Official antisemitism label

[Commencement2020]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-pompeo-labels-bds-movement-anti-semitic/

"bar any groups that participate in it from receiving government funding"

Would that mean most mainline church bodies, including the ELCA? And their congregations? Could this impact Lutheran Social Services, the universities, the nursing homes?

Or maybe this won't really get implemented, or only very narrowly. Some reports indicate it concerns only funding directly from the State Department itself. Or it all gets overturned following the next inauguration.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Perhaps in response, as President, Biden could call Trump's withdrawing financial support for Palestinians as a hate crime.

[Charles Austin]

It was written:
Or it all gets overturned following the next inauguration.

I comment:
Probably, but too complicated to dissect with information currently at hand. Pompeo had no business going to the settlements in the last weeks of his time as Secretary of State.
Consider it just another vengeful poke in the eye by the soon-to-be ex-president and his minions in their efforts to make things tough for the man and woman who defeated him.

[Julio]

Perhaps in response, as President, Biden could call Trump's withdrawing financial support for Palestinians as a hate crime.

Do you really think believe that any position contrary to your point of view to be a hate crime? 

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

[John_Hannah]

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

A really pertinent question, indeed.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Perhaps in response, as President, Biden could call Trump's withdrawing financial support for Palestinians as a hate crime.

Do you really think believe that any position contrary to your point of view to be a hate crime? 

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. An opinion based on lies is not a valid opinion.


Taking actions that are detrimental to a group because of their race or religion or gender might fall under hate crime.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

A really pertinent question, indeed.

It's a misguided question. Tolerating opinions other than my own makes my own opinions worthless. We should disagree with opposing opinions. We need to tolerate, even love the people who hold those contrary opinions. When those opinions are based on lies and untruths, we are to "speak the truth in love" to them. The opinions are not as important as the person, whom Jesus died for; nor the facts and arguments used to reach that opinion.


I was in a discussion with a man who stated that I couldn't be correctly understanding his argument, because if I did, I would have to agree with him. He believed that his reasoning was so sound that if anyone followed it, they'd have to end up at the same place he did. I told him what I believed his argument was. He agreed that I understood it. I still didn't agree with his conclusion.


It behooves us to try and understand where opposing opinions come from - the reasons people have for holding those opinions; but that doesn't mean that we will agree with them. It also behooves us to refrain from turning opponents into enemies.

[Julio]

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

A really pertinent question, indeed.

It's a misguided question. Tolerating opinions other than my own makes my own opinions worthless. We should disagree with opposing opinions. We need to tolerate, even love the people who hold those contrary opinions. When those opinions are based on lies and untruths, we are to "speak the truth in love" to them. The opinions are not as important as the person, whom Jesus died for; nor the facts and arguments used to reach that opinion.

I was in a discussion with a man who stated that I couldn't be correctly understanding his argument, because if I did, I would have to agree with him. He believed that his reasoning was so sound that if anyone followed it, they'd have to end up at the same place he did. I told him what I believed his argument was. He agreed that I understood it. I still didn't agree with his conclusion.

It behooves us to try and understand where opposing opinions come from - the reasons people have for holding those opinions; but that doesn't mean that we will agree with them. It also behooves us to refrain from turning opponents into enemies.

Perhaps if not tolerate ... then respect others opinions ... at least enough that the incessant name calling and personal attack language cease. On the now locked thread, efforts were made to associate criminal activity with supporters of one's opponent. 

Healthy dialogue is good .. although after reading many of the legacy threads that are 10+ years old, it is apparent that few if any opinions and/or beliefs have changed in the last decade plus of forum life.

Apparently the majority of us are well entrenched in our beliefs👀😷.

[Charles Austin]

Every opinion, like the opinion that the Democrats are being run by a cabal of child-abusing pornographers, that the Clintons killed an associate, that Republican state officials were involved in a conspiracy to steal the election, that millions of votes filed in certain machines were flipped to Biden or that fossils were "planted" in rocks by God to test our faith does not deserve respect.

[peter_speckhard]

Every opinion, like the opinion that the Democrats are being run by a cabal of child-abusing pornographers, that the Clintons killed an associate, that Republican state officials were involved in a conspiracy to steal the election, that millions of votes filed in certain machines were flipped to Biden or that fossils were "planted" in rocks by God to test our faith does not deserve respect.

That other tread was closed for a reason. Don't bring it over here.

