Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

"Beating" up on Israel?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
Author
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Beating" up on Israel?
    Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 19:44

Israel definately does have a written constitution.

This is wikipedia, but:

Israeli definition of nationality

The Jewish status of a person in Israel is considered a matter of "nationality".

In the registering of "nationality" on Israeli Teudat Zehut ("identity card"), which is controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, a person had to meet the traditional halakhic definition to be registered as a "Jew". However, in a small number of cases the Supreme Court of Israel has ordered the Interior Ministry to register as Jews individuals who did not meet that definition.

Until recently, Israeli identity cards had an indication of nationality, and the field was left empty for those who immigrated not solely on the basis of being Jewish (ie. as a child, grandchild or spouse of a Jew only) to indicate that the person may not be a Jew. Also, many Israeli citizens who are not recognised by the Rabbinate as Jewish (or have not provided sufficient proof of this) have been issued with Israeli identity cards that do not include their Hebrew calendar birth date.

Now you might have some groups that will accept children of Jewish fathers as Jewish, but it's not typical, and it's not the law in Israel.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 20:09
Originally posted by Spartakus

Originally posted by gcle2003

I know, and I'm saying you're wrong. That's not how Jews see it and it's not in fact how most people se and have seen it.


That's not how certain Jews see it.
True. Pretending 'Jewish' is a religious designation is useful propaganda for both fundamentalist Jews, and for fundamentlist of other religions. A very good reason for rejecting it.

Originally posted by gcle2003


It's largelse a result of the religious propaganda being spread around by fundamentalists (including Jewish ones) ove the last half-century or so.


There is propaganda, one can hardly deny it. But this propaganda is based on existing material.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003


Read pretty well any modern novel that mentions Jews and the focus will be on their race not their religion.


That is a very absolute statement, i would be very careful in your position before i post such a thing. Unless you have read all modern literature about Jews, or even literature which simply refers to Jews. But even if you had done such a thing, your reading does not necessarily mean that it's the only reading of the story. Give a text to 14 people and they will give you 14 different opinions.
Not true in the least, though it's the kind of thing people say when they're short of arguments. I probably should have added 'modern novels about the modern world' though, since historical novels about the medieval and old worlds frequently, like The Last Kabbalist Of Lisbon are concerned with the religious aspect, religion being rather more important then. (Historical novels about the middle ages also assume prettty reasonably tha Europeans were Christian.)
 
It's not just novels, but history books. You won't find one that refers to Disraeli, for instance, without referring to him as Jewish, and he was known as Jewish during his lifetime, but he was a practising member of the Church of England (he pretty well had to be in the politics of the period).

Originally posted by gcle2003


I don't know what you mean there at all. You can't mean most people think Jewish is a religious designation. How much reference is there to Shylock's religion in The Merchant of Venice?


In my experience ,yes, most people think of the term Jewish as a religious designation. Concerning Shylock, in the book The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Wordsworth editions, i do read signs of religiosity:

First of all in Shylock's own words (I. III. 3-51):
"Yes, to smell pork; to eat the habitation which your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into......but i will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you"

" How like a fawning publican he looks!
I hate him for he is a Christian!
"

"He hates our sacred nation"

I. III. 52-98

"This Jacob from our holy Abram was"

I. III. 153-II. I. 57

" O father Abram, what these Christians are"

Antonio
" Hie thee, gentle Jew.
[ Exit Shylock.
The Hebrew will turn Christian: he grows kind."
Note he says 'our sacred nation' and 'father Abraham'. The last quote says nothing about the present 'Hebrew's' religion. One might also have said, in that period, 'the African will turn Christian' or 'the Indian will turn Christian'. Or indeed, 'the Turk will turn Christian'. That doesn't mean 'African' or 'Indian' or 'Turk' is a religious designation, just that at the time 'Christian' (and Shakespeare I'm dead sure is being sarcastic here) implied 'gentleness.
 
Personal hatred of Christians doesn't mean much either. Richard Dawkins isn't Jewish, but he's pretty down on Christians, and there are a lot worse than him. 

Originally posted by gcle2003


Yes it is. 'Common ground with acceptable definitions means distinguishing clearly between race and religion, not confounding them. And Judaist is the common word for the religion.


But they are inter-connected.You cannot separate them.
 
Yes you can. As King John exemplified, there are Jews - many many of them - that do not practise the religion. And there are people (fewer) that practise the religion without being Jews. So you have to separate them to make any sense of the situation and avoid mindless sloganising.
 
You might as well argue you cannot separate cricket from spicy foods because most peple who play cricket eat spicy foods.
Originally posted by gcle2003


The point is that that is dangerous, inlammatory, and totally misleading, since the word has always indicated racial origin.


That's your opinion. It was always a religious identity, and an ethnic one, but to a much lesser extent.
During certain periods in their history most Jews practised the same religion (not all, not all the time, unless you think the Bible is lying - in which case we've no information about the early period at all). In more recent centuries, starting with the diaspora but accelerating with the Enlightenment, and the coming of socialism, the proportion of non-observant Jews increased steadily until the group that started Zionism were practically all non-observant.
 
After all, pretty much the same things happened to the other major religions. The English were once all Christian. Now only a minority are. Why should Judaism be any different?

Originally posted by gcle2003


That some claims to racial descent are invalid doesn't make them all invalid. A lot of people who claim to be Scots aren't.


If some claims  to racial descent are invalid, then the whole argument is being lost. It just complicates things and it just proves that descent does not play that much of a role.
That people forge banknotes doesn't prove banknotes are worthless. Rather the opposite. That they forge racial claims indicates that racial claims are important.
 
If people make invalid claims to racial descent in order to prove they are Jewish, then it's right there that your argument is lost.

 
Originally posted by gcle2003


Which unfortunately I failed to understand.


I think i explained it quite well.

Originally posted by gcle2003



Photos don't prove a damned thing. The English on the whole look alike (more than some peoples). If anything that's because they're mongrel and come from a lot of intermarried groups.
 
Not that it matters. I know brothers who don't look like each other. Putting out pictures the way you did here and people sadly so often do in other threads is just childish.


Now, i will ignore the last words, which are an insult.
Not really. I'm not calling you a child. I'm saying believing that what people look like is important (other than to actors and models and such) is a childish belief. It is.
You do realize that we enter the field of genetics right now, don't you? I cannot say i am an expert in that field, no. What i do know is that when you come  from a line of intermarried groups (which are very different, not similar), you will have certain characteristics from these groups in your physical aspect (not necessarily from all groups though). The greatest example would be the USA. By your argument, all Americans would look alike. Does this happen? HELL NO.
 
I realise that. The effect of mongrelisation is to spread out genetic characteristics into a average kind of pool. However, the laws of large numbers do make it clear there will always be 'sports' and 'throwbacks', so the range will stay wide even though the cluster around the mean will increase.
 
