Quick poll of the mostly left leaning sift.

The evangelical christian belief that homosexuality is immoral isn't going to disappear, it's being listed in both old and new testaments as sinful makes that a lock. However, that's no different than the Judaic list of foods that are sinful to eat, which orthodox Jews still observe.

So the question is, if the evangelical christian position is simply that homosexuality isn't "Kosher", no different than the Jewish belief that eating pork isn't "Kosher", is that an agreeable live and let live position?

She's out in that dress and no veil.

Obviously Dad's not a fundamentalist.

Also it's worth noting that there are Christian strongholds in America that would be scandalized by such behavior from their youth and don't get me started on Orthodox Jews.

It's not a problem with one religion, it's a problem with the extremists within EVERY religion. Extremism takes hold more easily in poor/poorly educated populations, so the answer isn't bomb the crap out of them, the answer is to educate and lift them out of poverty.

The formation of Israel and the question of stealing land can be debated, but at this point it is history and cannot be changed. At some point a nation needed to arise out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The problem was, when one did it didn't encompass the entire area. Arab Palestinians didn't vote to accept the border, but neither did they declare war on Israel in 1948, how could they if they weren't even a state? The root of today's problems have to do with the taking of land by act of war. Palestinians are punished for the acts of the other arab nations.

I found it highly surprising the video didn't mention the countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts of land confiscation, usually with the USA and Israel the only ones opposing it. In war you can defend yourself, even invade the enemy's territory. But when it's over you have to go back your home, you can't keep a permanent army presence on the captured land and slowly allow your citizens to start living in the captured territory. The fact that the land wasn't part of Jordan made it easier for people to give Israel a pass since they weren't stealing land from a nation, just a nation-less people. That doesn't make it any more justifiable. Israel should have occupied the territory until the end of hostilities and then completely withdrawn.

The video mentions the land they grabbed from Egypt, the almost empty Sinai peninsula that was an incredible strategic value. They were plenty happy to hand it back for a peace treaty, mainly because the hardcore Zionists weren't determined to expand the state of Israel there as they are in the west bank, which has much more history for their people. Notice how they went out of their way to establish a salient to Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The only reason at some point in the last 40 years Israel hasn't just put up a fence and closed the border permanently(surely the safest choice if you're really worried about suicide bombers) is they wouldn't be able to move beyond that border and capture more land, which is what the orthodox Jews demand. People living in the west bank live under different laws based on their religion. Israeli civil code if they're settlers, military rule if they're Palestinians. How ironic that Israel is lauded as the great democracy in the middle east, yet deny the right of representation to millions under their control.

More philosophical wank citing junk analogies (lol, blowing up peoples houses with them still inside = drunken manslaughter in a bar fight?) to justify a position directly contradicted by people who should know...

http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-auschwitz-borders-revisited/7847

"The late Tommy Lapid, justice minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, caused an uproar in 2004 when he said that images of an elderly Palestinian woman in Gaza “crouching on all fours, searching for her medicines in the ruins of her house” demolished by the Israeli army reminded him of his own grandmother who perished at Auschwitz. Lapid compared the Israeli army’s writing of numbers on the arms and foreheads of Palestinian prisoners to the Nazi practice of tattooing concentration camp inmates. “As a refugee from the Holocaust I find such an act insufferable,” he said in 2002."

"Lapid, who was chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial, also likened the routine harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron to the anti-Semitism of pre-World War II Europe. “It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us,” he said in 2007, “but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn.” Lapid did not live long enough to see Hebron settlers attempt to burn down a house with a large Palestinian family trapped inside, an act witnessed on 4 December by Avi Issacharoff, reporter for the Israeli daily Haaretz, who called it “a pogrom in the worst sense of the word.”

or perhaps:

http://youtu.be/qMGuYjt6CP8

"Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

"My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

I'll take the word of people who lived through the Holocaust and the formation of Israel over you... = P

Religion is just a tool to justify the mistreatment of others. The problem is the idea that women are worth less than men, their inferior. This isn't a problem specific to islamic countries. You see it in indian gang rapes, chinese gender selected abortion, israeli orthodox jews spitting on little girls and legitimate rape experts in US politics.
This problem exists worldwide and you can see it on a daily basis, even in the comfort of your own home. In some places it's just less obvious.
Personally, I hope this outspoken girl will help to change something in her part of the world and get away with it.

WHAT?!?!? fired from a lingerie shop for being too hot? wtf?? And a shop owned by orthodox jews?!?

Are you serious?? There are so many jokes to be made from this... why must the Daily Show be on a break??? Why??

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^radx:

"Why don't more people know about this?"
Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?
It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.
Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.
Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

Paedophilia in the Catholic church is part of the "consensus narrative"; so much so that it's the first thing I think of when I think of the Catholic Church.

>> ^probie:

Completely off topic, but I'd have them switch positions. Both of them are facing the camera with hair in their face. Anna not so much, but throw the other one a headband or a scrunchie or something. Just the director in me coming out.


*Ana

Just the editor in me coming out.

***This Post has been Edited***

Alos Ultra Orthodox Jews are just as bad as any extreme sect of a religion.

Ultra-Orthodox Jew community, let me introduce you to something we from the out-side world call the Streisand Effect.

Stripping also works for Jehovah's Witnesses and Orthodox Jews.

It's actually a great movie..

And yeah.. I said something very similar a couple weeks ago:
>> ^Trancecoach:

I love his show. It's one of the smartest and funniest programs on television. There's often a very subtle, yet powerful message in each program about modern life -- usually something rarely seen on television.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Jews too.
Ever seen the movie, "The Believer?"
In it, an Orthodox Jew (played by a young Ryan Gosling) becomes a neo-nazi skinhead because this story, and its interpretation, just strikes him as so much bullshit... >> ^ChaosEngine:
I really don't know how any christian is ok with that story. Even as a kid it struck me as wrong. God just comes off as this needy psychopath.


Sounds like a movie about a moron that trades one set of stupid ideas for another. I'm convinced that Louie is the best show on television now...not best comedy...best show.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Jews too.
Ever seen the movie, "The Believer?"
In it, an Orthodox Jew (played by a young Ryan Gosling) becomes a neo-nazi skinhead because this story, and its interpretation, just strikes him as so much bullshit... >> ^ChaosEngine:
I really don't know how any christian is ok with that story. Even as a kid it struck me as wrong. God just comes off as this needy psychopath.



Sounds like a movie about a moron that trades one set of stupid ideas for another. I'm convinced that Louie is the best show on television now...not best comedy...best show.

Jews too.

Ever seen the movie, "The Believer?"
In it, an Orthodox Jew (played by a young Ryan Gosling) becomes a neo-nazi skinhead because this story, and its interpretation, just strikes him as so much bullshit... >> ^ChaosEngine:

I really don't know how any christian is ok with that story. Even as a kid it struck me as wrong. God just comes off as this needy psychopath.

Looking forward to this, but it may take time; hate fuels ignorance.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Could an mass outbreak of atheism amongst the Jews and Palestinians solve the problem? If they all dropped their silly religious claims to certain areas of the land, might they all live in Israelistine together, side by side? Maybe it wouldn't settle all the issues. But it might go a long way towards helping.