In Israel marriage between people of different religions is discouraged. Marriages must be approved by members of clergy, and clergy are generally reluctant to marry people of different religions. There is no civil marriage in Israel although marriages contracted outside Israel are recognized in Israel. Recognition of same sex marriages is problematic in Israel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel

Australia has civil marriage people who wish to get married can get married regardless of their religion or lack of it or whether they are of the same or opposite sexes.

I think the situation in Australia is democratic and fair. Clergy having a say in marriage serves to keep people of different religious backgrounds apart. In Israel not only does it keep Jews and Muslims apart it separates Jews of different religious denominations. In fact marriages performed by rabbis of Jewish denominations not approved by the state subjects those getting married to legal penalties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel

“It remains a criminal offense for Jews in Israel to marry in weddings performed outside the state’s religious authority, and doing so can result in a jail sentence of up to two years. Hiddush (https://www.bing.com/search?q=hiddush&FORM=HDRSC1) ranked Israel as the only Western democracy that is on a par with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states in relation to freedom of marriage.”

Without freedom of marriage can Israel be considered a western democracy

Dear David,

Israel is a Jewish state so of course it's
to be expected that adherence to Jewish Law
will be the norm for marriages. It follows that
marriages can be performed only under the auspices
of the religious community to which couples belong
and the marriages in each community are under the
jurisdiction of their own religious authorities.

The Israeli Interior Ministry registers marriages in
presentation of proper documentation.

Inter-faith couples can be legally married in Israel
if one of the partners converts to the religion of the
other. Also civil and interfaith and same sex marriages
entered into abroad are recognised by the state.

It all seems fair.

Dear Foxy,

I feel that Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Marxist and Muslim states are by their nature unfair. A nation to my mind to be fair should be a nation which does not represent any religious belief or any lack of such belief.

You wrote: "Inter-faith couples can be legally married in Israel
if one of the partners converts to the religion of the
other."

If one of the partners converts they are no longer an inter-faith couple. Inter-faith couples cannot be legally married in Israel.

cont'd ...

Dear David,

You asked "Can Israel be considered a Western
Democracy?"

Israel is a "Religious" Western Democracy.
And to understand Israel and its complexities
the following link explains:

http://www.link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137465306_4

There are few Western-style democracies where religion is
more entangled with government and society, domestic politics
as well as foreign affairs than the state of Israel.

There is no separation of synagogue and state

Foxy,

Israel is the world's only Jewish nation-state and as far as I am aware there is no constitutional separation of State and religion.

This has been wrought out of the Jewish experience and consolidation of a people that was forced to wander the world for two thousand years enduring pogrom after pogrom wherever they tried to settle because they were excluded from full participation in the societies they tried to settle in.

Their history dictates that Israel should be a Jewish nation-state with all that that entails as well as the fact that the political use of Judaism in the organisation of the nation-state provides a citizenry that shares a common cause to defend the State against the Arab world that is based on religious justification.

Also if you are talking about marriage it can become extremely complex because you open up a whole box anthropological and sociological questions and theories about marriage and kinship that one cannot understand unless one is an anthropologist or sociologist. So I suggest you and david f don't go down that road.

Dear Foxy,

I couldn't access your link.

We Jews have been persecuted in many countries because we did not identify with the religious or ethnic paradigm on which the state was based. In the United States, Australia, France and countries with a similar system, although we may not be universally liked, we are not persecuted by the state, and the state regards our ethnicity and religion as none of its business. So what we do? We found a country in which we are the top dogs rather than Buddhists, Christians, Hindus or Muslims. We imitate the goyische countries that have persecuted us rather than those wonderful countries which regard the religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of its citizens as none of the government's business.

I support IRAC (The Israel Religious Action Center) which is the public and legal advocacy arm of the Reform Movement in Israel. IRAC advances pluralism in Israeli society and defends the freedoms of conscience, faith and religion.

www.irac.org

david f,

I think that like me you have always wanted to be a sociologist who is interested in everything that has happened since the Big Bang, having a desire to know everything about everything. You want to know the answers and are unhappy with half-truths.

