Contrasting Norway and Israel

[Mycroft]

I'm starting a new thread with this because it's really a different topic. Serious allegations are made against an entire nation, and yet in my judgement they seem to be without foundation, or a very week foundation at best.

In Israel there are Jewish citizens and non-Jewish citizens. There are 2 classes of citizenship. I number them 1 and 2 for convenience. The Israeli government insists on knowing if its citizens are jewish or not so it knows which laws to apply to them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46919

In that thread I learned that Norway is officially a Christian nation and they teach "Christian values" to their kids in preschool.

"In Norway we have no seperation of church and state. Along with a state church, we also have a clause in our school laws called the 'Christian Values Clause', that states that all schools and kindergartens must teach Christian values."

Later on Roykan says Norway is a Christian nation by definition.

From the CIA Factbook, I learn that Norway is 90% Christian, with 85% belonging to the Church of Norway, and others belonging to other Christian churches. This makes Norway more Christian than Israel is Jewish.

In the homeland of a single religion, People of other religions are second class citizens. You may decide this is not a big issue but lets not try to make it go away...You may even believe that there is no advantage or disadvantage in Israel to being in one citizenship class or another if you wish.

I’d say this is an assertion without evidence. Are the 10% in Norway second class citizens? They may very well be, I don’t know that much about Norway, but I would never say they were without specific evidence, nor would I assume that the problem, if there was one, couldn’t be fixed without altering the Christian nature of Norway.

Different laws or application of laws differently to people of different religions is repugnant to me and illegal in the country I live in. I understand it is illegal in the USA too?...But I understand many people support the principle...or don't support the principle but support people who do anyway.

And yet in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46737

it’s demonstrated that laws applying differently to people of different religions in your country isn’t so illegal as you might think, and far from inspiring “repugnance” it seems to inspire denial instead. Further, while you can now say definitively how laws might be applied differently to people of different religions in your country, I strongly doubt you would be able to say the same for Israel. Again, your assertion is without evidence.

I think it must be a middle east thing because there are so many nations there that do this....constantly stressing out about what particular supernatural being its citizens pester.

The evidence now shows it to be a European thing too.

 

[Cleon]

I’d say this [that Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens - Cleon] is an assertion without evidence.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801088.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arab#Discrimination
http://www.arabhra.org/factsheets/factsheet1.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66601

Discrimination against Israeli Arabs is extremely well-documented and commonplace, by everyone from Israeli Arab NGOs to the US State Department (that bastion of anti-Israeli activity).

Any claim that it's "without evidence" is either grossly misinformed or willfully oblivious.

 

[demon]

Cleon:
" Any claim that it's "without evidence" is either grossly misinformed or willfully oblivious."

Well put, but it is Mycroft we are talking about here, afterall. Both conditions would seem to apply.

 

[Mycroft]

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801088.html

Good God, Cleon. Quoting Israel Shahak in the WRMEA is like quoting David Irving In the IHR or Bradley Smith on CODOH. What is the matter with you?

I'll look at your other sources later.

 

[Cleon]

Good God, Cleon. Quoting Israel Shahak in the WRMEA is like quoting David Irving In the IHR or Bradley Smith on CODOH. What is the matter with you?

And thus you have your "out."

*sigh*

 

[Mycroft]

And thus you have your "out."

*sigh*

Don't you discriminate at all in your sources? Are you really willing to use anything that bashes Israel, no matter how biased and inflammatory?

WRMEA?! They're worse than Electronic Intifada.

 

[Cleon]

Don't you discriminate at all in your sources? Are you really willing to use anything that bashes Israel, no matter how biased and inflammatory?

WRMEA?! They're worse than Electronic Intifada.

I notice no contesting of facts going on...I suppose I can then assume that you agree, there is widespread discrimination against Arabs in Israel?

 

[Mycroft]

I notice no contesting of facts going on...I suppose I can then assume that you agree, there is widespread discrimination against Arabs in Israel?

I said I would get to your other sources later, and that's what I meant.

I take this as a refusal to comment on your choice of sources? I notice, for example, the Wikipedia article also has a big NPOV flag on it too.

Wouldn't you agree that a part of skepticism is relying on dependable sources while eschewing polemic biased sources?

 

[Cleon]

I take this as a refusal to comment on your choice of sources? I notice, for example, the Wikipedia article also has a big NPOV flag on it too.

...And I take this as a simple dodge to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and that Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens.

Dip and dodge all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Mycroft]

...And I take this as a simple dodge to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and that Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens.