The American example isn't very valid because until very recently intermarriage in the US was frowned upon and even illegal. It still is by and large frowned upon even though it is becoming more common. Even now you will have to accept that the number of people with intermediate characteristics visually is greater than those exhibiting the original features.
 
But my objection to using what people look like (and what makes it childish) is that visual appearance only represents a tiny part of genetic inheritance anyway.


Edited by gcle2003 - 06-Feb-2009 at 20:16
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 20:33

Originally posted by gcle2003

Pretending 'Jewish' is a religious designation is useful propaganda

So is pretending that a purely secular, ethnic identity existed before the Zionist movement. It just didn't. 

Actually the whole idea of 'non-practicing Jew' ... well, I'm sure there are a few who really are, but the vast majority of people designated as such are not really. Do they eat only kosher food, and avoid pork and so on? That is a religious practice. So whether or not they go to the synagogue and so on, they are - to some degree - members of the religion. Even if they consider themselves atheist!



Edited by edgewaters - 06-Feb-2009 at 20:36
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 20:38
Originally posted by edgewaters

Israel definately does have a written constitution.

Israel definitely does not have a constitution, let alone a written one. (Unless they'e created one in the last week or two, which I doubt.)
 
 
When the state was created it was impossible to get agreement on whether a constitution should have a religious element or not. Now I gather there are other issues as well.
 
Anybody who's read anything of the Talmud will not be surprised by this Smile
 
 
This is wikipedia, but:

Israeli definition of nationality

The Jewish status of a person in Israel is considered a matter of "nationality".

In the registering of "nationality" on Israeli Teudat Zehut ("identity card"), which is controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, a person had to meet the traditional halakhic definition to be registered as a "Jew". However, in a small number of cases the Supreme Court of Israel has ordered the Interior Ministry to register as Jews individuals who did not meet that definition.

Until recently, Israeli identity cards had an indication of nationality, and the field was left empty for those who immigrated not solely on the basis of being Jewish (ie. as a child, grandchild or spouse of a Jew only) to indicate that the person may not be a Jew. Also, many Israeli citizens who are not recognised by the Rabbinate as Jewish (or have not provided sufficient proof of this) have been issued with Israeli identity cards that do not include their Hebrew calendar birth date.

Now you might have some groups that will accept children of Jewish fathers as Jewish, but it's not typical, and it's not the law in Israel.

What's wrong with leaving the field blank if you do not know what to put in it? Anyway, the argument here is whether 'Jew' is an ethnic/racial designation or a religious one, and what you say here strengthens the case that it is racial, because the situation does not depend in the least on the religion of the person, but only on descent. Your very first sentence is "The Jewish status of a person in Israel is considered a matter of "nationality"."
 
Notably not of religion.
 
Moreover, on this sidetrack, what you quoted does not indicate that it matters whether the descent was through the mother or the father.
 
The situation is complicated in Israel because the civil courts and the religious courts have different definitions of who is a Jew. Moreover the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform communities have differing views too, let alone the mass of secular Jews.
 
Some idea of the complications can be got from http://www.cfisrael.org//a491.html?rsID=0
which however does focus in almost all its variants on the question of descent, not religion - though there is some suggestion recently that a Jew who renounces his religion would lose his rght tp return. But that isn't the same as saying he is no longer a Jew. I'm sure even the orthodox would see him as a Jew who had broken the covenant.
 
When Ben Gurion drafted the law of return he said “whomever the Nazis called a Jew and sent the death camps was to be offered refuge in the newly established State of Israel" That means he at least was willing to accept the definitions of the Nuremberg Laws, which were certainly racial.
 
 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 20:47
Originally posted by gcle2003

What's wrong with leaving the field blank if you do not know what to put in it? Anyway, the argument here is whether 'Jew' is an ethnic/racial designation or a religious one, and what you say here strengthens the case that it is racial, because the situation does not depend in the least on the religion of the person, but only on descent. Your very first sentence is "The Jewish status of a person in Israel is considered a matter of "nationality"."
 
Notably not of religion.
Wow. I've seen some selective reading before, but that really takes the cake.
Nationality is not necessarily a racial concept. There is an American nationality, but no American race. I don't know why you would make the strange assumption that it refers to a racial designation here, when clearly it does not:
" ... a person had to meet the traditional halakhic definition to be registered as a "Jew" ..."
Note also that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has the final say! 
Can you name any country where the Catholic church or any other religious organization is used as an arbiter to decide what nationality a person is? If you can't, I'd have to say the matter is pretty much concluded and "ethno-religious" is a perfectly apt designation.
Moreover, on this sidetrack, what you quoted does not indicate that it matters whether the descent was through the mother or the father.
Yes, it does. I refer you to the above portion which you conveniently seem to have missed. What do you think the halakhic definition is?


Edited by edgewaters - 06-Feb-2009 at 20:52
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 21:56
Originally posted by gcle2003



True. Pretending 'Jewish' is a religious designation is useful propaganda for both fundamentalist Jews, and for fundamentlist of other religions. A very good reason for rejecting it.


edgewaters replied to that.




Originally posted by gcle2003



Not true in the least, though it's the kind of thing people say when they're short of arguments.


It's the kind of thing people say when they are discussing with people having the "God syndrom".

Originally posted by gcle2003


I probably should have added 'modern novels about the modern world' though,


You should......

Originally posted by gcle2003


 since historical novels about the medieval and old worlds frequently, like The Last Kabbalist Of Lisbon are concerned with the religious aspect, religion being rather more important then.


Thank you.....
 
Originally posted by gcle2003


It's not just novels, but history books. You won't find one that refers to Disraeli, for instance, without referring to him as Jewish, and he was known as Jewish during his lifetime, but he was a practising member of the Church of England (he pretty well had to be in the politics of the period).


It depends on the  policy behind the publication of history books. You should know that.

Originally posted by gcle2003



Note he says 'our sacred nation' and 'father Abraham'. The last quote says nothing about the present 'Hebrew's' religion. One might also have said, in that period, 'the African will turn Christian' or 'the Indian will turn Christian'. Or indeed, 'the Turk will turn Christian'. That doesn't mean 'African' or 'Indian' or 'Turk' is a religious designation, just that at the time 'Christian' (and Shakespeare I'm dead sure is being sarcastic here) implied 'gentleness.Personal hatred of Christians doesn't mean much either. Richard Dawkins isn't Jewish, but he's pretty down on Christians, and there are a lot worse than him.


 "our sacred nation" : it clearly shows a metaphysical dimension, which, in the given circumstance, can be explained  inside a religious context. God made Jews a sacred nation.

Also, Shylock sees it's difference with others in religious grounds, that is Jew vs Christian. If he saw it otherwise, he could have used the term Venetian, for example.He refuses to eat pork, he refuses to pray. That behavior can  be explained in the context of upholding religious tradition.

