Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3739 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

By 'opinion' here I mean 'what some people' think is right.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

From dictionary.com

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So for example, the law that says "kill someone, go to jail", implies that killing is wrong.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".


(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I believe killing is wrong, but I'll admit that it's just a belief.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

law is not an opinion except in an abstract sense. Even if an opinion is converted into law through the established procedure it is not an opinion. At least it's not an opinion anymore.

That's all I'm saying.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Our rabbi would curtail his sermon whenever Spurs played home, which was a great act of altruism and tolerance.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money”

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Why did people stop writing books of the bible, anyway? There should totally be one tracing the decline of Spurs that culminates in them being cast of the garden of 'big clubs'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry for crossposting with a serious post.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"mentality and lifestyle" different from, and this is the important part, "OTHER CITIZENS." Reminds me of that Bojeffries Saga story where the cops burst in to see a slavering werewolf standing on the table in a restaurant, say "well, it's obvious what our job is here," grab the one black guy in the restaurant, beat him up and drag him away, as one of the other patrons says to his companion "I'm not racism, but they ent the same as us, are they?"

Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

No, but I've heard it said in a neutral light, by Enrique four posts up.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This thread made it past 60 posts without anyone mentioning the link to the article doesn't work?

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Another thing is Jews are what.. like 3% of the population? That makes an 18% anti-semitism rate scary enough.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

bnw - I completely agree with that (though I don't understand what the 3% has to do with it)

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I found it too just now. I didn't realize you'd posted the whole piece. I'm looking for the original survey but not having much luck so far.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

More at good ol' Al Jazeera - including the delightful headline: Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This stuff scares me a lot. Because, unless I just had my eyes closed as a young man, it seems that anti-Semitism has really grown just in the last five years. Since 9/11, really.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

north korea does somehow seem more stable what w/ not sharing a border w/ syria or having a militant pseudo-government / syria civil war belligerent controlling parts of the country, or suicide bombings in the capital within the last 2 years, but tbh i'm a little jealous both of yr courage, world travel + ability to even go to beirut.

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:57 (one month ago) Permalink

It is true that I have probably never been safer than when I was in NK. But the fact is that I'm more likely to be injured/killed in a car accident ANYWHERE than by a Beirut bombing. I think people my parents' age just hear the word "Beirut" and it is 1983 all over again.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:15 (one month ago) Permalink

I was going to try to work in an Israel visit but the logistics of doing both are just too cumbersome for a two-week trip :(

Will do Jordan+Israel at some point in the next couple of years I guess.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:17 (one month ago) Permalink

German court rules that firebombing a synagogue is not anti-Semitic

well i guess the germans would know

Mordy, Monday, 16 January 2017 23:39 (one month ago) Permalink

was it a jewish synagogue

trilby mouth (darraghmac), Tuesday, 17 January 2017 00:02 (one month ago) Permalink

As opposed to what? Wtf?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 17 January 2017 14:00 (one month ago) Permalink

just trying to establish the facts maam

trilby mouth (darraghmac), Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:26 (one month ago) Permalink

...

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:27 (one month ago) Permalink

Ugh, so terrible. At the Jewish institution I work at in SF we got a walkthrough of bomb threat evac procedures after we found out the Marin JCC had received a threat today.

Fetchboy, Thursday, 19 January 2017 07:11 (one month ago) Permalink

Gross

slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Thursday, 19 January 2017 22:28 (one month ago) Permalink

Wow, was about to ask how someone with such bad critical thinking skills could be elected mayor but... well... tomorrow is happening.

Fetchboy, Friday, 20 January 2017 02:21 (one month ago) Permalink

another wave of bomb threats against jewish community centers?

the late great, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 17:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

what do you guys think about the holocaust statement? a lot of ppl think that they omitted specifically referencing jews to... i guess signal to white supremacists? i'm willing to buy that but what i'm wondering about is to what end are they signaling WS's? are they hoping to rev them up into counter-protests, or use them for some purpose down the line? like once the election is over and trump won he doesn't need their votes. (and then even if he did, surely all the anti-immigrant stuff is pleasing enough to them that he doesn't need to throw antisemitism in there too.) in general i've found his dalliances w/ antisemitism to seem to mostly be thoughtless and not intentional (or at least w/ plausible deniability that his other bigotry doesn't have). i guess i'm just confused in general about politics atm.

Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

like a. don't include jews in holocaust statement, b. white supremacists get excited he is signaling to them, c. white supremacists call jewish community centers with bomb threats, d. ???, e. profit

Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

more like mentioning jews sounds too much like namby pamby "identity politics"

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

better just to say it was "sad" than admit that racism exists and that power relationships built on racism exist

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I think they don't want to be on the record articulating that discriminating against minority groups is a bad thing

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Re the Holocaust statement in particular. No way to know whether original omission was oversight because these clowns don't work on anything for more than 15 mins, or deliberate jew-trolling. The doubling down after the fact, though ("we were just trying to show how much we care about ROMANI!") definitely intended as "look at the jews trying to tell us what we can and can't say, well those days are over." I don't think it's mainly aimed at movement white supremacists as the much larger group who doesn't draw a clear distinction between jews / "the media" / "elites" / "political correctness"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Could be they are just really really really stupid and don't know wtf they are doing.

Eats like Elvis, shits like De Niro (Tom D.), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i'm reluctant to believe in nefarious conspiracy, or some kind of expert message calibration to thrill the nazis out there. i think it's better to focus on a habit of mind. trump and his people are historically and politically illiterate. the statement was terrible in a bunch of other ways beyond its non-specificity about the event it commemorated. trump's mind cannot look at victimization honestly. stating simple facts like who did what to whom and why is not something his character can allow.

i mean the first sentence is "It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust." heroes... of the holocaust? someone wrote that?

the last paragraph (of 3) is "In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that" blah blah i mean, what the fuck is this?

it's all vague storybook generalities that lead to self-aggrandizement. some stuff happened, i'm the hero here

goole, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

And of course the movement white supremacists are over the moon about it, since their Holocaust denial has long since moved on from "there's no such thing as Auschwitz" to "the Nazis killed lots of people, war is terrible, look how the Poles and Russians suffered, somehow the sneaky Jews in the media managed to make it all about them like they always do, trying to drum up sympathy from gullible whites"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Hard to believe that Tom, this shameful speech has Bannon written all over it. He's dangerous, not stupid.

Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:17 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the point is, i'm pretty sure there's nobody in the white house whose attitude is "the jews are a cancer and need to be exterminated," but most of the history of anti-semitism is just not like that (one reason the jews of europe were taken by surprise) and yet is still pretty fucking terrible

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

goole otm

marcos, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:37 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah. And also what symsymsym said. Trump is far down the line that admitting the persecution of non-Christisn minorities exists would be a "gotcha" moment for the press

Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:43 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yup goole otm

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm sorry pretty certain Steve Bannon has read a history of Germany in the 1930s, he's been meaning to check out the other volumes, but this is just such a page-turner.

Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 08:22 (three weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.