Joseph Lieberman, Candidate for the Democrats?

[IceBlaZe]

On what do you base this argument?

In recent years there have been more Christians than Jews, this makes Christian regions more able to fight but it's certainly no indication as the proportion of the population who are willing to fight.

If you look as Israel, they are most certainly not pacifists!

Well, our neighboors are not Canada and Mexico, to remind you.

Also, the Old Testament has more respect for violence than the New Testament. I do believe the Old Testament speaks of the Devil being forcefully thrown out of Heaven... but the closest Jesus comes to this is ignoring him.

The Old Testament is also much more deep, full of alegories and values than the New Testament. Add to that that the New Testament is only an addition...

Israel's policies are affected by religion at times, but that does not make it any more violent.
I assure you that Israel's history is far purer, although shorter, than the US's, which is also one of the most religious states in the west by the way.

What if someone like Bloomberg would run for presidency, he is not very religious, as a matter of fact he is from the reform.
Would he have a chance in the US, as a Jew? He already won the "elections" (Whatever you call them) in NY.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
On what do you base this argument?

In recent years there have been more Christians than Jews, this makes Christian regions more able to fight but it's certainly no indication as the proportion of the population who are willing to fight.

If you look as Israel, they are most certainly not pacifists!

I was talking about in terms of social policy, where religion usually sticks its nose in American politics.


I think a Jew can win, just not Lieberman.

 

[stormbind]

Regarding US politics... the nation's laws are supposed to be based on Christian values, so religion is bound to be an issue at times.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
The Old Testament is also much more deep, full of alegories and values than the New Testament. Add to that that the New Testament is only an addition...

This is an attack on Christianity where we put the emphasis on the New Testament because we believe it contains many corrections.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I assure you that Israel's history is far purer...

Another attack. I assure you that Israel is far more confrontational

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
What if someone like Bloomberg would run for presidency... He already won the "elections" (Whatever you call them) in NY.

NY is not in the Bible Belt.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Well, our neighboors are not Canada and Mexico, to remind you.

Jews believe in "an eye for an eye" and Christians (are supposed to) believe in "turn the other cheek".

 

[IceBlaZe]

This is an attack on Christianity where we put the emphasis on the New Testament because we believe it contains many corrections.

Attack on Christianity? It is a fact that the Bible is much more full, for bad and for worse. Even (mindful) Christians will accept that.
The "corrections" on the New Testament are useless, as you see, since ANY religious fanaticism will lead to destruction, no matter how empty of vengeance the New Testament is.
Should I remind you what has been the most destructive religion on earth? I don't think so.
And that is, while the New Testament had and still has all those "corrections" you talk about.
This is truly march of the folly, you were the first to attack Judaism and the content of it's Holy book.
I would look at myself first, before launching an attack on others.

Another attack. I assure you that Israel is far more confrontational

This is not an attack, it is defense. In order to defend myself, I need to take an offensive position sometimes.
I never criticized christianity or the US until you opened your mouth, so stop whining.
And as a matter of fact, Israel is far less confrontational than the US, or England. Then again, we were never much of an empire.

NY is not in the Bible Belt.

Did I say it is? What difference does it make to my question?
I asked about Bloomberg's chances in the entire US. That does include the Bible Belt. Thank you.

Jews believe in "an eye for an eye" and Christians (are supposed to) believe in "turn the other cheek".

Jews (are supposed to) believe in the Ten Commandments they invented.
The bible contains many stories that are far more complicated than any presented in the New Testament, thus some of them are rude violations of the Ten Commandments.

"An eye for an eye" is when a person's punishment should be equal to the wrong or crime he comitted.
Isn't that what the entire Justice and Law system is (fundamentally) based upon today, especially in the part of the US where capital punishment is still around?
The wrose your wrong deeds were, the more you will pay for it.
Most Modern courts are based on that, but not word for word.
But as I said, the Bible is full of alegories and contradictions only fanatic fools (on all edges) will take it word for word.
The philosophy is to take it beyond that.
The more bad things you shall find in the bible, the more good to contradict it, and then some more good.
It is not concise, it is not simple, certainly not one meaning for one line, but it is not summed up in "Jews believe in an eye for an eye".