Also, I now see where you get your humanistic approach from.

I don't agree with you on your pro-China stance but then there are a lot of people now who don't agree with you on that with the exception of FOULmouth, Andrew Forrest, Foxy, to name a few.

Dear David,

Here's the link again. Hopefully this time it will work:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137465306_4

Foxy,

I hope you're plagiarising (again).

Dear David,

Many argue that the separation of religion and
state is an essential element of democracy.
Others argue that religion is an essential element
of democracy's underpinnings. It's true that
democracies tend to have lower average levels of
government involvement in religion than do
non-democracies so I guess the question arises
regarding religion and democracies is - how much
and what type of control should democracies
tolerate?

Regarding how democratic is Israel?

The following link explains:

http://www.abc.net.au/2017-03-02/how-democratic-is-israel/837386

cont'd ...

Dear David,

Sorry for the typo. I'll try again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-22/how-democratic-is-israel/8373786

So what. Israel is able to make its own laws. Nobody outside the country is affected; nobody appears to have made a fuss of the law inside Israel. Get over it. None of your business.

I like David F's critical analysis here.

You could see separation of church and state as a philosophy like any other religious philosophy- with no particular superiority.

A peoples philosophy doesn't always have to be completely consistent- there is some asymmetry in this case as there are in all cases.

I agree with the Israel approach in this particular case. Every culture should have their own nation.

There are particular issues in Israel, Tibet, etc that complicate things. Perhaps the sacred sites around Jerusalem could become stateless museum zones and Israel moved a short distance to a less contested area.

Many problems would be reduced with less people in the world.

Should people have the right to diversity or should people have a right to stability and self determination.

It's all pretty arbitrary. This leads one to Existentialism and further to Nihilism.

Traditional values seem to be a good place to go back to. Village cultures are much simpler places.

Diversity and mass culture creates and breeds a lot of unnecessary complexity.

The Unabomber said that "technology creates slavery under the guise of freedom".

The technology of industrialism requires mass society

Dear David,

Israel does not claim or pretend to be a "western democracy", only a "democracy".

You can say many things against some Israeli laws, and I am also shuddered by that law which makes a religious ceremony (of marriage, by unauthorised people) a criminal offense. Nevertheless, not only is Israel a democracy, but its electoral system is far more democratic than the Australian. The laws which we both hate, were legislated democratically by the people's legitimate representatives.

It is also a criminal offense in Israel to expose a Jewish minor (under 18) to the New Testament. I presume that you would gladly approve that particular law.

The elephant in the room is, WHAT ANYWAY IS "MARRIAGE"?

It is easy for Australia to allow marriage between almost anyone and anything because "marriage" has been emptied of meaning over the decades and matters no longer. You want to say that you are "married"? Here, pay a small fee and we give you a paper to that effect. You no longer want to be considered "married"? no problem, pay another fee and we will give you another paper...

In Australia today, unmarried people can legally do everything that married people do and married people can do everything that unmarried people can. My suggestion is that the word "marriage" (and its grammatical derivatives) be erased from all legislation, that marriage/divorce should no longer be administered by the state and be left for the private discretion of anyone still interested.

P.S. Due to COVID-19, Israel's Knesset is now debating (currently in the committee stage) the recognition of marriages performed on the grounds of foreign embassies/consulates. This new law has good prospects to pass.

I have a right to object to the laws of Israel because Israel claims to speak for me even though I am neither a citizen nor a resident of Israel.

I oppose Self-determination. If a nation is formed on a particular religious or ethnic paradigm those who do not share that paradigm are in danger of becoming second class citizens, and I think nobody should be a second-class citizen.

I do not approve of laws making it a criminal offense to expose a minor to the New Testament. I approve of laws that require children to be taught critical thinking.

As long as there are no children marriage need not be the business of the state. However, children should be protected from parents, the state or any other menace.

