The bill is anti-semitic.
True.
This bill is not only anti-semitic (because it isolates and separates Jewish Americans from every other American and establishes a different set of rules for Jewish Americans, thereby casting Jewish Americans as not really American), but it is also blatantly unconstitutional (because it violates the 14th amendment that requires "equal protection under the laws").
By targeting and isolating Jewish Americans, the bill is viciously Anti-Semitic, and simultaneously viciously attacks the 14th amendment.
Who are the psychopaths who really wrote this bill?
Haha now praying is sleeping.
jpost.com is encouraging and enflaming dangerous anti-semitism by deflecting from the fact that Soros is funding the anti-Israel protests and onto random social media posts.
By deflecting away from the cause, jpost.com is furthering anti-semitism.
Why would they do that?
Are they too trying to profit off of jew hatred worldwide, so that they can "report" on it and get more clicks?
Shame!
Anon remembers when Bibi called out the "Satan worshiping people".
If he did so again, and again, THAT would guarantee Jews and Gentiles would unite and there would no longer be such importance on who is Jew or who is Gentile.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
Hey look it's an insurrectionist Pedo supporter!
That is meant for everyone.
Q did say it was going to be biblical.
It's not Anon's fault that the war is spiritual. The spiritual war came to Anons.
Technically it is true, Jews did not kill the Jew Jesus.
Jewish priests had Him kidnapped and brought Him to a Roman Pontius Pilate and asked He be killed, and Pontius Pilate thereafter ordered Jesus' crucifixion.
The Roman state killed Jesus.
Claims that the Bible is 'anti-semitic' is itself anti-semitic and anti-Christian.
"It's going to be biblical" obviously means the religions of Judaism (aka Old Testament, aka Torah) and Christianity (aka New Testament) are central to the story.
"disinformation is necessary" doesn't mean you can interpret the drops any way your little heart pleases. There is always a definite meaning or set of multiple meanings to every drop, they can't just mean anything and everything.
We don't have to conclude which religion is correct.
It's enough to resolve an inconsistency in a system.
Good question.
It's deep and Anon cannot give definitive answer. One view is that what happened had to have happened and no other way, another view is multiple timeline possibities.
Since Jesus was a 'threat' to the entire Roman Empire and the entire Jewish "elite" establishment, maybe it could have gone either way.
If the story was instead that Jesus was kidnapped by Roman soldiers and they asked Pilate to order His execution, would we all be here blaming Romans and would we all be witnessing "anti-Romanism" and stupid laws passed to make sure everyone doesn't use the word 'mafia' or whatever. Anon has no idea.
But that's just it, Anon rejects the view that religion inherently divides, because it really does unite large groups of people who would otherwise be separated/divided ideologically or by praxis.
But yes, it can also be used to divide people, when it's weaponized AFTER the view of humanity already being divided, and religion is used to justify that.
Religion is information.
Information can be used to unite or divide people.
IMHO, there is more evidence for an intelligent creator than none at all. The "fine tuning" argument is definitive IMHO. If ANY of the many many physical constants were just one millionth different, there would only be a plasma of chaotic energy and no matter and no consciousness anywhere in the universe. To attribute this to chance would be like watching a safe cracker correctly guess the most complex code ever on their first try, and then asking was that chance or did the safe cracker KNOW the code beforehand?
The view that the universe just came into being out of nothing, that is in this Anon's view the most ridiculous far fetched crazy faith ever in history.
The person that poisoned the drink.
But like the other anon said, we're dealing with a sick cult who justify their evil with the notion that the victims deserved it because if they didn't then they would have stopped it from happening, but they didn't stop it from happening so all the pedophilia and torture and murder and blackmail and death and destruction, it's a Hegelian "what is real is rational and what is rational is real" sociopathology.
The idea of a creator of the universe unites all religious views. Even polytheistic religions, their stories contain an ancestral lineage that unites all the 'many Gods' as offspring of ultimately one ultimate being.
Yes agreed all religions do claim that "theirs" is the only path possible. But to Anon this is an implementation detail, not disproof of an intelligent creator.
Perhaps the pattern of many religions is another symptom that arose because of a long practised Earthly ritual of the same pattern of division we see in 2024 with racial and gender division narratives.
That this pattern goes back further and humanity fell asleep longer into the past than most realize?
The same way Anon will not divide self from others based on race or sex or political affiliation, so too does Anon divide self from anyone else based on religion as well.
As long as a person has a true north, where they're trying to get to the truth in an honest peaceful way, then that's enough for me. We may not agree on everything, but it would be a horror of all horrors to wake up in the morning and realize everyone in the world is a carbon copy of me with identical views. Anon needs the complexity of views to be happy.
Well sure, an analogue would be this: Take the Principia Mathematica. Now if ALL a person read was that book, and viewed the entirety of reality only through that book, and insisted that everyone else only view reality through that book, and tries to pass laws mandating its inclusion in every school, then that would be an intolerable madness that would wreak havoc in people's lives.
But even so, that does not in any way reveal or prove that the fault is the book, or that the cause of division in human life is mathematics, or anything else done "in its name".
Same thing with the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Qu'ran.
A person can find great teachings, for me it's mostly moral teachings, in such texts, and there are millions and millions and millions, billions, of PEACEFUL people who follow the teachings in these texts.
The question Anon asks is, does religion NECESSARILY end or result in conflict and division. Anon says no, not necessarily.
Yes, what you're describing would be true for any and all ideas, not just religion.
The fact that humans have been asking these same patterns of questions for literally thousands of years to this anon reveals a fact of human reality, that we cannot help but ponder our own existence and how we got here.
If you'll excuse me if you'll pardon me, but every instance of Atheism when it becomes "Official State Orthodoxy(tm)" and its rulers use it to control the masses, that has resulted in the largest genocides ever in human history. The USSR was officially atheist, Mao's China was officially atheist, they crushed and killed more human beings than any other state in history. They crushed religious institutions and abolished it from children's upbringing and killed the more "belligerent" religious voices who saw the evil and called it out.
So to be completely consistent here, it is true that BOTH religion AND anti-religion, have been and are used to commit barbarism.
Don't get too high on that "I am too cool for God faith" horse there anon, for then you'll go towards the other extreme path that ALSO has been weaponized to kill and destroy.
Maybe the problem isn't religion vs atheism, but extremism and dogmatism and refusal to use logic or evidence.
Religion is only divisive if a person weaponizes it to divide people.
It's not inherently divisive.
If you really believe otherwise, then to this anon you would be introducing your own form of division given that there are people who are religious and see every human being as none above another, all God's creation.
Writing this with not only a straight face, but imagining you may be having difficulty doing the same with what you're saying.
>Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Poor George, he didn't realize that that statement is itself absolutist and therefore "Sith" by its own logic.