Is why seperation of church and state is not only a good idea its in the bible-
"My Kingdom is not of this earth"-JC
Schlimm, of course you are right. Israel is a Democracy, and Democracy always inolves opposition and decent. During WWII, there were Senators who actually preached that the USA should have joined Hitler against Stalin and Communism. So there are people who disagree with current Isaeli policy.
1. Open advocacy of expulsion of the Arab population from any areas under Israeli control is against the law and punishable by imprisonment and fines.
2. There are people who criticize Netanyhu for not doing more for the "Palestinians" and not freezing settlements completely and agreeing to uproot them.
3. The are people who believe the housing construction in the settlements is too slow and is not keeping up with childberth forcing children of settlers to live selsewhere.
4. There are peole who object to the control of marriage and much else by an Orthodox Rabbinit that is felt to be overly restrictive. Some of these people deliberately go outside of Israel for marriage or conversion to Judaism.
5. The are Orthodox Jews who believe that the Government is too liberal in allowing local communities, including specific Jerusalem neighborhoods, to violate the specific Sabbath laws. Fortunately, their protests have not been violent for some time. Once upon a time they were though.
6. I'd be interested in knowing which Jews (ones that object to Israel's "direction" are your close friends, what their views are, and what "facts" they have to support their views. Who knows, in at least some ways their ideas may also be mine! But that whole discussion belongs on private email, not here, and my address again is daveklepper@yahoo.com, and I will be glad to correspond with you. And I won't try to convert you, I promise!
And I have mentioned only a few of the controversies that can either be thought of as plagueing Israeli society or of making life interesting and proof that Israeli is, indeed, a Democracy.
The Pledge was written in 1887, over 100 years after the founding of the Republic. It has no relation to the founding fathers. It was made official in 1942. The words "under God" were not added to the Pledge until 1954, partially because of McCarthyite hysteria and partly an effort of some religious groups.
A few colonies (Massachusetts, maybe Connecticut) had some degree at times of theocratic oppression; most did not, nor did the United States.
Many Jews would dispute your notions about the direction of Israel.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/featuredwork/nationbooks/2510/israel_turning_into_theocracy/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
religion on the Forum would seem appropriate if it is related to railroad operations, like my experience in an Amtrak cafe car on a trip from NYC to Lancaster. I did not mean to make this a religious forum, but I did feel a need to present data to counter certain accusations about the nature of both USA and Israeli society. Specifically neither is a theocratic state. IF I remember correctly, the USA Pledge of Alegence does state "One Nation under G_d," so whether the founding fathers meant Freedom from Religion is a good question. Probably some did and some did not. I would define a theocratic state as one where all citizens are required to profess one specific faith, observe one set of rituals, etc. A religious nation is one where most citizens believe in the Eternal but can approach the Eternal in variety of paths. A secular nation is one where most see only the physical world. But others may have other definitions. But the thread was started simply because an important rabbi places great value on passenger rail transportation, both intercity and in-city transit.
If work proceded full speed on Shabbat, it would, I suspect, be completed in roughly 17% less time.
dakotafred JPS1 dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. Amen Schlimm! The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.) This is a passenger railroad forum. Discussion of religion is appropriate in the right venue. This is not it. That is the point Schlimm was attempting to make. I seconded his view. I will make whatever comments I believe are relevant whenever I want or until the moderator tells me to bugger off. You may rest assured that I will not look to you for guidance. Yet you ask the rest of us to follow your guidance. On this thread, the religious angle to a railroad subject announced itself in the title.
JPS1 dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. Amen Schlimm! The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.) This is a passenger railroad forum. Discussion of religion is appropriate in the right venue. This is not it. That is the point Schlimm was attempting to make. I seconded his view. I will make whatever comments I believe are relevant whenever I want or until the moderator tells me to bugger off. You may rest assured that I will not look to you for guidance.
dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. Amen Schlimm! The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.)
JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. Amen Schlimm! The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out?
schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts.
I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts.
Amen Schlimm!
The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion!
I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate.
Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.)
This is a passenger railroad forum. Discussion of religion is appropriate in the right venue. This is not it. That is the point Schlimm was attempting to make. I seconded his view.
Yet you ask the rest of us to follow your guidance.
On this thread, the religious angle to a railroad subject announced itself in the title.