Concerning the last part of my quote, the author uses the dipole Jew/Hebrew- Christian. If we take the term Jew ( which is a synonym for Hebrew here) only in racial terms, then the dipole does not make sense. It would make sense if, instead of Christian, used , again, Venetian. Plus, we are in the 16th century , aren't we? Terrestrial reference ( African turning Christian) is a little out of date. And also the term Ottoman Turks did not only have a racial reference, but (by the end of the 16th century when they had conquered, practically, all the Middle East) also a religious reference. They were the chief representatives of aggressive Islam.
 


Originally posted by gcle2003


And there are people (fewer) that practise the religion without being Jews.


A ridiculous statement and double standards. You recognize the right to non-practicing people to call themselves Jews and you deny it to those actually practicing the religion. I, for once, have not met not a single man who practices Judaism and does not consider itself a Jew.
 


Originally posted by gcle2003



During certain periods in their history most Jews practised the same religion (not all, not all the time, unless you think the Bible is lying - in which case we've no information about the early period at all).


The Bible itself is a religious narration. The history of Ancient Israelites is, mainly, based (Biblical Archeology) in a book who talks about God, Prophets, Covenants etc.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003


until the group that started Zionism were practically all non-observant.


Another absolute statement.

Originally posted by gcle2003


 Why should Judaism be any different?


Because Judaism is part of  Jewish identity.




Originally posted by gcle2003



Not really. I'm not calling you a child. I'm saying believing that what people look like is important (other than to actors and models and such) is a childish belief. It is.


You did not call me a child, yet you did call my behavior  childish. Unless i have forgotten my English.

 
Originally posted by gcle2003


I realise that. The effect of mongrelisation is to spread out genetic characteristics into a average kind of pool. However, the laws of large numbers do make it clear there will always be 'sports' and 'throwbacks', so the range will stay wide even though the cluster around the mean will increase.


 Correct me if i am wrong.If the offsprings of an inter-married couple, originating from different groups, marry people from the same group (large numbers from the same pool), that is genetic variety gets limited, then surely special characteristics in one's aspect will either get limited or most probably disappear. That is not an absolute outcome , though. Jewish communities of the past were quite close (superstition, discrimination, need for survival etc) so genetic variety should not have been that great. Yet, i am talking about Modern Israelis, in the State of Israel. You can see that in the following picture:



You can see that the first one from the left can pass as a Northren European and the second as a Mediterranean, yet they are both IDF soldiers, and most probably Jews. This is an indication of the genetic variety of Jewish populations.

 
Originally posted by gcle2003


The American example isn't very valid because until very recently intermarriage in the US was frowned upon and even illegal. It still is by and large frowned upon even though it is becoming more common. Even now you will have to accept that the number of people with intermediate characteristics visually is greater than those exhibiting the original features.


Surely, intermarriage in the US was highly disapproved during the previous decades (before 1980), but my point is not historical, but purely genetic. People from intermarried groups present special aspect characteristics which indicate their multi-backgrounds. This happens with Israelis , making them as mongrel as English.


Originally posted by gcle2003

But my objection to using what people look like (and what makes it childish) is that visual appearance only represents a tiny part of genetic inheritance anyway.


It does demonstrate a significant genetic variety, thus ancestry from different "genetic pools".


"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)
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 22:26

On a side note, the English really aren't all that "mongrel".

The diverse historical background is mostly a linguistic concept, not a genetic one. 



Edited by edgewaters - 06-Feb-2009 at 22:26
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 13:48
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

Pretending 'Jewish' is a religious designation is useful propaganda

So is pretending that a purely secular, ethnic identity existed before the Zionist movement. It just didn't. 

I'd agree that racial propagands is also propaganda. My point is that religious propaganda is religious propaganda whereas racial propaganda is racial propaganda.
 
My proposition here is not that Israel is a'good' state, but that, right or wrong, it is essentially a racist one.
 
So you think the Old Testament was written sometime in the late 19th century, possibly the 20th, do you? I don't think you have much evidence for that, any more than you have for Israel having a written constitution.
Actually the whole idea of 'non-practicing Jew' ... well, I'm sure there are a few who really are, but the vast majority of people designated as such are not really. Do they eat only kosher food, and avoid pork and so on?
Nope. They eat shellfish, pork, cheeseburgers, curries made with yoghurt and drink any kind of wine the same way other people do. Like me, except I don't eat cheese.
 That is a religious practice. So whether or not they go to the synagogue and so on, they are - to some degree - members of the religion.
I agree. However if they don't, and most don't, then they aren't. And if someone does all those things, that doesn't make them a Jew.
 
Moreover someone who eats fish on Fridays isn't necessarily a member of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain up to 1970 or so.
 Even if they consider themselves atheist!
That's daft. You can't be an atheist and an observant Jew (observant means believing in the precepts of Judaism, not just following outward forms) at the same time.


Edited by gcle2003 - 07-Feb-2009 at 13:53
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 14:27
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

What's wrong with leaving the field blank if you do not know what to put in it? Anyway, the argument here is whether 'Jew' is an ethnic/racial designation or a religious one, and what you say here strengthens the case that it is racial, because the situation does not depend in the least on the religion of the person, but only on descent. Your very first sentence is "The Jewish status of a person in Israel is considered a matter of "nationality"."
 
Notably not of religion.
Wow. I've seen some selective reading before, but that really takes the cake.
Nationality is not necessarily a racial concept. There is an American nationality, but no American race. I don't know why you would make the strange assumption that it refers to a racial designation here,
Read it again. I did not do that and I was careful not to.
 
I said if it is a matter of nationality it was NOT a matter of religion. Which is true. You should read more carefully.
 
 when clearly it does not:
" ... a person had to meet the traditional halakhic definition to be registered as a "Jew" ..."
Note also that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has the final say! 
The halakhic definition is racial, not religious.
 
The religious courts in Israel have jurisdiction over all matters of personal status. Therefore they apply the racial definition. The way the laws are worded it would seem that the religious courts therefore should decide if the term 'Arab' applies to someone.
Can you name any country where the Catholic church or any other religious organization is used as an arbiter to decide what nationality a person is? If you can't, I'd have to say the matter is pretty much concluded and "ethno-religious" is a perfectly apt designation.
Moreover, on this sidetrack, what you quoted does not indicate that it matters whether the descent was through the mother or the father.
Yes, it does. I refer you to the above portion which you conveniently seem to have missed. What do you think the halakhic definition is?
Descent through the female line. Which is a genetic and racial principle as the extract from wikipedia below explains.
 
However, I agree I was wrong there in that 'halakhic' is indeed an indirect reference to the female line, which I missed. The more germane point is that descent through the female line is just as racial as descent through the male - or through both.
 

