What you apparently do not understand (but what is known to Jews) is that Judaism isn’t simply a religion. It is not the same as “Catholicism”.
Judaism is a tribal identity. There is absolutely no contradiction is saying that someone is an “atheist Jew”, any more than there is in saying someone is an “athiest Irishman”.
This is true whether you, personally, happen to know about it or not. The standard set by the court in the very case cited by the group in the OP, and from which I have quoted above, is not of the ignorant bystander, but of the informed and historically-aware bystander.
Such a person would, of necessity, know that the symbol was a tribal amd national symbol for Jews, and not a religious one. They would know of its use in Zionism, of its perversion by the Nazis, and of the fact that it is on the current Flag of the State of Israel.
I understand religious symbols. But tribal symbols? To what purpose? Tribal solidarity? Seems to me this is how ideas like “the international Jew” and “those Jews all stick together” get started. I am not endorsing those ideas, ftr, just questioning the wisdom of such heavy emphasis on tribal identity. But that’s a different debate, I guess.
Edit: I forgotb to address this, from Tres’s post:
That’s not how a tribal identity works. Someone who converts to Judaism (via religion) becomes a full member of the tribe, no different from any other Jew - by Jewish law.
Tribal identity, unlike racial identity, is established by rules - the rules of the Tribe. Inheritance may do it (following the rules), but so can conversion. Tribal identity can be lost, too - for example, by conversion to a religion incompatible with Judaism. An atheist can be a Jew, but not a Catholic.
The Nazi attempts to regulate who was Jewish by “race” were, of course, nonsense to Jews. Note that race has, literally, nothing to do with tribal identity. A Polish Jew is a Jew and an Etheopian Jew is a Jew, even though one is White and one is Black (the current “Ms. Israel” is Black, and Jewish).
So, if someone converts to Judaism, they are as much “covered” by a Star of David as someone born to a Jewish mother. They just took two different routes to becomming Jewish, under the laws of the tribe.
That may what it used to represent, but today in America it represents the religion as well. For example, when I do a google image search for “interfaith council logo” I count seven Stars of David without having to scroll.
But the tribal membership is the aftereffect-the newly converted is first joining the religion, right? An Ethiopian Jew is as much a member of the tribe as is any other Jew, but only because she/he is Jewish. Is there a way for an outsider to become a member of the Jewish tribe and adapt the Star of David symbol without first becoming a member of the Jewish faith? Can a gentile become a non-religious Jew and thus use the symbol?
The fact that a court of law somewhere has deemed a Star of David does not make it so. If a court erroneously concluded that a banana was a symbol of Hypotheticalreligionism, that would not make it so. At the same time, I would point out to the people arguing with you that courts don’t come up with this stuff in a vacuum. They had to find some evidence first.
I feel mentally enriched having learned that it’s called a Magan David in Hebrew, so thanks, Terr.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Your argument seems to be that either the US government actually can tell religions what they really think and what their symbols are, and overrule the objections of those who actually follow those religions…
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, at least as a matter of law where Jews are not the proponents of the symbol. Return to my banana hypothetical. Jews don’t have to venerate the Star of David because the government says so, but it’s important to remember that the accuracy is irrelevant to the Establishment Clause. All that matters under the Lemon test is (1) the enactment must have secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The meaningful question here is not whether the Star of David is a religious symbol. It’s whether the government putting up the monument (or hosting it) intends for it to be one. That’s a question of fact, not law, and we’re not equipped to address it here.
Are you sure? I am somewhat dubious that the Nazis tried to exterminate, say, ethnic Jews who converted to Catholicism as much as ethnic Jews who practiced Judaism.
It osn’t a “demeaning lecture”. You evidently do not know this stuff, and it is important information for the argument.
What you are doing, is making a classic argumentitive fallacy - an “argument from ignorance”.
Your argument amounts to ‘when I see this symbol, I think of the Jewish religion. I assume everyone else does, too. Therefore, that is what it means’.
What you are ignorant about, is the use of this symbol by Jews, and its actual history and significance.
There is no shame in not knowing that stuff - I mean, why should you? I don’t know the history of lots of symbols.
Google-bombing isn’t evidence of anything, pretty well ever. Sure, Jews use the symbol a lot, both religious Jews and non-religious Jews. Try goodling “Israeli Flag”. Or “Israeli Atheists”.
What was the name of the town, though? I do remember someone brought a case against there being a cross on the seal of Las Cruces, NM. (Of course, said individual apparently was unaware that “Las Cruces” translates to “The Crosses”, so the whole thing was kinda stupid.) Is that the one you’re thinking of?
Magen. As in “shield” in Hebrew. It may have been literally the shape of shields used by some Hebrews.
The Nuremberg Laws didn’t refer to religious affiliation of the person when defining what “Jew” meant. If you were descended from Jews you were a Jew. Whether you converted to Catholicism didn’t enter into the definition.
Sure. They can join a Jewish congregation that happens to be non-theistic.
The important thing is to become a member of a congregation - that is, to be formally accepted by a community of Jews. Most, but not all, congregations are theistic. Some are not. An atheist would want to join one of the latter.
Because I disagree with you doesn’t make me ignorant. It doesn’t matter what the Star of David meant 80 years ago any more than the fact that gay meant happy then. Things change.
It’s evidence of what the symbol means. What do you think? People see those logos and think that its a group of religions and the Jewish people as an ethnic group? Perhaps they wonder why there is no Irish flag.