Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3715 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

Critics have pointed out that those are political — not racist — positions, shared by a significant number of Jews, and qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

According to the draft, the bill does not adopt the definition as a formal legal standard, it only directs the State Department to “take into consideration” the definition when investigating schools for anti-Semitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act....

so what is wrong with greenwald? is he disingenuous or a moron?

Mordy, Friday, 2 December 2016 18:29 (one month ago) Permalink

You can be both.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Friday, 2 December 2016 20:26 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

Now That's What I Call anti-semitism.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 27 December 2016 23:40 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the irony of jews running out of whitefish

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Wednesday, 28 December 2016 04:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

sorry sorry

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Wednesday, 28 December 2016 04:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Sad lol

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 December 2016 05:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour

there's a legitimate story here, but is it wrong to think that some of these responses seem a little dubious?

One former minister in David Cameron’s government said the embassy’s efforts to exert improper influence on British public life went far further than any plot to “take down” unhelpful members of parliament.

Writing anonymously in the Mail on Sunday, the former minister said: “British foreign policy is in hock to Israeli influence at the heart of our politics, and those in authority have ignored what is going on.

“For years the CFI and LFI have worked with – even for – the Israeli embassy to promote Israeli policy and thwart UK government policy and the actions of ministers who try to defend Palestinian rights.”

A senior Conservative said: “No MP who has taken an active interest in the affairs of the Middle East, not least the central issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will be unaware of the strength of the Israeli lobby. Like Israel itself they are powerful and effective and sail pretty close to the line of what is normally acceptable.”

soref, Monday, 9 January 2017 12:12 (one week ago) Permalink

How would *you* push back against neoconservative lobbyist groups? Personally, I wouldn't choose to bang on about "Israel" via an anon opinion piece in the Mail.

jane burkini (suzy), Monday, 9 January 2017 12:30 (one week ago) Permalink

seems like a tempest in an o'keefain teapot to me but i just read about Citizen Genet last night so my scale for terrible politics done by official foreign ambassadors is quite high atm.

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 15:01 (one week ago) Permalink

ton of bomb threats in US & UK today apparently - luckily not my kid's school but ppl i know's kids :/

The threats were reported against Jewish institutions in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Tennesee, South Carolina and two metropolitan areas in Florida – Miami and Jacksonville, according to local news reports. In the Miami area, institutions in Miami Beach and Kendall were affected.

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.763994

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/school-bomb-threat-1.430294

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 21:33 (one week ago) Permalink

16 JCC's apparently in all: http://www.jta.org/2017/01/09/news-opinion/united-states/across-the-us-16-jccs-get-bomb-threats-in-a-single-day

this is why there's an elaborate security system set up at my kids school w/ passes that only give access to certain wings, a front door that requires manual confirmation for entry, an extensive video camera system, and a full-time security guard

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:22 (one week ago) Permalink

on a not so depressing note tho this has been making the rounds and even tho i'm pretty sure i saw something like this before (maybe contrasting the first photo w/ a menorah in front of the gate) it's still something: https://twitter.com/amit_segal/status/818516201517281282

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:28 (one week ago) Permalink

fucking hell.

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:38 (one week ago) Permalink

(at the threats, obviously.)

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:39 (one week ago) Permalink

obv somewhat problematic that my reaction was not horror but 'thank god it was just empty threats'

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:22 (one week ago) Permalink

problem not rly with you

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:28 (one week ago) Permalink

aren't bomb threats always empty

Οὖτις, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:29 (one week ago) Permalink

not always!

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:31 (one week ago) Permalink

okay modern bomb threats

Οὖτις, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:32 (one week ago) Permalink

seems like a very rare phenomenon - some google research turned up IRA bomb threats that were real and some Vietnam-era bomb threats. presumably if you want to kill jews you don't warn them first (whereas if you're protesting Britain, or a war in vietnam, you might want to make a statement w/out casualties)

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:35 (one week ago) Permalink

I work (for a Jewish social services agency) in a building next to a JCC; building was evacuated this afternoon. We were instructed to leave and assemble next door at the--wait for it--HEBREW HOME.

Anyway I wasn't in the building at the time but it was o_O

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Monday, 9 January 2017 23:46 (one week ago) Permalink

Meanwhile, I'm having to get a duplicate passport so I can go to Lebanon in March; apparently Israeli passport stamps are a no-go. My mom, who didn't make a peep when I went to North Korea a couple or years ago, has decided to worry excessively about me going to Beirut.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Monday, 9 January 2017 23:48 (one week 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 week 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 week 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 week 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 (yesterday) Permalink

was it a jewish synagogue

trilby mouth (darraghmac), Tuesday, 17 January 2017 00:02 (four hours ago) Permalink


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