[edit] Traditional Rabbinic Halakhic perspective

According to the traditional Rabbinic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism today, only Halakha ("Jewish law") can define who is or is not a Jew when a question of Jewish identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any person seeking to define themselves or claim that they are Jewish.

As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the Jewish principles of faith, or even formal conversion to another faith, does not make one lose one's Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all her female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a faith other than Judaism, are technically still Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by Orthodoxy or Conservatism unless they formally convert, even if raised practicing Judaism.

 


Edited by gcle2003 - 07-Feb-2009 at 14:32
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 14:30
Originally posted by edgewaters

On a side note, the English really aren't all that "mongrel".

The diverse historical background is mostly a linguistic concept, not a genetic one. 

So how would you define 'English'?
 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 10:55

Originally posted by gcle2003

So you think the Old Testament was written sometime in the late 19th century, possibly the 20th, do you?

Errr ... wha???! Where are you pulling that from?

No, its an old religious document. What I'm saying is that prior to Zionism, there was no such thing as a secular Jewish identity. If you weren't a practicing Jew, and you were in, say, France - you'd identify yourself as French.

What the age of the Old Testament has to do with that is beyond me.

That's daft. You can't be an atheist and an observant Jew (observant means believing in the precepts of Judaism, not just following outward forms) at the same time.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you don't need to be a believer to take part in religious practices, and even have some of your worldview informed by religious influences. Your atheist who doesn't eat fish on Sundays because of some inheirited religio-social custom IS a product of that religion. He could campaign for a law forbidding the eating of fish on Sundays - and that law, too, would be a religious product, even though it was an atheist who brought it about. The subject and the object are distinct and do not necessarily share the same qualities.

My proposition here is not that Israel is a'good' state, but that, right or wrong, it is essentially a racist one.

And my position is that, while it has ethnic features, it is not exclusively ethnic in nature. You can convert to a religion and it will change your nationality; a religious office (the Chief Rabbinate) is involved in immigration decisions; etc etc. It's not exclusively religious either, but trying to deny the religious element in the nature of the identity is absurd, and it's simply a fact that the religion does impact (in legal terms) the status of a citizen in Israel.

If you want to talk races, we're getting even further removed from things because the Palestinians and the Israelis are basically the same race, from the same original population, confirmed by a remarkable genetic similarity. The only major difference is that the Israelis show alot more European influence.

Which brings me to a point about the pictures. "Race" is an archaic concept. But we can talk about clines, which are the distribution of a trait associated with a geographic region. Clearly, pictures can give us a good indication of visible traits and demonstrate that the Israelis are phenotypically diverse and the population itself bears obvious influence from many different clines - Northern Europe, Africa, etc.



Edited by edgewaters - 08-Feb-2009 at 11:58
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 11:02
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by edgewaters

On a side note, the English really aren't all that "mongrel".

The diverse historical background is mostly a linguistic concept, not a genetic one. 

So how would you define 'English'?
 

Mostly as a mix of Jutlanders (Danes, Jutes, Angles, etc) and native inhabitants. It's a mix, but it's not nearly as mixed as Spain, France, Italy, etc. There were many waves of invaders, but its considerably reduced when you consider the fact that most of them were either the same population, just different cultures in time (Jutlanders) or didn't really populate the island in any signifigant way (eg Normans).

Or, if you meant "Who is English" I guess it's a matter of self-identification and cultural affiliation. The idea of being "English" is a cultural/political innovation. Yes, its an insular population on an island and the inhabitants probably always had an identity of sorts, but England doesn't cover the whole island. The population of the region probably first came to see itself as distinct from the rest of the archipelago during the era of Roman Britain (another invasion which contributed very little genetically, but very much culturally) so, the origin of "Englishness" can be said to be cultural more than anything else.

People talk about the many invasions of England and how it produced a diversity. The nature of that diversity is misunderstood. It's not a terribly great genetic diversity, relative to the rest of Europe (though it's hardly a "pure race" either, as if such a thing has ever existed). It's that England is the result of profound cultural changes brought by invasion, and most especially, that the language is a remarkable hybrid. There are few other languages so profoundly hybrid as English.

On the other hand, you do have alot of diversity entering the picture in relatively recent times, from the 1700s on. So I guess we're really talking here about the English as they were a few centuries ago. There are blacks in London who would self-identify as English first and foremost - again, it's an assumed identity based on cultural affiliation.



Edited by edgewaters - 08-Feb-2009 at 11:48
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 22:41
Originally posted by Spartakus

Originally posted by gcle2003


It's not just novels, but history books. You won't find one that refers to Disraeli, for instance, without referring to him as Jewish, and he was known as Jewish during his lifetime, but he was a practising member of the Church of England (he pretty well had to be in the politics of the period).


It depends on the  policy behind the publication of history books. You should know that.
No it doesn't. That's simply ridiculous conspiracy theory. That all history books would pretend Disraeli was Jewish if he wasn't is rubbish.
 
Disraeli was a Jew. He was a practising member of the Church of England. That's as factual as that the battle of Hastings was in 1066 - or is that just due to the policy behind the history books too?

Originally posted by gcle2003


Note he says 'our sacred nation' and 'father Abraham'. The last quote says nothing about the present 'Hebrew's' religion. One might also have said, in that period, 'the African will turn Christian' or 'the Indian will turn Christian'. Or indeed, 'the Turk will turn Christian'. That doesn't mean 'African' or 'Indian' or 'Turk' is a religious designation, just that at the time 'Christian' (and Shakespeare I'm dead sure is being sarcastic here) implied 'gentleness.Personal hatred of Christians doesn't mean much either. Richard Dawkins isn't Jewish, but he's pretty down on Christians, and there are a lot worse than him.


 "our sacred nation" : it clearly shows a metaphysical dimension, which, in the given circumstance, can be explained  inside a religious context. God made Jews a sacred nation.
The Jews were a tribe before God made any pact with Abraham. It was a tribe first, and sanctified later. Doesn't alter the fact that lots of Jews don't believe in God, let alone the Torah, let alone stuff about only drinking kosher wine: and that lots of people who believe in God, believe in the Torah, and will only drink kosher wine are not Jews.

Also, Shylock sees it's difference with others in religious grounds, that is Jew vs Christian. If he saw it otherwise, he could have used the term Venetian, for example.He refuses to eat pork, he refuses to pray.
If je refuses to pray, he can hardly be a religious Jew. He sees the people around him as Christians because they would have been Christians.  He probably would have been at least a part-observant Jew too. What difference does that make to the argument? I don't deny there are Judaist Jews. It's just that 'Judaist' and 'Jew' don't mean the same thing.
That behavior can  be explained in the context of upholding religious tradition.
Or in the context of having nothing to do with religion at all - i.e. that he is just using the term 'Christian' as one of generalised abuse, without any regard for whether or not they are actually Christian or not. In effect making the same mistake you do when you lump all Jews into one religious basket.

