QuoteReplyTopic: "Beating" up on Israel? Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 21:05
Originally posted by gcle2003
So? What makes you think most Jews pay any attention to that? Most Jews don't even believe there was a covenant between God and their people. Lots of Jews don't even believe in God (and most of the Zionist pioneers were among them).
It does not really matter whether they pay attention to it, because it happens in a religious context. Unless there is a way to be circumcised in a secular way, which i am not aware of.
Originally posted by gcle2003
To use that to claim that you have to be a Judaist to be a Jew is just plain silly. The quote is a tangled and obscure mess which has obviously been cobbled together to try and meet everyone's requirements. At least the dictionary you quoted got it right (as a matter of current usage).
Being a Jew is SOMETIMES used as an ethnic designation and SOMETIMES as a religious one.
Do not cap me.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Saying only Judaists are Jews would mean the majority of Israelis are not Jews. So what's all the fuss about?
Quite wrong, the majority of Israelis declare themselves Jews.According to the Statistical Abstract of Israel, in the
section, there were (at the end of the year 2008 and in millions) 5,478.2 Jews (this is not my term, it's in the abstractbtw), 1,206.1 Moslems, 151.6 Christians, 121.7 Arab-Christians, 119.7 Druze, and 285.5 non classified.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Ask some atheist, Christian, Muslim or agnostic Jews, or even New Age Jews and Scientology Jews how hey feel about their necessarily being Judaist.
Their opinions are respectable, but they are products of the industrial age. Self-determination is also a product of the industrial age. This does not mean i am against it, but i just state it.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Of course they overlap. You can have ethnic Jews whoe believe in Judaism. There are quite a few around in fact.
They are not few.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Well so do you. I don't find wither terribly convincing authorities.
It is not supposed to be convincing, i just presented what i meant by structures.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Doesn't matter if I compared them to a group with green eyes and red noses. The point is that any group that goes through a diaspora living in many different coûntries is going to end up speaking the local languages - unless they conquer the other countries like the Arabs did.
Thus what remains as the unifying factor? What do Yemenite Jews had in common with Jews Russia, other than religion ?
Originally posted by gcle2003
Only because you put '(Christian)' in brackets before Armenian. And you left out the Greek Millet or, rather, called it the Orthodox Millet: 'Rum' I believe does not mean 'Orthodox'.
Are you suggesting agnostic Armenians weren't classified as Armenian?
Armenian, Greek, Jewish and Muslim doesn't suggest a purely religious distinction. Though I would agree that the distinction between ethnic and religious wasn't so important until somewhere between the 16th and the 18th cnêntury, when the Reformation and the Enlightenment weakened the correlation between ethnicism and religious alignment.
Chilbudios answered pretty well.
Originally posted by gcle2003
You're saying that a Jew cannot give up Judaism, and discard it? What is he? Branded for eternity?
He can,in a personal level, but societies do not give up that easily, what they recognize as identities.
Originally posted by gcle2003
The English are a much more mongrel group than the Jews. I'd agree that legally Israeli is a nationalist just as English is. Jew however is more like Anglo-Saxon than it is like English.
Then you don't have an exhaustive knowledge of Jews - let alone I no many circumcised non-Jews.
Of course circumcision is also practiced by Muslims. That's not my point. Every male child belonging to a Jewish family , has to be circumcised, if the family wants it to become a Jew. And "Circumcision in Judaism is a sign of the covenant between God and Israel", because "God said to Abraham, 'Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and
your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you
shall be circumcised. you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,
and that shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you' (Genesis
17:10-11)".
a) I was challenging your statement that in antiquity 'Jew' was a religious desigintion. It simpla wasn't. The word was originally a Jewish forename; it was transferred to the region ruled by a person of that name; and then it was used for an inhabitant of that territory. There were children of Israel who lived outside Judah (notably those in Israel) who were not know as Jews.
After some while yes. In Classical and Imperial Latin it still
meant an inhabitant of Judah, or someone who came from there. It didn't
mean someone who followed their religion. For instance there is no
doubt that Josephus was seen as Jewish though the Majority of the Jews
saw him as a betrayer. Jesus for instance was seen as a Galileean, and
Paul and Peter and the rest were still considered Jews even after they
became Christians.
In fact at the time of Nero's persecution Christian Jews were
still called Jews, though I grant that by that time most of them didn't
come from Judaea. It still was a racial/national designation.
I admit i am not that familiar with references of the term Jew in Latin texts, so i will not continue about the specific period until i read relevant texts.