Israel claims to be a democracy. I can claim to be a horse. Even if you believe my claim I am not a horse.

Yuyutsu,

You ask "What anyway is marriage?"

A: It's hell. Try it and find out for yourself.

Chuckle. chuckle, chuckle.

But on a serious note it is basically a socially recognized contract acknowledging sexual relations and the rights and duties accruing from procreation.

Civil marriage was introduced into Australia
in 1973.

Same Sex marriage in 2017.

Foxy,

Have you run across simpau marriage?

Liberal Democracy I guess is the "modern" form of democracy. Which has come to include separation of church and state.

Jordan Peterson says that all political systems create inequality.

Human's need values- values cause hierarchy- hierarchy creates inequality.

Who watches the watchers- how do you ensure that those that create the rules of virtue are virtuous. In traditional cultures there is a council of elders.

One measure of critical maturity is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in ones mind.

If there is a contradiction between Democracy and perceptions of good governance and Israel- is it Israel or the perceptions that are fallacious?

It's common to form a conclusion without doing analysis.

Some argue that democracy contains the seeds of it's own destruction- any stable system requires an ability to return to a stable state.

I believe that not having Self Determination will create great inequality.

Just because Israel says that they represent Hebrew culture (and you) doesn't mean that they do. Though they probably control many Hebrew historical treasures. You might argue that no government can represent the views of it's or any citizens. Or that it only should represent the views of it's own citizens. Maybe the US shouldn't be the world's police.

Do you think that judges are appropriate judges of the law? Should people agree with their decisions?

Governing is not deterministic but statistical.

I agree with Yuyutsu that marriage shouldn't be managed by the super-state- government should minimize it's interference in personal life.

Maybe the world has become to big too complex. This complexity creates it's own turbulence and poverty.

Confucius seems to model society on an army where families were analogous to self contained "identical" soldiers arranged hierarchically. It is possible to build flexibility into this system to balance freedom and stability.

Dear David,

Here's an opinion piece from The Jerusalem Post
by Moshe Dann, November 2019 on the general
question - "Is Israel a democracy":

http://www.jpost.com/opinion/is-israel-a-democracy-607359

Dear Foxy,

Recently, Likud, Netanyahu's party, and Blue and White, the main opposition reached a stalemate and considered what they called a government of National Unity. However, there was also another party, the Arab List, which contained mainly Arabs with a few Jewish voters. Neither Likud nor Blue and White invited members of the Arab List to join them. How can there be something that calls itself a government of national unity which shuts out a large percentage of the population? Israel can be a Jewish state or a democracy. It cannot be both. The Athenian democracy could shut out a large part of the population, woman, slaves and foreigners, and still be a democracy. A modern democracy cannot do that.

Dear David,

There will certainly be many more Jewish voters for the "United Arab List" next elections, which would make a good protest vote following the bitter betrayal of both "Blue and While" and "Labor" of their voters, joining Netanyahu for a slice of meat (under the pretext of COVID-19).

But beyond protesting, do you realise that half that "United Arab List" is communist and the other half would push for the imposition of Muslim Shariah law? Is this something you really want? With your views you would probably prefer to vote instead for "Meretz", a secular-leftist, pro-peace Jewish party that is not tainted with Islamic ideology.

"National Unity government" is of course a misnomer, an historical term that has nothing to do with unity or reality. Several Jewish parties were also left out. Most Israelis are left out, betrayed, which is also why they wouldn't cooperate with Netanyahu on fighting the Coronavirus.

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«But on a serious note it is basically a socially recognized contract acknowledging sexual relations and the rights and duties accruing from procreation.»

Surely we don't need to acknowledge sexual relations in the 21st century!

