It is a religious definition and the separation of church and state prevents him from demanding that I accept his religious definition.
carnivorousplant:
And he’d lay it aside for what, exactly? There is no concrete secular definition that can be pointed to.
Chaim Mattis Keller
He should lay it aside for nothing; the United States Constitution will not favor anyone’s religion over anyone else’s.
My Rabbi told me that life begins when the dog dies and the kids go off to college.
Go figure.
When I first read this post I was hoping somebody would answer my question. Is Jewish a nationality or is it a religion. One thing that drives my Russian wife crazy is when Russians come over to America and you ask them “Are you Russian?” they reply “No, I’m Jewish”. I always thought that your nationality was where you were born, or maybe where your ancestors were from. Now these people are from Russia and in most cases thier ancestors are from Russia but they don’t consider themselves Russian. Is there a country called Jew that these people come from. When I go to Russia and people ask me if I’m American, should I answer, “No, I’m Agnostian”.
Mini-hijack here:
Over on the Pizza Palace board (a Christian message board which several GD partisans post to as well), the question of a “Torah Court” in NYC “excommunicating Lieberman” has come up, and of course nobody fully understands precisely what the situation is. Knowing that several of our Jewish members are following this thread, I’m suggesting one of them might want to pop in and do their bit for “stamping out ignorance”
The location is http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1642
<hijack>
Thinking of me again, are you hon? Sorry, I’m not in this debate 
</hijack>
(…damn those freudian slips damndamndamndamndamn)
I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
(must stop thinking about her must go on with my life…)
I don’t want this to become exclusively an abortion debate, but :
To extend the analogy, lets say your religion mandated that life began at age one. You could protest the existing secular murder laws because they are based on the religious doctrine that life begins at birth (I would assume that you would argue that life only begins at birth because you can only baptize at birth).
Infanticide was accepted in Ancient Greece IIRC, and is not uncommon in some societies to this day.
You could easily extend a secular definition of “life” to the point when a fetus’s heart begins to beat. I think this is early though, well within the first trimester. I hated embryology… There is no religion about this – it is a simple physiologic phenomenon. You could develop an ultrasound probe to specifically detect it. If there is a heartbeat, it has the rights of a human.
Right now, there is approximately 85% survival of a 26 week old pregnancy if delivered (around 5.5 months gestation). Fifty years ago there was a slim-to-none chance of survival at 26 weeks. Is it appropriate to abort a late second trimester fetus, when there is a better than average chance it could survive outside the womb? How about fifty years ago? Is this definition any better than when a fetus’s heart begins to beat?
Some of my friends believe abortion during the 40th week is OK. This is because risk to the mother in vaginal delivery is always more than risk from dilation and curretage. This is the other end of the spectrum. If you believe in pro-choice, can you accept this?
Most pro-choice people I believe are like me. I believe that abortion is an imperfect but necessary solution. Nobody wants abortions, but until an infallible birth control mechanism (and effective male contraception) is availible, it will be necessary.
To the OP
Now, what is a Jew, for jonas: The history of Judaism. Please correct as necessary.
Judaism is a religion, first and foremost. There are many flavors of it, and many varieties from around the world. There are Cochin Jews in India, there are Asian Jews, some even think that the Japanese may have been a lost tribe. There are two main divisions, however : the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. Ashkenazi Jews originated from those who migrated North after the Roman sacking of Jerusalem and other events in Ancient Israel IIRL. Sephardis entered the surrounding countries, which would become the Muslim world a few hundred years after that.
In the next 1800 years or so, the Ashkenazis basically were marginalized, expelled, or murdered by almost every nation in Europe. The Passover Haggadah has a famous line about “In every generation, they will rise up against you.” Eventually, most of them were pushed into a small region of Eastern Europe termed the Pale of Settlement. Given the close proximity and relatively small population, a large sense of community evolved. They were further united by external prejudices and pogroms, or riots against them.
Then came 1933-1945.
