why do jews get a pass when it comes to racism?

You don’t reconvert. You* recommit*.

Even strict Orthodox who follow halacha will say that a Jew who converts to Christianity isn’t labeled a Jew…a “Hebrew” may be a nicer term in English.

The thing is, most Jews consider converts to be ‘not Jews’ unless they return. The minority Orthodox may think you to be “jewish” by birth but they will exclude you until you commit to Judaism and give up other religious practices. You would not have ‘status’ required for religious practice, minyan, marriage, shul membership, yeshiva admittance, etc. Other sects do the same.

It’s a de facto ban, I guess.

The Serbs, the Croats, and several others.

It is any one where you have “another god”, which also includes “another conception of god”, or one which insists of sacred laws inconsistent with those of Judaism.

Christianity is out, because of its three-part God being inconsistent with the Jewish conception of the same god.

Islam is out, even though their conception of god is in fact closer to the Jewish one - the Koran prescribes a set of sacred rules inconsistant with Judaism.

Hinduism is out, because its sacred pantheon is nothing like Judaism.

Buddhism may be in or out. Some varieties of Buddhism are theistic and propose gods inconsistent with Buddhism. Other varieties, more philosophy than religion, are not out. The Buddha himself was probably more philosopher than theist and could have been a Jew! :wink:

Taoism - similar. Philosophical Taoism is not out; religious Taoism is.

And so on.

Ha, you don’t spend much time around progressive Jews, do you?

Please allow me to introduce you to Sevastopol, Judith.

You’ll find that while he’s not arguing for how reasonable it is to want to destroy Judaism by fire, he likes to talk about how Jews are an “evil cult” whose members deliberately tell lies in public due to their slavish and evil allegiance to the Jewish State.

bwahahhah

Oh goodness, thanks for the heads-up. His isn’t a name I’m familiar with, and it’s hard to tell in this thread who is asking questions in good faith and who isn’t.

I said on page one that this is not going to turn into a debate about Israel. My experience is that this statement is flagrantly incorrect, but if you want to debate it, you need to open a different thread.

For the same reason, these posts (and the accompanying personal commentary) do not belong in this thread.

I wasn’t commenting on Israel, but Sevastopol’s claims about Jews and Judaism.
But fair enough.

I don’t know why I should bother at this late date, but here goes.

The notion that one’s religion, nationality, ethnicity, genealogy, and mother language are all separate things that have no necessary relation to each other is a very modern concept.

Judaism is a very old religion/nationality/ethnicity, so old that our modern ideas about the relation between these concepts don’t apply.

Think more about tribal identity. Like, say, Apache. Apaches had their own religion, their own language, their own territory, their own ethnicity. You could become an Apache if you were adopted into the tribe, but you couldn’t just decide to believe in the Apache religion and have other Apaches consider you an Apache. They’d have to agree to include you, and they would only do that for reasons that seemed good to them.

And likewise, you could be kicked out of the tribe if you made yourself unpopular enough, but whether you were an Apache or not an Apache was decided by the Apaches, not by anyone else. Maybe if you converted to Christianity, they’d kick you out. Or maybe they wouldn’t care. But just because Christians could consider you both an Apache and a Christian, that doesn’t mean Apaches necessarily would.

This premodern conflation of religion and ethnicity is actually pretty common around the world. For instance, go to a Hindu temple and tell them you want to convert to Hinduism, and they’ll look at you like you have two heads, and not in a good way. Because for most Hindus, Hinduism is simply their traditional family/ethnic practice, and since you’re not joining their family or ethnic group or community, converting to the religion is nonsensical. However, a kid born to Hindu parents who grows up in America, speaks only English, and never goes to temple is still a member of their group in their eyes, unless they take affirmative steps to outrage the group.

To put it in yet another way, you can be Italian and Catholic and a citizen of the United States and speak only English. If you join the Baptist church, you’re still Italian. You can’t become Italian by joining the Catholic church and leaning Italian and hanging out at Italian Restaurants. You could even become an Italian Citizen, but that wouldn’t make you ethnically Italian. In fact, there’s really no such thing as Italian ethnicity when you get down to it, because a Sicilian and a Venetian might live in the same country, but they don’t consider themselves as having the same ethnicity, and won’t understand each other’s vernacular, although they probably both understand “standard” Italian.

New Jersey?

I’d say Florida. The geriatric Jewish state. :wink:

Snooki would beg to differ. Although I think she hung out by the Shore more than in a Catholic church.

Is this true? I know basically nothing about Hinduism (to my shame), but does it really accept no converts at all?