General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Are you serious?

I personally think that argument is so kooky it's gotta be a parody of the loony-leftist point of view, but on the chance you mean it sincerely, then you should be an ardent Zionist. They have a fetish about planting trees in Israel, either going there to do it personally or paying to have it done.

http://www.treesfortheholyland.com/index.html

http://treestoisrael.org/

http://www.jnf.org/work-we-do/our-pr...estry-ecology/

Millions of trees. Lots of new sylvan friends and neighbors for you to love, and precious lungs for our planet earth.

i dealt with that in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...62&postcount=1
where i protested the demolishing of palestian homes to plant trees.

also, no amount of tree-planting can make up for israeli abuse of the palestinian people.

[Thunder]

You know, the failure of the peace talks and America's veto of this most recent UNSC resolution on the settlements, is really killing my faith in the 2-state solution.

I mean, what's the point? does it really have any chance of getting actually negotiated, let alone supported by both populations and even implemented?

a 2-state solution would requiring hundreds of thousands of Israelis being sent home to Israel, since they certainly would refuse Palestinian citizenship. this would most likely mean gun battles and maybe even a low-level civil war.

maybe its just better to support one state...where no one has to move anywhere.

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Ar...aspx?id=208959

The annexation of the West Bank settlements, and with it much of the West Bank, has begun.

[boyntonstu]

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Ar...aspx?id=208959

The annexation of the West Bank settlements, and with it much of the West Bank, has begun.

Great!

Ask the young Arabs or Muslims in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya etc. if their Arab dictators gives them more opportunities to lead productive lives than Israel offers its Arab citizens.


How many Arab/Muslim protesters were arrested or killed by their governments in the last 2 weeks?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i dealt with that in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...62&postcount=1
where i protested the demolishing of palestian homes to plant trees.

also, no amount of tree-planting can make up for israeli abuse of the palestinian people.

So...nailed on one topic you change to another. Typical.

So let's nail you on this new topic too. First, let's link to the entire thread so people can see how this didn't fly last time either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...62#post6623662

Second, the tree planting campaign has been going on for almost a hundred years now, and it doesn't require anyone lose their homes for it. It is a separate issue from the dispute between the state of Israel and the Bedouin Arabs that keep trying to rebuild Al-Araqib, which continues to this day.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Great!

Ask the young Arabs or Muslims in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya etc. if their Arab dictators gives them more opportunities to lead productive lives than Israel offers its Arab citizens.


How many Arab/Muslim protesters were arrested or killed by their governments in the last 2 weeks?

So you support a one state solution?

Great!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

your 'humour' is only out compassed by your callousness.
(your lack of humanity is showing.)

You take upon yourself the name of a brutal tyrant who massacred four and a half million people during his reign of terror and you call me "callous"?

Trees don't have brain stems or nervous systems. They don't feel anything at their own deaths or the deaths of their fellow trees (trees are ___holes that way). So why should I?

As the renowned philosopher Jonathan Handey once said; "If trees could scream, would be be so cavalier about cutting them down?We would if they screamed all day for no apparent reason".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Thunder

1. it was built purely due to the religious needs of very religious Cohanim.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the Cohanim are the majority users or even the only users of the new road. It only matters that there will be sufficient traffic on the new road to justify it's construction.

The road is just a road. It's not a church or a synagogue. The road doesn't provide for their religious needs. The church does. The road is just how they get there.

The Cohanim are tax paying citizens. They have the right to ask the state to use their taxes to create the necessary infrastructure to allow them to get from point A to point B. It is not the place of the state to consider why they want to get to point B. Their only consideration should be wether enough people are asking for the road to indicate that it will be sufficiently used once constructed to justify the cost. You seek to deny them this right solely because of their religious beliefs. You want to tell members of the public that they can't have something because of their religion. This is the extreeme opposite of seperation of church and state. This isn't about the Cohanim, it's about your religious bigotry.

Quote:

There is no evidence there was any general transportation need for the new road.

The Conahim are part of the general public.

Quote:

2. very old and lovely trees were killed to build these unneccessary, special-interest roads.

Hundreds of old and lovely trees are cut down every day so that we can wipe our asses.

And the roads are necessitated by the by the intent of the citizenry to use it once constructed.

Quote:

take that up with Israel Antabi, the municipality's deputy director general and head of engineering and projects, who himself called them "halakhic roads".

So what?

Does the road look anything like this?


