Campus Demonstrations, and Hamas and Gaza

[Stephen3141]

ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful
I am interested in discussion about these topics:

1 What is protected in the American "freedom of speech"
2 How is one American freedom, limited by other American freedoms?
3 How does this co-limitation of values, parallel the way in which
formal Moral-Ethical models are created?
4 Why are demonstrators breaking the rules of the college campuses,
as well as the criminal laws of the states in which the colleges are situated?
5 What does this embrace of violence and breaking the law, have to do with
a moral demonstration?
6 Why did classic demonstrators in America, such as Martin Luther King Jr,
demand that those who demonstrated, were peaceful?
7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?
8 What is the proper Christian position, on demonstrating?
9 Define what you mean, by "demonstrating".
10 Where does moral-ethical responsibility for expressing your "freedom
of speech", kick in?
---------- ----------

(I have started to address these topics, in a couple other threads.
But, Americans do not, in general, seem to think that the underlying
topics of Epistemology and moral-ethical ought, seem to be relevant
to them. Perhaps this thread, will join these topics together, in the
mind of some of the younger generations in America.

 

[Stephen3141]

(By the way, I think that some of this urge to "demonstrate" among
young Americans, is due to the failure of North American Christians
to offer a historical and credible ideal for how Christians are to live in
a pagan society. This would be a failure in catechism. And a failure in
how a Christian is to be light and salt.)

 

[Stephen3141]

On topic (1) of this thread...
---------- ----------

Some arguments need to be voiced, about free speech.

a). Freedom of speech existed in America, before there ever was a
digital computer, or social media sites. this means that modern
Americans should not link freedom of speech, to having social media
available, to express their opinions.

If Americans decide to ban some social media sites, on the grounds of
national security (because these sites are designed and run by foreign
powers that are antagonistic to America), this does not mean that this
ban would be a challenge to "freedom of speech".

b) The social media sites do not represent an unbiased presentation of
opinions. These sites heavily favor fringe or antagonistic opinions, and
amplify them, in order to arouse more and more comments by users.
This active promotion of antagonism, is not a part of freedom of speech.

It could be argued that the algorithms used by social media, are an abuse
of the right of freedom of speech, in that these algorithms favor opinions
that promote more and more comments by users, whether or not those comments
represent the American public, in general. Forcing the big social media
companies to stop this biased amplification of SOME opinions, could be
argued to be a move to PROTECT freedom of speech, not to suppress it.

c) The algorithms of the big social media companies, tend to sort users
into similarity boxes. These are artificial divisions, and are the opposite of
a citizen going to a local location for the expression of opinions, where
he could hear opinions from all sorts of viewpoints. The algorithms of social
media that promote tribes, are undercutting the natural expression of diverse
opinions. This is a trend AGAINST freedom of speech.

d) Because the large social media companies do not rigorously vet users,
there are many accounts that are used by foreign interest groups, that
pretend to be American citizens. Foreign agents spreading propaganda in
American discussion space, and false identities masking who is speaking,
are dynamics AGAINST freedom of speech in America.

e) As always, the rights that exist in the founding American documents,
cannot be pulled apart. They stand together. Claiming that one right,
justifies the breaking of the fair rule of law in America, is a dysfunctional
argument.

If I "express myself", by murdering my neighbor, that expression does not
justify murder. I would not be immune from being prosecuted for murder.
Freedom of speech, comes with the responsibility for one does with that
speech. And if that speech damages other citizens, in an illegal way, then we
are responsible for that damage, under America's fair rule of law.

There are many crimes that an American citizen could commit, with human
speech. There is lying, fraud, threatening, inciting to illegal actions, the
promotion of terrorism, and insurrection. Yes, we are free to open our
mouth and commit these crimes, but THEN we are responsible for these
crimes.
---------- ----------

On college campuses, as in politics, many students have not thought through
the basic freedoms that we have in America. Using "freedom of speech" to
break campus rules, or state or federal laws, does not gain the lawbreaker
some sort of magic cloak of "immunity from prosecution".

If university students wish to appeal to "freedom of speech", let them do
this in the peaceful and lawful methods that American Universities make
available, to ALL students and faculties. Let students who act unlawfully,
be indicted and prosecuted for the laws that they broke.

