How is this a tangent? This is the main point in the OP (it is originally referred to as “racism” but in later posts people said that, if anything, it should be called bigotry and not racism). Also, while the thread did wander in other directions in earlier pages, with the exchange between Marley23, DSeid, et al, the discussion seems to have returned to the topic in the OP, as evidenced by IvoryTowerDenizen’s commend “And thus we’ve come full circle.”
So, I don’t think this is a tangent. It is at the heart of what the OP of this thread was about.
I apologize if the post came off as insulting, but it was just a commentary on the responses to the OP. On one side: “It’s bigoted to do XYZ”. On the other side: “It’s not bigoted because of reasons ABC”. I just noted that reasons “ABC” are not good enough reasons to deny the bigotry in XYZ, since reasons “ABC” can easily be used by universally-accepted bigots.
It seems that it’s not possible to debate whether the attitude discussed in the OP is bigotry, because any post saying that it is in fact bigotry is essentially calling people in this thread who are practicing it bigots, which is a violation of the rule against making personal insults.
As a mod, how do you see this? How can anyone defend that the attitude “I will only date people of a certain culture/ethnicity” is bigotry, when there are people in the thread who do claim “I will only date people of a certain culture/ethnicity”, without running afoul of the “Don’t insult people outside the Pit” rule?
If it’s not possible, then this thread and any thread like it cannot be in GD.
While I sympathize with those who insist that Messianic Jews aren’t Jews, I’m not sure how far they want to go on that topic.
Huge numbers of Christians don’t think that Mormons are Christians because they insist that Mormon beliefs and theology are incompatible with Christian beliefs and the overwhelming majority of Muslims feel the same regarding the Ahmadis, the Alawites, the Bahais, and, too a lesser extent, the Sufis as Muslims.
Frankly, Mormon theology is at least as different from traditional Christian theology as Messianic Jewish theology is from traditional Jewish theology and while I’m not all that familiar with either the Ahmadis or the Alawites, I get the same impression with them.
I’m also reminded of the pissing contest that developed a few years ago when Moshe Katsav, the then President of Israel, refused to refer to Eric Yoffe, the President of the Union of Reform Judaism, as “Rabbi” since neither the government of Israel nor Orthodox Jewish tradition recognizes Reform Rabbis as Rabbis.
For their sake, I hope that those objecting classifying the Messianic Jews as Jews didn’t roll their eyes when they heard people insist that Mitt Romney isn’t Christian.
It’s different, though. It’s not like saying that someone has a different theological interpretation of Judaism, but that they have accepted a faith that pretty much every Jew agreed places them outside the tribe. It’d be more like a Christian saying that they still thought that Jesus had some good ideas, but Mohammed was God’s final prophet and as such, Islam supersedes Christianity.
While disagreements within Judaism as to what constitutes the ‘proper’ theological path can get somewhat obnoxious, for better or worse pretty much the one (and only) thing that Jews of all sects agree on is that being a Christian places you outside the group. It may not be fair, and it may not jibe with how other religions/ethnic groups regulate their membership, but it’s how we do business.
I’ve been staying out of this, (and my last post was NOT as a Mod), but the people making the “bigotry” claims have failed to persuade me of their position.
I see a distinction between wanting to preserve one’s culture and looking down on any other culture. I am not going to argue the point, because I suspect that one agrees either with one position or the other and “logic”, (particularly when there are not objective facts), is not going to change any views.
Regarding your earlier attempt at linking certain views to bigotry:
my immediate reaction is that there really is no uniform “white” culture to protect, so the claims of such people are merely cover for anti-black prejudice. Similar claims regarding Irish vs non-Irish, (or German, Polish, Italian, etc.), would never cause me to raise an eyebrow because the point of the discussion would be a particular culture or identity that actually has a coherent basis.
I would never want to see a person deprived of the chance to marry whom he or she loved, but I would understand the impetus of parents who could wish that they stayed endagamous–as long as the parents did not act to thwart the child’s desires.