Procreation should be discouraged, not glorified. As for accruing rights and duties, they are, as should, the same anyway whether or not the parents are married.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I told you in another discussion I prefer not to interact with you. However, I think your information is wrong, and you don’t know what I want. I don’t think the Arab List is half communist and half supporters of Shariah from the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_List

"The list is ideologically diverse, and includes communists, socialists, feminists, Islamists, and Arab nationalists.[25][26][19] After having united parties with various political agendas, Odeh met with Jewish Hadash activists and former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg (who had endorsed Hadash), in an attempt to allay concerns that the new alliance would dilute the party's principles, such as gender equality."

As I have previously said I prefer not to interact with you. However, I question your accuracy. Although the Arab list contains communists and Arab nationalists I don’t believe it is half and half communists and Shariah supporters. Having made an inaccurate statement you then ask me if that’s what I want. Of course I don’t want it, but that is irrelevant. If you are for free speech and I am for free speech you respect the right of people to advocate what you may not want. I think generally you are wrong, and I don’t want a world filled with people who believe in superstitious nonsense. However, you have a right to express your superstitious nonsense and I wouldn’t want you banned from online opinion. Similarly communists and supporters of Shariah have a right to express their views.

Dear David,

You are correct about the communists and Islamists being less than half of the United Arab List, each. I apologise.

I agree that even communists and supporters of Shariah have a right to express their views. Nevertheless, Israel is still in a state of war and should the United Arab List take over, my family there would be slaughtered.

I actually favour them winning in protest against Netanyahu some 30% of the votes and being included in a coalition government, but not having enough to control Israel's security mechanisms.

Dear David,

It seems that democracy can thrive only when most
of several basic conditions have been met, from
advanced economic development,
restraints on government power, tolerance of dissent.
access to information, diffusion of power, freedom
of religion, freedom of speech and the press, freedom
to vote, guaranteed civil rights and liberties, and so on.

There are few Western-style democracies where religion is
more entangled than with Israel. But to fully understand
the complexities of the country I think one would have to
be more knowledgeable than I am.

That's why I tend to rely on credible sources and links which
I cite to give me a bigger picture.

Before we can criticize any country - we need to view things
through their lens. Is America such a perfect democracy?
Does religion not play any part? How many times have we heard
a US President refer to God in speeches? The same goes
for Australia, and the UK. (God save the Queen). Our
Parliamentarians taking their oath of office on the Bible?

It's more than a decade since there were any changes to Israeli marriage law. So why the sudden interest? Just a liverish lefty desperate to get some dirty water off his chest, I suspsect.

This group the "Joint List" according to the link provided appears to be a carefully cultivated communist group designed to change Israel to a more Locke Liberal nation. The communists appear to be nominally leftist Hasdash and Balad being Far-Left 5 MK's and Left 3 MK's (I'd call them both far-left one perhaps being Trotskist and the left-wing nationalists- being perhaps more Stalinist) giving 8 out of 13 Joint List members as members of the definitive left. This implies the possibility that the communists may control this group perhaps under the influence of a foreign power. However they were voted in by the electorate.

Remember both China and Russia are were both secular communist nations.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am sorry. I have let my abhorrence of your worldview translate to abhorrence of you as a person.

Yuyutsu,

Did you know that Sharia means 'the path to water'?

We came from water, we are about 60% water, and we cannot live without the stuff.

And the Arabs think so much of the stuff they constructed a system of social control with reference to it: If you stray from the path you will not be blessed by the giver of water.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

No, I was not aware of the meaning of "Shariah", so thank you very much for this teaching.

I am convinced that long ago, in the root of it, whoever coined the word was well-meaning with sincere spiritual intentions.

Alas, we cannot deny that the water of Islam was muddied since, which eventually happens to all good teachings under the great wheel of time. But I trust in the promise of Shri Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 4, verses 7-8:

"Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, O Arjuna, at that time I manifest myself on earth.
To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked, and to reestablish the principles of Dharma (supportive conduct), I appear on this earth, age after age."

Knowing your great concern about China, I have faith that this applies there too, that even if we cannot stop the Chinese atrocities ourselves, eventually the Lord Himself will be reborn on earth to save us and them. This doesn't mean that we should ignore the problem and make no efforts: we should make the effort and do our part as best we can, then God will do the rest.