Concerning the last part of my quote, the author uses the dipole Jew/Hebrew- Christian. If we take the term Jew ( which is a synonym for Hebrew here) only in racial terms, then the dipole does not make sense.
It does if you don't take 'Christian' in a religious sense either - which a Jew in Renaissance Italy might well have done. Renaissance Italians aren't particularly noted for religious purity. Even the Popes.
It would make sense if, instead of Christian, used , again, Venetian. Plus, we are in the 16th century , aren't we? Terrestrial reference ( African turning Christian) is a little out of date. And also the term Ottoman Turks did not only have a racial reference, but (by the end of the 16th century when they had conquered, practically, all the Middle East) also a religious reference. They were the chief representatives of aggressive Islam.
Claiming 'Turk' (I didn't say 'Ottoman' incidentally) is a religious designation is stretching things a bit far even for you.
Originally posted by gcle2003


And there are people (fewer) that practise the religion without being Jews.


A ridiculous statement and double standards. You recognize the right to non-practicing people to call themselves Jews and you deny it to those actually practicing the religion. I, for once, have not met not a single man who practices Judaism and does not consider itself a Jew.
It's not me doing the denying, it's the Jewish people. Take a look at what I linked to and quoted about the Israeli laws on nationality. Doesn't matter how much you don't like it, but Jews themselves consider themselves still Jews when they don't practise (King John here is a case in point - do you think he is lying?) and they also don't consider someone Jewish just because he does practise Judaism. THAT is one reason why you need to distinguish between 'Jew' and 'Judaist'.
Originally posted by gcle2003


During certain periods in their history most Jews practised the same religion (not all, not all the time, unless you think the Bible is lying - in which case we've no information about the early period at all).


The Bible itself is a religious narration.
Not all of it. Have you read it? If you had you'd know that much of it is concerned with the conduct of the children of Israel (itself a totally racial designation) when they did not follow the prophets and the laws of the Torah.
The history of Ancient Israelites is, mainly, based (Biblical Archeology) in a book who talks about God, Prophets, Covenants etc.
Most ancient history (other than archaeology) is based upon books that talk about God(s) and religions. That's because atheism and secularism were pretty rare in the ancient world.
 
Is 'Greek' a religious designation because Homer is full of references to gods?
 
Originally posted by gcle2003


until the group that started Zionism were practically all non-observant.


Another absolute statement.
No it wasn't. 'Practically all' is not absolute. More importantly, it is a true statement as any history of Zionism will tell you.

Originally posted by gcle2003


 Why should Judaism be any different?


Because Judaism is part of  Jewish identity.
And the Church of England is part of the English identity. Doesn't mean 'English' is a religious designation. Historically Judaism arose among the Jews, that is correct. However Islam arose among the Arabs, B'ahai arose among the Persians and Mormonism arose among the Americans and Buddhism arose among the Indians and the Tao developed among the Chinese and Shinto developed among the Japanese.
 
But Japanese, Chinese, Indian, American, Persian and Arab are not religious designations (though you cold arguably say Shinto is  Japanese religion, the Tao is a Chinese religion, Buddhism is an Indian religion, Mormonism is an American religion and Islam is an Arab religion, since that is where they originated. And I'd accept on those grounds that Judaism is a Jewish religion. However Jewish does not imply Judaist, and Judaist does not imply Jewish.

Originally posted by gcle2003


Not really. I'm not calling you a child. I'm saying believing that what people look like is important (other than to actors and models and such) is a childish belief. It is.


You did not call me a child, yet you did call my behavior  childish. Unless i have forgotten my English.
Not your behaviour, your statements.

Originally posted by gcle2003


I realise that. The effect of mongrelisation is to spread out genetic characteristics into a average kind of pool. However, the laws of large numbers do make it clear there will always be 'sports' and 'throwbacks', so the range will stay wide even though the cluster around the mean will increase.


 Correct me if i am wrong.If the offsprings of an inter-married couple, originating from different groups, marry people from the same group (large numbers from the same pool), that is genetic variety gets limited, then surely special characteristics in one's aspect will either get limited or most probably disappear. That is not an absolute outcome , though. Jewish communities of the past were quite close (superstition, discrimination, need for survival etc) so genetic variety should not have been that great. Yet, i am talking about Modern Israelis, in the State of Israel. You can see that in the following picture:

You can see that the first one from the left can pass as a Northren European and the second as a Mediterranean, yet they are both IDF soldiers, and most probably Jews. This is an indication of the genetic variety of Jewish populations.
Not really. Two people with very similar outward appearance can have wildly different genetic characteristics. Going by visual appearance is, as I said already, a childish thing to do - that is, it's the kind of thing children do.

Originally posted by gcle2003


The American example isn't very valid because until very recently intermarriage in the US was frowned upon and even illegal. It still is by and large frowned upon even though it is becoming more common. Even now you will have to accept that the number of people with intermediate characteristics visually is greater than those exhibiting the original features.


Surely, intermarriage in the US was highly disapproved during the previous decades (before 1980), but my point is not historical, but purely genetic. People from intermarried groups present special aspect characteristics which indicate their multi-backgrounds. This happens with Israelis , making them as mongrel as English.
They may well be. What difference does that make? Id you trace descent only through the female line for generations then you're going to get a lot of variation aren't you? Same as when you trace it only through the male line. The male line only shows the paternal ancestry as one individual in each generation. My Y chromosome comes from just one of my 32 six generations back. The other 23 could be from anyone. It's similar with the mitochondrial genetic material in the female line: the vast majority of genetic material comes from other lines.
 
What your really saying here is that paying a lot of attention to ancestral descent is silly. I'd agree with that. I'm not supporting racism, just saying Israel is in effect a racist state.

Originally posted by gcle2003

But my objection to using what people look like (and what makes it childish) is that visual appearance only represents a tiny part of genetic inheritance anyway.


It does demonstrate a significant genetic variety, thus ancestry from different "genetic pools".
No it doesn't. It's not connected with the vast majority of genetic factors. But see what I said above.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2009 at 22:44
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 23:15
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

So you think the Old Testament was written sometime in the late 19th century, possibly the 20th, do you?

Errr ... wha???! Where are you pulling that from?

Originally posted by edgewaters earlier

So is pretending that a purely secular, ethnic identity existed before the Zionist movement. It just didn't. 

The Old Testament asserts a purely ethnic identity. Israel is the descendant of Abraham and the children of Israel come from him. That's a purely ethnic identity, and secular too because it had nothing to do with believing in God. The Israelites didn't stop being Israelites when they were going around worshipping the golden calf for instance.
 
The message of the Old Testament is that an essentially ethinc group was chosen by God to do various things in return for various privileges. That Covenant was between God and  and an ethnic group, and that ethnic group and that ethnic group only, whatever they may believe, or how they may behave, is responsible for carrying out the covenant.
 
