Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2897 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (11 years ago) Permalink

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

and wrt ed miliband -- antisemitism quite clearly will affect the election because if one assumes at least 5-10% of people are acitively antisemitic, with a larger cohort subject to largely unknowing antisemitic biases, it is enough to make a difference in a very tight race

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:19 (1 week ago) Permalink

since we're partially discussing UK polling/statistics, have we mentioned this yet?

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/128586/scotland-yard-reveals-huge-rise-antisemitic-crime-london

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:26 (1 week ago) Permalink

yeah i mentioned it yesterday and i am not nearly as sanguine as sv that it will fall back again quickly

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:28 (1 week ago) Permalink

certainly some of the spike is attributable to the gaza conflict inflaming muslims in the uk, which could mean it might recede as we get farther away from op protective edge but that relies on israel never having military conflicts w/ middle east muslims again which seems super unlikely to me. also i think prob the vast majority should be attributable to radicals coming back from fighting in the middle east (obv all these things have interlocking dimensions - radicals coming home who find themselves angry about gaza but now w/ the skills/will to do something about it)

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:34 (1 week ago) Permalink

idk i would guess most of the increase is just domestic yobbery, plenty of it not committed by muslims but fomented by the general upsurge in self-righteous hatred wrt palestine, and the final erasure of any remaining sense of the difference between israeli state actions and jews

the people involved with syrian jihad or recruitment represent a smallish group (maybe a few hundred) most of whom will be caught, prosecuted, or tracked by security services, it's a sporadic but lethal threat

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

I live in the middle of the biggest Orthodox Jewish area in Europe and haven't seen any armed police but have seen lots of lower-level prejudice and dickery over the years. It's not about apportioning blame evenly. Within the British Muslim community, which I agree is going to more antisemitic than the baseline, the number of potentially dangerous individuals is absolutely dwarfed by people who just don't like Jews. The potential for terrorism is the single most serious threat but, in terms of broader community cohesion, making the effort to tackle antisemitism about a trickle of returning ISIS sympathisers and radical mosques that are already being targeted seems like useless grandstanding that adds nothing to what is already being done as part of the broader effort to curb terrorist threats and radicalisation. If there is more to suggest, that could be implemented, it would be good to hear it. I'm not accusing you of compartmentalising but it's something I've seen a lot of recently.

What potentially can be addressed is that accretion of small hatreds using the same techniques that have lessened the strength of other racisms over the last twenty years. I don't get the impression that antisemitism is taken as seriously or judged as harshly within the mainstream as many other forms of prejudice. Outside of formal education there isn't much the state can do but anyone with social power to slap down the erosion of the line between Israeli policy and Jewish responsibility, for starters, needs to be doing that.

Idk, we're not arguing about what is worse and neither of us have appears to have a particularly solid policy framework for moving forward.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

Would secularising all education be a start? S

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

i think the bigger problem w/ the unserious treatment of antisemitism in the mainstream is actually bc of how unique the prejudice is. bc it's about jewish power / conspiracies it's easy for ppl who exist within the discourse to think that jews are not disadvantaged, or that they're advantaged enough, or have too much power actually, etc, so that charges of antisemitism are easier to dismiss bc after all jews are doing okay so there must not be that much /real/ prejudice against them.

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 20:35 (1 week ago) Permalink

Yep, I think that's probably true.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:39 (1 week ago) Permalink

*hits buzzer* not antisemitism! wait, shit

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

the fuck is going on in argentina

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/rogue-agents-alberto-nisman-death_n_6532882.html

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:47 (1 week ago) Permalink

i suppose that might be a better post on MENA? idk, it's iran related (allegedly)

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:47 (1 week ago) Permalink

*hits buzzer* not antisemitism! wait, shit

this joke gets made a lot itt but afaik this is the only thread to discuss antisemitism as a general phenomenon

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 23:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

just riffing on his identification as "gentile" in the hed. of course it is.

