When a country punishes its citizens differently based on race/religion!

[lewisnotmiller]

Even after I mentioned the link twice, you still haven't read it.

Shin Bet Torturing Jewish Terror Suspects, Say Lawyers

Are you getting it yet?
Jewish terrorists. Being tortured. By the Israeli government.

Are you done yet?

I promised to have a look at the particular issue raised in the OP, so this seems a reasonable place to start. Allowing for the fact I usually stay well clear of this particular can of worms (ie. the Middle East) my initial thoughts were as follows;

1) Doesn't potential action by the Israeli government along the lines your article links to (and remember, I can't read it) actually INCREASE the cause for concern?
2) Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but house demolitions, whether punitive or precautionary, appear to be in breach of this, so is it a case of the ends justifying the means?
3) When demolitions were paused/reduced (2005) there were noises that they weren't effective in any case. I've tried to verify this, and there appears some reason to think punitive demolitions are somewhat effective, but precautionary ones are counterproductive. But more than that, doesn't this indicate a willingness of the government to sell a narrative, rather than tell the truth?

That will do as a start, I guess.

 

[Tumah]

I promised to have a look at the particular issue raised in the OP, so this seems a reasonable place to start. Allowing for the fact I usually stay well clear of this particular can of worms (ie. the Middle East) my initial thoughts were as follows;

1) Doesn't potential action by the Israeli government along the lines your article links to (and remember, I can't read it) actually INCREASE the cause for concern?

Yes. My point was not to sell the Israeli government, my point was to prove that its not singling out Palestinians for "special" treatment.

2) Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but house demolitions, whether punitive or precautionary, appear to be in breach of this, so is it a case of the ends justifying the means?

Personally, I have no problem with breaching the Geneva Convention if in means me and my family gets to be a little safer. That being said, as above, I'm not making a case for the legality of what the government is doing. It has even demolished houses against the judgment of its own Supreme Court.

3) When demolitions were paused/reduced (2005) there were noises that they weren't effective in any case. I've tried to verify this, and there appears some reason to think punitive demolitions are somewhat effective, but precautionary ones are counterproductive. But more than that, doesn't this indicate a willingness of the government to sell a narrative, rather than tell the truth?

That will do as a start, I guess.

I linked an article in a later post about punitive demolition lowering the terrorist acts over the following month. I would guess that the reason we know that precautionary demolition isn't effective is because it was done. Its only after the study (or perhaps a second study with the same result) that we can have a complaint.

For the record, I'm not a Zionist. So you won't find me arguing in favor of the government for every move they make. I only appreciate the ones that keep me and mine safe.

 

[Tumah]

I tried to read the link you gave, but it wanted me to subscribe, so I only got the heading and a couple of photos.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4743994,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Se...-Probe-torture-claims-by-Duma-suspects-438008

 

[Kirran]

Godobeyer - the last Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, was a Sikh. India is over 80% Hindu. It wasn't a problem in the least.

 

[psychoslice]

When a country punishes its citizens differently based on race/religion!..... then that country is no longer a country, its just a hell hole.

 

[Kirran]

Ooh, here's one. Lebanon, 60% Muslim if you count Druze, requires its President to be a Maronite Christian. By law. I disagree with that too, of course.

Godobeyer, we have so far presented atheist leaders in Christian-majority Australia, a Muslim leader in Christian-majority Bosnia and Herzegovina and a Sikh leader in Hindu-majority India (where Sikhs are 1.7% of the population). While we're at it, Christian-majority Uruguay has had an atheist leader and Muslim-majority Albania has had several Christian leaders, although Christians are about 17% of the population and Muslims 60%. Would you concede that this does happen, and if these aren't good enough say what you're actually looking for?

Incidentally, there are 30 countries in the world where it's mandated that the head of state be of a particular religion (or set of religions). Hardly something universal or necessary.

 

[Godobeyer]

It's interesting to me. I can't find evidence of a constitutional change, in fact. The Constitution, as at 2008, expressly doesn't allow for a non-Muslim, or for a woman, or for someone under 40.
I understand what you are saying about the constitutional council allowing for Louisa Hanoune to run, but is there something I am missing here? Is there a constitutional amendment? I honestly can't find one. It appears as if Louisa is being allowed to run despite it being contrary to the constitution, which is a whole other can of worms.

Source : http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/alg72556.pdf
Refer Article 73.