All democratic systems have their foibles. That Israel is by miles the most democratic country in the middle east is beyond dispute.

Governments are voted in or out by the voters, and minority parties contribute noise not power similar to the extremist greens and one nation in Aus.

Dear shadowminister,

Minor parties can become parties of government. The Republican Party in the United States started out as the Ripon Anti-Slavery Society. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. At one time the Republican Party was considered extremist especially by those who wanted to preserve slavery. To me our environment should be our first consideration. If enough Australians agree with that the Greens will no longer be considered extremist or be a minor party.

David,

The greens used to be an environmental movement, today it is a collection of hacks with a series of feel-good wish lists masquerading as policies.

Shadow Minister,

I would not call Larissa Waters a hack. But certainly
there are some MPs on the Coalition's side that would
qualify. As for policies?

The following link is interesting to compare where
the parties stand on certain things:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/12/the-climate-change-election-where-do-the-parties-stand-on-the-environment

Dear Shadow minister,

Your remarks regarding minor parties are especially irrelevant in regard to Israel which this thread is about. Israel does not have two major parties like most of the English speaking countries.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21073450#:~:text=1%20LIKUD.%20Likud%20finished%20in%20second%20place%20in,6%20UNITED%20TORAH%20JUDAISM.%20...%207%20HADASH.%20

"There are 34 political parties running in the Israeli general election on 22 January for 120 seats in the Knesset or parliament."

One could apply the adjective, extremist, to either Libs or Labor. The Libs mainly represents the interests of the corporate bureaucracy which most Australians are not part of. Labor represents the interests of the union bureaucracy which most Australians are not part of.

However, I would not call Labor or Libs extremist because I recognise that many Australians identify with those parties, and I have no wish to denigrate them.

I am a Green, and I know that the people I encounter are mainly interested in the environment. People who get their information from the Murdoch press have opinions like you. You would be welcome to come to a Green meeting and find out what we are like first hand.

Israel is probably the most democratic in the region.
But there are major flaws regarding civil liberties
and rights especially for the Palestinian people.
However that is a problem that will undoubtedly
perplex them for some time - the same as the
problems involved with Australia's Indigenous people
will do the same.

On my wish-list is a visit to Israel. There's so
much there that I would like to visit. Hopefully
one day this will be possible for me.

Dear Foxy,

Israel is a marvellous country. It has fought off a coalition of Arab armies, produced a number of Nobel Prize winners, is more democratic than the surrounding countries and made the desert bloom. However, the tragedy is that it was all unnecessary.

Lord Balfour supported the Alien Exclusion Act which kept Jews fleeing czarist oppression out of England. Then he later declared the Balfour Declaration which designated a territory which at the time was part of another country and contained another people as a Jewish Homeland. If he had sympathy for oppressed Jews he would have welcomed those fleeing the Czar into England. Possibly he imagined that Jews would be so grateful to England that they would help guard the approaches to the Suez Canal.

The US did its part by the restrictive immigration act of 1924 which kept many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany out of the United States. The Evian Conference of 1938 continued the process:

https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Evian_conference.htm#:~:text=Evian%20Conference-%20Conference%20on%20Jewish%20%20refugees%20held,Geneva%2C%20since%20Switzerland%20declined%20to%20host%20the%20conference.

“The key issue, generally neglected in accounts of the conference, was greed. The Nazis would not allow Jews to take property out of Germany. The would-be host countries would not admit Jews who did not have any capital.”

Faced with this hostility Jews who could get to Israel made a new country. In many Christian countries Jews were second-class citizens. In Israel non-Jews are second-class citizens. In my opinion Israel in spirit is a goyische country imitating the countries where we were oppressed. However, this is natural. Why should Jews establish a country modeled on those that denied them refuge?

The tragedy is that it was all unnecessary.

Israel was one of the leading fools to sanction gay marriage. They have no credibility on this subject.