American university students demand to be treated as adults.
So, treat them as adults.
Hold them responsible for how they use freedom of speech.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Just as free speech is historical part of American culture, so is civil disobedience ever since we chucked that tea into Boston Harbor.

 

[Stephen3141]

About the question of who is leading the current university protests...

I have said, for a while, that the younger American generations are vulnerable to being taken in by all sorts of emotional operators (whether conspiracy theory sellers, or violent jihadist groups, or others).

It is curious that the university students who are doing the protesters, are not protesting about the outsiders trying to use THEM, and their gullibility.

Who these non-university students or staff are, I suppose we will find out, in the future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/03/columbia-arrests-not-students-nypd/

 

[Stephen3141]

Just as free speech is historical part of American culture, so is civil disobedience ever since we chucked that tea into Boston Harbor.

You bring up the topic of what is "historical" in America's history.
That, would lead to a branching of topics, that is beyond my concern here.
You could say that America has had a Civil War, and groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
But, although these realities are "historic", I am trying to address the topic
of what Christians ought to be doing, "demonstrating".
Just because an action or belief has historically occurred in America, that does not
necessarily mean that Christian should promote it, or even be involved in it.

 

[Stephen3141]

May I suggest that Christians have done serious thinking, about how
Christians should or should not be involved in the current culture of the
land, where they are living.

The following book is a review of the different positions that historically,
Christians have proposed. I suggest that modern American Christians need
to reread the historical options, and think carefully about how we should or
should not be embracing aspects of modern American culture.

Christ and Culture book by H. Richard Niebuhr

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why aren't they protesting against Iran's military weapons support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Houthis and Iraq?

If not for Iran's support, Hamas could not have slaughtered innocent Jews in Israel in October 7th and others could not be involved in wiping out Jews altogether.

Supporting Palestinians but not Hamas, is akin to people saying during WWII, we support Germany, but not the Nazis.

 

[Stephen3141]

About topic (2)...

How is one American freedom, moderated by other American freedoms?
---------- ----------

It is becoming common in modern America, that some people are appealing
to one American freedom, in order to justify the undercutting of other
American freedoms. Apparently, no one is pointing out to them, that the
foundations American freedoms are given for the good of an entire society,
and are not guidelines for the narrow optimization of any individual life.

(The same consideration applies to Moral Theory, when one is considering
a moral-ethical model.)

Would I gain immunity from prosecution for breaking university rules about
demonstrating, by claiming that I have a "right" to "freedom of speech"?

Anyone, can claim ANY argument.
But asserting an argument, does not mean that the argument is logically valid,
or logically sound.
And, asserting an argument, does not gain one immunity from prosecution.
(Note that most convicted criminals claim "I am innocent". That does not
make them innocent.

Freedom of speech (expression) in America, always goes hand-in-hand with
a moral-ethical responsibility for what one is asserting.

Note that the Christian view toward speech, is that one should refrain from
saying ANYTHING, when one is in a state of agitation or confusion. This
approach to speech, involves the virtue of prudence (moral discretion).
This approach is to AVOID saying anything, if it is not helpful, in a
righteous way. This is the approach of Job, who was very distressed at
what was happening in his life, but yet, yet would not "sin against God
with his mouth".

The biblical view of speech, is that we are always morally-ethically
responsible for what we say. There is no immunity before God, regarding
what we say.

36 t I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. 37 By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Mt 12:36–37.

Through all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Job 2:10.
---------- ----------

Obviously, American law does not consider all that we may say, to carry
with it immunity from prosecution. "Hate speech" is an example.

We are free to engage in hate speech (this is part of free will), just as we are
free to engage in murder. But under the fair rule of law in America, we are
not protected from prosecution if we engage in hate speech (or murder).

In America, we are free to promote insurrection, and rioting, and lynching,
and other forms of crimes, but this does not mean that we are immune from
prosecution, when we invoke the explanation that we were engaging in "freedom
of speech".

Those who demonstrate in America, must realize that they do so UNDER the
fair rule of law in America. If they demonstrate and break the law, then they
are not immune from prosecution.
---------- ----------

Note that the argument "It's my body -- keep your laws off my body" is
fatally defective. If we argue that no law has the "right" to moderate what I do with
my body, then this model annuls most laws. For, most of what we "do", we do
with our body.

