In a response to Mandros, we hear Sweet Willy saying:
Narrow definitions can get you into trouble. Racism can also be legitimately defined as simply the belief that the species can be meaningfully divided into different, distinct races. Setting aside the debate over whether this belief has any validity for the moment, this definition carries no presupposition that any of the so-called “races” is superior to any or all of the others.
But just for a moment, Sweet Willy, I’m going to grant you that the state of Israel, in granting Right of Return privileges to Jews who are identified by religious conviction, ethnic background, or a combination of the two, is attempting to assign the label of “race” to its beneficiaries. Even so, the Right of Return laws do not exist because there is any claim that Jews are “superior” to Gentiles; rather, they exist because of a perception that Jews are more vulnerable to genocidal maniacs than are Gentiles. There is a lot of history reinforcing that perception.
At least, that’s what I gathered from the postings of the people here who are tryiing to persuade you that Right of Return policies do not present a good example of how “Jewish religion and ideology threaten us all.”
It is not at all present among religious Jews, today. There are a few splinter political sects (with followings proportionally smaller than the number of Christians who embrace Fred Phelps and his “God hates fags” movement) who may hold some attitudes similar to this.
However, you need to realize what you are reading. The Talmud contains the ongoing discussions of hundreds of scholars over several hundred years. The discussions were often carried out as “point and counterpoint” type exchanges either published for commentary or mailed between various schools. Anything written as part of those discussions was included in their entirety, so that even the more hostile proclamations have been recorded. They have not, however, been embraced. To dig through the Talmud picking out selected quotations, removing them from context, and holding those discounted, minority opinions up as representative of “Jewish” thought is every bit as dishonest as republishing the fraudulent Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
If you wish to know what the Jewish community holds in regards to the extracted quotations, you need to dig up the actual chapters and read the propositions to which the quoted lines were responding as well as the subsequent propositions that were written in response to those thoughts.
Every single thing quoted in the OP is either a lie or a statement removed from context. The poster Orion*(11)Orion and his alter ego Baltazar were notorious for digging up anti-Jewish propaganda and asking why anyone would support such awful people. You can find most of the quoted texts from the OP debugged in threads they have started over the last two years.
I would think an accusation of “racist” would be taken as hostile by most Americans today. In fact, it’s about the worst insult available. By now, it’s worse than “Communist.” E.g., there are respected professors at major universities who boast about being communists, but there are none at all who admit to being racist.
To tar Jews in general with the ugly label ''racist" sounds hostile to me.
Sweet Willy, since you seem to view Israel as a threat, on what basis? When in Israel’s history has it waged war based purely on a racist ideal? Also, the coupling between Judaism and racism is still somewhat unclear. True, there is the concept of the “chosen people” but, indirectly, aren’t most religions saying just that. Sure, the term isn’t there, but don’t most religions believe that they were chosen by some deity to worship that deity? Of course, there is the factor of heritage thrown into Judaism, but it doesn’t change things that much, as I see it, for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. Now, let us turn to Israel. What action of Israel leads you to believe that it will wage nuclear war on a given race? If you are basing this belief purely on the fact that Israel is a Jewish state you seem to be missing the point that the racism we seem to be discussing is the arrogance associated with religion with heredity thrown into the mixture. Now, sometimes religion does encourage war on other religions, and I’m sure you could find some portion of the Torah mentioning some act of violence against another religion. However, as a friend of mine has said, Judaism has, as a rule, gotten past such mentality, and now tends to support peace more than war. Look at the Holocaust. One of the reasons it was so successful was that many Jews, being peaceful, could not imagine such acts being done and so remained in a state of denial. This ultimately made the job of the Nazis much easier, because the Jews were not actively running and were in so much denial that, to a certain extent, the Jews were cooperating. Of course, such cooperation did not extend to when they were in the camps or being taken to them, at least not in the same way (many undoubtedly cooperated out of fear at this point.) Naturally, the Jewish people is more paranoid now, more hardened (I’m generalizing of course) but in the sense that it will not stand by and be destroyed. To you, this may make Jewish ideology a threat, but it is my sincere belief that such ideology is not threatening.
Well, I’ve never given this speech before, but it’s not as though many others haven’t done so here before…
Sweet Willy, please repeat after me:
Judaism Isn’t A Race! Judaism Isn’t A Race! Judaism Isn’t A Race!
YOU CAN’T CONVERT TO A RACE. You can, however, convert to Judaism tomorrow, provided that you’re willing to take on all the obligations of being Jewish. Once you’ve converted, you’re as Jewish as me, Yitzchak Rabin, Moses, and yes, even as Jewish as (God help us) Howard Stern. You’re presumeably male, so your Jewishness hasn’t got any bearing on that of your kids, but if you were female, your future kids would be as Jewish as, let’s say, King David, whose great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite convert.
And, of course, you’d have all of the privileges of the Right of Return. I fail to see how this is racist, per se, when anyone can join the group in question. Racism, even as you’ve loosely defined it, discriminates against something inherited and unchangeable.