Originally posted by gcle2003
b) the dictionary correctly gives ways that the term is used in modern English, but they are alternatives. Jew is sometimes used as a religious designation (as it is indeed by you - I could hardly deny you use it that way) and sometimes as an ethnic/racial one. It is important to distinguish between the two and recognise that a Jew does not necessarily believe in Judaism and someone who does observe Judaist precepts is not necessarily ethnically Jewish. Otherwise, as is happening here, blame (or for that matter praise) for the one is attributed to the other.
If you look at wikipedia, you will see that it describes Jews as an ethnoreligious group, that is a group of people "whose members are also unified by a common religious background.Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither
exclusively by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation,
but often through a combination of both".
Thus, the religious reference is an integral part of Jewish identity.
Originally posted by gcle2003
We desperately need two words because, as the dictionary says, there are two distinctly different meanings.
They are not different, they overlap one another.
Originally posted by gcle2003
I also don't see the point of the quotation. I don't deny some people think all Jews are Judaists, I just deny that they are, and to be frank I'm sure the Vatican knows that, e.g. Israel - later Eugenio - Zolli, onetime Chief Rabbi of Rome, became a Catholic. That didn't mean he stopped being a Jew.
The point is that a structure ( the Catholic Church) recognizes the term with it's religious reference.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Language has nothing to do with it. Hebrew wasn't even the language of
the Jewish people in classical times. The Septuagint was compiled to
help non-Hebrew speaking Judaists. That's simply the result of the
diaspora. There hasn't been such an Arab diaspora, since the Arabs
were so long on the winning side - with the result that loads of people
apart from the Arabs speak Arabic, just as loads of people other than
the English speak English. As I understand it, most Romany don't speak
Romany either, for much the same reason.
It has everything to do with it. You compared a group of people with linguistic reference ( Semitic Arabs) with a group of people with ethnoreligious reference (Jews).
Originally posted by gcle2003
Of course it currently has a religious reference
As you know the Ottoman Empire categorized it's populations with religious criteria. There were the Orthodox Millet ( Rum Milleti) , the Muslim Millet, the Armenian Millet and the Jewish Millet (Yahudi Milleti). You see that the term Jew is equal to the (Christian) Orthodox , Muslim and (Christian) Armenian ones.
Originally posted by gcle2003
The point is not to suggest that a Jew is a Judaist just because he is a Jew. That's actually as daft as assuming I'm a member of the Church of England because I'm English, and it's flatly untrue. Again most Israelis are not observant, and most do not believe in the God of the Torah.
He/she is not necerally an observant, but he/she is related to Judaism, whether he/she likes it or not, because , as i mentioned above, it is an integral part of his/her identity.
Jew # English Israeli=English
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Only because you insist on treating 'Jew' as a religious designation, which it isn't. You can have Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs and Judaic Arabs. You can have Christian Jews, Muslim Jews and Judaic Jews. What you can't have are Judaic Christians or Judaic Muslims or Christian Muslims.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people 4: one whose religion is Judaism
The first 2 definitions are omited because i think they are irrelevant in this comment of mine. The second will be used later.
The third is partially true, yet it is not enough by itself to make someone a Jew. For example, just because a descendant of mine was a Jew, this does not make me automatically a Jew. I need to be a member of the Judaic religion as well. To put it bluntly, i do not know any Jews who haven't made circumcision.
Then you don't have an exhaustive knowledge of Jews - let alone I no many circumcised non-Jews.
a) I was challenging your statement that in antiquity 'Jew' was a religious desigintion. It simpla wasn't. The word was originally a Jewish forename; it was transferred to the region ruled by a person of that name; and then it was used for an inhabitant of that territory. There were children of Israel who lived outside Judah (notably those in Israel) who were not know as Jews.
b) the dictionary correctly gives ways that the term is used in modern English, but they are alternatives. Jew is sometimes used as a religious designation (as it is indeed by you - I could hardly deny you use it that way) and sometimes as an ethnic/racial one. It is important to distinguish between the two and recognise that a Jew does not necessarily believe in Judaism and someone who does observe Judaist precepts is not necessarily ethnically Jewish. Otherwise, as is happening here, blame (or for that matter praise) for the one is attributed to the other.
We desperately need two words because, as the dictionary says, there are two distinctly different meanings. Which is why I use 'Judaist' to mean a follower of Judaism, and 'Jew' to mean a 'child of Israel'. f you want to use 'Jew' to mean a follower of Judaism, then don't call the Israeli leaders of the last 60 years 'Jews': use whatever term you want to coin for 'child of Israel'. 'Israelite' might do it, but is easily confused with 'Israeli'.
