Netanyahu: Palestinian mufti, not Hitler, wanted to exterminate Jews

Will non-Christian be allowed to follow their own laws and have their own courts?

 

Even a religious country can have secular rules and implementation of laws. If you codify your religious law then they become secular laws and can be applied to everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Offically it's both. The Queen is both the head of state and the leader of the church.

- - - Updated - - -

No one gets to have their "own" court. All are judge according to the codified laws of the land and not by arbitrally interpreted religious laws. Put your laws in writing, have the parliement debate over them, codify them and apply them equally to all. Problem solved.

 

its impossible according Muslim law , unfortunately much like women cant be equal to the men...

 

That's a huge IF. The more secular a country gets, the less its people is going to care for what is written in holy books. Case in point being homosexuality in America.

But Englandanders are not referred to as "Christians." Christian law does not dictate how things run in England. There is a clear separation of church and state.

This is completely unrealistic. God's law does not have not be "judged."

 

yes, but non-Christians will not allowed to have any elected position in national government, be police, tax collectors.

and they must pay a special non-Christian tax, to pay for their protection.

you cool with that?

 

That's probably almost certainly true as it is with anybody. But I do question the inability of Jews to speak out more widely against the injustices undertaken in their name. Maybe they do and we just don't hear about it in our media because the said media don't demand that of them in the same way that they demand it of the Muslims in respect to their extremists. I can talk about British diaspora Jews with some authority who disproportionately vote in favour of maintaining the status quo. As for Israeli Jews, over 90% of them supported Bibi's policy regarding the misnamed Protective Edge.

 

There you go again, justifying the unjustifiable.

 

Another apologist for Holocaust revisionism. It's refreshing that Bibi's comments are bringing you all out of the closet.

- - - Updated - - -

So the revisionist views of, say, a neoNazi are acceptable to you?

- - - Updated - - -

I actually agree with you about that. But the question is, is it right and/or moral?

 

It's the double standards that I find objectionable, Jonsa. Don't you?

 

He was right about this Palestinian who joined with Hitler.
It was his work to eliminate Jews in general.
But his desire to attack Israel was among a number of other acts of violence which is why his face is on the buses in NYC and a few now in Philadelphia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

..."is early position on pan-Arabism shifted to a form of local nationalism for Palestinian Arabs and he moved back to Jerusalem. From as early as 1920, he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of the 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years imprisonment"...
Starting in 1921, al-Husseini was appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, using the position to promote Islam, while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[12][13]

His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge in, successively, the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home.

 

It is just one of the seven kinds of government.
Its called Theocracy.
The Law is religious with other secular kinds of behavior added to this idea.

What we have is always a Religious Institution with Laws about behavior, and a Political Institution with Laws about behavior.
Republicans who complain that our Political Institution is too big would crap out at two different law bodies telling everyone what to do and not do.
And a religion which does not recognize Reality as the based upon Truth in what we ought do, behaviorally, is a sanction for future insanity.

 

No I do not believe it to be a double standard being applied. I view it as a perfectly understandable editorial decision.

 

Then clearly you don't value the notion of objectivity and fairness. It's not the role of journalists to act as stenographers for Western political power. Didn't you know that?

 

since when is there any obligation for the media to "balance" what the leader of one nation says about anything in one context and leader commenting on the same topic in another?

You may have noticed that a lot goes on in the world that the MSM does not report on. When was the last MSM story you read about the Congo, Mali or Mozambique as fer instances? Surely its not the MSMs has responsibility to report on the subjects you may be interested in, because you have that interest.


Fairness in the media? surely you jest.

 

It should be the aim of any self-respecting journalist to be as objective as possible in his reporting. Why you don't agree with this is strange. Netanyahu's Holocaust revisionism is significant enough of a story to be reported as a front page story internationally. Why is it only the Neo Nazi revisionist narrative that you seem concerned about? It's incredible that a prominent Jew who leads the self-proclaimed Jewish state denies the reality of the official account of the Holocaust in which approximately 6 million Jews perished. You've made it clear that you don't give a toss about his repugnant speech. I wonder why that is? (He says rhetorically). You are aware, are you not, that if he was an ordinary German citizen and he uttered the crap he came out with he would likely be arrested and jailed?

 

what if its conflict between a Muslim and non Muslim, lets say with an atheist ?

 

Would you consider the European kingdoms as being theocracies since they were based on Christian laws and the kings were annointed in Christian churches?

I always believed the only Christian theocracy was the Byzantine Empire...and yet there were Jews, and later Muslims.

 

I said nothing about being acceptable or not. Politicians lie for a living. It's their job. You're too idealistic to see them for what they are. Even those that espouse your views are doing it only out of their own interest and will gladly throw you under the bus when ever the wind change.

 

Then how do you make sure that you're following God's law if there isn't any consensus? If there isn't any consensus then you're only following an arbitrary interpretation of what you or the one judging you believes is God's law. Legal debates are used to make sure that the letter of the law match the spirit of the law, else what you have is ad hoc law.

And again, England is a Christian nation, an Anglican one and will be until they get rid of the monarchy. Saying England isn't Christian when the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church is like saying the Vatican isn't Christian while the Pope is head of state and head of the Catholic Church.

 

That's not strictly true. Some lie all of the time, others some of the time and a small minority are principled and don't lie at all.

 

It's neither right or wrong or moral or not. There never was a totally "free" press ever. All media have an agenda and are working hard pushing it on us the masses. They're called the fifth estate for a reason. They're just a bunch of unelected politician putting their own spin and outright lying to influence you, just like the elected politician do. Idealist journalist don't live long in this world. They either have accident or are relegated to the fringes with little outlets to propagate their message. And the internet made it even worst by diluting the signals even more...

 

Idealism... Stalin called idealist "useful idiots" for a reason you know. Guys like Jonsa and I understand the game while your being played like a pawn in a chess game.

- - - Updated - - -

The Vatican is an actual theocracy today. So would Tibet if the Chinese didn't invade it and pushed the Dalai Lama into exile.

 

You can't be principled and win election. You're too naïve my friend. Politician need money to get into the game and with the money comes the shackles. Two things motivate a politician:

1- A taste for power
2- The fear of losing said power.

Even a dove turns into a buzzard before his first mandate is over.

 

Journalism as a profession has become increasingly debased over the years so to that extent at least I agree with you. But the role of the investigative journalist is not to be an echo chamber to power but to bring it to account. These kinds of journalists still exist and not all sell out.

 

I'm not as cynical as you. In Britain there exist some MPs who serve their constituents well with honour and integrity although I do agree that they are a minority.