Dan

From memory the Zionist Israel plan was around before the Balfour Declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Zionism

Obviously there was a fear that without an alternative as in Greece today there was a risk that large numbers of Hebrew refugees would escape Russia and create ethnic conflict in Britain.

But the British were tapping into something that the Hebrew people themselves wanted.

The Hebrew situation can only be seen through the lense of history- the British role in it is relatively recent.

Dear Canem Malem,

The British role in Palestine goes back a long way.

Barbara Tuchman has written “Bible and Sword”. It recounts the long connection between Britain and Palestine.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/613788.Bible_and_Sword

"From Barbara W. Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of The Guns of August, comes history thru a wide-angle lens: a fascinating chronicle of Britain’s long relationship with Palestine & the Middle East, from the ancient world to the 20th century. Historically, the British were drawn to the Holy Land for two major reasons: first, to translate the Bible into English &, later, to control the road to India & access to Middle Eastern oil. With the lucid vividness that characterize all her work, Tuchman follows these twin spiritual & imperial motives—the Bible & the sword—to their seemingly inevitable endpoint, when Britain conquered Palestine at the conclusion of WWI. At that moment, in a gesture of significance & solemnity, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 established a British-sponsored mandate for a national home for the Jewish people."

You cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Zionism

“The central activity of these men was between the years 1860 to 1874, before the Zionist movement established practical (1881) and political Zionism (1896). It is for this reason that they are called precursors of Zionism, or proto-Zionists.”

However, before 1881 and 1896 a non-Jewish author wrote a Zionist novel for the non-Jewish English public. The English was already familiar with what would be later called Zionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Deronda

Daniel Deronda is a novel written by Mary Ann Evans under the pen name of George Eliot, first published in 1876. It was the last novel she completed and the only one set in the contemporary Victorian society of her day. The work's mixture of social satire and moral searching, along with its sympathetic rendering of Jewish proto-Zionist ideas, has made it the controversial final statement of one of the most renowned Victorian novelists.

David F said-

"Lord Balfour supported the Alien Exclusion Act which kept Jews fleeing czarist oppression out of England. Then he later declared the Balfour Declaration which designated a territory which at the time was part of another country and contained another people as a Jewish Homeland. If he had sympathy for oppressed Jews he would have welcomed those fleeing the Czar into England. Possibly he imagined that Jews would be so grateful to England that they would help guard the approaches to the Suez Canal.

The US did its part by the restrictive immigration act of 1924 which kept many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany out of the United States. The Evian Conference of 1938 continued the process:"

Answer-

England and the US can't solve all of the world's problems.
It is up to England and the US to decide whether they should accept refugees. Though the UN seeks to take away that power from nations.

The creation of Israel by the British seems to be a fairly humane solution to the long standing and difficult issue the so called "Jewish Question"- where Hebrew's formed sub-cultures within other cultures. Though not an expert this Jewish Question seems a result of the Siege of Jerusalem 70AD due to the Hebrew Roman disagreements.

No other country than England seems to have put up their hand to help.

The US and the UK at different times have helped the Hebrew people- that doesn't mean that this will always be the case.

Issues with Roman tax collectors sometimes led to war. The general policy of Rome was provincial self rule on payment of taxes. Judea apparently caused Rome a lot of trouble- they made them an example. There were many other cultures that were destroyed by Roman disagreements.

The Roman Pan-National influence was perhaps more contemporarily enlightened in a sense than the Chinese of the Warring States Period which amounted to mass slaughter of many cultures and their men, women, and children.

david f.

...* I am a Green, and I know that the people I encounter are “mainly“ interested in the environment...*

Your use of “ mainly” is comical.

Greens are the classic example in politics where wedges are driven deep at the point of divided opinion.

Every man and his dog wish for the preservation of their own environment, so why not a stampede towards the Greens Party?
Answer: Greens hidden political agendas!

As the same every man and his dog are acutely aware, Greens exhibit SFA concern in percentage terms of policy focus on environmental issues, which are usurped by Woke culture shift.

you totally ignored my comment above, on Israel’s stupid in falling over to Woke imperatives of Gay marriage, which was not considered important among the majority of gays themselves.