I should put faith in a document that refers to 'the Catholic Church' when it means the 'Roman Catholic Church'?
I also don't see the point of the quotation. I don't deny some people think all Jews are Judaists, I just deny that they are, and to be frank I'm sure the Vatican knows that, e.g. Israel - later Eugenio - Zolli, onetime Chief Rabbi of Rome, became a Catholic. That didn't mean he stopped being a Jew.
I might as well quote the Nuremberg Laws to you. They didn't use 'Jew' as a religious designation: at least they were honest about it.
RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
The religious relations of the Catholic Church with world Judaism through the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity have been marked by a series of notable events since the last Plenaria.
These events are set out below in chronological order.
Originally posted by gcle2003
It has been misused that way, yes. In antiquity it simply meant an inhabitant of Judaea (not even of Israel). Taking it as a religious designation is as ignorant as assuming 'Arab' is a religious designation because most Arabs are Muslims.
from Merriam-Webster
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
That is a modern dictionary giving modern usage. It's not how the term was used in antiquity. (Unless you take 'a nation existing in Palestine' to mean the inhabitants of Judaea, which would be OK.)
c.1175 (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Heb. y'hudi "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." Jews' harp "simple mouth harp" is from 1584, earlier Jews' trump (1545); the connection with Jewishness is obscure. Jew-baiting first recorded 1853, in ref. to Ger. Judenhetze. In uneducated times, inexplicable ancient artifacts were credited to Jews, based on the biblical chronology of history: e.g. Jews' money (1577) "Roman coins found in England." In Greece, after Christianity had erased the memory of classical glory, ruins of pagan temples were called "Jews' castles."
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was the turning point for the Jewish population. They emigrated to the rest of the known world. Thus, the term Judaeus or Ιουδαίος practically lost it's terrestrial meaning.
After some while yes. In Classical and Imperial Latin it still meant an inhabitant of Judah, or someone who came from there. It didn't mean someone who followed their religion. For instance there is no doubt that Josephus was seen as Jewish though the Majority of the Jews saw him as a betrayer. Jesus for instance was seen as a Galileean, and Paul and Peter and the rest were still considered Jews even after they became Christians.
In fact at the time of Nero's persecution Christian Jews were still called Jews, though I grant that by that time most of them didn't come from Judaea. It still was a racial/national designation.
Concerning your comparison with Arabs, i believe it is wrong , because the term Arab describes a Semitic people, that is a people speaking a Semitic language. Jews never spoke one language. Some of their languages were not even Semitic. Ladino are a Romance language and Yiddish a Germanic one, to name the most prominent. Only in the last century ,with the creation of the State of Israel and it's need for nationalization (modern) Hebrew became the prominent language among Jews.
Language has nothing to do with it. Hebrew wasn't even the language of the Jewish people in classical times. The Septuagint was compiled to help non-Hebrew speaking Judaists. That's simply the result of the diaspora. There hasn't been such an Arab diaspora, since the Arabs were so long on the winning side - with the result that loads of people apart from the Arabs speak Arabic, just as loads of people other than the English speak English. As I understand it, most Romany don't speak Romany either, for much the same reason.
Plus, the fact that i can be officially considered a Jew after conversion to Judaism, automatically gives the term religious reference.
Of course it currently has a religious reference. Why do you think I'm complaining? It irritates me just as much when Jews use the term as if it was a religious designation - mostly it's only fuindamentalists that do - the majority of Jews don't.
The point is not to suggest that a Jew is a Judaist just because he is a Jew. That's actually as daft as assuming I'm a member of the Church of England because I'm English, and it's flatly untrue. Again most Israelis are not observant, and most do not believe in the God of the Torah.
Only because you insist on treating 'Jew' as a religious designation, which it isn't. You can have Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs and Judaic Arabs. You can have Christian Jews, Muslim Jews and Judaic Jews. What you can't have are Judaic Christians or Judaic Muslims or Christian Muslims.
3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people 4: one whose religion is Judaism
The first 2 definitions are omited because i think they are irrelevant in this comment of mine. The second will be used later.
The third is partially true, yet it is not enough by itself to make someone a Jew. For example, just because a descendant of mine was a Jew, this does not make me automatically a Jew. I need to be a member of the Judaic religion as well. To put it bluntly, i do not know any Jews who haven't made circumcision.
The religious relations of the Catholic Church with world Judaism through the
Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity have been marked by a series of
notable events since the last Plenaria.
These events are set out below in chronological order.