If it doesn't, then it's not a halakhic road. The road may be designed to facilitate the Cohanim and their observances. But unless the state is prohibiting it's use by anyone but the Cohanim, then it isn't a Cohanim road.

Originally Posted by Thunder

...and publicly-owned trees should not be cut down for religious perposes either. those trees belong to all the citizens of Israel.

Please show the official documents showing legal ownership of the trees in question as "all the citizens of Israel".

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Irrelevant.

according to who? oh...according to you.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

The road is just a road. It's not a church or a synagogue. The road doesn't provide for their religious needs. The church does. The road is just how they get there.

I'm sorry, where in the article does it state that this road was being built to fasciliate the Cohanim being able to get to Shul? Please point to this very important detail that I amazingly missed. Now, if the road is just a road, then why is it being built specifically for the needs of the Cohanim? Why did the municipal official himself call it a "halakhic road"? Are you now accusing him of being a liar?

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

The Cohanim are tax paying citizens. They have the right to ask the state to use their taxes to create the necessary infrastructure to allow them to get from point A to point B. It is not the place of the state to consider why they want to get to point B. This isn't about the Cohanim, it's about your religious bigotry.

So if a powerful religious interest group requests a stop sign, bike lane, traffic circle, greenstreet, red-light camera, etc etc....PURELY due to religious reasons and not having ANYTHING to do with pure general transportation needs, a municipality has NO right to take that into consideration when they decide if they will indeed grant their request??? huh. wow. amazing stuff I am hearing here. Maybe your interpretation of the law works fine in a Islamic or Jewish state but certainly not in a secular democracy.

oh, and btw, disagreeing with Sword of Truth does not make one a bigot.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Please show the official documents showing legal ownership of the trees in question as "all the citizens of Israel".

I can only speak from experience, but in the USA trees on sidewalks belong to the municipality. Even if you planted that tree, after a few years it becomes the property of the town, village, city, etc etc. So yes, those trees belongs to all the citizens of Israel and they were cut down to provide for the religious needs of one special interest group.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You take upon yourself the name of a brutal tyrant who massacred four and a half million people during his reign of terror and you call me "callous"?

he is commenting on your posts...while you comment on his member name.

....interesting.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Great!

Ask the young Arabs or Muslims in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya etc. if their Arab dictators gives them more opportunities to lead productive lives than Israel offers its Arab citizens.


How many Arab/Muslim protesters were arrested or killed by their governments in the last 2 weeks?

yep, perhaps it is indeed time to abandon the two-state solution...since it seems as possible as today as pigs flying and cows surfing the internet.

one nation for everyone. everyone gets to live wherever they like..between the river and the sea.

[WildCat]

Mr. T says "cut 'em down!"

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You take upon yourself the name of a brutal tyrant who massacred four and a half million people during his reign of terror and you call me "callous"?

huh??....my name is biker druid.

Trees don't have brain stems or nervous systems. They don't feel anything at their own deaths or the deaths of their fellow trees (trees are ___holes that way). So why should I?

[/i].

as a druid, i have a special relationship and reverence for trees.
and, really, i don't give a large rodent's hiney what you think of that.

and .....truly....your callousness is astounding.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Thunder

I'm sorry, where in the article does it state that this road was being built to fasciliate the Cohanim being able to get to Shul? Please point to this very important detail that I amazingly missed.

You show me where it says in the article that the Cohanim are going to hold religious services in the middle of the road or where it says the roads use will be restricted to only the Cohanim.

Quote:

So if a powerful religious interest group requests a stop sign, bike lane, traffic circle, greenstreet, red-light camera, etc etc....PURELY due to religious reasons and not having ANYTHING to do with pure general transportation needs,

Stopping you right there. Travelling to school, work, recreational sites, stores and shopping centres, for social pourposes and and travelling to church services are all general transportation needs.

Quote:

oh, and btw, disagreeing with Sword of Truth does not make one a bigot.

Unless you also seek to deny people travelling to work, school, shopping the right to ask the state to provide and maintain infrastructure, then you are demanding the Cohanim be stripped of their rights soleley because of religion.

You sir, are a bigot.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I can only speak from experience, but in the USA trees on sidewalks belong to the municipality. Even if you planted that tree, after a few years it becomes the property of the town, village, city, etc etc. So yes, those trees belongs to all the citizens of Israel and they were cut down to provide for the religious needs of one special interest group.