Dip and dodge all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

So when I write, "I will get to those sources later." does your vision blur and you suddenly become unable to read? That's a commitment to review your evidence and respond to it, just not at this exact moment. If a day or a week goes by and I still haven't responded, then you have a right to say I'm dodging.

The one who is dodging, however, is you. I'm not going to respond to anything that comes from Israel Shahek and/or WRMEA, and I'm just a bit nauseous that you thought it suitable to bring up. The Wikipedia article will get a low priority.

Right now I’m looking through your Arab Association for Human Rights link, and will get back to you when I’m done with it.

 

[Cleon]

The one who is dodging, however, is you.

 

[CFLarsen]

So when I write, "I will get to those sources later." does your vision blur and you suddenly become unable to read? That's a commitment to review your evidence and respond to it, just not at this exact moment. If a day or a week goes by and I still haven't responded, then you have a right to say I'm dodging.

The one who is dodging, however, is you. I'm not going to respond to anything that comes from Israel Shahek and/or WRMEA, and I'm just a bit nauseous that you thought it suitable to bring up. The Wikipedia article will get a low priority.

Right now I’m looking through your Arab Association for Human Rights link, and will get back to you when I’m done with it.

Stop posting and read the goddamn sources.

 

[Mycroft]

Stop posting and read the goddamn sources.

I'm actually pretty good at multi-tasking, thank you. I'm usually doing something else in addition to posting here while I'm on the forums.

Incidentally, I was thinking of you while reading Cleon's replies. He seems to have adopted your favorite tactic:

1) Ignore anything you don't like, pretend it was never said.

2) Keep repeating your own point again and again, no matter how trivial or unimportant.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm actually pretty good at multi-tasking, thank you. I'm usually doing something else in addition to posting here while I'm on the forums.

Incidentally, I was thinking of you while reading Cleon's replies. He seems to have adopted your favorite tactic:

1) Ignore anything you don't like, pretend it was never said.

2) Keep repeating your own point again and again, no matter how trivial or unimportant.

Have you read the links yet?

 

[Cleon]

I'm actually pretty good at multi-tasking, thank you. I'm usually doing something else in addition to posting here while I'm on the forums.

Incidentally, I was thinking of you while reading Cleon's replies. He seems to have adopted your favorite tactic:

1) Ignore anything you don't like, pretend it was never said.

And STILL, no response to the documented fact of widespread discrimination against Israeli Arabs.

2) Keep repeating your own point again and again, no matter how trivial or unimportant.

Trivial or unimportant? Have you read your own opening post? It's a central tenet of your "Israel vs. Norway" bit.

 

[Mycroft]

Have you read the links yet?

See? I said this was a Larsen tactic, keep focusing on minor, irrelevant, trivial points. This question has already been answered in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1259259

And in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1259304#post1259304

You too, Cleon. It will take me a little while to finish my commentary on your HRA source. While we're waiting, care to comment on your choice of sources?

No? I thought not.

 

[Cleon]

Tell you what, Mycroft...When you decide to be big enough to admit error, get back to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

And yet, you have no problems referring to Wikipedia here:

From Wikipedia .

So can I start killing Mexicans now?

This is your interpretation of historical events, and I'm afraid it has no factual basis but is merely made up to conform to your prejudices. To illustrate, I'll show you some selected quotes from this Wikipedia article.

Hypocrite.

 

[webfusion]

No error

Discrimination against Israeli Arabs is extremely well-documented and commonplace

A Myth. There is no discrimination based in law, and in the day-to-day lives of Israeli Arabs, they face no threats and no restrictions because of their identity cards not saying "yehudi" (jew).

• In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled that the government cannot allocate land based on religion or ethnicity, and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose.
  Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel.
  The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This is to spare Arab citizens any need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, Bedouins have served in paratroop units and other Arabs have volunteered for military duty. Compulsory military service is applied to the Druze and Circassian communities at their own request.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html

It should surprise nobody that Israel has not solved all of its social problems in only 57 years, under the tremendously adverse (cultural-political) conditions of a nation at continual war with Arabs.

 

[Mycroft]

And yet, you have no problems referring to Wikipedia here:

Hypocrite.

I actually like Wikipedia as a source, but using it reliably depends on understanding what it is and how it's created. When an article starts out with

along with a warning about Neutral Point of View, it's right to take the information with a grain of salt, and to verify it with another source before accepting it. I believe you will find that the Wikipedia articles I cite do not have that warning on them.

So, are you satisfied on this hypocrisy issue? Or will you continue to raise this as though I hadn't said anything?


Edited to add: Larson, do you realize that in your entire participation in this thread, you have not raised a single factual issue, but have debated entirely on attacking me personally?