Originally posted by gcle2003
It has been misused that way, yes. In antiquity it simply meant an inhabitant of Judaea (not even of Israel). Taking it as a religious designation is as ignorant as assuming 'Arab' is a religious designation because most Arabs are Muslims.
from Merriam-Webster
2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was the turning point for the Jewish population. They emigrated to the rest of the known world. Thus, the term Judaeus or Ιουδαίος practically lost it's terrestrial meaning. Concerning your comparison with Arabs, i believe it is wrong , because the term Arab describes a Semitic people, that is a people speaking a Semitic language. Jews never spoke one language. Some of their languages were not even Semitic. Ladino are a Romance language and Yiddish a Germanic one, to name the most prominent. Only in the last century ,with the creation of the State of Israel and it's need for nationalization (modern) Hebrew became the prominent language among Jews.
Plus, the fact that i can be officially considered a Jew after conversion to Judaism, automatically gives the term religious reference.
Edited by Spartakus - 31-Jan-2009 at 16:56
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
While Jew meant an inhabitant of Judaea, since Judaea was named after Judah, I suppose it might be felt that Jew meant a descendant of Judah. But I don't think the population of Judaea was supposed to have descended from Judah - Judah was just given the terriotry to rule. Anyway the children of Judah would be a subset of the children of Israel, on ethnic (familial) lines, or possibly national (territorial) lines NOT religious ones which is more the point.
It's commonplace in the Talmud that a child of Israel who does not follow the teachings of the prophets is still a child of Israel. Since a Jew is a child of Israel, then a Jew who does not observe (for instance a convert to Islam) must also still be a Jew.
You can be a Christian Jew. In fact there are many of them around, forming quite a strong movement. Fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christian groups don't like them but they're there.
You are still talking about self-determination.
Of course I am. It's the only sensible way to discuss it. A person's religion is determined by what he believes (or doesn't believe) and does (or doesn't do). It doesn't depend on anyone else's view of what he should be, or who his parents were and his associates are.
How people may determine themselves, not how they are determined by structures. The term Christian-Jew can be as absurd as the term Christian-Muslim.
Only because you insist on treating 'Jew' as a religious designation, which it isn't. You can have Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs and Judaic Arabs. You can have Christian Jews, Muslim Jews and Judaic Jews. What you can't have are Judaic Christians or Judaic Muslims or Christian Muslims.
Originally posted by gcle2003
This emphasis on 'Jew' as a religious designation is one of the things I find sickening about much of this debate. I've known many Jews who weren't in the least Judaists, including Israeli citizens. And Hebrewtext is perfectly correct in everything he has been saying on this subject (whatever other disagreements we may have).
But it is a religious designation since Antiquity. The terms Israelite and Israeli are not, but Jew surely is.
It has been misused that way, yes. In antiquity it simply meant an inhabitant of Judaea (not even of Israel). Taking it as a religious designation is as ignorant as assuming 'Arab' is a religious designation because most Arabs are Muslims.
I've never seen a textbook on philosophy that didn't, correctly, refer to Spinoza as a Jew. So how can it have been a religious designation?
Originally posted by gcle2003
Of course Judaism is somewhat favoured in Israel, but nowhere near to the extent Christianity is de facto favoured in the USA or Islam is in most of the middle east states (including Hussein's rather secular Iraq - see article 4 of the 1990 constitution).
I feel that you have completely ignored of what i have posted in the previous pages.
You can be a Christian Jew. In fact there are many of them around, forming quite a strong movement. Fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christian groups don't like them but they're there.
You are still talking about self-determination. How people may determine themselves, not how they are determined by structures. The term Christian-Jew can be as absurd as the term Christian-Muslim.
Originally posted by gcle2003
This emphasis on 'Jew' as a religious designation is one of the things I find sickening about much of this debate. I've known many Jews who weren't in the least Judaists, including Israeli citizens. And Hebrewtext is perfectly correct in everything he has been saying on this subject (whatever other disagreements we may have).
But it is a religious designation since Antiquity. The terms Israelite and Israeli are not, but Jew surely is.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Of course Judaism is somewhat favoured in Israel, but nowhere near to the extent Christianity is de facto favoured in the USA or Islam is in most of the middle east states (including Hussein's rather secular Iraq - see article 4 of the 1990 constitution).
I feel that you have completely ignored of what i have posted in the previous pages.
Edited by Spartakus - 31-Jan-2009 at 13:46
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
HebrewText your just confirming what we have been saying all along. If you can show me a Jew that has converted to Islam and get the same treatment then i am totally wrong.
