Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan

[Darth Wong]

So you've discovered that any population, no matter how you slice it (Gays/Straights; Blacks/Whites; Democrats/Republicans; etc) will have assholes among them. So why hang all of them out to dry because of that?

Uh no, that's not what he said. He was pointing out that Jews put a lot of effort into not assimilating. They value their refusal to assimilate. It's not a matter of individuals being inconsiderate or bigoted; there is a strong shared cultural value which promotes this behaviour. We've seen it expressed even in this thread.

The thing about many of us Jews is that we feel like there've been many good reasons to be hyper-sensitive about getting too cozy with the non-Jews. A lot of Jews feel that Gentiles can't be trusted, that it's only a matter of time before they turn on you when it becomes politic to do so, that by inter-marrying it is part of a Christian plot to convert your descendants into Christianity. In other words, Jews are taught, as children, many asinine things just like some Gentile children are taught (Jews will take your money, they'll cheat you, they use the blood of Christian babies to make matzah --although I admit I doubt that one's been used much lately).

The irony is that Hitler felt Jews couldn't be trusted, that it's only a matter of time before a Jew will betray a Christian, and that intermarriage is part of a Jewish plot to destroy the purity of the Aryan race.

As long as you value this "racial purity" bullshit, you're a segregationist. After that, it's a matter of degrees.

But from my perspective, it's not the Judaism (or the whatever-ism) that's the problem, it's the asinine things that ignorant parents teach their kids. Folks are free to be as Black or as White or as Jewish or Indian etc as they want to be, so long as they remember two things: one, it doesn't make them "better"; two, it doesn't make everyone else "worse".

I disagree; the mere act of teaching your kids that they need to be loyal to a certain ethnicity and prefer its company is itself racist and harmful.

The whole "chosen people" thing gets under my skin, too, really. It is supposed to mean that in the afterlife, the Jews are "chosen" to serve as the priests to everyone else. See, in Judaism, everyone pays for their sins (even the best of Jews has to be punished for what he or she did wrong, there's no get-out-of-jail-free card with a Jesus-type figure) and it is accepted that the "righteous of all nations will have a place in the world to come". Basically, everyone goes to heaven, it's not an exclusive club to those who do or accept certain things.

I know, it's all BS to most of the folks here, but for those who believe this stuff, or purport to, the "chosen people" shpiel is supposed to mean something entirely different from some sort of "we're better'n you" bullshit that gets shoved down the throats of some kids (not in my synagogue, though, I can assure you since I teach there every week and interact with the kids on a regular basis). I can theorize that it is told to kids so they "stick to their own" but I can't prove that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Really, I see the "chosen people" thing completely differently. In the afterlife, I have a job. I don't get to play a damn harp all day and lounge around. I'm "chosen" to get to work. Damn, there's always a pyramid to build somewhere, isn't there?

If "chosen people" means that they "stick to their own", that's bad too. I don't know why you can't see that.

[eyl]

you fucking kidding me? You don't know much about white supremacists if you think that they don't think that "white" and "Christian" is a cultural group. It's no different here. Claiming that Israel MUST be Jewish is exactly the same as the bumpkins who claim that the US must be white Christians, with the same underlying logic to both. Hell, the more serious of both groups not only think that their respective countries BELONG to them, but that they were specifically granted them by God Almighty Himself.

I defer to your knowledge of white supremacist groups, but you seem to be missing my point. In the case of the US for the groups you're talking about to become dominant as a cultural force involves changing the US' overall culture. In the case of Israel, Jewish culture is currently the overall culture (mostly, I'm not going into the details here) and you're advocating changing that - in a rather traumatic fashion.

Those 50 million Mexican immigrants also don't have any legitimate claim to the land. We didn't force them into Mexico at gunpoint, did we? Even if you point out that the United States annexed California and Texas (which is actually somewhat complicated how that happened) after the US-Mexican War, we didn't kick out the Mexicans who were living there in any large scale manner.

Irrelevant, since I was offering the thought experiment to give an example of the disruption which would be caused just on the ecnomic side of things. Or do you think that if MExicans had a legitimate greivance it would make things easier

That part was approved by... you guessed it... a Jewish organization in Israel.

So what? Anything the Israeli government approves is automatically Jewish?

[Coyote]

Well, like I pointed out, "chosen people" isn't supposed to be a "racial purity uber alles/crushen zie den untermenshcen" and that people who use it as such are technically in the wrong. I can't do anything about the anecdotal evidence Gil grew up with any more than he can do anything about my anecdotal evidence about how the Jews I know out here are completely the antithesis of what he described. Nor can I do anything about the insistence that "all Jews" are exclusionary and subscribe to a "racial purity ubermensch" mentality that I don't see. I can say that I find it as annoying as, I'm sure, any statement I could make about how "Asians/Blacks/etc are all-- whatever".