Would you do us a favor and just pick one? It's getting confusing watching you say two different things in the same sentence.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

as a druid, i have a special relationship and reverence for trees.
and, really, i don't give a large rodent's hiney what you think of that.

and .....truly....your callousness is astounding.

"i was a trudeau youth at one time.
and a <name of a notorious obnoxious racist>ist-<name of a brutal tyrant who had a boner for firing squads>ist since the early 70's."


Your casual disregard for human victims of genocide is arguably worse.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

as a druid, i have a special relationship and reverence for trees.

I think you may have been in that video SoT posted...

Your relationship with the trees is no more impooirtant than anyone else's needs.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

as a druid, i have a special relationship and reverence for trees.
and, really, i don't give a large rodent's hiney what you think of that.

and .....truly....your callousness is astounding.

Your religious beliefs are your own business, but as someone who apparently has deep religious beliefs, I find it odd that you don't show more understanding for other people's religious beliefs.

Also, your reverence for trees seems to be selective.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Your religious beliefs are your own business, but as someone who apparently has deep religious beliefs, I find it odd that you don't show more understanding for other people's religious beliefs.

Also, your reverence for trees seems to be selective.

in a nation that respects the seperation betwen Church & State, public funds are NOT used to build roads just because some religious sect feels that they need it.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You show me where it says in the article that the Cohanim are going to hold religious services in the middle of the road or where it says the roads use will be restricted to only the Cohanim.

there are already perfectly good roads for the Cohanim to drive to work, school shul, ect etc. what is wrong with these roads? it violated their chosen religious needs? not my problem and not the state's problem....at least not in a secular democracy.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Stopping you right there. Travelling to school, work, recreational sites, stores and shopping centres, for social pourposes and and travelling to church services are all general transportation needs.

again, what is the functional problem with the roads that already exist? do they have potholes? are they impassible? no.....these are perfectly good roads, and some Cohanim simply choose to not want to use them. that's their choice. why should taxpayers have to pay for a new road because one religious interest group doesn't like them?

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Unless you also seek to deny people travelling to work, school, shopping the right to ask the state to provide and maintain infrastructure, then you are demanding the Cohanim be stripped of their rights soleley because of religion.

You sir, are a bigot.

some Cohanim refuse to use a road that is perfectly fine for motor vehicle use..simply for religious reasons. they want a new road built, simply for religious reasons. that's all fine..........let the Cohanim pay for a new road.

and no, disagreeing with Sword of Truth does not make one a bigot.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Thunder

in a nation that respects the seperation betwen Church & State, public funds are NOT used to build roads just because some religious sect feels that they need it.

What about crosswalks?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by mortimer

What about crosswalks?

if it has no functional purpose but to meet the religious needs of a religious sect, than a secular state has no business using public funds to build such a crosswalk.

do you believe in the seperation of Church & State?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I personally think that argument is so kooky it's gotta be a parody of the loony-leftist point of view, but on the chance you mean it sincerely, then you should be an ardent Zionist. They have a fetish about planting trees in Israel, either going there to do it personally or paying to have it done.
http://www.treesfortheholyland.com/index.html
http://treestoisrael.org/
http://www.jnf.org/work-we-do/our-pr...estry-ecology/
Millions of trees. Lots of new sylvan friends and neighbors for you to love, and precious lungs for our planet earth.

Here are the precious lungs I want to see more of on this earth.
More Selma.jpg

Originally Posted by Thunder

if it has no functional purpose but to meet the religious needs of a religious sect, than a secular state has no business using public funds to build such a crosswalk. do you believe in the seperation of Church & State?

Actually, Parky, you appear to be using a bit of boilerplate American political theory to judge the Isr/Pal political dispute. You might wish to apply a more apt baseline understanding of the political environment.

Put another way, not every country in the world is run by the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe Architect may have brought that point to your attention previously. Maybe you need to be told more than once.

DR

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Thunder

in a nation that respects the seperation betwen Church & State, public funds are NOT used to build roads just because some religious sect feels that they need it.

What part of "the Cohanim are tax paying citizens of Israel" do you not understand?

That these people intend to use the road to travel to church IS... NOT... RELEVANT.

For the state (or anyone) to say "You can't have this road because you will use it to go to church" is religious discrimination.