I’ve known black Jews, Asian Jews, Native American Jews, etc. Their Judaism was unquestioned by any other Jews, including (I’m assuming) those in the Ministry of the Interior of Israel. I’ve never met any Arab Jews, but I’d assume that that would go for them too.
I hate posting to a thread with this title and OP, but esteemed posters have gone before me, so here goes…
GilaB , try a little larger print and maybe a few more hundred drone like repititions and just for kicks click your ruby slippers…maybe that will make it come true.
Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
Main Entry: Ju·da·ism
Pronunciation: 'jü-d&-“i-z&m, 'jü-dE-, 'jü-(”)dA-, British also 'jü-"di-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions
2 : conformity to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices
3 : the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews
4 : the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people
Well, but your definition has proven that Judaism isn’t a race. Jews don’t fit definition 1 (which refers to animals and breeding stock). They don’t fit definition 2a (because it’s possible to convert to Judaism, so the “same stock” part of the definiton doesn’t work). I guess Jews could fit definition 2b, maybe, but that’s so vague any group of people could fit it…dopers could fit it, because we’re a class of people unified by a community of interests, habits, or characteristics. Definition 3 is out…there’s no specific Jewish inheritable traits (although there are some possessed by specific populations of Jews), and 4 and 5 don’t fit.
So, what is Judaism? It’s a religion, even though there are nonreligious Jews. It’s a tribal and national identity, even though there are Chinese Jews, African Jews, European Jews, American Jews, etc.
Basically, Jews are a group of people either born to a Jewish mother, or who converted, and that’s all Jews are.
If you disagree, I’d like to hear your argument as to why Jews should be considered a race, more than just quoting dictionary definitions. I guess the two questions you’d need to answer is:
Dammit, Captain Amazing got here first, and I just spent 20 minutes on this!
Definition 1: I really hope you’re not going with this one.
Definition 2: a. Yes, a large percentage of Jews come from the “same stock”, but note that you can join the “family, tribe, people, or nation” no matter what kind of stock you’re from. **b.**Well, I suppose one could argue that Jews are a community of interests, habits, etc, but then you’d need to define Democrats, Elks Club members, and people who root for the Chicago Cubs as races as well, and people might argue with that one.
Definition 3: a. Um, I don’t really think you want to do race by evolutionary analysis, as a whole lot of people will jump down your throat; as for the second part, I don’t think that there’s a separate subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens judaicus. b. This is how I (and, IMHO, how most Americans) usually define race. I don’t know what genetic traits I and my friend Josh, a Jew of Korean descent, share that distinguish us from non-Jews, but I’d love to hear about it if you do.
Definition 4: obsolete
Definition 5: I fail to see how this one applies to people, unless you’re a cannibal.
Definition 1: a. No-one knows the tribe distributions now, beyond Levite/non-Levite. Probably not what you’re talking about, since it’s not the way the word’s used today. (FWIW, I’m a non-Levite.) b. I’m not sure exactly what they mean by ISRAELITE, as I would have guessed it to be definition 2, but as far as I know, the word isn’t used to describe any modern group
Definition 2: A political designation that died a couple of thousand years ago. Definitely not racial according to the definitions above.
Definition 3: I’m not sure what they mean. How can one convert to an ancient people? They’re all dead. One can, I guess follow their practices, but that would probably be covered by definition 4. The continuation with descent thing could possibly be construed as race according to definition 3b above, although I’m not sure whether there are enough heritable characteristics among people born Jewish to declare this to be so. The conversion part of this definition does knock out 3b of race, though, since I doubt that anyone could convert and suddenly gain inheritable characteristics.
Definition 4: Nothing here that could be construed racially according to any definition above except the community of common interests one (2b), which I think isn’t a valid definition for the purposes of this discussion.
Definitions 1-3: Definitely cultural distinctions, not anything racial except by the community of interests definition (2b in the race definition). Implies no exclusive group whatsoever.
Definition 4: (It never occured to me that Judaism was a concrete noun. You learn something new every day!) A group, but so loosely defined that there’s no way one could pin a racial distinction other than 2b on this one. No genetic characteristics implied.
Unless you felt that all of the subdefinitions fit your argument (A breeding stock of animals!), you might have wanted to point out exactly what you were talking about.
I’d click my ruby slippers if you went out and got some for me - my slippers are rather homely and made of sheepskin. Very unmagical.
Our heavenly Father has given us more than written proof of the permanence of the Weekly Cycle and the Seventh-day Sabbath, He has given us living proof: The Jewish race.
Every other Near-eastern ethnic group has disappeared: the Hittites, the Sumarians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Moabites, the Philistines–all are gone. But the Jews remain, and with them the Seventh-day Sabbath.