People tend to hang around people they are similar to, and they'll slice that pie according to whatever identity they feel is important. I'd rather hang around a pro-Obama Black Christian than a McCain-cheerleading White Jew, but then sometimes I'd feel more in common with the pro-McCain Jew than I might having to listen to, say, a French Catholic car buff talking endlessly about how he swapped a Chevy engine into a Renault or something like that.

If people are hanging around similar people to themselves for racist reasons, I think it's wrong. That's because I see racism, not grouping, as wrong. But if they're hanging around each other because they feel commonality and like one anothers' company and have a lot in common (and there's no racist connoctations to it) I really don't see the problem. Of course there's no way to know for certain if a bunch of white dudes are hanging out because they all like cars and AC-DC, or if they are a bunch of racists, but I go on the assumption that it is an innocent gathering until proven otherwise.

There's not much you can really do except police your own group(s) as an individual. Sure, I like hanging around Jews because I have a lot in common with them. But if I heard one of my students say "I won't play with him because he's not Jewish" then I'll ask him where he gets such a notion and try to correct such an idea. In that logical, ideal world, my group isn't threatened by your group, we can visit from time to time and learn interesting things, and if anyone in our respective groups start badmouthing the others, others within our own groups will step in and tell that person to STFU.

But, yeah, I have a completely different perspective on this. I really like other groups, cultures, etc and enjoy learning and knowing about them. But then I don't feel threatened by such things as, say, "Black culture" or what have you. I may not participate in them, but I like knowing they're out there.

[eyl]

Well, like I pointed out, "chosen people" isn't supposed to be a "racial purity uber alles/crushen zie den untermenshcen" and that people who use it as such are technically in the wrong.

I haven't been able to find the reference since, but I recall coming across a comment that according to one of the midrashim, the Jews were God's last choice for the "chosen people" - all the world's other nations refused.

[Samuel]

Okay, but do you automatically assume that is the goal?

Because that is the sole purpose of a clique- to keep others out.

I'm not sure what you're looking for... wait, I think I do know what you're looking for: you're looking for a reason to make a conflict.

You are on a debate forum, dedicated to mockery and flaming. What do YOU think?

How about this-- I have no real interest in things that might be considered "Hip Hop" culture (A culture that is typically more affiliated with Blacks than with Whites). I'm not a big fan of any of the music, the clothes, many of the examples of the typical lifestyle, etc. I don't have anything against it, but it also doesn't interest me. So I am "excluded" from Hip-Hop/"Black" culture. This is my choice.

It is also their choice to enjoy that culture. Should I feel like they need to change so they aren't different? Maybe they feel I should be the one to change? Does it make me racist that I'm not interested in their culture? Does it make them racist for having a culture I feel "outside" of?

Which is relevant to anything I said... how? This is a complete and total strawman of my position.

What I was saying was that in a large enough given population you will have some people interested in a topic. If you have a large enough portion of an ethnic group, some of them will show up.

For example, you don't like hip hop. There are white people who do. If you get a big enough group, you will get one of them.

If you have a big enough group and there is no intermixing... something is wrong.

I don't believe you're seeing my point here. You are making the assumption that a bunch of white people are together for no other reson than because they are racist and want to exclude non-whites. I think I made the point clear that if white people are together for racist motivations, then it is bad. If white people are hanging together for non-racist reasons, and there's nothing stopping a non-white from joining them if they wanted to, there's no problem.

Let's say a bunch of white people are hanging around listening to Frank Sinatra CDs. They would gladly invite their Black neighbors over, but the neighbors don't like Frank Sinatra, they dislike his music and prefer something R&B. So there are no Blacks at the party not because of "white exclusionary policy" but because there is a difference in musical tastes. Is it racist?

So in the case of a religion "tied to ethnicity", I assume you mean a "white power" church (or potentially a "black power" church), which woulkd preach that all the members are better than other people because they are that race. Of course that's wrong.

But if you're in a black neighborhood, and the local church is full of black people, does that make it a racist church, or simply a church that reflects the local demographics? Are white people, Asians and Hispanics to be bussed in forcibly on Sundays just to prove a point? And if that is the case, why don't you instead forcibly bus the Blacks to their white, Asian and Hispanic churces instead?

It could as easily be grocery stores as churches, I just used a word that you siezed on because of the potential for loaded connoctations.

Actually, that is still bad. That implies there is ZERO people of any other ethnicities in the neighborhood.

Which is implies that there is an outside factor causing this. After all, blacks make up only 10% the population- which means the majority of new comers would be non-blacks. The fact they aren't coming, but blacks are, implies there is some segregating factor at work.