If this argument is true, then murdering someone using my body, is allowable.
Stealing is allowable, if I do it using my body.
Lying is allowable, if I do it using my body (including, typing on a keyboard).
Bearing false witness in a courtroom, is allowable.
Promoting a Lynch mob to kill you, for ANY reason, is allowable.
Genocide is allowable, if I do it using my body (such as pressing a button
on some weapons system).

Obviously, those who assert the argument "It's my body -- keep your laws
off my body!" have not thought through what this argument would allow.
It is a statement of anarchy -- lawlessness.

Every fair rule of law will limit what we can do with our bodies.
So does the perfect law of God.
---------- ----------

As for one "freedom" necessarily moderating others, this should be
obvious, if you think about it. (This is a basic topic, in Moral Theory,
when the constructing of a moral-ethical (ME) system is discussed.

We cannot read the "pursuit of happiness" in the foundational American
documents to mean "Whatever makes me happy". THAT would involve the
individual optimizations of relative definitions of "happiness", for every
American citizen.

Does a serial killer have the "right" to pursue his concept of "happiness".
As the FBI crime profilers will note, violent criminals often look at their
crime as an art form. Do violent criminals have the "right" to pursue
expressing their "artistic" sensibilities as part of "freedom of expression"?
Do college students have the right to live out their destructive and
intellectually incoherent definitions of "justice" or "freedom of speech"
or "demonstration"?

We CANNOT accept ANY definition of "freedom", and make it into a
fair rule of law. We CANNOT call ANYTHING a virtue, or vice. We CANNOT
accept ANYONE's definition of justice, or fairness, or equity, or truth,
just because that person think's he has an "entitlement" to have everyone
accept what he asserts is "truth".

A fair rule of law, limits our actions.
There is no freedom, without limitation.

The freedoms in America's fair rule of law, all work together.
They were never meant to be used, to tear down each other.

 

[Aviel]

 

[Stephen3141]

ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful
I am interested in discussion about these topics:

1 What is protected in the American "freedom of speech"
2 How is one American freedom, limited by other American freedoms?
3 How does this co-limitation of values, parallel the way in which
formal Moral-Ethical models are created?
4 Why are demonstrators breaking the rules of the college campuses,
as well as the criminal laws of the states in which the colleges are situated?
5 What does this embrace of violence and breaking the law, have to do with
a moral demonstration?
6 Why did classic demonstrators in America, such as Martin Luther King Jr,
demand that those who demonstrated, were peaceful?
7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?
8 What is the proper Christian position, on demonstrating?
9 Define what you mean, by "demonstrating".
10 Where does moral-ethical responsibility for expressing your "freedom
of speech", kick in?
---------- ----------

(I have started to address these topics, in a couple other threads.
But, Americans do not, in general, seem to think that the underlying
topics of Epistemology and moral-ethical ought, seem to be relevant
to them. Perhaps this thread, will join these topics together, in the
mind of some of the younger generations in America.

About topic (3)...

It is curious that many modern Americans like to talk about ONE value,
(whatever that is for them), BUT, they often cannot speak coherently
about how that one value should fit into the entire Constitution, or the
entire Bill of Rights, or the entire moral-ethical (ME) model of Christianity.

This often leads to unrealistic and even impossible discussions, about a
value, in the context of the Christian worldview.

Freedom of speech, in America, is protected. But NOT as a pretext for
spreading information that the speaker knows is false (that is lying),
and certainly not in automated systems that replicate the opinion
thousands or millions of times (as in the social media algorithms).

Nor should freedom of speech in America, be confused with someone's
attempt to run their own propaganda machine, which multiples their opinion
thousands of time, or millions of times. It could be argued that such an
automated platform, undercuts freedom of speech for those who do not have
the billions of dollars to own such a social media platform.
---------- ----------

This same topic of the co-limitation of values in an entire ME system,
is a relevant dynamic when people claim (very simplistically) that "God is
love", as if "love" is the only character that God has. God has many
characteristics besides being loving. To use the "love argument" in a non-biblical
way, to annul all the other characteristics of God, is unbiblical.

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

There is nothing in freedom of speech, that requires or "empowers" one to
break the fair rule of law in America. This is the logical invalidity of the argument
that some demonstrators appeal to, that the morality of their argument justifies
them in breaking any law in America, in order to express their opinion.