That’s the example of who are the Greens in reality.

Dan

Dear Diver Dan,

I completely ignored your comment on gay marriage because gay marriage is not an issue to me but merely a recognition that homosexuals can make the same level of commitment to each other that heterosexuals can. I don't see why anyone gets excited about that. However, it is also inaccurate. Israel only allows marriages in Israel which clergy will approve. It does not recognize same sex marriages made outside of Israel. However, I have now commented on your reference to same sex marriage.

My word, mainly, which you find comical recognises that the Greens like Libs, Labor and Nats are not a single issue party.

I don't know what a woke imperative is. Maybe I'll find out. Meanwhile, calm down.

David f

Your a typical Green.
My view is inferior, even though I’ve proved the point.

This is a thread about marriage is it not? So what’s your problem, and should I say then, somebody such as I, bring forward a counter intuitive view, you get on your high horses. So actually from my view, it’s you should calm down.

As a professed Green supporter, become all inclusive and display some evidence of equality in your views; but of course, that’s not the Green Woke way as it turns out.

But let’s keep to your thread of marriage, Israeli style.

Dan

Dear Diver Dan,

Thank you for calling me a typical Green. However, Greens have a great variety of people in the party so I may not be typical.

Your labelling your view as inferior is your label not mine. I would not be so unkind.

I don't know what the Green Woke way is.

You asked what my problem is. I don't think I mentioned any problem. What is your problem if you have one?

Calm down. I really don't know what you are on about, but you seem disturbed.

david f

If you wish to pretend the Greens are a collection of diverse people, you do that:
But I’m not fooled. It’s statistically proven, Greens cling to their divorced from nature existence, gathered around city centres primarily.

You can explain this away further by proffering as evidence otherwise, that Greens cluster in their concrete jungles, as a necessity of close location to their city jobs, but that simply belies the truth.

Greens are a predominance of school teachers, IT workers, Journalists and female university students, with a splattering of opportunist male university students following the girls, (and boys, since they exhibit an unbalanced high proportion of homosexuals).

So now onto the subject, Gay marriage and Israel.
It’s you raised the subject of marriage inside Israel remember, and when I continue on down this sad path of gay marriage, suddenly I’m bad in your eyes.

What my point highlights is the Jews are more religious when wishing to bale hay while the sun shines on victimhood.
A very small proportion of Israelis are actually more than nominally attached to their religion.
Israel is a very much so a secular society: Thus their early introduction of gay marriage.

So maybe you could polish up the point your attempting to make, introducing the Israeli foibles concerning intermarriage among themselves.

Dan

Dear diver dan,

I have noted your comments.

David f

And I’ve noted your wimping away from a legitimate discussion on your thread that you have terminated due to your own inability to cope with your own sensitivities, particularly on the subject of gay marriage and further, on the significance of it concerning Israels early acceptance of gay marriage. It is very telling about a not so hidden reality in the politics of Israel, and obviously you don’t want to discuss that very significant event.

I’ll say this In defence of Islamists, at least they stand firm for what they believe in, and remain united. That has and will continue to be their strength. Their faith in God and his teachings, and their view of it!

Now back to the stupid of Israel on marriage. You wimp on Dave, and I’m more than happy not to be part of your “Green” lie.

Dan

Diver Dan said-

I’ll say this In defence of Islamists, at least they stand firm for what they believe in, and remain united. That has and will continue to be their strength. Their faith in God and his teachings, and their view of it!

Answer- Good point. "Modern" Australia doesn't seem to stand for much.

Dear Canem Malem,

I don’t think it’s great that Islamists stand firm for what they believe in, and remain united. You may stand firm for what you believe in and believe in crap.