It would be like an Imam starting a movement in a community to covert Christians and then calls them Allah’s Christians. He continues with his movement, telling all Christians that their faith is invalid and they must give up and go follow Allah. They make keep their Christmas trees. Major islamic organizations fund him and before you know it, he has 30,000 members of Allah Christians. 10 per cent of those people were actually Christians to begin with or they had a parent who was Chistian or something, but the other 90 per cent are just Muslims who like Chistmastime.
Do you think a billion Christians are going to take that group seriously?
Also, Mormons call themselves…Mormons.
No. Since I think that Christian = “Belief in Jesus”. The rest is commentary.
You should probably confine yourself to remarks on Judaism if you are going to get so far away from the factual when you step outside your knowledge base.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints very definitely call themselves Christians.
Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Messianic ‘jew’ – all under the branch of Christianity.
Hasidic, Chabad, Reform, Masorti, Reconstructionist – all under the branch of Judaism.
Tom, you seem to be getting rather personal here! You already said you didn’t agree with my* position* when you moderated, but must you really? I know you think I’m bigoted, but if you want to Citizen-hate, try harder. :dubious:
Did you hear me say that LDS = Mormon (sects)? Or Mormons (any) weren’t = identifying as Christian?
**No. **
Mormon is Mormon, even if it’s not a catch-all. Someone said “Mormons” and I said, pointedly, that they call themselves Mormons (at least in every experience I’ve seen). Just like Catholics call themselves Catholic. It doesn’t mean Catholics say they aren’t Christian. But if I meet a person and ask what their religion is, they’ll say “Catholic” if they are so. And by golly gee, how long ago was it that early Nazarenes were still Jews? (Two thousand years ago…) Or Protestants were heretics? (Five hundred?)
A nonLDS Mormon probably calls himself a Mormon and the LDS Mormon probably calls himself a Mormon. But they both ascribe to the central point of Christianity : birth, Savior, death, atonement.
Mormons don’t call themselves Muslims, though…that would be weird…kind of like Christians calling themselves Jews. :o
Well, that’s just the problem, isn’t it? I mean, look at this thread. It is entitled “Why do Jews get a pass on racism?”. Pretty clearly, there is a strong note of … disapproval … in the OP. The disapproval is less with terms like “narrow-minded” and “prejudiced” but it is still there - they are not neutral descriptions.
I imagine people here are taking some exception to being labelled racist, narrow-minded bigots, or even not open minded and prejudiced; it is hardly a response to say that, in fact, everyone on the planet is sorta racist, sorta bigoted, a bit closed minded and somewhat prejudiced, is it?
‘Why are you such a racist, narrow-minded bigot?’ ‘I’m Not!’ ‘Oh, don’t be silly, everyone is’.
Words ought to mean what they say, and diluting such terms as “narrow minded” and “prejudiced” (let alone the OP’s “racist”) to mean a parent having opinions on the appropriate backgrounds for their kids’ spouses elides them into meaninglessness and absurdity. Every parent has such opinions, just they are directed at different criteria.
Actually, that’s exactly what Mormons say. They claim that Joseph Smith was God’s final prophet and produced an entire new scripture.
Also, while Christians, like Jews and Muslims are strict monotheists, Mormons are polytheists who have many beliefs that to most Christians are antithetical to Christian teachings. For example, polytheism, the idea that all human beings have the potential to become Gods, that Jesus and Satan were brothers, that God took on human form to impregnate Mary, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene are married, and many others, such as Mormon beliefs about heaven.
Frankly, Islam, which also believes that Jesus was the Messiah, and believes in the virgin birth, strikes me as being more compatible with Christian theology than Mormonism.
Nevertheless, if Mitt Romney calls himself a Christian(as he does) and Mormons call themselves Christians(as they do) than IMHO, it’s wrong to say they aren’t.
I would say the same for the Ahmadis being Muslim and the Messianic Jews being Jews.
