Your linked article says white phosphorous is a conventional weapon and isn’t banned or outlawed. War sucks, but this isn’t really a good argument for such an outrageous thought. Isn’t it easier to think war alone is enough to trigger PTSD? People suffer from PTSD from events significantly less traumatic events than war regularly.

To speak less in analogies and just cite history, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century until 1917. After their defeat in WWI, Britain took control of the region under the British Mandate for Palestine, basically controlling all of the region west of the River Jordan. Up until 1947, approximately 420,000 Jews immigrated to the region where the population was about 600k Jews to 1.2M Arabs in Palestine.

In 1948, Britain left which meant an opportunity for a coalition of Arab states to attempt to take back “what was theirs” 31 years ago. The Jews were able to defend the region and have since been encroaching further and further outside of that area they defended previously.

Before all of this “modern” history, from the 7th century to the 16th, the region was controlled by Islamic states and Christian crusaders (who took the land for themselves, not for the Jews, and even killed a lot of Jews — think hundreds of thousands, if not more — during their occupation).

We can continue to go back in history to Roman rule, Egyptian rule, etc. but how far back in time are we willing to go to, going back to your analogy, determine how much of the pizza you should be entitled to? What of the rest of the world? It’s a good question and I obviously don’t have the answer but I’m also trying to understand as best as I’m able to.

With that being said, none of that history warrants the atrocities being committed by either side. If the two sides could co-exist in a United Israel-Palestine state, that would be the ideal resolution in my mind. Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming religious zeal on one side and a superiority complex on the other, that’s just a pipe dream.

I think you meant to say inaccurate. Immaculate is when you set someone free, particularly of social or legal restrictions.

Historically, there was a point in time, is such a slippery slope. We could play that geography game all day.

This is like somebody moving into your home and then you accept a couple of the bedrooms and one of the bathrooms, believing it to be an appropriate compromise.

Is it really going out of your way when that’s the topic of this post, theism in politics?

It doesn’t belong. That I agree with. Being against entrepreneurship is a bit of a hot take though.

Please reply to your critics here. I’m curious to hear what your defense is.

He doesn’t hate your god. He just doesn’t give a shit about him. Truthfully, agnostics/atheists are hardly thinking about god ever, if at all.

People are free to believe in what they want to believe in. Religion and spirituality, after all, is just our way of understanding ourselves. The problem is when people choose to impose their religion on others. In politics, this exists in the form of policy-making based on your religious doctrine.

You mentioned morality is based on Christianity but that isn’t true at all. There are some obvious moral truths that have existed time immemorial — don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t cheat. There’s plenty of examples in history to the contrary, but even more to support these shared values across all cultures.

At the end of the day, people really just want to be treated kindly. So, they should give kindness in the way they would like it themselves.

Should this person just tell their mother over a phone conversation and hope that it spreads via word of mouth instead? What’s the alternative here?