Your prejudice and bigotry have robbed you of all reason.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

That these people intend to use the road to travel to church IS... NOT... RELEVANT.

strawman. nowhere in the article does it say they will just be using this road to just go to church, and I have never claimed they will be using this just road to go to church. please let go of the strawman.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

For the state (or anyone) to say "You can't have this road because you will use it to go to church" is religious discrimination.

strawman, again. there are already existing roads the Cohanim can use to get to church, the mall, the store, school, etc etc. but the Cohanim don't like those roads cause they pass through/near cemeteries. so, they asked the state to use taxpayer funds to build them a halakhic road that does not pass through/near a cemetary...even though there are perfectly good existing roads.

oh, and btw....how exactly does not wanting to give a religious sect special treatment, equal religious discrimination? maybe in an ass-back wards Islamic or Jewish state this kind of logic is the case, but not in a secular democracy.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Your prejudice and bigotry have robbed you of all reason.

saying it four times doesn't make it true, Sword of Truth. Disagreeing with your very strongly held opinions does not make one prejudiced and bigoted, sorry.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Actually, Parky, you appear to be using a bit of boilerplate American political theory to judge the Isr/Pal political dispute. You might wish to apply a more apt baseline understanding of the political environment.

you are correct, that I am applying a very American understanding of the Separation of Church & State. But I think its a decent one, as it is strict and clear. I do not support any government funds being used to facilitate purely religious needs or desires.

Does that mean no government funds for Christmas lights and Christmas trees? I guess I could make an exception for simple things like that. But thousands and millions of dollars of capital funds for roads, bridges, etc etc...that are primarily for the purpose of satisfying religious needs? NO way Jose.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Thunder

strawman.

You need to learn what that word means.

Quote:

oh, and btw....how exactly does not wanting to give a religious sect special treatment, equal religious discrimination?

Already explained.

Originally Posted by Thunder

Disagreeing with your very strongly held opinions does not make one prejudiced and bigoted, sorry.

Lying through your teeth again.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Lying through your teeth again.

yeah, its back to ignore you go. goodbye.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Thunder

if it has no functional purpose but to meet the religious needs of a religious sect, than a secular state has no business using public funds to build such a crosswalk.

do you believe in the seperation of Church & State?

Many churches in my city that are located on busy streets have crosswalks. Their functional purpose is to get pedestrians to their destination safely. There are also crosswalks to other places, such as office buildings. But it seems you have a problem with getting people to their destination safely, if that destination is a religious one. Perhaps you expect that God will protect them?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Many churches in my city that are located on busy streets have crosswalks. Their functional purpose is to get pedestrians to their destination safely. There are also crosswalks to other places, such as office buildings. But it seems you have a problem with getting people to their destination safely, if that destination is a religious one. Perhaps you expect that God will protect them?

crosswalks in the middle of the street...and not at an intersection?

though...I might make an exception for things like this as they take safety into concern.

..and yet, what's stopping these folks from just crossing at the intersection like regular human beings?

...and yet, I know many smaller towns and cities have crosswalks made for malls, stores, etc etc.


yeah, as it has a pure safety issue....I'm not going to fight this one.

but back to the issue in Israel:

hypothetically, there are roads in this city that pass through/by cemeteries, and there are other roads that go a very long way around the cemeteries.

the Cohanim ask for a new road to be built that does not go through or near the cemetery, but also is not go as far out of the way as the other road.

so we have perfectly good roads..that go through/by the cemetery. and we have perfectly good roads, that go very far out of the way from the cemetery.

why should the govt. use tax dollars to build a new road, just because the Cohanim don't want to use the roads near the cemeteries, and feel unnecessarily burdened by the road that goes WAAAY out from the cemetery.

the Cohanim, like all religious people, make the conscious choice to follow their religious requirements. no one has forced them upon them, certainly not the state.

they can choose to abandon this one little religious rule....OR they can choose to use the out of the way road.

but no, they want the government and taxpayer dollars, to give them a special solution.

how is this fair? how is this fair to all the other taxpayers...who use whatever road is best and closest to them?

why should taxpayer dollars be used to enable these people's religious requirements?

it seems very unfair to me, and totally against the concept of Church/State separation.

....a person should not choose to live in an area that has many cemeteries, if he chooses to not pass near or through one. and if that person then has the chutzpah to demand that the government use tax dollars to build him a new road, because the existing roads through/by the cemetery are not to his liking, and the other road is just too out of the way, then this person sure does have a great sense of entitlement.

[boyntonstu]

Forget Arab Democracy, Let’s Pretend It’s about Israel
By Anne Bayefsky & Benjamin Weinthal
February 21, 2011 11:23 A.M.