It has been 3400 years since the time that God gave them manna in the wilderness and told them to carefully keep each Seventh-day Sabbath when no manna fell. But all during those long centuries since then, they have observed God’s Sabbath, week after week, month after month, year after year, century after century
Ask any Jewish acquaintance what day is the Sabbath. He will tell you that it is Saturday, the Seventh day.
Orthodox Jews scattered throughout the world have kept strict record of time. They have carefully observed the Seventh-day Sabbath throughout the ages. The existence and testimony of the Jewish race is alone enough to settle the matter. It is the most amazing and conclusive means of knowing the ancient Sabbath of Jesus and earlier times. There is no doubt that the God of heaven has carefully guarded the day that He sanctified and blessed at Creation. We have no excuse for not keeping it holy as He commanded.
Just as a side note, if you find an actual Jewish site that says Judaism is a race, please remember, Jews are a very diverse group of people. There’s no central “Jewish authority” to say one thing or another, and remember that you can find crackpots and intolerant people in every group of people. Please address the arguments made in this thread. I’m still waiting to hear your definition of race, and how Jews fit that definition. I’m not as interested in why other people think Jews are a race.
Sweet Willy, you need to retract the “argument from string-of-dictionary-definitions” before you start trying to get your proof from the Jewish website accepted, or you’re going to get everything all muddled up. Try to stay focused.
Again, you’re not making an argument…you’re just repeating what other people say. We know now that Seventh Day Adventists consider Jews a race and Benjamin Netenyahu considers Jews a race, but why do you? An argument is more than stringing together a group of other people’s opinions.
Loath as I am to agree with “Agumentum ad Dictionarium” Willy, he has a point, beyond the obvious one which, due to forum restrictions, I can’t mention.
Jews (generally: as someone else commented, we’re a pretty diverse people) consider themselves both a race AND a religion. (More accurately a culture and a religion, but let’s not quibble).
There are two ways to become a Jew: Be born of a Jewish mother OR convert.
As counter-intuitive as it is, it is possible to be an “Athiest Jew”.
There was a really good discussion of it in this thread (it’s what changed my mind on the issue.
But, let me be clear, just because Sweet “Jews! Threat or Menace?” Willy is actually sort-of right (although I suspect his motives) on this single issue (throw enough darts, and ONE of 'em will eventually hit the target) doesn’t mean I agree with him on ANY other issue.
Fenris, slightly nauseous about agreeing with SW. Even a little.
Whether or not Jews are a race (I think a culture would be a much more apt term, anyhow), the point still remains: Sweet Willy has no proverbial ground to stand on. I am going to attempt the impossible here, I will try to outline SW’s argument, so we can refute it. Correct me if I get anything wrong, ok?
Judaism is a race,
The Right of Return policy precludes people other than Jews from immigrating to Israel,
Therefore the Right of Return policy is racist.
I think I’m okay up to here. Now we get into the trickier part:
Because the Right of Return policy is racist, Israel’s government, as a whole is racist.
Israel has control of nuclear weapons.
Therefore, Israel is a threatening racist country with nuclear weapons.
I think the major problem is with #4… wanna give us some backup on that one, Willy?
Sweet Willy: Jewish can be a descriptor for “race” ( or tribe ), religion, or both. But it doesn’t always mean all of the above. Claiming Judaism is all about race is grossly inaccurate, no matter what Netanyahu says ( in fact I think race is used just as often in this context as “extended family” - it’s an expression of shared commonality or clannishness if you prefer, rather than an actual blood ties - the use of the word being perhaps unique in that usage among religious groups to the Jews, because of the actual remembered insularity of the old Jewish communities - but it’s a use that is incorrect in strict definition, IMHO ).
Anyway, wading through all of this sludge, I still have yet to see where you offer up a solid scenario wherein “Jewish ideology” ( which for you seems to = Judaism, period ) becomes an exceptional threat to the world.
Why don’t you try to describe for me a scenario where this “Jewish racism” ( i.e. not self-defense ) causes Israel to use nuclear weapons.
And just to see where your mind is heading - If in fact Israel ( and by your extension it seems, Judaism ) is such an exceptional threat, what would you propose should be done about such a ‘clear and present danger’?
NO. The right of return policy shows preference for Jews. There is a difference.
Yes. The position that Jewish are more desirable as citizens is racist.
NO. I am sure there must be some components more or less racist than the policy set forth.
Check.
In my estimation, yes.
I know that someone somewhere will think I am just completely off my rocker but, a fair amount of Israeli policy incorporates Jewish ideology. They have lots of weapons. It is by no means illogical to conceive that a degree of religious ideology incorporated into a national agenda could have a causal effect on the use of such weapons. It is a threat. If you don’t believe the argument from that angle try this one; The palestinian leadership incorporates Islamic ideology into its “national agenda”. Islamic Ideology is also racist in its intent. By embracing religious ideology as part of policy they are able to convince people to blow themselves up in order to kill specifically people of the race on the bad end of their racist philosophy. This is done in a curious scenario of military order carried out with religious conviction. Does that help at all?
