Well, I guess it would help to find an instance where Catholic doctrine and U.S. law clearly contradict, and show that 50% or more of American Catholics ignored/disobeyed the latter in order to follow the former.
Are their Catholics who work for insurance companies, for example, who absolutely refuse to process claims relating to same-sex marriage from U.S. states where such is legal?
I’d like to see something comparable for Jews for the OP’s analogous claim. Right now, I’m at the “beliefs that are false” stage. “Beliefs that are anti-Semitic” will require a tad more effort.
The second statement is clearly antisemitic, the first is a bit more complicated.
If it is taken to indicate that There is a secret fifth column of Jews that are going to undermine France in order to bring about Israeli domination, then that is also clearly antisemitic. But if it is taken to indicate that a large proportion or even most Jews’ connections to Israel will make them likely to support pro-Israel policies that may not be in their home country’s best interest. Then I don’t see it as antisemitic.
You can’t reasonably paraphrase that as “French Jews are more loyal to Israel to France.” That type of phrasing and thinking deliberately strips out the nuance and differences of opinion that you are discussing.
And that’s why we always end up discussing the most notorious form of anti-Semitic trope because any discussion on the latter inevitably gets “upgraded” to the former.
Just recall the whole fiasco a thread tumbled down into because of the phrase “Jewish lobby” vs. “Israel lobby” when it was quite crystal clear what was meant. It got so entangled that now people are convinced that even saying “Israel lobby” is anti-Semitic and who wants to deal with that accusation today in US.
While it’s not *necessarily *“anti-Semitic,” 99 people out of a 100 who lead with that observation are going to make a statement in the next paragraph that is.
It’s a little like the Kenyan anti-Colonialist argument. Yes, I suppose we could isolate the concept in the lab as an atomistic hypothesis. But the fact is that people who are employing conceptions like that are on the highway to Bigotry City and not likely to take any exits beforehand.
While I don’t think Hagel was expressing an anti-Semitic view, saying “Jewish” when you mean “Israeli” is very stupid and it’s going to make people look askance at you. Some of his other comments were also tactless. Of course that doesn’t excuse the stuff people simply made up about him in a desperate attempt to kill his nomination. But he’s a former senator who just took a major cabinet position and you really don’t want people in those positions saying things like that.
They are actually both opinions because of the word “too.” Too much for who, or compared to what? That takes each statement out of an “is” and into an “ought.”
The more I think about it, the more I think the statements might actually be ipso facto anti-Semitic. “Too much” implies the opposition of the “anti-,” and the phrasing of the statement in relation to one specific group, as opposed to for example “people like bacon too much,” just puts too much of a burden on credulity that the speaker isn’t making an antagonistic statement.
And after all, if someone is “too much” then the program is to lessen them somehow…
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
Otherwise, you exhibit a wonderful characteristic of a debater who casually upgrades the conversation as my earlier post clearly illustrated.
Answering your ludicrous question - properly peppered with incriminatory phrases - would only make me an accessory after the stupid question so I’ll leave it to your - now already typical - insistence of answering the most improbable question one can come up with in the course of a debate.
I think a better way to put it is that there’s a difference between making anti-Semitic comment and being an anti-Semite.
For example, when Wesley Clark warned about the fact that too many “New York money people” were pushing for war with Iran he was making an anti-Semitic comment.
The second statement is making a value judgement, As such it seems bigoted to me.
It could be expressed as “over represented” in which case it isn’t bigoted as it is merely an exercise in simple maths.
The first statement doesn’t sound bigoted to me. I could express similar views on any coherent cultural group without a making a value judgement on it. Are the Scots more loyal to Edinburgh then London? probably. Give them a hard ultimatum of two equal nuclear devices in London and Edinburgh and the option of only saving one city, I suspect a large proportion would plump for the latter. I don’t see that as a bad thing. The same may be said of Jewish people and Jerusalem, or Muslims and Mecca.
To his credit, Clarke never tried to claim that he mean the “Wall Street people” nor did any of his ardent defenders such as Matthew Yglesias or Eric Altermann.
They all freely admit that it’s clear based on the context of his interview that he clearly meant Jews.
A Catholic serving as president of the U.S. has two options: He can either use his office to promote Catholic moral teachings, or he can refrain from doing so. If he chooses the first option, then I can vote against him without being a bigot, for presumably it’s possible to disagree with Catholic moral teachings without being a bigot. (Although personally I agree with most of them.) But on the other hand, if he chooses the second option, I would be very much inclined to vote against him simply because he’s a hypocrite who ignores the political doctrines of his church, if for no other reason.
Indeed, but while such discrimination was wrong, suspicions about Catholics had far more rational basis than did suspicions about Jews or blacks.
Well the problem here is that American Catholics are hardly famous for obeying the dictates of their own faith, haha. Which is why the claim “American Catholics are more loyal to the pope”, while true in theory, is probably not true in practice.
Catholicism could be argued to be a transnational set of principles, but the Catholic Church most certainly is not: it’s a specific bureaucratic organization with a clearly defined social and political agenda which it explicitly expects all people who identify as Catholic to follow.
Israel, by comparison, is just a country with a lot of Jews in it. It makes no claims of representation or leadership for Jews as a whole, nor does it, as a matter of policy, expect non-Israeli Jews to follow their edicts or agree with their philosophies.
And Israel’s only been around since 1947, making it eighteen years younger as a political institution than Vatican City, although for the life of me, I can’t figure out why that matters.
Well, that’s pretty much the whole point, isn’t it? The people who mutter darkly about “Jews being more loyal to Israel,” generally are not muttering about “Anglicans being more loyal to England,” or “Baptists being more loyal to their minister.” The people who say this sort of thing are placing Jews in a special group, outside of other religious groups, and labeling it as being particularly dangerous or seditious.
Israel is a lot more than “just a country with a lot of Jews in it.”
It declares itself to be “the sovereign state of the Jewish people” and in it’s declaration of independence did so by declaring that “the Jewish people have the right to their own sovereign state”.
So yes, the government of Israel does make claims to “representation” of “Jews as a whole” to the point of even answering the question “what is a Jews and what isn’t”.
That doesn’t mean that I think it’s not virulently offensive and anti-Semitic to claim that American, British, or French Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own governments.
However, it’s most certainly not “a country with a lot of Jews in it” the way America is “a country with a lot of Christians in it.”
For those interested, here is Israel’s Declaration of Independence.
For that matter, Israel has laws banning any political parts that support “negation of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people” though thankfully it’s never been fully successfully applied except against the Kach Party.
So in a situation where there are a lot of rich people in New York pushing for war with Iran, and the speaker believes there are “too many”, what is one’s choice in wording so as to convey this sentiment without it being labelled an antisemitic comment?