For Immediate Release:
February 21, 2011 Contact: Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-anne-bayefsky

"..It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government, a non-standing member of the U.N. Security Council and an Iranian subsidiary, sponsored a resolution last Friday condemning Israeli housing construction in the disputed territories. The anti-Israel-resolution activity diverted the U.N. Security Council from passing resolutions against such authoritarian regimes as Iran and Libya for shooting their citizens and suppressing pro-democracy efforts.

Arab despots — and Iran’s regime — have a tried-and-true method for deflecting attention from their profoundly anti-democratic and repressive political systems: Formulate a U.N. resolution to condemn the Jewish State and its vibrant democracy. The fact that EU countries — for example Germany, which asserts that Israel’s national security is integral to German interests — joined the diplomatic assault on Israel is nothing short of a major body blow to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process."".....

Will the world ever get rid of the despots who are ruining the U.N.?


Jews, always the Jews.

Forget how many Libyans were killed by their government, let's worry about a hotel in Israel.

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

If Israel plants trees, posters here are OUTRAGED.
If Israel uproots trees, posters here are OUTRAGED.
You can't win with some people.

[Skeptic]

Oh, I'm sure the UN human rights committee -- whose 50 past resolutions have Israel as their target 35 times and not once had condemned Egypt, Libya, or Tunis -- is going to right away condemn Quaddaffi's actions in Libya.

I mean, it says "Human Rights" right in the committee's title, doesn't it?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Oh, I'm sure the UN human rights committee -- whose 50 past resolutions have Israel as their target 35 times and not once had condemned Egypt, Libya, or Tunis -- is going to right away condemn Quaddaffi's actions in Libya.

I mean, it says "Human Rights" right in the committee's title, doesn't it?

which is why israel has been a prime target.
israel's treatment of palestinians is a human rights nightmare.

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol...aspx?id=209297

PM Netanyahu advocates for a Palestinian state. This is a good start. Now its time for the Knesset to pass a resolution accepting the goal of a Palestinian state next to Israel and Jordan.

and the PLO can finally print/publish one copy of new ammended charter.

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Thunder

strawman. nowhere in the article does it say they will just be using this road to just go to church, and I have never claimed they will be using this just road to go to church. please let go of the strawman.

Your focus on the religious aspect makes it seem this way.

Originally Posted by Thunder

strawman, again. there are already existing roads the Cohanim can use to get to church, the mall, the store, school, etc etc. but the Cohanim don't like those roads cause they pass through/near cemeteries. so, they asked the state to use taxpayer funds to build them a halakhic road that does not pass through/near a cemetary...even though there are perfectly good existing roads.

They asked as taxpayers. Not as a religious group. This is where you're mistaken.

Originally Posted by Thunder

oh, and btw....how exactly does not wanting to give a religious sect special treatment, equal religious discrimination? maybe in an ass-back wards Islamic or Jewish state this kind of logic is the case, but not in a secular democracy.

This is not special treatment. This is not a church and state issue. A group of TAXPAYING CITIZENS made a request. That they're of a religious nature is of little consequence. If you're that concerned about the trees, you could go plant a few around here.

Originally Posted by Thunder

saying it four times doesn't make it true, Sword of Truth. Disagreeing with your very strongly held opinions does not make one prejudiced and bigoted, sorry.

The fact that you are unhappy with a group of taxpayers BECAUSE they're religious is evidence of bigotry.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Your focus on the religious aspect makes it seem this way.

the issues here have been spelled out numerous times. its not my fault if folks are unable to understand them

Originally Posted by Cobalt

They asked as taxpayers. Not as a religious group. This is where you're mistaken.

yes, they are tax payers. but their need for a new road is PURELY for religious reasons. they have decided that the existing roads are not good for them, for religious reasons. they have no issues with the quality, length, material used for the road. their objection is purely of a religious nature.

Originally Posted by Cobalt

This is not special treatment. This is not a church and state issue. A group of TAXPAYING CITIZENS made a request. That they're of a religious nature is of little consequence. If you're that concerned about the trees, you could go plant a few around here.

oh, it is indeed special treatment. they want the govt. to use taxpayer money to build a new road even though perfectly good roads already exist. they want the state to spend capital funds PURELY due to their religious choices. there is no practical, safety, or political reason to build this new road. it is purely due to the religious desires of a religious interest group. building this road clearly violates the principle of seperation of Church & State.