That's why I said you were implying the OT was written after the start of Zionism.
No, its an old religious document. What I'm saying is that prior to Zionism, there was no such thing as a secular Jewish identity. If you weren't a practicing Jew, and you were in, say, France - you'd identify yourself as French.
Not true. You might try to but you would always be identified by both the French and the other Jews as Jewish. Even if, like Spinoza, you were excommunicated. You can't voluntarily give up being Jewish.

What the age of the Old Testament has to do with that is beyond me.

See above
That's daft. You can't be an atheist and an observant Jew (observant means believing in the precepts of Judaism, not just following outward forms) at the same time.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you don't need to be a believer to take part in religious practices,

Of course not. I've even occasionally faked it myself when I was involved in church services.
 
and even have some of your worldview informed by religious influences. Your atheist who doesn't eat fish on Sundays because of some inheirited religio-social custom IS a product of that religion.
Did I say Sunday? Should have said Friday.
 
He could campaign for a law forbidding the eating of fish on Sundays - and that law, too, would be a religious product, even though it was an atheist who brought it about. The subject and the object are distinct and do not necessarily share the same qualities.
I think that's over stretching the argument. You're implying that simply because I sometimes say "God knows" I'm partly religious. That's nonsense. Learned behaviour continues of course. Habits are hard to break. Doing things that people around you think are appropriate is also always attractive. You can't say an ex-Anglican is still Anglican because when he meets a priest he calls him 'Father'.

My proposition here is not that Israel is a'good' state, but that, right or wrong, it is essentially a racist one.

And my position is that, while it has ethnic features, it is not exclusively ethnic in nature. You can convert to a religion and it will change your nationality; a religious office (the Chief Rabbinate) is involved in immigration decisions; etc etc. It's not exclusively religious either, but trying to deny the religious element in the nature of the identity is absurd, and it's simply a fact that the religion does impact (in legal terms) the status of a citizen in Israel.

The law in Ireland is affected by religion. Does that make 'Irish' a religious designation. Through most of the Arab Middle East the law is affected by religion. Does that make 'Arab' a religious designation?
 
It's an oddity of Israeli law that decisions about personal status are considered the subject of the religious courts (not just the Judaic ones, but also the Muslim courts and the various Christian ones). Hence, for instance, no civil marriage or divorce, so that many many Israelis go abroad to get merried or divorced.
 
What I'm arguing here is not that the Judaic religion doesn't exist, or that it has no influence on Israeli law at all (though its influence is certainly exaggerated greatly by both pro- and anti- fundamentalists), but that it needs to be separated out from the identity of Jews as Jews.
 
Otherwise there is more than just a serioous risk of the fallacious arguments that run along the lines 'Jews refuse to kill cattle humanely', 'X is a Jew', 'X wants animals not killed humanely'. And we've seen too many arguments like that in the past, and we are still seeing them now.
 
On a slightly different sidetrack with regard to religious courts: much the same is true in many Arab countries, and Muslims are pressing for the same kins of system to be established in, at least, Canada and the UK. But you don't seem to be using that for an argument for calling 'Arab' 'ethno-religious'.
[/QUOTE] 
If you want to talk races, we're getting even further removed from things because the Palestinians and the Israelis are basically the same race, from the same original population, confirmed by a remarkable genetic similarity. The only major difference is that the Israelis show alot more European influence.
[/QUOTE] I accept that about 'races'. Wherever I've said 'racist' you can substitute 'ethnic'. Personally I don't think it matters very much, but some people take it seriously.

Which brings me to a point about the pictures. "Race" is an archaic concept. But we can talk about clines, which are the distribution of a trait associated with a geographic region. Clearly, pictures can give us a good indication of visible traits and demonstrate that the Israelis are phenotypically diverse and the population itself bears obvious influence from many different clines - Northern Europe, Africa, etc.
 
'Visible' 'phenotypical' yes. That's exactly my point. Using photographs just focusses attention on a few unimportant features. And those few variations are then built up into the attitudes that you and I apparently share.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 23:26
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by edgewaters

On a side note, the English really aren't all that "mongrel".

The diverse historical background is mostly a linguistic concept, not a genetic one. 

So how would you define 'English'?
 

Mostly as a mix of Jutlanders (Danes, Jutes, Angles, etc) and native inhabitants.

Romans, Normans, Flemings, Huguenots, Jews, Poles, Cypriots, Pakistanis, Indians, West Indians....
 
It's a mix, but it's not nearly as mixed as Spain, France, Italy, etc. There were many waves of invaders, but its considerably reduced when you consider the fact that most of them were either the same population, just different cultures in time (Jutlanders) or didn't really populate the island in any signifigant way (eg Normans).
All of Western Europe is pretty mongrelised, agreed.

Or, if you meant "Who is English" I guess it's a matter of self-identification and cultural affiliation. The idea of being "English" is a cultural/political innovation. Yes, its an insular population on an island and the inhabitants probably always had an identity of sorts, but England doesn't cover the whole island. The population of the region probably first came to see itself as distinct from the rest of the archipelago during the era of Roman Britain (another invasion which contributed very little genetically, but very much culturally) so, the origin of "Englishness" can be said to be cultural more than anything else.

I'd say the Anglo-Saxon conquest started the distinction between the two parts of the island (not quite the same borders as now though). The distinction was then mainly seen as between the Saxons and the original Britons (let's call them Celts), and then between Saxon, Dane and Celtic, and the idea of 'Englishness' proper didn't arise until after the Norman conquest and the general disappearance of the Norman-Saxon separation - i.e. about the time the English language began to be used officially (and to be reasonably recognisable by modern English speakers.
People talk about the many invasions of England and how it produced a diversity. The nature of that diversity is misunderstood. It's not a terribly great genetic diversity, relative to the rest of Europe (though it's hardly a "pure race" either, as if such a thing has ever existed). It's that England is the result of profound cultural changes brought by invasion, and most especially, that the language is a remarkable hybrid. There are few other languages so profoundly hybrid as English.
Agreed. I now see what you meant by the diversity being greater linguistically than genetically.

On the other hand, you do have alot of diversity entering the picture in relatively recent times, from the 1700s on. So I guess we're really talking here about the English as they were a few centuries ago. There are blacks in London who would self-identify as English first and foremost - again, it's an assumed identity based on cultural affiliation.



Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2009 at 23:30
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 02:22

Originally posted by gcle2003

The Old Testament asserts a purely ethnic identity. Israel is the descendant of Abraham and the children of Israel come from him. That's a purely ethnic identity, and secular too because it had nothing to do with believing in God.

It's purely mythical, and an invention of the Yahweh cult. The archetypal founder. The archaeological evidence points to the ancient Israelites as a religious ... revolt? ... by some Canaanite groups. Abraham is a mythical father-figure associated with the religion, perhaps based on some chieftain but nonetheless, definately not the father of all Semites!

