You do know that traditionally, the British people were just as anti-Semitic as the rest of the people of Europe, don’t you? From 1290 to 1655, Jews were forbidden from living in England.
Sure, things are better there now, but your whole point is saying that Englishman are culturally or genetically immune from such bigotry, and clearly they aren’t.
Well, one of us is.
Depends. Statements made in the reasonable belief they are true are treated as true statements for the purpose of determining what is and is not slander. (If you want to get all legalistic and semantic about it. Which I know you do.)
And I’d say that for a Christian whose exposure to the beliefs of Jews consists of what he has read in the Bible it is perfectly reasonable to accept the plain-language meaning of Deuteronomy 7:6.
I think it would be more accurate to say that they are slandering Islam. Depending on the wording, it might also be more accurate to say that the “chosen people” stuff is slandering Judaism.
Nobody living in England for those 400 years was a true Englishman either. 
Well, if we’re going to get all legalistic about the terms, “slander” includes some form of damage to reputation, income, or the like. I do agree with you that using the terms as described represents bigotry, even if used in an “admiring” context, slander is not the right term for it.
Hence the qualifier “those who spread the notion”.
I can’t believe that some innocent Anglican bible students thought “wow, this is a really interesting passage in Genesis. I know, I think I’ll set up a website about how Jews think they are the chosen people just like in Genesis, and secretly want to do unto us gentiles like Joshua did unto the Canaanites”.
The people who are all that gosh-darned interested in the subject can surely educate themselves about it - not all that hard to do in this day and age. That they do not is hardly the sign of an innocent misunderstanding. More like willful blindness.
I think he’s using the term colloquially. Nobody is suing people for using the term that way.
Rather it expresses the concept - that those using the term with that meaning are often doing so with the deliberate intent of stirring up hatred against Jews as a group; that those who use it that way are indifferent to whether it is true or not, and so are not deterred by learning the correct meaning; and that this meaning (and this use) is pretty traditional.
Whether people want to call that “slander” or use some other term is hairsplitting, I would think.
We got crazy at Anglican schools, let me tell you. 
If the US is any basis for comparison, there was antisemitism a whole lot more recently than that, aside from people’s personal biases. There are tons of stories of having a “quota” of Jews in corporations and academia beyond WWII, through the 40s and 50s. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there was a parallel situation in the UK.
There is some more in Wiki about antisemitism in England, which does in fact sound less severe than it was in the US in many aspects.
In 1846 a law that mandated a certain form of dress in public for Jews was repealed. In 1858 Jews were allowed to be members of the House of Commons. In 1884 Baron Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.
Not really. Calling it “slander” seems to me to demonstrate a readiness, even eagerness, to ascribe malice to others.
How is that “less anti-Semitic” than the US? Jews were sitting in the US House of Representatives and Senate prior to that, were never required to wear certain clothing nor were they ever prohibitted from serving in the House or the Senate.
In fact, Howard Sachar in A History of the Jews in America, commented on how during the 19th Century anti-Catholicism was vastly stronger than anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitism in 19th Century America was far less severe than early 20th Century anti-Semitism.
I cited the definition in common use, you brought up the legal definition. Not that your argument for making anti-Semitic tropes “reasonable beliefs” isn’t appreciated. Keep fighting the good fight. Of course, you seem to have cherrypicked what you responded to and haven’t actually addressed your “reasonableness” metric. Here, to remind you:
And really, what could be less reasonable than ascribing some sort of ill will to people who use, or promote the use of “the Chosen People” as a slur to talk about how Jews are arrogant, clannish, etc… ? That’s totally unreasonable. Now, reasonable stuff? Reading a book thousands of years old and assuming that people not only still follow it to the letter but believe everything it says they should believe, too.
You have very solid standards of reasonableness.
Sorry, I should have said “less antisemitic than the US in more recent times.” The most recent evidence I saw (and I honestly didn’t look very hard) in the UK was shutting down Jewish immigration from Europe in 1939. And then there was trying to halt immigration of European Jews to pre- and post-war Palestine – again my ignorance is showing, because I don’t know whether this was based on the “Jewishness” of the immigrants or against all immigration (though I presume the overwhelming majority of immigrants to Palestine during that time were Jewish). So that may count too, and if so means a form of official antisemitism through at least 1948.
It was based on ethnicity. There were no real enforcement for Arabs, for instance, and in some cases the British not only captured and imprisoned Jews fleeing post war (or WWII) Europe for the Mandate, they kept them imprisoned for some time after Israel was founded, before releasing them.
The problem is that you are making the leap from a factual statement to antisemitism. For example, the chosen people bit. What other people in the bible has a promised land, or a special relationship with God, or will give rise to the messiah? It’s reasonable to conclude from those passages that the Jews are God’s chosen people. That’s the education that most people receive in the West today. Where am I supposed to have been exposed to the nuances of what different Jews consider that “chosen people” relationship to be?
Or, for example, the idea that Jews killed Jesus. The story in the bible is that Jesus was brought before the Jewish High Priests, who sentenced him to death. Pontius Pilate felt he was innocent, but gave into the mob and had Jesus executed. So if someone asks me, “did Jews kill Jesus”, what am I supposed to say? The answer from the Bible is clearly, “Yes, they did”.
Even more creatively, one can dislike Jews for having completely opposite attributes.
Case in point - they’re so clannish and standoffish, while simultaneously being pushy and mixing in where they’re not wanted.
Tricky devils. :mad:
The problem is that you are making the leap from what people believed (and did) thousands of years ago, to what they believe (and are) today.
For example - what would you say to someone who seriously expected Englishmen to go beserk and cut people up with axes, because they read Beowulf? Or seriously blames “the English” for the death of Grendel? Well, you would probably think they were nuts, right?
Look, it isn’t the fact that they are getting wacky ideas out of the Bible that is the problem - the Bible is full of genuine wacky ideas. The problem is that they are, for reasons of stupidity or malice, assuming these wacky ideas somehow apply to modern folks existing today.
No-one cares whether some Jews in Palestine in year 33 did (or did not) kill Jesus, who may (or may not) have actualy existed. People care a lot about labeling modern-day Jews as “Christ Killers” - something that, if I am not mistaken, was official Catholic doctrine until some time in the 20th century!
Now, now. Don’t you slander the Welsh.
People keep making this point but I don’t think it applies to Jews versus British people. I am not Jewish but I did go to a heavily Jewish university and have lots of Jewish friends and some Jewish family. I have never understood Judaism that well intuitively despite trying to learn more but I have learned it is a very historically based religion. Most things that practicing Jews engage in are based on things that happened thousands of years ago. That applies to major holidays, the teaching of Hebrew, the reasons for the existence of Israel today, and is even related to the reasons for kosher culinary practices. The same isn’t true for for a quasi-ethic group like British people. It seems to me, as an outsider, that the fundamentals of Judaism are based on ancient history and that is by design.
So eating live sushi condemns you to hell? Cuz a LOT of people do this. Idolatry is pretty rampant if you’re a Hindu. And Blasphemy is pretty rampant on this board.
And you should understand that most Christians consider the first five books of teh bible (including Deuteronomy) to be part of the Jewish religious text. now with taht said I have grown up around enough jews to underestand the notion of chosen people being more of a burden or duty than a being God’s favorites (and there is a little bit of a martyr’s arrogance sometimes) but the isoloationism that a lot of jewish communities have sort of reinforces a lot of the preconceptions people have.
My understanding of slander, libel, etc was that there had to be an intent component.
That’s not to say there isn’t an intent to slander among some people who know better and still protray jews as thinking they’re better than everyone else.
Those weren’t true Brits.