Those constitutional amendments (2008) removed the limitation of a two term Presidency, which was...well...timely, let's say, for the President. And now the Constitutional Council has approved a candidate who appears quite simply unconstitutional on AT LEAST gender grounds, and quite possible religious grounds, given her left-leaning background

Of course there was many consitutional amedment I think it was about 5 votes (editing it) in this 20 years,
This year 2016 or next year (I am not sure) we will vote to backup the two term Presidency .
.

So, whilst I applaud a woman, maybe even an atheist running, it's unconstitutional, which is worrisome. To say the least. What is the role of the Constitutional Council, one might ask?

All citizens are equal before the law. No discrimination shall prevail because of birth, race, sex, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.dz/indexAng.htm

It's honest enough, and I understand religion and government are inter-connected in a way we don't really do things here. But regardless of cause, and regardless of whether it is morally correct to do so, the constitution clearly doesn't treat Algerian citizens equally based on gender and religion. neither do some other laws, but the Constitution is obviously the most fundamental document to look at.

The issue of not equally base on gender , that passed , because of majority citizens President could not be non-Muslim in Algeria .

Tell you what, I'll try and put some time into researching this as well. No promises I'll have a strong opinion, but I'll look into it.

I wish you will do , but I hope you will be neutral and justice as Kirran did on this issue

I find him a very impressive speaker.
I'm not sure if you remember, but there was a story about a Muslim woman who donated money to charity every time someone slandered her for her religion on social media (this was around the time of the Paris attacks). That was his wife. So, an impressive couple.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/australia-...-unicef-every-hate-tweet-she-receives-1528895

Yes I remember that Muslim woman story , I ignore that this man is her husband lol

 

[Godobeyer]

I do not expect the religion of a president or prime minister to be a significant attribute of his person. If it is, then we are in trouble.

Instead, I would expect his ideas and goals to matter far more.

So sure, why not a Jewish President or PM in any of those places? Or a Hindu or Sikh?

I'm actually more worried about certain Protestant Christians... and Muslims. Even Bahai. Most anyone who sees their God-beliefs as being a Big Thing, really.

I think if happened I think it's rare .

 

[Godobeyer]

Ooh, here's one. Lebanon, 60% Muslim if you count Druze, requires its President to be a Maronite Christian. By law. I disagree with that too, of course.

Godobeyer, we have so far presented atheist leaders in Christian-majority Australia, a Muslim leader in Christian-majority Bosnia and Herzegovina and a Sikh leader in Hindu-majority India (where Sikhs are 1.7% of the population). While we're at it, Christian-majority Uruguay has had an atheist leader and Muslim-majority Albania has had several Christian leaders, although Christians are about 17% of the population and Muslims 60%. Would you concede that this does happen, and if these aren't good enough say what you're actually looking for?

Incidentally, there are 30 countries in the world where it's mandated that the head of state be of a particular religion (or set of religions). Hardly something universal or necessary.

I am talking about absolute majority , 90% to 99% (as Algrerian case or Israel) , that's would be difficult to happened

 

[LuisDantas]

I am talking about absolute majority , 90% to 99% (as Algrerian case or Israel) , that's would be difficult to happened

Well, that is a good reason to avoid reaching that point.

 

[Kirran]

I am talking about absolute majority , 90% to 99% (as Algrerian case or Israel) , that's would be difficult to happened

Simply mathematically, yes, it would be. Why that requires a discriminatory law against the minorities is beyond me.

Israel isn't 90% anything, it's 75% Jewish (and sinking!).

And OK, I have one for you - Greece is 98% Christian and the Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, is an atheist and irreligious.

 

[Godobeyer]

Simply mathematically, yes, it would be. Why that requires a discriminatory law against the minorities is beyond me.

Israel isn't 90% anything, it's 75% Jewish (and sinking!).

And OK, I have one for you - Greece is 98% Christian and the Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, is an atheist and irreligious.

That's was a wrong guess !
Thanks for correct my info about Israel majority and minority

I think Western had no problem with atheist to be leaderor irreligious (as you said) , they may had sensitive with other religions as hindu or Muslim or Jewish ?

It's like the Vatican leader be a Protestante

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, that is a good reason to avoid reaching that point.

