Oh right. That's practical, Roque. "If they just accept the two-state solution" there will be peace. Really? If horses grew wings they'd be able to fly. Right. So you expect the whole peace process to go through by relying on the Palestinians to unilaterally accept the "two-state solution" which just so happens to include a West Bank overrun with Israeli settlers. How does that work, exactly? That "acceptance" you speak of?

Okay, so apartheid doesn't apply because it's not part of Israel; but it's also not being occupied by Israel; and yet it is being settled by Israelis who are treated different than their Arab neighbors much like an apartheid system, which of course it can't be because it's not part of Israel. Do I have your circular logic about right?

And even if you are right that Israel occupies the West Bank to protect against attack (which is nonsense, but whatever...) then where do the settlements logically fit into it all? Are they intended to improve Israeli security as well?

Regarding Jordan--fine. Jordan and Egypt were both occupiers at one point. In the past. Years ago. It was wrong. Now Israel is the occupier. They're acting just like their enemies.

Insane's a cop-out...but you're right, as is always the case arguing faith, headway is not to be made.

Let's call it a tie.

Cheers...

That's a shallow call for analysis, though. Obviously there's terrorism against Israel. Obviously the security measures are for security. The larger question is how to end the need for those measures, and the surest way toward that is to end the settlement of the West Bank.

You're arguing semantics. Unless you placed a negative value on disrespect you would not have used it in your statement above. As you are human and place value on things, those values inevitably come down to "good" and "bad" no matter what fancy terminology you like to cloak it under. You were calling religious people bad in so many words.

Terror isn't just going to end if Israel becomes a total police state. By shedding its freedoms and principles, Israel will only make itself more insecure over time.

Ah, indeed, Freddie. And the settlers might be considered somewhat Oedipal. They have killed the original dream of Israel and are f*cking their motherland.

Sorry, that's my crude take on Greek Tragedy as it pertains to Israel.

Bob, that was a direct response to your comment #4 in which you claimed the vast majority of problems stem from religion and the religious. So who was it exactly that brought good vs bad into this conversation? My example was meant to show that there are bad people regardless, not to lay claim to any superiority. Bad people use whatever they can, be it religion or politics or celebrity status, to do whatever bad things they do.

You injected the notion of good and bad action by bring up the atheist bad guys, see how bad the atheist are.

Where?

1. Israel is occupying the West Bank. What else do you call what they're doing? And by the way, they aren't enemies with Jordan anymore, so why do they need a fire base?

2. Also, I didn't call all Israel supporters ignorant--but many are: in fact, I said "who...support Israel without really any knowledge of the conflict".

3. The West Bank is an apartheid state. Israel proper is not.

4. Yes, I'm abdicating responsibility from the Palestinians who will never, never, never step up to that plate. They never will. Ever. So long as history repeats itself. So it is up to the Israelis, plain and simple. If they want peace, they make the move for it. They won't be attacked by Jordan and Egypt again. Or Iraq. They won't face any of their threats alone. They just need to clear out of the West Bank so that Palestine can exist. We'll go from there...

Where?

Indeed, Bob. But treating people with respect can make them good, can make you feel good, and certainly doesn't lead to turning anyone bad...

It is so clear, to me, where the vast majority of disrespect comes from. The religious toward the nonbeliever and religious toward other religious.

That's clear to you? Were you present through the 20th century? Did you ever read about Stalin or Lenin or Mao or any of the other atheists responsible for murdering tens of millions of people?

Come on. The problem is fundamentalism and disrespect for others--and obviously atheists fall into those traps, too.

So the religious are insane, now? So you condemn the vast majority of the world's population as undeserving of your basic, human respect? So I can expect you to deal with me disrespectfully due to my religious views, is that it? And I, in turn, should I respectfully treat with you and your disbelief, or extend that same level of antagonism to you?

Maher is such a snob, I think he's simply so wrapped up in himself that he truly believes this sort of tactic, because he thinks it's funny, will be successful in converting new atheists. I just don't recall the last time smacking someone over the head with a stick worked to convince them of your point of view...