After the Holocaust, the Jewish community was again scattered, as the main European population was obliterated. Almost all the Jews in Poland and Lithuania were killed. Any survivors left to be with family elsewhere in the world, or went to Israel. On the eastern side, the Soviet Union swallowed Poland and Lithuania into the Eastern Bloc. Some Jews on the Soviet half of things were spared the Holocaust.
So, amongst Ashkenazim, the feelings that Jews are more than just a religion persists. The Holocaust galvanized us in that more than anything. The Russian Jews, in the years since the war, faced the same prejudices that European Jews had faced for centuries. Some of their communities were not decimated by the war. So their sense of race is probably even stronger.
I’m surprised nobody has quoted Shylock here…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CKDextHavn *
- Jewish religious law APPLIES ONLY TO JEWS. It does not apply to non-Jews.
True, that may lead to different approaches for different people. But the essence is that, under Leiberman’s position as I understand it, an Orthodox Jewish woman would be free to follow Orthodox Jewish law. A Catholic woman would be free to follow her religious beliefs. A Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episbetarian, LDS, LSD, Scorpio, or Hari Krishna could all follow the rules of their own faiths.
[Quote]
If Jewish law applies only to Jews (and i agree with you here), then why does that interferring ***** Laura S, PhD, try to foist her Jewish ideas of morality on a mostly non-Jewish audience? Yeah, sure, the OT condemns gay sex- but no more strongly than it condemns eating unclean foods, and many other laws.
Edwino, I respect your point of view, and I am not one to claim that such matters are absolute - me being absolutely right, or you being absolutely wrong. I also see the logic behind the way of thinking. The best way to deflect racism is to claim that race is not an issue, and the best way to be a part of a nation is to minimize the differences between yourself and the majority. Thinking in racial terms is frowned upon in many circles, and considered a relic of a less-enlightened past. Still, your point of view is uniquely American. In Israel as well as in most of the rest of the world, Jews see themselves first as a race, and then as members of a religion. A great many people I know have never stepped foot in a synagogue, have never believed in God, but if you implied they weren’t Jewish, they’d probably get very nesty towards you.
Strike that - they wouldn’t get nasty. They’d look at you, bewildered, and ask: “So then what the hell are we?”
Judaism is a relic of a less-enlightened past. The Jewish people existed far before modern definitions of race and religion, and these definition do not apply to us. Jews are a race…
…or more specifically, a tribe. Have you ever heared Jews refer to themselves as “The Tribe”? This sis not figurative speech. The Jews are as much a tribe as the Navajo, the Sioux and the Masai. A tribe with its own costums, laws and beliefs. In fact, the best way to define Judaism is:
Judaism is the religion of the Jewish People.
carnivorousplant:
Of course not. But you can’t just say “nothing,” because murder laws exist, and therefore the scope needs some concrete definition.
Currently, the constitution seems to imply that that scope is from the point of fetal viability.
But those who believe that fetuses are living human beings at an earlier point, if they step aside, are watching murder occur before their eyes. How can a civilized person in good conscience do that?
So rather than stand aside, they try to inform people of their point of view, and, through elected representatives, try to legislate the end of what they see as murder.
Chaim Mattis Keller
You are arguing from your opinion about what constitutes life. Laws against murder in the various states have done without a definition of life for quite a while.
carnivorousplant:
Yup…and the result is the current debate over abortion in American society.
Chaim Mattis Keller
And we are wasting our time with each other because?
I felt that the Rabbis who have made an attempt to remove Joe Lieberman’s position in his religion to be way out of line. I have always had a great respect for Lieberman’s character and think this movement to expel him from the faith he was raised in is a cruel and unworthy move against this man. The Christians are doing the same thing to Dubya. They are making the assumption that his first act will ban all abortions and he did in fact try to ban the RU486 pill.
This is starting to piss me off. This country is based on electing men of great character with hopefully clean records of behavior prior to the election. Each party has printed a platform with all their issues called out very clearly. Lieberman must have known that he could not nod his approval of the Democratic Platform and continue to claim that he is pro-life. I would have been more comfortable had he made a statement as Harry Browne did.