In America, citizens have the freedom to play golf (or at least, to try). But that
freedom does not give them legal immunity for beating their neighbor with a
golf club. [I hate the "word corrector that this site uses".] It is the same
situation with freedom of speech. Hate speech is forbidden in America. Fraud
committed through speech, is forbidden in America. Lying in a courtroom, using
speech, is a crime in America. Bearing false witness (about our shared reality) is
forbidden in Christianity (THAT is called lying).

ALL the ME commands in Christianity fit together, regardless of whether one
person or another claims that "love" and "toleration" is the only thing needed, to
be pleasing to God. This is contradicted by Scripture, in many texts that clearly
state that people with certain behavior will be forbidden from entering the
kingdom of God. Whether or not some people think that this is "unloving",
does not matter.

Curiously, those who want God to be only "loving", actually want God to only love
THEIR evil behavior. Not the evil behavior of their neighbor, or child abusers, or
serial murderers, or people who hate American democracy. And curiously, those
who claim freedom of speech in America gives them immunity from being
morally-ethically judged by the fair rule of law in America, are just as deluded.

Those who engage in lawful and peaceful freedom of speech in America, have nothing
to fear from the fair rule of law in America.

But no one in America who speaks freely, should argue that they have the right to be
immune from the fair rule of law in America, for what they say.

Another strange belief that the younger American generations hold, is that ALL opinions
should be represented, for "freedom of speech" to be carried out. Of course, they do
not really believe this -- they only demand an opportunity to speak their own opinion, when
they hear someone sho is expressing some (currently) unpopular opinion.

Freedom of speech is being allowed in this apologetics web site, (with certain rules
guaranteeing politeness), whether or not there are threads that try to demonstrate
all the other possible positions about freedom of speech, and demonstration, that
I am expressing.

 

[Stephen3141]

About topic (4):

4 Why are demonstrators breaking the rules of the college campuses,
as well as the criminal laws of the states in which the colleges are situated?

It is difficult to try to figure out an answer to this basic question.

Information is coming out that the "pro-Palestinian" demonstrations
are being heavily orchestrated by outsiders, and specifically, interest
groups that are involved in violent jihadist demonstrations worldwide.
If Iranian jihadist money is behind the demonstrations, then THEIR
motivations involve the desire to kill all Jews and all Americans.

But, this does not seem to be the motivation of many of the college
students in the demonstrations. THEY seem to be shocked at the loss of
life among "civilians" in the Gaza Strip. The American government is shocked,
as are many in the United Nations.

Is it the loss of Palestinian life, that "justifies" the demonstrators to break
college rules, and engage in rioting and violence?

Even given the loss of Palestinian lives, does this "justify" demonstrators
breaking the law, to express themselves?

Note that these college demonstrations did not happen as a wave of peaceful
demonstrations, held according to the various college rules on gathering and
free speech. Many of these demonstrations were not authorized, and were
not within the guidelines of expression set by the colleges. And very quickly,
they became antagonistic toward the universities where they were held,
and demanded other things from the universities (such as changes in their
investment strategies).
---------- ----------

When American citizens are displeased with some actions of their government,
the immediate response is not lawless demonstrations. Freedom of speech,
allows the peaceful and lawful expression by citizens, of all sorts of disagreements.

Even in the case when some citizens are VERY displeased with some aspect of
the government, the channel of discussion open to citizens remains peaceful
and lawful demonstrations. As well as objections communicated to local
political positions.

In the fair rule of law in America, there is no provision that justifies lawless
rioting and violence, when a citizen disagrees with some position taken by
a company, or group, or member of the government. Stepping outside the
fair rule of law, and engaging in breaking the law and violence, is not
written into the fair rule of law in America.

It seems that by stepping outside the fair rule of law, the university
demonstrators have abandoned the fair rule of law, and are promoting
a new form of lawlessness. But to what end? I would ask the same
question of Donald Trump, and his encouraging of the lynch mob that
(was quite coordinated, and prepared) showed up at the Capital Building,
and was prepared to kill Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. Without waiting for the
legal method of voting to finish, Trump declared that there was massive
fraud in the system, and declared that the result of the election was invalid.
(He has repeated this prediction, again, about the coming election.) And
yet, the watchdog groups that examined the election, found it to be fair and
accurate. And through about 2 dozen lawsuits, Donald Trump has not been
able to uncover ANY relevant and substantial proof that this election was
tainted by fraud.