It's such a sad, frustrating, endless nightmare. The Israeli policies seem increasingly short-sighted. Perhaps militarization of a State does this to its lawmakers. The answers increasingly become more authoritarian, less humane. I still believe in the dream of Israel, though. And the dream of Palestine, too, for that matter.

Hey, your Series is off...just to let you know. Can be kinda buggy, so...

Gosh, matoko, do you come into every comment thread with your fists flying?

Look, from another perspective, segregation, slavery, etc. did only end because enough of a demographic shift had taken place; enough old bigoted people had shuffled off their mortal coils and enough younger, more open-minded people had taken their place. Things don't just magically happen. Do you think the Supreme Court is currently stacked to overturn marriage inequality? Hell no. So this is not black and white in terms of process, even if the ends seem to be...

Josh, Bob, sorry I didn't say this before, but thanks very much for your comments here and your continuation of the conversation! Much appreciated!

You were the one to bring "most people" into this, actually, suggesting that you yourself were in the majority opinion. Read your own comment. And I use the word bullshit when I'm happy as often as when I'm upset. I have a propensity for swearing which I need to work on, I'll be the first to admit it.

What harm will not allowing gay marriage do to society? Well, it will be a huge political distraction in the future; it will carry on one of our worst traditions, which is that of discrimination; it will cause one group of people to be trod upon by the rest, and we will all be guilty of tyrannical actions against our fellow man. It will exaggerate the importance and tone of this conversation on this one topic at the behest of others. Etc. etc. etc. The less harmful path is legalization of gay marriage.

First of all, I'm not "upset" and second of all I'm suggesting that gay marriage would not change marriage. Obviously. Not that we shouldn't lift the current set of rules that prevent it.

Ah, and thank you for elucidating me on the belief of "most people" which handily seems to be your own as well. Funny how that works. Civilization does exist to codify desirable human behavior, and marriage just so happens to be desirable behavior by societal standards at least. And yet, as a Civilization we have not gone the course of banning divorce--because obviously there are myriad ways in which human behavior works, and many, many trade-offs that need to be made in order to preserve civilization as we know it. And yes, you are correct to say that civilization is an extension of nature--but it is not only that. It is also a reaction to nature. Often it goes directly against nature. There is not always a rational reason for this. One might say that marriage is irrational altogether from the standpoint of nature, and yet in civilization it is an empowering act, creating stronger units than the individual. In nature, however, might it make more sense to eschew monogamy altogether?

In any case, bringing the gay community into the fold of marriage, into the mainstream, as equals under the law and the nomenclature, is an act that will strengthen our society and civilization, not weaken it. There is not one piece of scientific or sociological data that would suggest otherwise.

Is someone suggesting marriage be changed? I can't imagine my wife and I feeling that somehow our marriage was different should gays be allowed to marry, too. Wait-gays are marrying in MA and Canada--and guess what, my marriage is still exactly the same as before. Not one damn thing different about it.

And no, two dogs humping one another does not make up Civilization. That's why the "in nature" argument is useless. Civilization is made out of a breadth of things, including tradition, reason, trial and error, etc. etc. etc. Yes, nature plays a role, but one cannot say "In nature this and this don't happen and thus shouldn't happen in Society" first of all because, likely in nature you can find examples of just about everything imaginable (visit a Bonobo enclave sometime) and because the two are simply different. Civilization is not nature, nor is nature Civilization. Nor should they be.

I'm Spartacus!

For most conservatives, their loyalty is properly targeted towards our country, rather than any individual entrusted with it’s stewardship.

Oh, indeed. That's played out exactly how you describe over the past eight years. And I'm sure conservatives will, en masse, get behind this President exactly in the manner they did with Clinton...The Limbaugh's of the world are already proving how conservatives' loyalty "is properly targeted toward our country."

Oh, and does hoping for one's President to fail fall into that category of national concern?

Ah, lovely idea, Freddie. Blogs are far too often completely bereft of poetry, and yet the two forms have so much in common...