Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3689 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

Is Syria a democratic nation now?

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:50 (five days ago) Permalink

this is very clearly a Don't Criticize Our Apartheid Ally bill, and I don't need GG to tell me that.

If you have a critique to make and you don't need GG to tell you it, then make it yourself. There are actual anti-BDS bills in various States (the first one in the country coming from our new liaison to the UN). This is a restatement of policy that has already existed from the State Department for years now and has no actual legal consequences.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:51 (five days ago) Permalink

So it's okay to commit war crimes as long as you're not a democracy? xp

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:51 (five days ago) Permalink

Well obviously

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:52 (five days ago) Permalink

No I was just saying that criticizing Israel and not Syria is not a good example of the behaviour this terrible definition of anti-semtism is trying to decry

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:54 (five days ago) Permalink

A recent FBI crime report notes that 58.2 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes were due to the offender’s anti-Jewish leanings, and the Anti-Defamation League found that the number of anti-Semitic attacks at colleges and universities doubled in 2015. Currently, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights has stated they will not tolerate incidents such as these, but has not issued firm guidance on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would codify the definition as one adopted by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

this is really the key. in addition to the [controversial] Israel stuff that GG and Dr Morbius choose (for some strange reason) decide to focus on, this is really about codifying the State guidelines for the DOE. The State guidelines included guidance regarding Israel, but primarily is regarding domestic hate crimes committed against Jews like the ones mentioned in this press release over the last few weeks which were predominately (entirely?) directed at American Jews qua Jews and had nothing to do with Zionism or Israel. Glenn Greenwald is a literal piece of shit that he looked at this and decided it was good fodder to just attack Israel again, despite it being secondary and despite it coming directly from a pre-existing State definition.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:55 (five days ago) Permalink

(for some strange reason)

say what you mean

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:02 (five days ago) Permalink

i've said it many times in the past and feel no compunction about saying it again. in addition to explicitly prejudiced comments that you've made about jews among other marginalized groups your continued fixation on israel as one of your predominant areas of interest (despite your constant demonstration of superficial knowledge regarding it) provides more evidence that you're a bigot.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:04 (five days ago) Permalink

Something I expect to hear from Z****** bigots. Jimmy Carter guilty too?

You don't know anything about me and Jews. Not a thing.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:07 (five days ago) Permalink

if you were a jew, or a palestinian, or even demonstrated even a small level of actual interest in the middle east or israel that go beyond rote condemnation, or demonstrated a similar issue in any other foreign country besides israel, i might be more inclined to treat your occasional outbursts as coming from a legitimate position of interest. instead you only pipe up to give knee-jerk condemnations, frequently citing the same 2 or 3 mindless twitter commentators in lieu of your own statements. you seem to know nothing about israel outside your trendy pejoratives (apartheid! genocidal! etc), and appear to give little attention to any other country in the world except maybe your own. so why the interest in israel particularly? i think it's pretty obvious.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:08 (five days ago) Permalink

And stop lying about these "explicitly prejudiced comments," as difficult as it must be. xp

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:09 (five days ago) Permalink

Jimmy Carter has many of his own issues including that he preached supersessionism and classical antisemitic positions for many years even before he got into the Israel criticism business. It's still quite chutzpadik to compare yourself to him. He knows plenty about Israel and helped negotiate one of the country's most important treaties. You appear to know nothing about Israel except that Zionists are bad and oppress Palestinians. Demonstrate I'm wrong. Show me comments you've made on Israel that are not just condemnations. Surely if your interest in not simply bigoted you would have topics of note that concern you that are not simply negative.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:10 (five days ago) Permalink

Oh gmafb everyone here knows what I'm referring to. Don't make me go dig it up. xp

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:11 (five days ago) Permalink

I let you and your vast stores of knowledge take care of the praise.

This is pointless and fatigiung for everyone else. Ta.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:12 (five days ago) Permalink

everyone here knows what I'm referring to.

You know who I don't like? Self-absorbed, bigoted, hateful fundamentralists from every religion.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:14 (five days ago) Permalink

Actually I think this is an important conversation. Explain to me how my understanding of your participation on this topic on this board is wrong. How is it anything but just pathetic Jew-baiting? You clearly don't know shit about Jews, Judaism, or Israel. Your only comments on the topic are negative, and like I pointed out, often explicitly bigoted. If you don't think you're a bigot maybe consider that the evidence to the contrary suggests that you don't even know your own mind. And btw don't think anyone hasn't noticed that Jews aren't your only topic. I've also seen you make sexism and racist remarks as well. You're not a very nice or good person and you should either work on becoming a better one or stop taking offense when people notice.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:15 (five days ago) Permalink

*thread turns into blurry dust-cloud a la Peanuts*

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:15 (five days ago) Permalink

my mind is not what i put on this board, you goddamn maniacal fuckface. buhbye

xp

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:22 (five days ago) Permalink

Mindlessness isn't an excuse for bigotry, though it's often an explanation for it.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:24 (five days ago) Permalink

or "God said this was my apartment 5000 years ago"

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:27 (five days ago) Permalink

You clearly know practically nothing about Judaism, Zionism or Israel. You certainly don't know anything about the ideological foundations of Zionism if you think it has anything to do with promises from the Bible.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:29 (five days ago) Permalink

At the very least show a little humility by learning about the topics before pontificating about them. Not being a jackass should take moral precedence over not embarrassing yourself with your ignorance, but if the latter turns out to be a bigger motivator for you then I suggest you embrace it.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:31 (five days ago) Permalink

On a much more relevant note, Mosaic Magazine just translated for the first time a Jabotinsky article from 1911 on antisemitism:

http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/11/no-apologies-how-to-respond-to-slander-of-israel-and-jews/

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:50 (five days ago) Permalink

Mordy OTM. I actually like the doc, but he's wrong here.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:43 (five days ago) Permalink

That (State Dept) definition, from a 2010 memo, includes as examples of anti-Semitism “delegitimizing” Israel, “demonizing” Israel, “applying double standards” to Israel, and “focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.”

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....

Jewish groups opposed to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank were quick to denounce the bill.

“Instead of fighting the anti-Semitism entering the White House, this bill will go after 19-year-old students carrying protest signs against human rights abuses,” said Tallie Ben Daniel, academic program manager for Jewish Voice for Peace, in a statement. “This is not how to fight anti-Semitism, this is a recipe for restricting civil liberties like the right to criticize a government for its policies.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/senate-responds-to-post-trump-anti-semitism-by-targeting-students-who-criticize-israel/

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 December 2016 18:14 (four days 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 (four days ago) Permalink

You can be both.

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


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