I hate to answer a serious question in such a thread, but…
The concept of “Chosen People” is usually twisted by anti-semites to be a statement of arrogance or supposed superiority. It is, in fact, the opposite. The notion is that the ancient Israelites chose to accept One God, and that One God therefore chose them as His “firstborn”, the first people/nation to accept Him. He chose them as the instrument for passing on His guidelines for human morality (“Don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.”)
Some of those commandments were meant for all mankind (such as those quoted above.) Others were meant only for the Jews, such as the rules about Sabbath or eating only certain (“kosher”) foods. Thus, the Jews were chosen (and chose) to take on certain responsibilities out of love for that One God.
Thus, being the “chosen people” is not a statement of superiority or arrogance, but rather is a statement of humility and obligation.
Throughout history, the cycles of persecutions against the Jews led Tevye to call out, “Once in a while, couldn’t You choose someone else?”
And to answer your last question, yes, any convert to Judaism is also assumed to take on the responsibilities and obligations of being “chosen.”
Hope that helps.
I would like to comment, to all those who make sarcastic comments in a thread like this, that I don’t think they’re very funny. The Saudi official press recently published an article describing the Passover celebration as requiring the blood of young Christian or Moslem babies. This was “officially” retracted as an “error” some time later – probably in a short blurb on page 27. The blood-libel is still very real, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (a forged document that purports to be a Jewish publication, full of horrible concepts that are thus attributed to Jews) is still believed to be true. Sorry, but I don’t think this is a realm for sarcastic responses.
My response was not intended to be funny. It was a first person account of how, as a Jew, I know that all the anti-Semitic charges are true, including the allegation that I am involved in controlling the finances and politics of the world, not to mention participating in ritual sacrifices - none of which have ever been witnessed by anyone. Pretty clever, I must say.
My response was not intended to be funny. It was a first person account of how, as a Jew, I know that all the anti-Semitic charges are true, including the allegation that I am involved in controlling the finances and politics of the world, not to mention participating in ritual sacrifices - none of which have ever been witnessed by anyone. Pretty clever, I must say.
The correct adjective is “irony” not “sarcasm” and it is one way of getting a person’s point across.
Of course, I could deny any ritual sacrifices or world power, but would this convince any real anti-Semite.
One point I have always want to make to holocaust deniers: They deny the holocaust, but seem to want to start a new one!
My response was not intended to be funny. It was a first person account of how, as a Jew, I know that all the anti-Semitic charges are true, including the allegation that I am involved in controlling the finances and politics of the world, not to mention participating in ritual sacrifices - none of which have ever been witnessed by anyone. Pretty clever, I must say.
The correct adjective is “irony” not “sarcasm” and it is one way of getting a person’s point across.
Of course, I could deny any ritual sacrifices or world power, but would this convince any real anti-Semite.
One point I have always wanted to make to holocaust deniers: They deny the holocaust, but seem to want to start a new one!
Pixiegrrl, I think everyone should (and does) have an opion, and express it as well as they can. I guess my expression was not to your liking. Willie expressed his, and got a reply, all part of the interaction here on the boards.
If you would like a “nicer” version of my post here it is:
“Pay tell, Good Sir, how would you handle the matter, given the circumstances?”
As for my cause, I think there are others here more closely alligned with Israel’s cause; I simply think their situation is edtremely difficult, and there are far too many critics without any solutions, only critisism.
Actually, you’re behind the times. All right-thinking Jews actually use the blood of Christians to make the yummy (looks like raspberry or strawberry BUT IT’S NOT!) filling for our Hamentashen at Purim. O’course getting the nail studded barrels is tricky nowdays, but what can you do?
MmmmMmmMmmmm…hamentashen.
On a more serious note:
Dex: I firmly disagree that it’s not an area for sarcasm. Those who believe the blood-libel are rarely, if ever swayed (IMO). They’ve made up their minds and won’t budge (not always, of course but on the whole). The battle, therefore is for the people who truly are unsure of what to believe. (An easy way to determine if someone is truly looking for answers or not, IMO is if they put “quotes” around the word religion when following the word Jewish. )
When faced with these accusations, I can either get indignant (which doesn’t help: since it makes one seem defensive), get logical (which doesn’t help: it’s an emotional issue, not a logical one), or show that the whole idea is so stupid that I can laugh at it. I find mocking bigots and bigoted ideas to be a far better tactic.
First, thank you for the response on the ‘chosen people’. That makes alot more sense to me thean the stuff I was hearing about it being an exclusive religion based on that premise. I have more questions; should I continue in this thread or just start a new one? I’ll just ask one more then if it needs to be moved it can be.
Is Judaism like Christianity in the fact that only the people who have accepted the doctrine of the religion will go to heaven? Will the Christians, Budhists, Muslims be punished for not accepting Judaism? I know that the Christians believe you must accept Jesus, at the least, as a part of the same entity that is God. And that’s a liberal interpretation…most believe (I think) you must accept Him as the son of God. What’s the general consensus in Judaism? Are only the Jews going to heaven? Like only the Christians and Muslims are in their faith?
Again, thank you for taking the time to share. Mostly, thanks for not condescending and just explaining kindly…There are some seriously angry people on this board. Glad someone kind is answering my inqueries.
Hey, I just posted Israels right of return policy. Where the heck do you guys get off flinging the anti - semi word? This is not my opinion but the official disposition of Israel towards Jews across the globe. I think we need a word for people who are anti - anyone who isn’t a Jew.