That the utterly unique position of the state of Israel should be one in which there is broad disagreement ought to surprise nobody. When people call a particular, mainstream policy on Israel and the Palestinians a hate crime without any evidence that the people taking that stance have any hatred toward either group, all they do is define hate crime downward such that pretty soon people will stop caring whether anyone thinks they're guilty of a hate crime.

Frankly, I think "hate crime" is a dumb category. Laws should criminalize intent, not motive. People's motives are their own business. 

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/24/guilt_without_vice_innocence_without_virtue_650810.html

This article, while precisely on topic, gives a good overview of the competing worldviews that often make an appearance in discussion of majority/minority, powerful/oppressed, and identity politics generally.

[Randy Bosch]

https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/24/guilt_without_vice_innocence_without_virtue_650810.html

This article, while precisely on topic, gives a good overview of the competing worldviews that often make an appearance in discussion of majority/minority, powerful/oppressed, and identity politics generally.

A thought provoking review of a book that I have put on my wish list.  Thank you.

[George Rahn]

Where is your tolerance for opinions other than your own?

A really pertinent question, indeed.

It's a misguided question. Tolerating opinions other than my own makes my own opinions worthless. We should disagree with opposing opinions. We need to tolerate, even love the people who hold those contrary opinions. When those opinions are based on lies and untruths, we are to "speak the truth in love" to them. The opinions are not as important as the person, whom Jesus died for; nor the facts and arguments used to reach that opinion.


I was in a discussion with a man who stated that I couldn't be correctly understanding his argument, because if I did, I would have to agree with him. He believed that his reasoning was so sound that if anyone followed it, they'd have to end up at the same place he did. I told him what I believed his argument was. He agreed that I understood it. I still didn't agree with his conclusion.


It behooves us to try and understand where opposing opinions come from - the reasons people have for holding those opinions; but that doesn't mean that we will agree with them. It also behooves us to refrain from turning opponents into enemies.

Pr. Stoffregen:  "Tolerating opinions other than my own makes my own opinions worthless."

I say:  This need not be.  Your opinion is your own.  I tolerate that.  I know my opinion is my own and equally as valid as yours.  Opinions are never worthless by any account.  They do not stand before God however in His final court.  But before the "court" of your own fellow human being your opinion is just as worthy as valid as anyone elses.

Technically legal opinions were/are necessary in litigation process.  Opinions give credence to valid and invalid points of view sort of like the peer group in scientific fields.  Opinions do not make the judgment of the court but only inform the court so as for the judge or jury to render the final verdict.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pr. Stoffregen:  "Tolerating opinions other than my own makes my own opinions worthless."

I say:  This need not be.  Your opinion is your own.  I tolerate that.  I know my opinion is my own and equally as valid as yours.  Opinions are never worthless by any account.  They do not stand before God however in His final court.  But before the "court" of your own fellow human being your opinion is just as worthy as valid as anyone elses.

Technically legal opinions were/are necessary in litigation process.  Opinions give credence to valid and invalid points of view sort of like the peer group in scientific fields.  Opinions do not make the judgment of the court but only inform the court so as for the judge or jury to render the final verdict.

To tolerate means: "to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference"


When tolerances means: "You cam believe whatever you want and I won't say anything about it, because that would be interfering," it makes my opinions worthless. Or rendered insignificant if I'm not willing to defend them.


We have had many discussions over the years - some even face-to-face. Respectfully disagreeing is not the same thing is tolerating. For a number of years I disagreed with some relatives who didn't believe in infant baptism. Eventually, they came to understand God's grace in a way that support infant baptism. A granddaughter was baptized as an infant. If I had not interfered, i.e., speaking the truth (as I, and my church see it,) in love. They would probably never have come to this more gracious understanding of God. We still disagree about many things - and continue to share meals together as one family.

[Julio]

When tolerances means: "You cam believe whatever you want and I won't say anything about it, because that would be interfering," it makes my opinions worthless. Or rendered insignificant if I'm not willing to defend them.

I don't believe that any one is expecting anyone not to express or espouse their sincerely held opinions.  The issue at hand is respectful disagreeing without being disagreeable.

When disagreeing results in describing those disagreeing with one party as 'dunder-head', stupid, dumb, a fool (the Bible speaks to this one), 'sniffing dimwit dust' and worse disagreeing becomes intolerance, personal assault/attack or simple name calling.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion ... but not to belie, betray, slander or defame those with whom they disagree with.