OK, I just reread what I think is the relevant part of Karen Armstrong’s book (page 30-31) and I think that she just simplified things for the sake of brevity a little too much. I can try to explain my objections further in a PM if you care, Brainglutton, as I think I am hijacking the thread by now.
Also, in front of my second sentence in the above post, please insert “The history of the Rashidun and Islam immediately after Muhammad is often very debatable, and…” Sorry about that.
Even non-religious Jews aren’t exactly eager to start broad-based conversations about Jews as an ethnicity.
I can’t say I blame them. If people can shit on you for having a 6000yo faith based on literacy and ethics, they can shit on you even more if you define yourself by noses, accents, music or food.
Well, that could change if whites or Christians become the target of a systematic (and to some degree successful) extermination effort that was the culmination of centuries of persecution, abuse and exile.
I guess it’s like being thrown to the lions in a Roman colosseum, only other people were happy to keep it going after the Romans gave it up.
Several differences. One is religion (or ethnicity) and the other is a race.
First: there are plenty of nations (other than Israel) where a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land. Let’s see: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, … um… well, most of the Arab world, for that matter. Then there’s the Vatican. Others with an official state religion include Greece, Denmark, Scotland, England… Try to even VISIT Saudi Arabia if you’re not Muslim!
Second: You can convert to a different religion. You can’t change your race, determined genetically at birth. (Yes, I know that there is an hereditary element to Judaism, but the point is that someone who is not born to it can convert into it.)
In short, a nation deciding to show favoritism for a certain religion is not the same as showing favoritism for a certain race.
Piling on …
“Jewish” is a religious identity or perhaps even better a tribal identity; “White” is a racial identifier. Serious GDs regarding the nature of Jewish identity as tribal, vs ethnic/cultural, vs religious have been had and are fair discussions; equating identity “Jewish” with being “White” however is merely specious rhetorical posturing.
Yup, Procrustus, imagine there’s no countries … no religion too. Actually not sure if that is a dream though … because in the real world such desires have worked out like that bed of your namesake’s, trying to size people to that one bed one way or the other. Imagine there’s no Aborigine, no Navaho or Gypsy or Jew too … it’s easy if you try … (and they have).
You clearly haven’t met many Israelis.
I have never heard such bullshit before, and from an Admin.:rolleyes:
Brilliant factual refutation there AK.
Of course, Dex is right. Self determination for ethnic groups bears nothing in common with supremacist ideologies for racial groups.
This is a debate forum. If you have a genuine objection to another post, you might want to try to actually spell out the objection. Simply dismissing another’s post in a nasty way does not actually accomplish anything besides making one look nasty.
Is there an actual objection you had to Dex’s post? Or are you simply in a bad mood?
Now that is not true.
It also makes a poster who does such look stupid.
I’d also point out that the author cited in the OP, and most who opine on the subject, have got it wrong. The thing necessary for the continuation of a Jewish state is the Law of Return coupled with a robust respect/legally enshrined protections for civil society such that Jews cannot be oppressed. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a Jewish state which would leave anybody at a disadvantage, except when it comes to immigration as Jews must be guaranteed immigration rights. That’s a fairly small slice to cut, however, as it’s difficult to argue that anybody at all has a ‘right’ to citizenship or residence in a foreign country.
Look, in many cases religious identity and ethnic identity become inseparable. An Irish Protestant who converts to Islam is still in some important sense an Irish Protestant until the day he dies.
Back off. This is not The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Both whites and Christians have at various periods in history been the target of systematic persecution. Both by other Christians and other whites, and by non Christians and non-whites. These are ongoing issues, and for instance many more Slavs were murdered by Nazi persecutions than were Jews.
The same question concerns the Arab nations (They even have Muslim only areas); the Vatican is a rather special exception, and the official state religion of the remainder of the European nations is not comparable to a statement saying the nations much be kept Christian. Perhaps comparable was the Polish suggestion that the EU constitution should include some specific Christian clauses. Which although was worded much milder than what Rosensaft (which incidentally means rose-juice in Danish) proposed, and yet was met by widespread condemnation.
I don’t see that as an important difference. While possible in theory, for many, most, people you might as well tell them to change race as convert to Judaism.
Unless they wanna get married. 
I’ve mixed feelings on the topic of “diversity” versus “preserving identity.” Note that encouraging diversity through unrestricted immigration and international trade is the path to eliminate diversity, as nations become melting pots of all cultures.
But, despite these mixed feelings, the proper position on the Jews of israel is clear. I hope I do not need a cite to contend that Jews without a homeland are in danger. Anyone claiming prejudice against Jews is no longer rampant has closed eyes.
I must guess AK84 frustration:
Must be becuase the statements about the many arab countries in this post have so many errors in them.
Of course it is not so hard to get a visit visa and a working permit in Saudi Arabia if you are not Muslim. There are many millions of non Muslims from Asia and Europe in the Saudi Kingdom. It is only not permitted to visit the holy city of the Mecca. It is also not true that only one religion makes the laws of the Syria. The Syria do not base the laws on Islamic law, it is a socialist secular state and only the personal law is based on religion but this is on each religion present which is the different Christians , and the Druze and the Alaouites and others. Irak is also the same case and so is the Lebanon.
So AK response can be understood I think.
You’d have a point, except you don’t.
The ability to visit Saudi Arabia is, somewhat recently, relaxed for non-Muslims but they still have Muslim-Only roads and it’s still a criminal offense to wear icons of other religions. As for your claims about Syria, religious belief is most certainly central to the law of the land. You are confusing the fact that the ruling regime is secular with the fact that by its own constitution, the President must be Muslim and jurisprudence is Islamic. Your claim that the “personal law” (whatever that is) is “based on … each religion present” is nonsense. Your claims about Iraq are, likewise, nonsense. Not only is Islam the official religion but it is forbidden to enact laws which do not agree with Islam. Lebanon has sharia as part and parcel of its legal system. (Of course, it should be noted that you brought up Lebanon in your gotchaya!, not Dex)
You are correct that by law the President must be a Muslim but what do you mean by “the jurisprudence is Islamic”?
Syria isn’t governed by Sharia Law like either Saudi Arabia or Iran. The closest I can think of is a throwaway line in their constitution declaring “all laws herein are inspired by the Holy Quran”.
Yep, I’m referring to article 3(2) from their constitution:
True, all law isn’t strictly Islamic, but Dex’s claim was that Islam was fundamental to the law of the land in Syria. I’d say that having a religious test for highest office qualifies and lip service paid to Islam at least shows that it’s a strong consideration in maintaining appearances. Of course, it’s true that the ruling regime has taken serious steps to limit the power of Islamists, most famously with Hama in '82.