BECOMING A CITIZEN OF ISRAEL
by
Adam Starchild
The number of U.S. citizens taking out Israeli citizenship is high. In fact in 1992 the number grew 35% over the year before, while the number from the former Soviet Union declined.
Under Israeli law, the acquisition of nationality is one of the few areas in which the law differentiates between Jews and non-Jews. The Law of Return grants every Jew the right to go to Israel as an oleh (Jewish immigrant), and the Israel Nationality Law automatically confers Israeli nationality on every oleh upon entering the country unless he specifies otherwise. The law even provides that a Jew who expresses his desire to settle in Israel may be granted nationality by virtue of the Law of Return even before he physically immigrates, a clause which allows the Israeli government to issue travel documents to refugees in emergencies.
Article 4A of the Law of Return extends the Jewish rights to family members: “(a) The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.”
The next section makes it clear that the family member need not even be living: “(b) It shall be immaterial whether or not a Jew by whose right a right under subsection (a) is claimed is still alive and whether or not he has immigrated to Israel.”
Article 4B provides the definition of a Jew: “For the purposes of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”
Section 5 of the law allows the Minister of the Interior to grant visas and citizenship to minors without their parents consent, a section that has recently been used for minors from Ukraine, Moldova, and former Yugoslavia who decided to flee without their families.
Who called you an anti-semi(te)? I think al those using that word were directing it at the OP, and the article quoted there. I don’t think you’ve said anything warranting that label. I hope you did not pick that up from my reply to you - I was being a bit over-the-top, because I though your post was a bit naive.
Fenris, The immigration policy of Israel towards Jews is posted here twice. Do you see any bigoted ideas there? If not, how would you rationalize such a clearly racist policy?
Tradesilicon, you did not direct “anti - semetic” at me and I thank you. I did however, pick up on the same knee jerk tone that pixiegrrl did. Can you give us your opinion of Israeli immigration policy without resorting to those tactics?
How do you find racism in a policy that identifies people by religious belief as well as by descent. (Especially, as noted elsewhere, converts are fully Jewish, so the child of a converted Jewish mother would have no “racial” component at all?)
In addition, nothing in the Right of Return excludes anyone. Giving preferential treatment to one group may be discriminatory, but with no barriers to any other group, it is not exclusionary.
Really, tom? Then why is the Palestinian “right of return” such a hot potato? If there were no barriers to immigration to Israel by non-Jews, then there wouldn’t be an issue - all the exiled Palestinians could simply immigrate to Israel. Perhaps they are being “excluded”?
I’m not taking a position on the rightness or wrongness of the Jewish Right of Return. I note that it is not an exclusively Israeli phenomenom - Germany, of all places, still relies on a 1910-era immigration law that gives preference to people of German blood. But of course it is exclusionary.
Well, I think I have. But here’s one more try at it:
For Israel, survival/security are major concerns. They are trying to build a country out of sand and swaps (doing great so far, in the economic sence), but in danger of attack. If they believe that Jewish immigrants are far less likely to cause harm, because of some common bond with the majority of the population, I can definately see their resoning for such a policy. If they further believe that it is critical for them to increase the population, all the more reason.
Now, you can argue that religious/racial characteristics should not be used for citizenship grants in the U.S. or European countries, but first check your facts. There are quotas everywhere, and you can certainly get some interesting immigration policies in Far Eastern coutries, Middle East (other than Israel), and Eastern Europe. See what you get by way of comparison, and then form a reasonable analysis. Let me know.
And even though the tone of my post was less than GD, I did have some points there about the situation Israel was/is in, you have not disputed those. I would like to hear your take.
Well Tom, I guess it would be the part about descent…duh.
Hmmm… I am not sure if the children of converts are considered Jewish by default. Anyone?
Tom, I do not wish to insult your intelligence here but maybe you should read it again. The rights of return clearly exclude anyone subscribing to a different religion.
The children of a woman who has converted to Judaism are Jewish by Jewish law. For the children of her daughters, there is not even a question regarding the “conversion.”
You are not insulting my intelligence, but demonstrating that you have read only part of the relevant information.
The Right of Return is only one aspect of Israeli immigration law. It makes provisions to include one class of people. (Whether such a law should be respected in a perfect world is a separate question–especially considering that this is not a perfect world.) However, the Right of Return does not address the other aspects of Israeli immigration law that may or may not exclude various other people. Why are you claiming that this one section is the totality of immigration law?
Tradesilicon, I would not dispute historic fact. Nor would I use it to propogate hate. Israel has my full support in its right to exist. I do not, however, lend my support in its right to exist as a “Jewish State”. This ideal is not limited to Israel. Perhaps Israel could lead the region by example. Extend the right of return to moderates on the other side. People who would share in the ideals of tolerance (if there are any such ideals on either side) and be less prone to blow themselves up in public places. Instead of more Jewish settlements, build a few for other races / religions, as a gesture of good faith. If Israel is to know peace, in an otherwise Arabic part of the world, they will have to find a way to make peace with Arabs. I do believe the onus is on Israel to show its willingness to work with, tolerate and even embrace the Arab world. The only other solution I see is what we have now. And what we have now is an age old crusade / race war that knows no end.
From what it says, foreign non-Jews can’t become citizens of Israel, and “A non-Jew may apply for permanent residence status if the applicant can show special reasons for wishing to live in Israel. The granting of such status is at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior and is rather rare. Christian clergy are the most common example for obtaining this status.”