@Godobeyer - You realize that what I mean is that, since many or most Muslims may not accept being led by a non-Muslim once they are a clear majority (as you seem to believe to be the case and the history of the partition of India seems to support) then it is basically one's civic duty to avoid reaching the point where they are a clear majority?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's was a wrong guess !
Thanks for correct my info about Israel majority and minority

I think Western had no problem with atheist to be leaderor irreligious (as you said) , they may had sensitive with other religions as hindu or Muslim or Jewish ?

It's like the Vatican leader be a Protestante

The Vatican is specifically designed to be a Catholic State.

That is nothing like a secular state. There is no good reason why such a state would necessarily have an atheistic or non-religious leader. If anything, a secular state would be more free to be led by a head of state of any out of a variety of possible beliefs, exactly because it has no duty towards any specific religions.

That said, I do hope that no state ever has a particularly fundamentalist Christian leader (some Brazilians would fit that description) - and frankly, it saddens me whenever a state declares itself Muslim, so I would not want to encourage it by having an explicitly Muslim leader anywhere either.

But that is due to a specific flaw of Islam (its strong aversion to atheism and secularism and its tendency to flat out declare itself superior to all other beliefs), not simply because a Muslim would be a religious person. I would welcome most any other faith really. I sort of hope for a Sikh or Jain leader, even.

Heck, by Muslim standards even Sadam Hussein (sp?) and the Assads of Syria (and Lybia's Gadaffi, I think) are supposed to be considered "secular" despite wrapping themselves with the Quran all the time. That is just not reassuring when it comes to what to expect of a Muslim leader - even a "secular" one.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Godobeyer - You realize that what I mean is that, since many or most Muslims may not accept being led by a non-Muslim once they are a clear majority (as you seem to believe to be the case and the history of the partition of India seems to support) then it is basically one's civic duty to avoid reaching the point where they are a clear majority?

I think if it's about 90% majority the leadership should belong to majority .

 

[Godobeyer]

The Vatican is specifically designed to be a Catholic State.

That is nothing like a secular state. There is no good reason why such a state would necessarily have an atheistic or non-religious leader. If anything, a secular state would be more free to be led by a head of state of any out of a variety of possible beliefs, exactly because it has no duty towards any specific religions.

That said, I do hope that no state ever has a particularly fundamentalist Christian leader (some Brazilians would fit that description) - and frankly, it saddens me whenever a state declares itself Muslim, so I would not want to encourage it by having an explicitly Muslim leader anywhere either.

But that is due to a specific flaw of Islam (its strong aversion to atheism and secularism and its tendency to flat out declare itself superior to all other beliefs), not simply because a Muslim would be a religious person. I would welcome most any other faith really. I sort of hope for a Sikh or Jain leader, even.

Heck, by Muslim standards even Sadam Hussein (sp?) and the Assads of Syria (and Lybia's Gadaffi, I think) are supposed to be considered "secular" despite wrapping themselves with the Quran all the time. That is just not reassuring when it comes to what to expect of a Muslim leader - even a "secular" one.

I post the Vatican exemple to understand my point

So Most of Muslims countries are .

 

[LuisDantas]

I think if it's about 90% majority the leadership should belong to majority .

The implication is that the minority can not respect the majority, and that the majority is not supposed to even try.

I can not approve of that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I post the Vatican exemple to understand my point

So Most of Muslims countries are .

Is theVatican representa tive?

 

[Kirran]

That's was a wrong guess !
Thanks for correct my info about Israel majority and minority

I think Western had no problem with atheist to be leaderor irreligious (as you said) , they may had sensitive with other religions as hindu or Muslim or Jewish ?

It's like the Vatican leader be a Protestante

You're shifting the goalposts again here. The irreligious are a minority at less than 1% in Greece. Regardless of whether there'd be a disinclination by the populace to elect individuals of certain religions, a law explicitly enshrining that discrimination is unjustified.

As for the Vatican - I don't think you know what the Vatican is, exactly. It isn't a country in the usual use of the term. It's a sovereign state only for the purposes of the impartiality of the Roman Catholic Church, so it isn't beholden to a particular government. It has no 'civilian' population. Almost all citizens are either members of clergy (i.e. priests, bishops, etc) or members of the Swiss Guard. Citizenship is granted only to those who are working in some specific role for the Vatican. It is rescinded when that role is over. The Vatican can't be fairly compared to countries in the normal use of the term.

 

[Godobeyer]

Is theVatican representa tive?

I don't get you question .

do you mean is the vatican is representative to Muslim countries or to whole the world ?