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 23:15 (1 week ago) Permalink

the fuck is going on in argentina

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/rogue-agents-alberto-nisman-death_n_6532882.html

― goole, Friday, January 23, 2015 4:47 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously, wtf. that article gave me whiplash. all i know is it's going to make a great movie someday.

I dunno. (amateurist), Friday, 23 January 2015 23:20 (1 week ago) Permalink

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 24 January 2015 00:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

Standards for cartoonists' right to offend seem fluid.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:36 (6 days ago) Permalink

shit rip that cartoonist eh

local eire man (darraghmac), Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:39 (6 days ago) Permalink

wow i can't believe that the private self-regulatory organization Australian Press Council mildly condemned a newspaper for breaching Standards of Practice. whatever happened to freedom of speech???

Mordy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:45 (6 days ago) Permalink

meanwhile how many articles have been written so far saying that no one should be massacred for drawing a cartoon but charlie hebdo was asking for it.

Mordy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:47 (6 days ago) Permalink

extraordinary misreading of howard jacobson imo

sanctimonious uncontextualized linkdumps as an enlightmenment (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 26 January 2015 14:12 (5 days ago) Permalink

idk if you think i'm saying jacobson wrote one of those articles and obv he didn't, or you don't think he was responding to those sorts of articles (which is why I linked to him)

Mordy, Monday, 26 January 2015 14:32 (5 days ago) Permalink

The "but" that was deemed so necessary after 9/11 - that great "but" from which all the lesser "buts" have sprung - was the "but" of extenuation. It was the first, grammatical step in shifting blame from perpetrator to victim. Not only on the back of that "but" was America reminded that others had suffered, that America was instrumental in that suffering, and that America could therefore be said to bear a share of responsibility for what happened, the "butters" finally came within a whisker of condoning the act of terrorism itself.

Mordy, Monday, 26 January 2015 14:35 (5 days ago) Permalink

Standards for cartoonists' right to offend seem fluid.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Morbs, honestly, posting that in this thread is clear trolling. Do you go in the rolling race thread and complain about people being offended by caricatures of black people?

walid foster dulles (man alive), Monday, 26 January 2015 14:42 (5 days ago) Permalink

http://www.antisemitisme.fr/dl/2014-EN.pdf

In 2014, the number of Antisemitic acts recorded on French soil doubled. They increased to 851 versus 423 in 2013. This represents a jump of 101 percent.

In 2014, violent acts increased by 130 percent compared to 2013. There were 241 violent acts in 2014 versus 105 in 2013.

Antisemitism has become increasingly violent and hyper-violent. Today, Antisemitic threats in France include persistent bias, sectarian stereotypes, deep hatred, but especially Antisemitic jihadist terror. Men and young children are killed for the sole reason that they are Jewish.

51 percent of racist acts committed in France in 2014 targeted Jews. Jews represent less than one percent of the French population. Less than 1 percent of this country's citizens are the target of half of all racist acts committed in France.

The 30-percent increase in racist acts committed in France in 2014 compared to 2013 comprises exclusively an increase in Antisemitic acts. Indeed, racist acts, excluding Antisemitic acts, that were recorded in 2014 decreased by 5 percent compared to 2013. This shows once again how much we need tailored programs, adequate measures, and specific tools to fight Antisemitism efficiently. Many anti-Racism programs do not stop the rise Antisemitic acts, far from it.

Cities most impacted by Antisemitic acts in 2014 include Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Sarcelles, Strasbourg, Nice, Villeurbanne and Créteil.

61% of all violent racist attacks recorded in France, 241, were directed against Jews, who are less than 1% of France's population. By comparison, only 55 violent racist acts were anti-Muslim. This means that in France, a Jew is nearly 50 times as likely to be the victim of bias violence as a Muslim is.

Mordy, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 17:05 (3 days ago) Permalink

if true, that's rather harrowing. i wonder about the methodologies; i'll have to look for closely.

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 17:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

/more/ closely

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 17:42 (3 days ago) Permalink


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