By stepping outside the fair rule of law, and simply declaring a conclusion,
whether it is in campus demonstrations, or objecting to a presidential election,
those doing this sort of objection have turned their back on the fair rule of
law in America.

And THIS is the basic built-in contradiction, among demonstrators who
act outside the fair rule of law in America, yet claim to be good American
citizens, and for "law and order".

Unfortunately, I think that many of the younger generations in America,
are attracted to Bruce Willis type vigilantism, in order to bring about
"justice". But the sober advice from history, is that a vigilantism that
arbitrarily breaks the law, is no foundation for a fair rule of law. And
justice does not come from vigilantism. Lynch mobs come from
vigilantism. The result of emotional vigilantes, is Afghanistan, not
America. American university students need to carefully consider this.

 

[Stephen3141]

About topic (7)...

7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?

I don't think that anyone is asking this question.

There are some similarities to current student demonstrations, and the race
riots of the 1960s and 1970s. But there seem to be many differences. No
one seems to be thinking about this topic. (Perhaps the younger American
generations are not thinking about this, because they do not read history.
They are "told" history, but often do not read history.

-- It seems that people who engage in violence, claiming to be acting in
order to being about "justice", do it for many reasons...

a. For them, violence is a form of entertainment, like extreme "sports".

b. They consider violence, and the rhetoric they use while committing
violence, to be part of their "identity".

c. Rightly or wrongly, they think that violence is a path to positively
change American culture.

d. Amazingly, they think that if their group kills a few dozen evil people,
then America will be free of oppression and bias.

e. Trying to change American culture peacefully and lawfully, is so boring.

f. They are not committed to the lawful changing of American society.

g. They think that the fair rule of law in America will never work, but they
cannot describe what a fair rule of law actually would be (Politicians
sometimes display this behavior).

h. They consider themselves mired in poverty, with no way to improve
their situation in American society.

i. They believe the propaganda of violent extremist groups, that asserts
that overthrowing the government, can lead to a truly just state. But, they
do not look at the murder and poverty that these groups have brought to
other areas of the world. Like the Palestinians and Fatah and Hamas and
Hezbollah, they cannot imagine what will happen when these violent
groups start to cause acts of violence on a larger scale. Palestinians
have accepted living with Hamas, without thinking about what would happen
if Hamas actually tried to kill all Jews, in Israel.

j. For the electronic screen generations, they see a very different and
artificial "reality" of politically correct opinions, conspiracy theories,
popularity groups, and online entertainment. Very little of this has to
do with our shared reality, among all people on earth. Curiously,
although the internet can allow people to see a much bigger human
experience across cultures, it can also be used to segment individuals
off away from our shared reality. And after a number of years of living
in this electronic movie theater, those who live there drift away from the
real world and our shared reality. They cannot tell entertainment and
popularity, from reality.
---------- ----------

I think that, given ALL the possible reasons why a person may get involved
in "demonstrations", we can no longer discern WHY specific individuals are
demonstrating.

The journalists, I think, try to spin a noble explanation for demonstrations
that seem to be popular. And base explanations for demonstrations that
are not popular. But this is another layer of interpretation, that I think does
not describe reality.

I do not think that the current student demonstrations in America against
the killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip, can be seen as well-balanced. If
American students had thought about the nature of the jihadist groups that
prey on Palestinians (such as Hamas, and Hezbollah, and ISIS), students
would have been demonstrating against the coming disaster for the
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (because the current disaster, is the logical
outcome of any group that embraces political leadership from a terrorist
organization).

Where were all the American demonstrations against the terrorist group
Hamas, for the last 10 years????

Where are the current demonstrations by American students, against the
anti-law and racially biased pronouncements by Donald Trump???? If Trump
actually carries out his spoken agenda, we will see the setting aside of the
fair rule of law in America. Where are the current student demonstrations
against this? Where is the moral vision of American university students?
Frankly, it doesn't exist.

And this, is one of the core problems, with all of the demonstrations that
American university students are involved in.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a generational difference. Younger people have less reason to be particularly attached to the notion of the state of Israel. We're talking about Gen Z here, born decades after the Cold War ended.

 

[Stephen3141]

7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?
8 What is the proper Christian position, on demonstrating?
9 Define what you mean, by "demonstrating".