 

[Zcylen]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

Attack on Christianity? It is a fact that the Bible is much more full, for bad and for worse. Even (mindful) Christians will accept that.

Ok, agree. Im Roman Catholic but Im not fanatic and I accept there are things shouldnt be followed literally but said by a non catholic sounds like an attack.
but anyways, we're talking in a civilized way therefore I'll take it as a constructive criticism

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

it is defense. In order to defend myself, I need to take an offensive position sometimes.

why you have to defend yourself, from who? Im not being sarcastic, but why you have to take and offensive position?

 

[IceBlaZe]

stormbind decided to attack Israel and the religion leading it.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
Regarding US politics... the nation's laws are supposed to be based on Christian values, so religion is bound to be an issue at times.

America's laws are secular, not religious. Screw Christian values.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
America's laws are secular, not religious. Screw Christian values.

Should be secular, but most if not all of our laws have their origins in religion. Victimless cirme laws i.e. those against gambling, drug use, alcohol regulation, prostitution don't make sense economically; they are in place because of the moralists whose beliefs are no doubt rooted in religion.

 

[Echo Head]

Originally posted by Greadius
America's laws are secular, not religious. Screw Christian values.

And don't anyone forget that!



Its funny how Iceblaze is taking offense to something in which his subdued beligerence in the discussion got it to its somewhat argumentative point. Lighten up Iceblaze. I know Living in a hostile area like Israel puts a zap on your brain, but you need to understand that Israel is not a pristine govt. Nor is Judaism a pristine religion. Both are filled with examples of humans doing less than pristine things to further the survival of their people. And why not? Just don't pretend as though any religious ideal is necassarily free of primative and self-centered human desires.
The fact that Lieberman is orthodox only associates him, unfairly or not, to a biased stance on Israel. There have been a few comments by him made about how important it is to help our 'Democratic brothers' in the Mid-East. This is good, but what about the Palestinians? I won't say any more about this. And its hard to take an opinion on the Mid-East conflicts from someone in Israel to be objective.

 

[onejayhawk]

Lieberman's biggest problem is that he is boring, not that he is Jewish. Conservative Christians respect religious convictions, since their own are so persecuted. If Lieberman were as smooth and polished as Bill clinton was, or even Teddy Kennedy, he would have no trouble being taken seriously as a candidate.

J

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
Should be secular, but most if not all of our laws have their origins in religion. Victimless cirme laws i.e. those against gambling, drug use, alcohol regulation, prostitution don't make sense economically; they are in place because of the moralists whose beliefs are no doubt rooted in religion.

All laws not rooted in economics are therefore religious? I think its a weak association to say that all opposition to such activities are motivated by Christian values, where people who aren't necessarily Christian can share a similar view of how the world ought to be based on seperate ideals. Christianty has succeeded because it has based its moral code on what people want, not because people have based their moral code on Christianity.

Originally posted by Echo Head
The fact that Lieberman is orthodox only associates him, unfairly or not, to a biased stance on Israel. There have been a few comments by him made about how important it is to help our 'Democratic brothers' in the Mid-East. This is good, but what about the Palestinians?

Most Americans, I believe around 70%+, tend to sympathize with Israel much more. Unfortunately for Mr. Lieberman more likely than not, those who don't are Democratic voters.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
stormbind decided to attack Israel and the religion leading it.

On the contrary, Greadius attacked Christianity by inferring it was more aggressive and you to added greater insult by suggesting Christianity was inferior

 

[MrPresident]

And its hard to take an opinion on the Mid-East conflicts from someone in Israel to be objective.

It is hard to take an opinion from anyone about anything to be objective if they have a self-interest in the matter. Like talking about oil with an director of BP or talking about animal welfare with a campaigner for animal rights.

Regarding US politics... the nation's laws are supposed to be based on Christian values, so religion is bound to be an issue at times.

Who supposed that?

