent for me to take action against it.

JM