Points 7-9 involve the moral-ethical question of what the Israelis are
seeking to do in the Gaza Strip, and how Christians ought to view these
actions.

One persistent problem in DISCUSSING this topic, is that historically,
there has been a persistent conspiracy theory regarding the Jews.
CNN brings this up in its recent article.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis/index.html

As the article points out, and as I have written on this site, the use of the
word "genocide" hardly applies to the Gaza Strip. "Genocide refers to the
intentional effort to kill EVERYONE who belongs to some ethnic group.
This is hardly what the Israelies are trying to do, in Gaza. And it is NEVER
an intention that the Israelis have voiced.

In contrast, genocide against the Jews IS a clear intention of the violent
Muslim groups, such as Hamas (which is politically ruling the Gaza Strip).

IF the students who are demonstrating FOR Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
are against genocide, then they are on the same side as the Israelis, on
this topic.

IF the students who are demonstrating for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
are against genocide, then for 2 decades (at least), they should have been
demonstrating AGAINST the violent Muslim terrorist groups, which explicitly
have the genocide of (all) Jews as one of their founding doctrines. Before
Palestinians started to die in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, I did not see
any significant American college students demonstrating against the genocidal
intentions of the violent Muslim groups. Why?

So, there are 2 basic inconsistencies with the student demonstrations for
Palestinians:

1 They use the word "genocide" as applied to Israel, wrongly.
They do not use the word "genocide" rightly when referring to the Muslim
terrorist groups, such as Hamas.

2 The demonstrating students were not demonstrating against the
explicit goal of genocide that the Muslim terrorist groups openly
proclaim, BEFORE Israel invaded the Gaza Strip.


(NOTE: So far, Putin has killed about 300,000 Ukrainians in his illegal
invasions of Ukraine. That's a lot of Ukrainians killed, illegally. But,
still it's a stretch to call this "genocide".)

Conclusion:

I don't think that the American students demonstrating against
"genocide" in the Gaza Strip, know what the definition of genocide
is. AND, I don't think that these students have consistently demonstrated
against REAL threats of genocide, by the violent Muslim groups.
AND, I don't think that the demonstrating students have a sense of
proportionality as to the numbers of people dying, as the students
probably have NOT demonstrated even more vehemently against Putin
as he has killed 300,000 Ukrainians in his illegal war.

The student demonstrations largely DON'T address the real threat of
genocide by the violent jihadist groups. The demonstrations largely
DON'T differentiate between members of Hamas and plain civilians
in the Gaza Strip. The demonstrations by students DO NOT represent
a proportional response to the killing of civilians, and this is shown by
the lack of student demonstrations against Putin's killing of Ukrainians
in the Ukraine.

There are real moral-ethical issues associated with the Gaza Strip.
But the current student demonstrations are often out-of-touch with
the same moral-ethical issues in other parts of the world. And the current
student demonstrations confuse what the real moral-ethical issues are.

 

[FireDragon76]

7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?
8 What is the proper Christian position, on demonstrating?
9 Define what you mean, by "demonstrating".

Points 7-9 involve the moral-ethical question of what the Israelis are
seeking to do in the Gaza Strip, and how Christians ought to view these
actions.

One persistent problem in DISCUSSING this topic, is that historically,
there has been a persistent conspiracy theory regarding the Jews.
CNN brings this up in its recent article.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis/index.html

As the article points out, and as I have written on this site, the use of the
word "genocide" hardly applies to the Gaza Strip. "Genocide refers to the
intentional effort to kill EVERYONE who belongs to some ethnic group.
This is hardly what the Israelies are trying to do, in Gaza. And it is NEVER
an intention that the Israelis have voiced.

In contrast, genocide against the Jews IS a clear intention of the violent
Muslim groups, such as Hamas (which is politically ruling the Gaza Strip).

IF the students who are demonstrating FOR Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
are against genocide, then they are on the same side as the Israelis, on
this topic.

IF the students who are demonstrating for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
are against genocide, then for 2 decades (at least), they should have been
demonstrating AGAINST the violent Muslim terrorist groups, which explicitly
have the genocide of (all) Jews as one of their founding doctrines. Before
Palestinians started to die in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, I did not see
any significant American college students demonstrating against the genocidal
intentions of the violent Muslim groups. Why?

So, there are 2 basic inconsistencies with the student demonstrations for
Palestinians:

1 They use the word "genocide" as applied to Israel, wrongly.
They do not use the word "genocide" rightly when referring to the Muslim
terrorist groups, such as Hamas.

2 The demonstrating students were not demonstrating against the
explicit goal of genocide that the Muslim terrorist groups openly
proclaim, BEFORE Israel invaded the Gaza Strip.


(NOTE: So far, Putin has killed about 300,000 Ukrainians in his illegal
invasions of Ukraine. That's a lot of Ukrainians killed, illegally. But,
still it's a stretch to call this "genocide".)

Conclusion:

I don't think that the American students demonstrating against
"genocide" in the Gaza Strip, know what the definition of genocide
is. AND, I don't think that these students have consistently demonstrated
against REAL threats of genocide, by the violent Muslim groups.
AND, I don't think that the demonstrating students have a sense of
proportionality as to the numbers of people dying, as the students
probably have NOT demonstrated even more vehemently against Putin
as he has killed 300,000 Ukrainians in his illegal war.

The student demonstrations largely DON'T address the real threat of
genocide by the violent jihadist groups. The demonstrations largely
DON'T differentiate between members of Hamas and plain civilians
in the Gaza Strip. The demonstrations by students DO NOT represent
a proportional response to the killing of civilians, and this is shown by
the lack of student demonstrations against Putin's killing of Ukrainians
in the Ukraine.

There are real moral-ethical issues associated with the Gaza Strip.
But the current student demonstrations are often out-of-touch with
the same moral-ethical issues in other parts of the world. And the current
student demonstrations confuse what the real moral-ethical issues are.

That's not what genocide means.

The 1948 UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

 

[Stephen3141]

Even in your definition of "genocide", Israel does not have this intention.
But, Hamas does.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even in your definition of "genocide", Israel does not have this intention.
But, Hamas does.

Appropriating land can be considered genocide, per the UN definition.

 

[Stephen3141]

Pay attention -- there are important concepts at work here.
I attach another article at the end of this comment.

There are important moral-ethical realities involved in this military action by the state of Israel, and Christians ought to be praying for peace. But, there are also aspects of ME responsibility that no one is talking about. Christians should be thinking about the way in which the choices of a state, affect its citizens, and the choices of citizens affect a state. And there is the overarching relationship between states, and global terrorist groups who have no respect for peaceful states, or peaceful citizens.

I would not expect a comedian like Jerry Seinfeld to present a speech about these important relationships.
---------- ----------

The historic dynamics of this situation in the Gaza Strip, go back many generations. And the choices of past generations, have presented the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and the citizens of Israel today, with some pretty horrible choices. It is proper for Christians to recognize the pretty horrific reality. Consider...

1 The state of Israel was formed after the holocaust -- the killing of 6,000,000 Jews by Hitler and his political party, in the Second World War. (Many Muslims today, deny that the holocaust ever happened. They are lying through their teeth.)

2 The nations surrounding Palestine, have continually refused to set aside land for the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. No Muslim country, has wanted to host the mainly Muslim Palestinians. This is history.

3 The Muslim jihadist groups have preyed on the Palestinians, whether in the form of Yassr Arafat and Fatah, or Iran with Hezbollah, and Hamas, and ISIS. The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip have been hopeless for generations. Iran and Hamas have preyed on this hopelessness, offering young men "death and paradise" when they had nothing in this world to live for. This is how the Muslim terrorist groups recruit.

4 Muslims in the Gaza Strip turned down a peace-for-land offered to them, multiple times, under Yassr Arafat. They preferred to repeat, over and over again, that all Jews (and Americans) should be killed. If you want to talk about "genocide", then teach about the Holocaust and the agenda of the jihadist Muslim groups.

5 The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip accepted Hamas, a recognized terrorist group, as the leading political party in the Gaza Strip. Spin this responsibility any way you wish. For years now, the Gaza Strip has had a political leading party that promoted the genocide of all Jews. Where is the open discussion of this responsibility?

6 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have continually sheltered Muslim terrorist groups. Where is the open discussion of this responsibility?

7 When Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 Israelis about a year ago, this was just the last event in a series of events, for which responsibility heavily falls on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and the Muslim supporters of terrorism in Iran.

Students who protest that non-combatants in the Gaza Strip, are sensitive to a real moral-ethical topic.

But students who are protesting, were not out protesting the Palestinians picking a terrorist group (Hamas) to lead the government. Nor were students protesting the denial of the Holocaust by many Muslim groups. Nor were students protesting the murderous and genocidal agenda of the Muslim jihadist groups, to kill all Jews and Americans. Who is holding these university students morally-ethically responsible, for NOT grasping the entire horizon of this disaster in the Gaza Strip?

If university students REALLY WERE morally sensitive to the really important issues that America, and the world, are facing, they would be out demonstrating

-- AGAINST Donald Trump, and his irresponsible ranting about tearing down the fair rule of law in America, based on his promotion of Tucker Carlson's endless conspiracy theories about the "Deep State".

-- The continuing denial of many politicians that human beings have poisoned the earth and atmosphere, and are changing the earth's climate in ways that will be disastrous to human beings. (This is an argument of priority.) Students in Texas and the jacked up Ford pickup subcultures should be protesting the destruction of this earth, by American politicians and conspiracy theory followers. To be blunt, how does the number of "civilians" in the Gaza Strip compare to the 1,000,000 Armenian Christians killed by the Turks at the start of the 20th century? Or to 6,000,000 Jews killed by the Nazis on the basis of conspiracy theories? Or millions of people killed by the Soviets in their gulag, or the Chinese Communists in their deportations and prison camps?

Where are the university students who have read enough history, to recognize the proportion of moral-ethical sins that have been committed in the current history of mankind?

When Duke University picks a token Jew, Jerry Seinfeld, to offer a commencement speech, the students have a reason to be cynical. Universities have defaulted on teaching Moral Theory, which applies to all mankind. The HUGE moral-ethical failures in recent human history, are NOT taught.

And this leaves American university students very naive toward moral-ethical issues. And, their "demonstrations" reflect this terrific naïveté.

The antidote is for university students to fully morally-ethically engage, with a clear knowledge of history, and the disastrous oppression that is brought about by groups that embrace conspiracy theories, and use them to promote the killing of all their perceived enemies.

And, this ME engagement ought to start in America, with groups (such as the Republicans), who are neck deep in promoting conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories, and the fair rule of law, cannot exist together.

The first thing that a conspiracy theory leader in America will do, is destroy the Department of Justice, and all law enforcement agencies in the federal government.

The next thing he will do is form an informal lynch mob of "patriots" who will arbitrarily execute all his political opponents.

THIS is what American university students should be demonstrating against.

Then, let all American christians pray for peace in the Gaza Strip, the death of all murderous terrorists, and the aiding of starving civilians. And, let American Christians pray for the forming of a Palestinian state that is not a Muslim state, that like Iran or Afghanistan, will fall right back into the gravity well of Muslim terrorist groups.

Duke students walk out of Jerry Seinfeld graduation speech in Gaza protest

 

[truthpls]

ucla-moves-to-shut-down-pro-palestinian-encampment-as-unlawful
I am interested in discussion about these topics:

1 What is protected in the American "freedom of speech"
2 How is one American freedom, limited by other American freedoms?
3 How does this co-limitation of values, parallel the way in which
formal Moral-Ethical models are created?
4 Why are demonstrators breaking the rules of the college campuses,
as well as the criminal laws of the states in which the colleges are situated?
5 What does this embrace of violence and breaking the law, have to do with
a moral demonstration?
6 Why did classic demonstrators in America, such as Martin Luther King Jr,
demand that those who demonstrated, were peaceful?
7 What seem to be the underlying principles, among the "electronic screen"
generations, that seem to lead to a pathway from peaceful freedom of speech,
to violent and lawless rioting (such as we saw at the Capital Building, on January
6th)?
8 What is the proper Christian position, on demonstrating?
9 Define what you mean, by "demonstrating".
10 Where does moral-ethical responsibility for expressing your "freedom
of speech", kick in?
---------- ----------

(I have started to address these topics, in a couple other threads.
But, Americans do not, in general, seem to think that the underlying
topics of Epistemology and moral-ethical ought, seem to be relevant
to them. Perhaps this thread, will join these topics together, in the
mind of some of the younger generations in America.

The demonstrators are not Christians for the most part, that I have heard? They are people of all sorts that are outraged at genocide and mass murder and terrorism by Israel against a population. A noble position to support.