That Covenant was between God and  and an ethnic group, and that ethnic group and that ethnic group only

The 'ethnic group' simply consists of those tribes in the region that were influenced by a particular religion. The covenant is nothing more than a superstition intended to help the religion hang on to these groups, by threatening curses and calamities should they revert to their previous culture and religion.

Not true. You might try to but you would always be identified by both the French and the other Jews as Jewish.

Non-practicing Jews were sometimes suspected of being secret practitioners ... beyond that, no.

 
He could campaign for a law forbidding the eating of fish on Sundays - and that law, too, would be a religious product, even though it was an atheist who brought it about. The subject and the object are distinct and do not necessarily share the same qualities.
I think that's over stretching the argument. You're implying that simply because I sometimes say "God knows" I'm partly religious. That's nonsense. Learned behaviour continues of course. Habits are hard to break. Doing things that people around you think are appropriate is also always attractive.
You're just giving the reasons an individual might choose to do something of the sort. It doesn't change the fact that the practice is a religious act, and even if some of those who perform it are not members of the religion, it enhances the prestige of the religion. 

The law in Ireland is affected by religion. Does that make 'Irish' a religious designation.

Well, that depends. Does a Chief Rabbinate or Bishopric or something get the final say as to whether you're Irish or not, for nationality purposes?

In Northern Ireland, I'd venture that identity is ethno-religious.

It's an oddity of Israeli law that decisions about personal status are considered the subject of the religious courts
I'll say.
 
What I'm arguing here is not that the Judaic religion doesn't exist, or that it has no influence on Israeli law at all (though its influence is certainly exaggerated greatly by both pro- and anti- fundamentalists), but that it needs to be separated out from the identity of Jews as Jews.
It can't be. The history of the Jews is the history of a religous community ... that, by the mid-19th century or so, began to assume a secular identity (in keeping with the nationalist current that was in vogue in Europe at the time). It remains ethno-religious in many aspects. It may be in the process of becoming a purely secular identity, but for the moment - at least on the question of Israel - it is not yet exclusively an ethnic designation. Thus, ethno-religious.
 
Otherwise there is more than just a serioous risk of the fallacious arguments that run along the lines 'Jews refuse to kill cattle humanely', 'X is a Jew', 'X wants animals not killed humanely'.
Ethno-religious implies an ethnic element to the identity, therefore no need to assume every single member is a follower of every (or any) religious practice.
 
On a slightly different sidetrack with regard to religious courts: much the same is true in many Arab countries, and Muslims are pressing for the same kins of system to be established in, at least, Canada and the UK. But you don't seem to be using that for an argument for calling 'Arab' 'ethno-religious'.
 
Well, the Sharia courts business in Canada wasn't just about Arabs, it concerned the Muslim community as a whole. The community concerned did not share ethnicity, only religion. Are you trying to draw parallels between this religious practice and Israeli courts? I'd say the identity group involved here is a purely religious one. There's no such thing as a Muslim ethnicity, or even ethno-religious identity, any more than there is a Catholic ethnicity.


Edited by edgewaters - 09-Feb-2009 at 02:24
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 14:11
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

The Old Testament asserts a purely ethnic identity. Israel is the descendant of Abraham and the children of Israel come from him. That's a purely ethnic identity, and secular too because it had nothing to do with believing in God.

It's purely mythical, and an invention of the Yahweh cult. The archetypal founder. The archaeological evidence points to the ancient Israelites as a religious ... revolt? ... by some Canaanite groups. Abraham is a mythical father-figure associated with the religion, perhaps based on some chieftain but nonetheless, definately not the father of all Semites!

Of course it's mythical. However the point is that it is essentially a racial/ethnic/tribal myth. Israel wasn't actually the father of all the 'children of Israel' but they believed him to be. And that's an ethnic/tribal/racial - i.e. ancestry-based - belief.
 
The children of Israel (according to the story) came out of Egypt and were the descendants of a single family that migrated there - Israel's direct children and their families. It's the history of a tribe (which split later into 12) that sometimes practised Judaism and sometimes didn't, but it always remained a tribe.
 
The myth matters. It shows there was an sense of ethnic community before there were any commandments. It's the belief in racial descent we're talking about, not the actuality of it.
 
Jews nowadays identify as fellow-Jews people whose ancestry is believed to be Jewish, not people whose ancestry is actually Jewish, because no-one can say that for sure. What they do NOT do is identify them as Jewish because they believe in Judaism. It's the myth that matters.
That Covenant was between God and  and an ethnic group, and that ethnic group and that ethnic group only

The 'ethnic group' simply consists of those tribes in the region that were influenced by a particular religion. The covenant is nothing more than a superstition intended to help the religion hang on to these groups, by threatening curses and calamities should they revert to their previous culture and religion.

I'm not claiming the Bible is true. We don't know what happened in fact. But the Jews believe that the story is one of their tribe first and foremost. And it's on that basis that other Jews are identified. The belief in the covenant is the important thing, not the actuality of it.
Not true. You might try to but you would always be identified by both the French and the other Jews as Jewish.

Non-practicing Jews were sometimes suspected of being secret practitioners ... beyond that, no.

Beyond that, yes. Though I accept I know more about England than France in this respect. I quoted you Spinoza from the Netherlands as an example. He's one of the few people before the contemporary/modern world we can be certain (a) did not believe in Judaism and (b) was regarded as Jewish by the people around him, including the Jews, and indeed by everyone who has ever written about him since. Like Disraeli, another example but a bit more modern. Felix Mendelssohn is another example, as indeed are his entire family apart from his grandfather and a couple of uncles.
 
How come I can keep providing these examples if I'm wrong? No-one seems to be providing counter-examples.
 
He could campaign for a law forbidding the eating of fish on Sundays - and that law, too, would be a religious product, even though it was an atheist who brought it about. The subject and the object are distinct and do not necessarily share the same qualities.
I think that's over stretching the argument. You're implying that simply because I sometimes say "God knows" I'm partly religious. That's nonsense. Learned behaviour continues of course. Habits are hard to break. Doing things that people around you think are appropriate is also always attractive.
You're just giving the reasons an individual might choose to do something of the sort. It doesn't change the fact that the practice is a religious act, and even if some of those who perform it are not members of the religion, it enhances the prestige of the religion. 
But that has nothing to do with the issue. The point is that even a Jew who observes some of the outward Judaic practises may not believe them. And the underlying important point is that whether he believes in them or not, whatever his religion or lack of it, he is still a Jew.

The law in Ireland is affected by religion. Does that make 'Irish' a religious designation.

Well, that depends. Does a Chief Rabbinate or Bishopric or something get the final say as to whether you're Irish or not, for nationality purposes?