Thr title and original subject of the thread at least had some commection to railroads. The trouble is Klepper in his latter-day zealotry tries to talk about religion at every chance. By Fred's reasoning, we should all just look the other way if someone starts a thread about soap operas or abortion or a Holocaust denier starts ranting or some Sunni fanatic starts preaching about the West's war crimes. This is a TRAINS forum, not a religious blog.
dakotafred JPS1 dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.) I will make whatever comments I believe are relevant whenever I want or until the moderator tells me to bugger off. You may rest assured that I will not look to you for guidance. Yet you ask the rest of us to follow your guidance. On this thread, the religious angle to a railroad subject announced itself in the title. Are you a masochist or just another of our would-be controllers that you would jump in on a subject so distasteful to you?
JPS1
dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.) I will make whatever comments I believe are relevant whenever I want or until the moderator tells me to bugger off. You may rest assured that I will not look to you for guidance. Yet you ask the rest of us to follow your guidance.
dakotafred JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out? I am always surprised/amused/irritated by people on here who object to the wanderings of ONE THREAD on ONE FORUM in the wide, wide world of the Internet. As when a conversation of any other kind bores or offends you, nobody's holding a gun on you, forcing you to listen, read or otherwise participate. Walk away! Seek company you like better. (I'm sure it will be much more elevated.)
JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion! Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out?
On this thread, the religious angle to a railroad subject announced itself in the title. Are you a masochist or just another of our would-be controllers that you would jump in on a subject so distasteful to you?
I stated a point of view. I did not ask you to do anything.
This is not a suitable forum for the expression of religious views, in any way whatsover, which is what it appears to have evolved into.
These forums should be free from religious and political expressions. Whether you agree or not is your choice.
masochist: pleasure that someone gets from being abused or hurt;especially : sexual enjoyment from being hurt or punished.
Using a term out of context or one that you don't understand is not good form.
You are the trying to control the content through editorializing. I have not editorialized on your comments or those of anyone else. Period!
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
dakotafredI'm sure you wouldn't have any candidates. Or would you?
Never know...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann dakotafred This is obviously in error, easily shown by fundamentalists most of know personally. Belief, for instance, in the literal truth of the New Testament makes few people a danger to their neighbors. (Tiresome, perhaps, but hardly dangerous.) For now. But all it takes is a charismatic leader to turn any group into a threat.
dakotafred This is obviously in error, easily shown by fundamentalists most of know personally. Belief, for instance, in the literal truth of the New Testament makes few people a danger to their neighbors. (Tiresome, perhaps, but hardly dangerous.)
For now. But all it takes is a charismatic leader to turn any group into a threat.
I'm sure you wouldn't have any candidates. Or would you?
Dave the real question is if the work goes on for 24/7 how much faster will it be completed ? Is the construction supply line flexible enough to speed up construction ? How is the urgent need defined and by whom ?
daveklepperYou are a policeman, and you have just captured a terrorist. On his person are plans of a standard school building, of which there are many in the state or country. Located on the map are locations where explosives would do the mjost damage to the building. It is clear that the terrorist is part of an organization, but he will not reveal which school is being targetted. You have children in a school with this type of standard building. So do some of your colleagues. Torture by police is illegal. What do you do?
Wasn't that a plot of a Diehard movie?
dakotafredThis is obviously in error, easily shown by fundamentalists most of know personally. Belief, for instance, in the literal truth of the New Testament makes few people a danger to their neighbors. (Tiresome, perhaps, but hardly dangerous.)
daveklepper There is a pretty awful modern parallel, brought on by the terror of Islamic Fundamentalism. You are a policeman, and you have just captured a terrorist. On his person are plans of a standard school building, of which there are many in the state or country. Located on the map are locations where explosives would do the mjost damage to the building. It is clear that the terrorist is part of an organization, but he will not reveal which school is being targetted. You have children in a school with this type of standard building. So do some of your colleagues. Torture by police is illegal. What do you do?
There is a pretty awful modern parallel, brought on by the terror of Islamic Fundamentalism.
You are a policeman, and you have just captured a terrorist. On his person are plans of a standard school building, of which there are many in the state or country. Located on the map are locations where explosives would do the mjost damage to the building. It is clear that the terrorist is part of an organization, but he will not reveal which school is being targetted. You have children in a school with this type of standard building. So do some of your colleagues. Torture by police is illegal. What do you do?
This is a problem as old as warfare itself. There's no easy answer and I won't pretend there is. I think I know what Marines and soldiers who've been at war with a cold, bloody, and absolutely ruthless enemy from World War Two in the Pacific, to Korea, and then Viet Nam would have done, but you'll have to read the historys to find out. And even then you probably won't find the answer, things like that usually don't make it to the history books. You have to talk to the guys who were there.
zugmann daveklepper There is a pretty awful modern parallel, brought on by the terror of Islamic Fundamentalism. All fundamentalism is dangerous. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy.
daveklepper There is a pretty awful modern parallel, brought on by the terror of Islamic Fundamentalism.
All fundamentalism is dangerous. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy.
This is obviously in error, easily shown by fundamentalists most of know personally. Belief, for instance, in the literal truth of the New Testament makes few people a danger to their neighbors. (Tiresome, perhaps, but hardly dangerous.)
The worst sins with which I would charge most fundamentalism are presumptuousness and, yes, often stupidity. Obviously, the particular variety with which we are at war in the Muslim world is of the dangerous kind.
JPS1 schlimm I thought this was a trains forum? Seems a bit too much about religion/ideology and terrorism and pretty light on facts. Amen Brother Schlimm! The founders enshrined the notion of freedom of religion in the nation's cornerstone documents. Implicit in their writings also was a notion that is frequently overlooked! Freedom from religion!
Amen Brother Schlimm!
Freedom from religion doesn't mean its discussion is forbidden. Instead of trying to control the speech of others, why not just tune out?
Interesting point on Freedom from religion.
Also interesting to me, and pertinent to Mr. Klepper, would be the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Religion is not being forced on anyone here. If you do not care for the discussion perhaps you can invoke your Freedom to Leave the Discussion.
daveklepper Freedom from religion is pretty well protected today by the ACLU. Some people feel it may go to far in banning school prayer when an entire class or school would prefer to have it and would make it ecumenical. Like the arguments over Shabbat observance in Israel, this controversy seems ongoing in the USA, with specific decisions seemingly (at least to me) dependent on the specific composition of the Supreme Court. In an Amtrak cafe car, the much older attendent told me, "Sonny, this is not a synagogue or church," when i prayed the full "Birkat HaMazone" after a breakfast of orange juice, bagel and cream cheese, and coffee with cream. I replied that a religious Jew is supposed to thank the Eternal for the food eaten, and this prayer could be recited anywhere. Besides, I said, I included a pryaer for the well-being of the passengers and crew of the train. So he told me I had his permission to rpay anytime of anyplace.
Freedom from religion is pretty well protected today by the ACLU. Some people feel it may go to far in banning school prayer when an entire class or school would prefer to have it and would make it ecumenical. Like the arguments over Shabbat observance in Israel, this controversy seems ongoing in the USA, with specific decisions seemingly (at least to me) dependent on the specific composition of the Supreme Court.
In an Amtrak cafe car, the much older attendent told me, "Sonny, this is not a synagogue or church," when i prayed the full "Birkat HaMazone" after a breakfast of orange juice, bagel and cream cheese, and coffee with cream. I replied that a religious Jew is supposed to thank the Eternal for the food eaten, and this prayer could be recited anywhere. Besides, I said, I included a pryaer for the well-being of the passengers and crew of the train. So he told me I had his permission to rpay anytime of anyplace.
Since you persist in turning this into a religious forum, I'll invoke one of the main founding fathers on the Freedom FROM Religion. Jefferson did not permit ministers, priests, pastors or any religious groups to use the buildings at the University of Virginia, which he founded and designed.
That would have worked with a German Nazi terroist. But the kind the schools that ISIS turns out, and many other schools in the Muslim world including some directly under UN supervision, teach that "dying for 'Allah' gives one heaven with 13 Virgin young women."
Take him to your son's school. And ask him Clint Eastwoods' line, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
If and when this line opens I hope the bar car will serve (Yes it is OU Kosher)--
http://www.shipoffools.com/gadgets/food_drink/media/messiah_bold.jpg
Further news:
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/349288/israel-railways-can-proceed-with-shabbat-repair-work-israel-s-supreme-court/
daveklepper Thanks for the explanation. But was that the only incident? What about curing the sick? I do not have "New Testament" handy to check on these matters at the present time, and perhaps you do. Note that in both cases, I did have an "If." I confess that I have not studied a "New Testament" for over 20 years, and my comments are mostly based on some comments by Jerusalem "Christians."
Thanks for the explanation. But was that the only incident?
What about curing the sick? I do not have "New Testament" handy to check on these matters at the present time, and perhaps you do.
Note that in both cases, I did have an "If." I confess that I have not studied a "New Testament" for over 20 years, and my comments are mostly based on some comments by Jerusalem "Christians."
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.