I’d say there is a difference here though - and that difference is one of sincerity on the part of those organizing the religions in issue.
For example - if a group of wierd cultists founded by a science-fiction writer were to claim to be “Christians” for the sole purpose of attracting “real” Christians to their “study sessions” in order to convert them to their cult, that would raise some concerns about the legitimacy of their claims to be “Christians”, would it not?
[Note that even the real-life Scientologists do not lie to the extent of calling themselves Christians - they merely state that Scientology is compatible with Christianity:
What if they were funded by the mainstream “cult” group, which quite obviously opposes everything Christianity stands for? What if they forbade their employees to marry Christians? What if there was a lengthy history going back hundreds of years of oppressive attempts by these people to convert Christians by force or fraud? [I know, unlikely for a science-fiction-writer group, but roll with it … ]
Groups like Jews for Jesus might, in time, morph into legitimate seperate religions - but that is not how they started and not what they are. They are attempts on the part of evangelical Christians to convert Jews. Normally, with mature religions, there is no need to disbelieve the labels they choose to adopt - after all, the theological differences, however major or minor, are things that reasonable people can disagree about; but in this case, the label chosen is part of a deliberate, planned deception.
I think I can sum up most Jewish reaction to such groups as ‘Not this shit again?! Why can’t you guys find something more entertaining to do than be “concerned” about us …’
I notice that you’ve chosen to identify the Chabad movement as being Jewish even though the overwhelming majority claim that the Messiah(Menachem Schneerson) has already come to earth.
Is that really dramatically different than Messianic Jews claiming that Jesus is the Messiah?
Beyond that, you really haven’t given clear reasons why Messianic Jews shouldn’t be considered Jews, merely stating “they aren’t, they’re Christians”.
Rabbis who’ve explained their opposition to classifying the Messianic Jews as Jews(even those who came from Jewish backgrounds) say that it’s because the Messianic Jewish theology and their concept of God is incompatible with traditional Jewish theology and the Jewish concept of God.
Of course that is exactly what the overwhelming majority of Christians said about Mormons and what the overwhelming majority of Muslims say about the Ahmadis, the Alawites, and the Bahai.
Nevertheless, you’ve chosen to classify the Mormons as Christians, despite the fact that their theology is at least as different from Christian theology as Messianic Judaism is from Judaism and, by implication, say that it’s wrong for other Christians to insist that Mormons aren’t Christians.
For myself, since the Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, than that’s what they should be called even though huge numbers of Christians disagree. Similarly, if the Messianic Jews call themselves Jews than that’s what they should be called even though huge numbers of Jews disagree.
Who is and who aren’t “weird cultists” is a rather subjective. People practicing Kosher dietary laws, taking communion, and who pray five times a day to a God in a language they don’t understand are all viewed by some as “weird cultists” but using such terms to describe them in public, or even on a forum like this, would be seen as at best rude, and at worse somewhat bigoted.
Beyond that, anyone familiar with Joseph Smith’s background would start chuckling due to the rest of your sentence.
I don’t feel any oddity using that term to refer to Scientologists.
The Joseph Smith this is exactly why I state that such groups can, over time, morph into legitimate religions.
Many if not most religions start off as distinctly odd doomsday cults (the technical anthropological term is the better-sounding “Milennial Movement”) or as vehicles for the power and prestige of the founder; that does not prevent them, over time, from becomming more like traditional religions as we know and (sometimes) love them.
However, focusing on these tangental matters, you have not addressed the point of my post.
As I’ve pointed out, the difference is pretty simple - because in this case the use of the term is a deliberate sham and fraud, perpetrated by evangelical Christians to convert the other group.
I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case with Mormons or Baha’i. I’m not very familiar with Ahmadis or Alawites.
Why are they odder than groups that believe in engaging in ritualized cannibalism to prevent an all-powerful being that has existed for billions of years prior to the creation of humanity from getting angry at them and cursing them to hell?