I think it’s wonderful that Australians have many different opinions and have the right to express them. People in the greatest tyranny may be united and stand firm for what they believe in. In a free society there are many opinions, many religions and many doubters. Freedom is chaotic and disunited. However, those devoted to that freedom can defeat the unity that exists with tyranny. I am happy to live in a society that respects doubt, questions authority and gives the mickey to those who tell us what we should believe. I prefer Australia to Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Nazis had Ein Volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer. We’re better than that.

Australia is a free society, and I love it.

David F- Thanks for your feedback.

Carl Jung believed that by understanding the different personality types humans could be better adjusted and balanced- both within and without. He believed that you couldn't understand what a healthy human being was from studying mental illness (like Freud).

“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Freud

“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.” – John Milton

Jung came up with his twelve archetypes which were apparently based on four key features- chaos vs order and individual vs social (as well as "strengths" and "weaknesses").

http://www.masterclass.com/articles/writing-101-the-12-literary-archetypes#whats-the-difference-between-archetypes-stereotypes-stock-characters-and-clichs

Based on Jung's view (though discredited by the big five character trait theory as I understand)- and others- I believe that society has become unbalanced, chaotic, individualistic, globalist, and hyper-dictatorial.

When we bring Saudi Arabia to Australia then the difference is moot.

Joseph Nye's "Soft Power" is interesting in this context- as well as the theories of neoliberalism and neorealism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

There are those that believe in the principles of "The Prince" and "engineered division as a tool of harmony- and power"- I believe these people are the enemies of the community.

The paradox is the ultimate freedom is a tyranny- there isn't an end point to the community- it just is. Locke should just leave us all alone. But the councils of community elders should still try and use their wisdom to create stability within their Traditional Community of Kinship. There are too many people- "but people should be free!"- yes this is the problem with Liberalism and Freedom- freedom requires discipline.

Dear Canem Malem,

I regard Jung’s archetypes as putting people in boxes. When one can classify another person as one of the archetypes one has put that person in a box equivalent to treating them as part of an ethnic stereotype. When we put a person in a box we may ignore those differences that don’t fit in a box.

When you say “He (Jung) believed that you couldn't understand what a healthy human being was from studying mental illness (like Freud).” you neglect the fact that Freud did not confine himself to studying mental illness.

In such works as “The psychopathology of Every Day Life” and “The Interpretation of Dreams” he dealt with mental states in the lives of people not suffering from mental illness.

In such works as “Totem and Totem” and “Moses and Monotheism” he dealt with the way ideas develop in society.

Ultimate freedom, either personal or societal, is undesirable. We have a lot of freedom in our posts. However, good manners require that we be respectful of the other person, avoid abuse and avoid sarcasm. I will try to observe good manners in my posts and terminate any interchange where a poster is not treating me with respect.

I am reading Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant explores the limits of reason and deals with God, immortality and freedom.

My opinion is that God is a human invention and https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 is my article about it. I never have believed in immortality and am thinking about freedom. What are its limits? What is its optimum?

Kant advocated treating every human being as an end in herself or himself and not as a means. That may be counter to Jung’s archetypes.

The concept of soft power is interesting. I feel Trump has greatly lessened US soft power by withdrawing from WHO, the Paris Emissions Agreement and JCPOA, not recognizing the Jurisdiction of ICC, increasing the military budget and decreasing the State Department budget.

In Davids view there is only one opinion - HIS!

I have relatives an Orthodox Jewish who's partners were chosen for them and they are most delightful family. Including a Rabbi whom had the choice of two to chose a wife.

Dear Josephus,

I hope your relatives have a happy married life. Certainly, other people have a right to have opinions that are different from mine. I object to people being kept in ignorance and not informed that there are other opinions. I have no objection to religious education if it is education and informs people about different beliefs and different practices. I object to religious indoctrination which keeps people in ignorance about other religions and science and may denigrate those who don't believe as they do.

Some people are quite happy to be in arranged marriages. My mother's parents had marriages arranged for them in Russia. However, they met each other, and those arranged marriages were left behind. They came to the United States, were married and had my mother and other children. I thought they were wonderful.