Originally Posted by Cobalt

The fact that you are unhappy with a group of taxpayers BECAUSE they're religious is evidence of bigotry.

do you consider the concept of the seperation of Church & State to be a bigoted one? it appears you do. I do not believe that the government should be spending capital funds for purely religious needs. this road is for purely religious needs, therefore I oppose it. if you find my objection to be bigoted, than you find the seperation of church & state to be bigoted, and that's your problem...not mine.

a state cannot consider itself to be a secular one, when it is spending millions of dollars on roads that have a purely religious purpose.

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Thunder

the issues here have been spelled out numerous times. its not my fault if folks are unable to understand them

Yeah, you're missing the point alright.

Originally Posted by Thunder

yes, they are tax payers. but their need for a new road is PURELY for religious reasons. they have decided that the existing roads are not good for them, for religious reasons. they have no issues with the quality, length, material used for the road. their objection is purely of a religious nature.

Yet it will still be a PUBLIC road that ANYONE can use. If the government found this to be an unreasonable request they would have denied it.

Originally Posted by Thunder

oh, it is indeed special treatment.

There is nothing preventing other taxpayers from protesting this road being paved. It is not special.

Originally Posted by Thunder

they want the govt. to use taxpayer money to build a new road even though perfectly good roads already exist.

And they, as TAXPAYERS, got their request.

Originally Posted by Thunder

they want the state to spend capital funds PURELY due to their religious choices.

Again, it will be a public road.

Originally Posted by Thunder

there is no practical, safety, or political reason to build this new road. it is purely due to the religious desires of a religious interest group. building this road clearly violates the principle of seperation of Church & State.

Just as you told SoT, repeating it doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Thunder

do you consider the concept of the seperation of Church & State to be a bigoted one?

Oh boy, here we go.

Originally Posted by Thunder

it appears you do.

You're incorrect.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I do not believe that the government should be spending capital funds for purely religious needs.

It was a request of taxpaying citizens. Your article has no actual source outside "according to x" suggesting this was a religious lobbying.

Originally Posted by Thunder

this road is for purely religious needs, therefore I oppose it.

My answer to that would be:

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Does the road look anything like this?
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...muslimroad.jpg

If it doesn't, then it's not a halakhic road. The road may be designed to facilitate the Cohanim and their observances. But unless the state is prohibiting it's use by anyone but the Cohanim, then it isn't a Cohanim road.

Originally Posted by Thunder

if you find my objection to be bigoted,

And I do.

Originally Posted by Thunder

than you find the seperation of church & state to be bigoted,

I do not. I believe firmly in it. The key is, I get what the separation of church and state is about. You do not. Google is your friend.

Originally Posted by Thunder

and that's your problem...not mine.

Whatever, kiddo.

Originally Posted by Thunder

a state cannot consider itself to be a secular one, when it is spending millions of dollars on roads that have a purely religious purpose.

Again, see above.

[Skeptic]

A couple of notes.

Bikerdruid thinks the UN human rights commission (some current and historical members: China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda, Vietnam...) actually gives a damn about human rights because that's what they claim to do. He also believes communism works because communists say it does. I always wondered who believes some emailer is really the son of a deposed Nigerian dictator just because he says so; that's one mystery solved, I guess.

2). I wonder what Thunder would have said if a group of Muslims with special religious needs asked for a road to be built and the Israeli government refused because it would mean trees would have to be cut down. Would he then support the Israeli government standing up for the environment and not giving in to special religious demands? Or would he rant about "evil Israeli racism"? I think we all know the answer.

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Thunder

yes, they are tax payers. but their need for a new road is PURELY for religious reasons. they have decided that the existing roads are not good for them, for religious reasons. they have no issues with the quality, length, material used for the road. their objection is purely of a religious nature.

Thunder,

Will this road be forbidden to non-believers?

If not, what's the issue?

How far are you willing to go with this bigotry? Would you deny religious groups from purchasing items from government auctions, because they -could- be used for religious purposes?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by IDB87

Will this road be forbidden to non-believers?

very stupid question.

Originally Posted by IDB87

How far are you willing to go with this bigotry? Would you deny religious groups from purchasing items from government auctions, because they -could- be used for religious purposes?

I'm sorry that you consider the seperation of Church & State to be bigoted. hopefully someday you will learn why you are in error.

in a secular state, govt. funds should not be used to build roads that have a purely religious justifation for being built.

....oh, and if an Atheist organization wants a new road built, because the only existing road passes by a Church and the Atheists find this to be offensive, I would be against THAT road too.

roads should not be built for PURELY religious purposes..or for purely ANTI-religious purposes.