As I understand it, a Jew that converts to Islam (or was born Muslim) will then be subject to the Islamic religious courts, not the Judaic ones, on matters like marriage and divorce. Status before the criminal courts, and citizenship, will not change.
That seems reasonable to me. If he/she believes in Islam, then presumably he/she will want to come under the Islamic religious courts, not the Judaic ones.
What is a little odd about the setup is that there are various kinds of Catholic/Orthodox denominations catered for, but not Protestants.
HebrewText your just confirming what we have been saying all along. If you can show me a Jew that has converted to Islam and get the same treatment then i am totally wrong.
As I understand it, a Jew that converts to Islam (or was born Muslim) will then be subject to the Islamic religious courts, not the Judaic ones, on matters like marriage and divorce. Status before the criminal courts, and citizenship, will not change.
That seems reasonable to me. If he/she believes in Islam, rhen presumbaly he/she will want to come under the Islamic religious courts, not the Judaic ones.
What is a little odd about the setup is that there are various kinds of Catholic/Orthodox denominations catered for, but not Protestants.
You do know what a Jew practices, because he/she is a Jew. You cannot be a Jew and, at the same time, Christian or Muslim. Because Jew=Christian=Muslim=religious identity.
If the State of Israel was secular, it would use the term Israeli instead of Jew.
You can be a Christian Jew. In fact there are many of them around, forming quite a strong movement. Fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christian groups don't like them but they're there. And they have the same rights of return to Israel as any other Jew.
This emphasis on 'Jew' as a religious designation is one of the things I find sickening about much of this debate. I've known many Jews who weren't in the least Judaists, including Israeli citizens. And Hebrewtext is perfectly correct in everything he has been saying on this subject (whatever other disagreements we may have).
Of course Judaism is somewhat favoured in Israel, but nowhere near to the extent Christianity is de facto favoured in the USA or Islam is in most of the middle east states (including Hussein's rather secular Iraq - see article 4 of the 1990 constitution).
In fact outside the communist countries avowed non-believers would have some difficulty getting elected president, but it's been common in Israel.
HebrewText your just confirming what we have been saying all along. If you can show me a Jew that has converted to Islam and get the same treatment then i am totally wrong.
Obviously not! Religious/ethnic discrimination is a fundamental aspect of the Israeli constitution, especially as regards immigration.
also non Jews can get Israeli citizenship after several years and long process.
Yes, that's true. But the point is that you get a free pass if you conform to religious ideals that define what a Jew is. You get nothing in Canada just because you happen to be of some particular religion or ethnicity. Any immigration officer who was caught favouring some religion or ethnicity would be thrown in jail for human rights violations.
You can't get a pass on getting into Canada by converting to some religion. You have to qualify for citizenship and your race or religion doesn't matter even a little bit. In fact, the law makes it illegal for the government to discriminate at all based on such things. If an immigration officer gave someone a pass because their grandfather was white or Christian or something, he would be fired and charged with a human rights crime.
same here
also non Jews can get Israeli citizenship after several years and long process.
you know sunshine,beaches, hot girls attracts thousends of foriegners to live in Israel.
sorry that makes Israel very easy to immigrate to with the lightest immigration rules in the world.(even just to convert to Judaism).
Bingo!
You can't get a pass on getting into Canada by converting to some religion. You have to qualify for citizenship and your race or religion doesn't matter even a little bit. In fact, the law makes it illegal for the government to discriminate at all based on such things. If an immigration officer gave someone a pass because their grandfather was white or Christian or something, he would be fired and charged with a human rights crime.
Judaism is a national/ethnical/falklore/cultural identity ,and not only a religious one. a self cognative identity, of the Jewish people for the past thousends of years. holding nomerus differ strict characters.
so yes a Jew can be atheist as well.
sorry it does'nt work here as with Christianity and Islam.
We do not discuss here about self-determination, but about how political culture and social structures interpret the term Jew. Yes, a Jew can be an atheist, but nothing else. Jews were nothing more than a religious-ethnic group. Only since the last century there is an effort to make them a nation.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
You do know what a Jew practices, because he/she is a Jew. You cannot be a Jew and, at the same time, Christian or Muslim. Because Jew=Christian=Muslim=religious identity.
If the State of Israel was secular, it would use the term Israeli instead of Jew.
Edited by Spartakus - 30-Jan-2009 at 17:36
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Not really Super Goat. Hebrewtext never said that you had to be a practicing Jew to get full citizenship in Israel, what he said was that you had to have a Jewish grandparent. In his hypothetical you don't know what religion the Canadian practices. If he is Christian, he still gets full rights according to HT because he had one Jewish grandparent.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum