Would not be religiously permissible. Once the permanent spot for the Altar was designated (in the days of King David), it became forbidden to offer sacrifices anywhere else - specifically, in the exact spot where that altar was. Even if an altar were built just a few feet away from the original, proper spot, sacrifices there would not be permitted by Jewish law.
Okay. Nice strawman. Are you going to make any arguments against what I claimed? I never said millenialism was the exclusive reason behind Republican support for Israel (let alone bi-partisan support.) Simply that it is for a sizable minority in the party. Probably enough so that if there were no secular reasons for it, the party would still support Israel.
But it sounds like you won’t be convinced that simply discussing the existence of that branch of the party isn’t some elaborate rhetorical gambit to discredit the entire party, so I guess we’ll have to disagree.
Really? His fatwa against the “Zionist-Crusader Army” is just sort of ancillary to the US-Israeli alliance? Certainly Saudi collaboration with that alliance was his immediate complaint, but without the alliance existing in the first place that complaint doesn’t exist. Or at least it doesn’t resonate as much with the rest of the Islamic world. There’s a reason why in the wording of the fatwa every time he mentions the US he takes pains to link it with Israel.
(But, anyways, that was just throwaway line in one of my earlier posts and I’m not really interested in arguing it here.)
I care nothing for the Repulican party. I simply don’t believe in the lazy - and often-repeated - notion that its support for Israel is simply a function of fundie millenialism.
No proof of this assertion is ever forthcoming, and it is on its face absurd - as support for Israel in the US transcends party and religious lines. It is not necessary to resort to some elaborate conspiracy involving the hijacking of a political party by crazy millenialists to explain a phenominon that is adequately explained much more simply - namely, that support for Israel is popular.
Really? If all the US did was support the Saudis - who, as Bin Laden himself explains in the cites helpfully provided upthread, are allegedly busy repressing Muslims and selling their birthright for the trinkets and trash of the West - Bin Laden would be all hunky dory with that?
That’s not what he claims. Why should I believe you, rather than him?
Notice that, to him, the US are “crusaders”. It matters not if they support Israel - they will still be “crusaders”. There is literally nothing the US can do about that, other than, as Bin Laden himself suggests - convert to Islam.
The actual demands of Bin Laden, in order of importance:
Please note how “support for Israel” is concern #4 - and how it is mixed in with support for other non-Muslim governments: “We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.” [Emphasis added]
This is hardly the screed of someone who cares only about Israel.