Dear Yuyutsu,

Democracy is more than the rule of the majority. Democracy is government under law which requires that the rights of all citizens be observed. This is incompatible with either favouring or restricting a particular belief system. Apparently that is not the way you understand democracy.

Dear David F.

I appreciate the good intentions of the Australian constitution.

I do suggest that violations of section 116 are not incidental, that it is indeed very difficult for anyone to keep such neutrality and translate it into practical terms making everyone happy. This is not out of bad intention, but a reality of life.

The majority of Australians, for being Christians to one degree or another, want their public holidays to include Christmas and Easter and the state supports their wish. However, if every religion and sect was catered for, we would have a public holiday every day, all year round!

Because the Jewish morning prayer takes at least one hour (longer on Mondays, Thursdays, Sabbaths, new moons and holidays), and cannot be started before there is sufficient natural light, while the afternoon prayer is relatively short, Israel takes this into account when designing its daylight-saving schedule. Now suppose another religion had its longest prayer in the afternoon which must be completed before sunset, and suppose they were a majority in some country, then that country would have naturally set its daylight-saving schedule the opposite way.

It's nice to know that Australian Jews can be elected to parliament, but what would they do when parliament sits late on Fridays, or even on Saturday when urgent? Also, what should they do when Jewish law forbids them to attend the "Our Father" prayer at beginning of parliament sittings (which I'm sure is not ill-intentioned)?

These are just three examples, there are endless more. The best way is therefore to break down countries into smaller units to suit the different wishes (religious or otherwise) of different groups.

(the only limiting factor when dividing up countries is the ability to maintain internal and external security, but this goes well beyond the scope of this topic)

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "
These are just three examples, there are endless more. The best way is therefore to break down countries into smaller units to suit the different wishes (religious or otherwise) of different groups."

I think the above is a rotten way. I think it is better for people to live together, work together and accept our differences. I think it is better to have adequately funded public schools for children to grow together, learn together and live together in society.

I object to ethnic nationalism or self-determination where some ethnic or religious group controls the country, and those who don't belong to that group and live in the country are second-class citizens.

I think we can live together in peace and friendship as equals with those of different ethnicities and religions.

The United States has elected a dark skinned president with a Muslim father in a country where black people are only 18% of the population. He is running for re-election against a Mormon whose religion is that of only 2% of the population. If the US were divided into Mormon enclaves, black enclaves, Indian enclaves etc. it would not be the great nation that it is.

Many in this world live in peace with people of other cultures. That is called multiculturalism, and I think it is a great idea.

Dear David F.,

No dispute that multiculturalism is better than ethnic control and that self-determination must not come at the expense of other groups.

But I go a step further:

You stated about the US, that had it been divided, "it would not be the great nation that it is".

Well, as a side remark, I don't consider the US to be a great nation. It has for example the highest rate of incarceration in the world and it exports much junk culture and products to the rest of the world... back to the topic:

I have no interest in being a great nation. While you reject ethnic nationalism, I reject all nationalism. I see no point in it and I believe that we have better ways to spend our limited time on earth than to merge into such large-scale blobs.

What I do support, is that groups of people who for whatever reason, religion included but not exclusively, want to live together in an environment that supports their unique lifestyle and makes them happier, should be able to do so [PEACEFULLY!] and carve their own independent state on some small patch of this earth (obviously that patch must belong to them, I'm not talking about stealing other people's land).

There is no justifiable reason why one must adept and suffer living under a culture that doesn't suit them. Those who want to live together and work together may of course do so, and yes, it is good for people to accept their differences, but accepting differences doesn't mean that one must also live with those differences everyday and thus compromise their own values.

In my previous example, if a group of people need to pray for an hour each morning, they should be able to live in a place where daylight-saving-time is adjusted to their need, where they do not need to hurry on dark cold mornings to try squeezing their prayer before running without breakfast to [public-]school.

Dear Prompete,

You seem to completely underplay the intentions of the Israeli government. Your statement “The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine.” can be easily replaced with 'The Israeli government promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will completely erase and replace any notion of a separate State of Palestine.'

It is the reality on the ground that should determine which view holds the most weight, Mr Singer's or the writers his disparages, and it is evident to all but the most grievously afflicted that the cancer eating so effectively at any chance of a meaningful settlement is the continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These are in direct violation of international law and their displacement of Palestinians lays bare the absurdity of the assertion that what is in place is not an occupation in every sense of the word.

Your post turns victim into perpetrator. It flies in the face of the obvious. While perhaps there may be some degree of forgiveness, based on his heritage, we should afford Mr Singer for the poison he puts out on a weekly basis, I find it hard to make any similar concession for your approach which tries to equally apportion blame for stalled negotiations.

As I have no reason to believe that you are anything but a fair minded person could I invite you to look past Mr Singer's offerings and accept, as the rest of the world now does, that Israel's ambition and intransigence are by far the biggest impediment to any just resolution between the parties.

David Singer seems to have such a strong and impenetrable mental state. Perhaps that is the type of mental state that has derailed any peace initiative that required the Israeli politicians to engage with the history and reason that the outside world offers.