If you look as Israel, they are most certainly not pacifists

1930s Britain - Pacifist
1940s Britain - Certainly not pacifist

It is all down to circumstance.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by Echo Head

Its funny how Iceblaze is taking offense to something in which his subdued beligerence in the discussion got it to its somewhat argumentative point.

Is it me, or your sentence makes no sense?
I was not belligerent, until I read this:

...If you look as Israel, they are most certainly not pacifists!

Also, the Old Testament has more respect for violence than the New Testament...

I'm not a religious person, but that irritated me somewhat.

Lighten up Iceblaze. I know Living in a hostile area like Israel puts a zap on your brain, but you need to understand that Israel is not a pristine govt. Nor is Judaism a pristine religion.

Actually, Judaism is the most pristine monotheistic religion.

Both are filled with examples of humans doing less than pristine things to further the survival of their people. And why not? Just don't pretend as though any religious ideal is necassarily free of primative and self-centered human desires.

What matters is reality, not the contents of the book. Israel's death balance sheds some light on it's restraint in the hard times it's been through since the day of it's creation.

The fact that Lieberman is orthodox only associates him, unfairly or not, to a biased stance on Israel.

The VAST American majority is biased towards Israel.
The Entire American foreign policy in the Middle East is based on "Bias towards Israel". Like it or not, Lieberman is much less enthusiast to Israel than some American Presidents have been.
As a matter of fact, he seldom expresses his opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

There have been a few comments by him made about how important it is to help our 'Democratic brothers' in the Mid-East.

MUCH fewer than any present American official. What you say is nonsensical and immaterial if it is to be weighted fairly. But it isn't, and that is the point.

This is good, but what about the Palestinians? I won't say any more about this. And its hard to take an opinion on the Mid-East conflicts from someone in Israel to be objective.

This is ridiculous. Lieberman has showed bias towards Israel MUCH LESS than any American PM in the last 10 years.
As a matter of fact, he is extra careful in this issue due to his Judaism.
Jew in the Office or not, the US always has been biased towards Israel. Pure fact. Your use on Liebermans bias towards Israel truly shows he is judged by subjects other than the content of his sayings. His expressions on the MidEast topic has been relatively few, compared to Bush Jr. or Clinton.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
It is not concise, it is not simple, certainly not one meaning for one line, but it is not summed up in "Jews believe in an eye for an eye".

I was merely using that as an example of how the New Testament puts more emphasis on pacifism than the Old Testament, and it was only in responce to another's claim that Christianity is the more violent religion.

It was not meant to be interpreted as the basic building blocks of any religion.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Greadius said that Judaism is more passive, didn't he?
He was right. Judaism is a none missionary religion.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident
It is hard to take an opinion from anyone about anything to be objective if they have a self-interest in the matter. Like talking about oil with an director of BP or talking about animal welfare with a campaigner for animal rights.

What exactly is the animal rights campaigner's self-interest, as long as he isn't an animal himself?

Besides that, you are right with your first sentence there, but not everybody who has an opinion about something necessarily has a self-interest connected with it.
That's of course as long as you don't brand every human action, thought and feeling as self-interest, which would make the word meaningless.
An Israeli is certainly more likely to have a self-interest connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than for example someone from Bolivia, or also Britain or Germany. That doesn't mean that everyone has the same interest, of course.

1930s Britain - Pacifist
1940s Britain - Certainly not pacifist

If Britain would have been truly Pacifist in the 1930s there wouldn't have been a non-Pacifist Britain in the 1940s. A Pacifist nation doesn't declare war on others.

 

[MrPresident]

What exactly is the animal rights campaigner's self-interest, as long as he isn't an animal himself?

animal rights campaigners want what is best for the animals or what they think it best for the animals. That is not objective, objective is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

but not everybody who has an opinion about something necessarily has a self-interest connected with it.

Of course not.

If Britain would have been truly Pacifist in the 1930s there wouldn't have been a non-Pacifist Britain in the 1940s.

19 million Britons signed a petition not to go to war against Hitler in the late 1930s. When we were at war (and being attacked) patriotic feelings took over.