What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
No.
None of the examples of shared heitage I mentioned are necessary or sufficient in themselves. They are examples of things that *can/i] define an individual ethnicity. The point is that Muslims share NOTHING outside of religious belief. Islam is a religion only. It has no other common binder. Those other groups do.
[qote]Muslim have a “common heritage”
[/quote]
A heritage of what outsode of religion.
Name on shared cultural component of Muslims besides religion.
And this is a religious practice.
You have failed to name a single thing “Muslims” have in common besides religion. What is the definition of a “Muslim?”
I could be wrong, but I think that when people think of ethnic Jews they’re either thinking of Ashkenazi or Sephardi Jews.
It is possible to “join” an ethnic group, by integrating into their community, learning their language and customs, etc. This is what converts to Judaism go through. Ethnic groups are often more ethnocultural groups than strict ethnic or genetic groups. We can call Barack Obama an African American despite him not being the descendant of African slaves in the US, for example, due to him being perceived as an African American by most Americans, and having integrated into the African American society.
This said, I’ll agree that Jews aren’t exactly an ethnic group; there’s a good argument to be made that they’re several ethnic groups. Still, they’re a trans-ethnic group in the sense that they share a lot of cultural traditions, a traditional language, and especially a sense of a shared history and future. They do have many of the characteristics of a national group, even though they’re not that, either.
Right. A person could, if they wished, move to France, learn French and adopt it as their primary language, obtain citizenship in the Republique Francaise, and be seen as “French”. Or, a US Citizen could move to Puerto Rico and immerse themself to such a degree in the local culture and Spanish language that they become, in the eyes of locals, Puerto Rican.
Going back to ethno-religious groups, another example is the Amish. There’s an Amish ethnic group, and the religion they practice, which is a form of Fundamentalist Christianity.
Jews are neither a religion, race or ethnic group; we’re an “Ahm”, which roughly translates to “people”. If that doesn’t fit your modern definitions, tough. We came first.
I do have to say I’m surprised that someone so religiously literate as Dio hasn’t heard of the halacha about matrilineal descent. It’s extremely important culturally, religiously and legally (whether it should continue to be, of course, is another question).
TMI. Oh wait, you didn’t mean it that way, did you.
The Septuagint calls the Jewish people an ethnos. Nothing modern about that.
Of course I knew about it, but my understanding was that it was more about knowing who was definitely in than about exclusion. Reform and liberal schools don’t exclude based on non-matrilineal descent, and I didn’t think anyone but maybe ultra-Orthodox still did.
Orthodox and Conservative Judaism use matrilineal descent, Reform and Reconstructionism say that anyone with one Jewish parent who’s raised as a Jew should be considered a Jew.
Diogenes:
Why can’t they? The point (according to we Orthodox) about whether or not a person is Jewish pertains to whether or not that person is covenentally obligated to observe the commandments of the Torah. What’s so radical about saying that only those descended through their mothers have inherited that obligation?
And, as others have said before, it’s not just “a few Ultra-Orthodox.” Matrilineal descent has been the traditional definition of from-birth Judaism for thousands of years and is supported by allusions in the Scripture itself; even the Reform kept to it until about 30 years ago, when they realized how empty their pews would be if they continued telling half their member families that their kids weren’t Jewish.
We weren’t talking about obligation, though, it was stated that those who have only Jewish fathers are flat out rejected as being any kind of Jew, religious or otherwise. Biologically, they are still just as “Jewish” (belonging to the same genetic cluster) as anyone with only a Jewish mother. Religious belief can’t wave away genetics.
What does genetics have to do with anything? Judaism has never been defined by Jews in racial terms, and of course long predates even early modern notions of “race”, let alone knowledge of genetics. It’s tribal and national, not racial.
The word “Judaism” refers only to the religion, but “Jews” are not just a religion, they are are also an ethnic group (or set of ethnic groups). I never said they were a “race” (that word really has no meaning), so don’t put words in my mouth. Ethnicity and race are not synonyms, and you don’t have to practice Judaism to be an ethnic Jew.
By the way, saying it’s “tribal” is saying it’s ethnic.
I quite agree that Judaism is both an ethnicity/nationality and a religion, that one need not practice Judaism to be ethnically Jewish, and I also agree that race has no scientific application to humans (not that it has “no meaning”). The use of “genetics” as defining the ambit of “ethnicity” is, however, commonly associated with the use of the descriptive term “race” for shorthand (as in ‘biologically Jewish’); but I will not quibble with you over semantics.
My debate is about the use of term “genetics”. Genetics has, and had, no necessary application to ethnicity. They are often enough correlated, of course, but premodern peoples had no real concept of genetics, and determined matters of who was “in” the ethnicity/nationality based on their own rules.
Incidentally, why does the state of Israel say that anyone with a Jewish father or grandfather is a Jew if they aren’t really Jews?
Aren’t really Jews … according to whom? That’s the thing: Judaism is not monolithic - different Jews have different interpretations of who is “in” the ethnicity/nationality.
No, but they understood ancestry and defined tribal membership in those terms, and “Jewish” membership is still defined in terms of ancestry (which is really just genetics under a different word), and the State of Israel defines Jews in terms of both patrilineal and matrilineal descendency. How is that not a genetic parameter?
Why shouldn’t they? There’s no reason that the state of Israel should have the same definition of Judaism as the Orthodox. Besides, it’s not like people with Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers don’t get persecuted by anti-semites, so they need some place of refuge too.