He doesn't in Israel. He is respondible for determining the facts, but the fact that someone has a Jewish mother makes that person a Jew. It's not a religious test even if the person applying the test is a cleric. (And for that matter rabbis in Judaism aren't clerics in the Christian sense anyway. They are scholars.) The Ben Gurion doctrine - "anyone the Nazis would have persecuted as Jewish" - wasn't a religious test either (though I agree it's not the current test). 
 
How can your mother's bloodline be a religious test?
In Northern Ireland, I'd venture that identity is ethno-religious.
It's an oddity of Israeli law that decisions about personal status are considered the subject of the religious courts
I'll say.
Most Muslim countries have the same oddity. So to some extent has Britain, since if a couple marry in a Church of England church it counts as married: in any other church, or synagogue or mosque it doesn't.
 
What I'm arguing here is not that the Judaic religion doesn't exist, or that it has no influence on Israeli law at all (though its influence is certainly exaggerated greatly by both pro- and anti- fundamentalists), but that it needs to be separated out from the identity of Jews as Jews.
It can't be. The history of the Jews is the history of a religous community ... that, by the mid-19th century or so, began to assume a secular identity (in keeping with the nationalist current that was in vogue in Europe at the time). It remains ethno-religious in many aspects. It may be in the process of becoming a purely secular identity, but for the moment - at least on the question of Israel - it is not yet exclusively an ethnic designation. Thus, ethno-religious.
 
Otherwise there is more than just a serioous risk of the fallacious arguments that run along the lines 'Jews refuse to kill cattle humanely', 'X is a Jew', 'X wants animals not killed humanely'.
Ethno-religious implies an ethnic element to the identity, therefore no need to assume every single member is a follower of every (or any) religious practice.
No need to, yes, but that's what happens. People will probably always generalise from the particular to the general. But there's a big extra risk when you open the door to generalising from the religious to the ethnic.
 
Which is what people do when they attribute religious motives to the Israeli leadership. Which is what makes all this relevant to this thread. It's a way of, and a reason for, beating up on Israel.
 
On a slightly different sidetrack with regard to religious courts: much the same is true in many Arab countries, and Muslims are pressing for the same kins of system to be established in, at least, Canada and the UK. But you don't seem to be using that for an argument for calling 'Arab' 'ethno-religious'.
 
Well, the Sharia courts business in Canada wasn't just about Arabs, it concerned the Muslim community as a whole. The community concerned did not share ethnicity, only religion. Are you trying to draw parallels between this religious practice and Israeli courts? I'd say the identity group involved here is a purely religious one. There's no such thing as a Muslim ethnicity, or even ethno-religious identity, any more than there is a Catholic ethnicity.
I was referring to the Arab countries as representing 'Arabs'. The fact that a country has a certain ethnicity and also has religious courts doesn't mean that that ethnicity applies to that religion or vice versa.
 
In fact you're making the same point yourself when you say that Arab and Muslim are different categories (in different categorical systems). So too are Jew and Judaist, even though there is one country (in which only a minority of the world's Jews live) that is both largely Jewish in population and has religious courts - just as Jordan having Islamic courts and a majority Arab population doesn't make 'Arab' = 'Muslim'.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 14:18
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachide_law especially for the distinction Jews apply to the responsibilities of Jews, as opposed to non-Jews who accept Judaism. While it emphasises that there is a 'Jewish religion' it also emphasises the fact that non-Jews who observe it are not Jews. (Which is one half of what I've been saying, and that Spartkus thought was unfair.)
 
The other half of course is that Jews who do not observe the religion are still Jews.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 15:39
Originally posted by gcle2003

Of course it's mythical. However the point is that it is essentially a racial/ethnic/tribal myth. Israel wasn't actually the father of all the 'children of Israel' but they believed him to be. And that's an ethnic/tribal/racial - i.e. ancestry-based - belief.


Yes ... but it's also, at the same time, a religious belief.

One might even say ... an ethno-religious belief.
 
The belief in the covenant is the important thing, not the actuality of it.


A belief in a covenant with God ...

I quoted you Spinoza from the Netherlands as an example. He's one of the few people before the contemporary/modern world we can be certain (a) did not believe in Judaism and (b) was regarded as Jewish by the people around him, including the Jews, and indeed by everyone who has ever written about him since.


No, we can hardly be certain of that at all, considering Spinoza was a practicing member of the religion until he was excommunicated! He did not voluntarily abandon the religion, he had to be forced out.

Like Disraeli, another example but a bit more modern.


Yes, he's 19th century and thus serves as a very poor example of a secular Jewish identity occuring prior to the 19th century.
 

How come I can keep providing these examples if I'm wrong? No-one seems to be providing counter-examples.


It's kind of difficult to provide an instance of a thing that didn't exist.

He doesn't in Israel. He is respondible for determining the facts, but the fact that someone has a Jewish mother makes that person a Jew. It's not a religious test even if the person applying the test is a cleric.


That's not all there is to the test. You've just singled out the one element that is (partially) ethnic, ignoring the fact that the Chief Rabbinate grants Jewish nationality to converts and has refused it to the children of Jewish fathers. Besides, what is a religious office doing making any decisions about the status of citizens in a purely secular state? Obviously this is a logical contradiction.

No need to, yes, but that's what happens. People will probably always generalise from the particular to the general.


What people do with the facts is one thing, what the facts are is another matter entirely.
 
 So too are Jew and Judaist, even though there is one country (in which only a minority of the world's Jews live) that is both largely Jewish in population and has religious courts


I've never even heard the word "Judaist" before. Can you tell me its etymology and the earliest known occurence of such a distinction?

As far as I can tell, "Judaism" didn't even enter the English language until the 13th century, and in that case, it was part of a text defining a tax on all Jews ... and Judaist, I cannot find any sort of etymological information on at all, other than that it (obviously) comes from Judaism. Probably quite recently.

It strikes me that if there has historically been a distinction between 'Jew' and 'Judaist', then there would be distinct terms dating back alot further than the last few years ... it's no coincedence that Jew refers both to an ethnic and religious identity, because Jew is an ethno-religious identity!


Edited by edgewaters - 09-Feb-2009 at 15:50
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 16:04
Originally posted by gcle2003

I quoted you Spinoza from the Netherlands as an example. He's one of the few people before the contemporary/modern world we can be certain (a) did not believe in Judaism and (b) was regarded as Jewish by the people around him, including the Jews, and indeed by everyone who has ever written about him since.
Oh really? First, 17th century is modern world by all accounts. Second, read
and many other similar materials
 
- in his writings he did not consider himself to be a Jew
- after banning him, the contemporary Jewish community did not consider him a Jew
- moreover Spinoza characterized the Jews as a religion-bound community, obviously one he was not (anymore) part of
 
That some people call him a Jewish philosopher today is of absolutely no relevance of how he was perceived back then, in his own time.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 09-Feb-2009 at 16:05
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.