I wasn’t aware that Israeli Jews did not prohibit abortion. The friends of mine that are fairly religious Jews, are on my case for wanting an equal choice in family matters.
At the time of swearing in, abortion is considered legal in the eyes of the Supreme Court. To me that gives the procedure credence within the constitution. If Bush swears on his bible that he will follow the constitution, I don’t see how he can make a move to prohibit the procedure. The GOP platform states clearly that the President who is elected will request an amendment to the Constitution that will make the procedure a criminal offense. Read Murder!!! This would be a terrible thing to do to any American woman whose choice has been made and she has acted on it.
The Platform committee that put this terrible list together is adament about a murder charge. My attitude is “How Dare They?” These women are American citizens and I personally don’t think we need another level of ATF-type agents searching our homes for proof of a terminated pregnancy.
I had an answer to my post on another board. The fellow stated that he would never vote for a Hindu candidate as he was a cattle rancher.
All I want to know is where these men stop being members of their faith and start being representatives of constitutional government. If there is a conflict of interest they should back away from politics.
How is it that Harry Browne can do this and be up-front with his issues? He is a Christian who is pro-life but he is running on a political party that will not allow the constitution to be touched. He has no conflict of interest as he has made his choice to keep his religion where it belongs, in his home and church.
I saw this religious influence enter the political scene in 1992 and knew we were headed for trouble. There are many honest men with character who are atheists. I guess they wouldn’t have a chance at winning any election. That is a big shame.
I see now that there is still a ton of bigotry still in America. This attacking Lieberman for being Jewish shows me that we don’t deserve a man like Joe in our corrupt world of government.
Please know I have not meant any disrespect for Joe or anyone. I am completely open in my opinions of anyone’s faith, color or ethnic background. I personally relish all my diverse friends and family members.
I will tell you that this is the first board who hasn’t come after me with threats to see to it that I will never get to heaven. I have always made my own rules, and followed my own road and if it leads to hell, then I will save you all some good seats.
Alessan :
I agree with you 100%.
My attitude is uniquely American. Jews have become an integral part of the American experience. While I know that people say that Jews were very integrated into 1490’s Spain and 1930’s Germany, I believe that American culture has something these cultures lack. This is that it receives large contributions of immigrants from around the world. It kind of deflects the energies of those who hate – it gives them too many targets. Blacks, browns, yellows, reds, Irish, German, Japanese, Polish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Samoans, Arabs, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, whatever.
The American culture is defined as the ability to pretty much erase all other cultures within a couple of generations. For instance, the 0th generation comes over and struggles working on the railroad to put their kids through school. Their (1st generation Americans) kids go to school with the work ethic of their parents, tear it up, and become lawyers, doctors, bankers, businessmen. The second generation now gets educated with American values, drives their dad’s Infiniti, wears J. Crew, and gets really drunk at fraternity parties.
So, Jews here have been comfortable becoming part of the mainstream American culture. You can see this by 50% intermarriage and Jews who do not even consider themselves Jewish anymore.
In Israel it is different. In Israel, the closed society mentality persists. This is not a bad thing – once again, you are surrounded by enemies. Once again, you face extinction. While for whatever reason God is retreating from the picture, the Jewish existence as a race is still needed and practiced. It is not needed, and therefore not practiced in America.
I will say one thing, though. Judaism, as the first Western monotheistic tradition, served to define the Western idea of religion. Christianity and Islam, by hook or by crook, follow in the footsteps. God gave the Jews a social code for life which rotated around his Word. I feel this defines religion.
The definition for race comes from different sources. The word itself is highly political and concepts about race change from week to week. The Jewish People do fit into many of these defintions of race. I don’t think that is necessarily an assured outcome of the social code given to them by God (which defines religion). Therefore, I think Jews are first a religion, and then a race.
But this is dwelling on details.