So... the only reason I am Jewish is because someone put a gun to my head and forced me to eat matzah? I can ssure you this is not the case. There are Jews where I live that eat bacon double cheeseburgers, I don't. It's their choice. It's also mine.

Do you not hang out with people that you like?

That is entirely random. I know- I choose not to drink caffine (no, I'm not a Mormon). I am aware that individuals have preferances. After all, you can only get a large number of people to conform by using outside pressure... which was my entire point.

Well, like I pointed out, "chosen people" isn't supposed to be a "racial purity uber alles/crushen zie den untermenshcen" and that people who use it as such are technically in the wrong. I can't do anything about the anecdotal evidence Gil grew up with any more than he can do anything about my anecdotal evidence about how the Jews I know out here are completely the antithesis of what he described. Nor can I do anything about the insistence that "all Jews" are exclusionary and subscribe to a "racial purity ubermensch" mentality that I don't see. I can say that I find it as annoying as, I'm sure, any statement I could make about how "Asians/Blacks/etc are all-- whatever".

Except that is sort of the meaning of the term Chosen people. By definition it is exclusionary.

Of course there's no way to know for certain if a bunch of white dudes are hanging out because they all like cars and AC-DC, or if they are a bunch of racists, but I go on the assumption that it is an innocent gathering until proven otherwise.

It depends where. If we are talking about locations that are mostly monocultural, than no, it could simply be composition. If, however, we are talking about more diverse places, than it is a red flag. If there is an all white group larger than a certain number (around 20 I believe) in California, they are keeping other people out.

In that logical, ideal world, my group isn't threatened by your group, we can visit from time to time and learn interesting things, and if anyone in our respective groups start badmouthing the others, others within our own groups will step in and tell that person to STFU.

... You hear that? It is called Balkanization. It is BAD and the whole point of this thread.

But, yeah, I have a completely different perspective on this. I really like other groups, cultures, etc and enjoy learning and knowing about them. But then I don't feel threatened by such things as, say, "Black culture" or what have you. I may not participate in them, but I like knowing they're out there.

What is black culture? How can 30 million unconnected people have one unified culture?

I haven't been able to find the reference since, but I recall coming across a comment that according to one of the midrashim, the Jews were God's last choice for the "chosen people" - all the world's other nations refused.

[/quote]

I don't think that is canon.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, like I pointed out, "chosen people" isn't supposed to be a "racial purity uber alles/crushen zie den untermenshcen" and that people who use it as such are technically in the wrong. I can't do anything about the anecdotal evidence Gil grew up with any more than he can do anything about my anecdotal evidence about how the Jews I know out here are completely the antithesis of what he described. Nor can I do anything about the insistence that "all Jews" are exclusionary and subscribe to a "racial purity ubermensch" mentality that I don't see. I can say that I find it as annoying as, I'm sure, any statement I could make about how "Asians/Blacks/etc are all-- whatever".

I didn't say anything about "crushen zie den untermenschen", I was saying it came across as "we are set aside and special to God Almighty and you aren't, but we'll be polite about it. Just don't ask out daughter out. Or hang out with her too much." Unless you actually read and believe the Torah, which is full of "crushen zie den untermenschen", as you colorfully put it, depicted as a positive thing with orders coming straight from on high and to this day is referred to when Jewish groups condemn intermarriage, refuse Gentile foods, and most pressingly to this thread, think that Israel was literally granted to them by God.

These weren't Orthodox Jews either. I believe the congregation most of them belonged to were Conservative, but the conceit was there none the less. Incidentally, I DARE you to claim that Orthodox Jews don't take the Chosen People thing to mean that they are far more special than everyone else or that they are open to any sort of assimilation. Further, I'd ask why the Baal Teshuva movement is so popular, even in the United States, if the Jewish population was so open to assimilation, given that the specific goal of Baal Teshuva is a return to orthodoxy. Hell, they even play the game of More Hebrew Than Thou with the Conservative sects.

People tend to hang around people they are similar to, and they'll slice that pie according to whatever identity they feel is important. I'd rather hang around a pro-Obama Black Christian than a McCain-cheerleading White Jew, but then sometimes I'd feel more in common with the pro-McCain Jew than I might having to listen to, say, a French Catholic car buff talking endlessly about how he swapped a Chevy engine into a Renault or something like that.

If people are hanging around similar people to themselves for racist reasons, I think it's wrong. That's because I see racism, not grouping, as wrong. But if they're hanging around each other because they feel commonality and like one anothers' company and have a lot in common (and there's no racist connoctations to it) I really don't see the problem. Of course there's no way to know for certain if a bunch of white dudes are hanging out because they all like cars and AC-DC, or if they are a bunch of racists, but I go on the assumption that it is an innocent gathering until proven otherwise.

Tell me, how often do you see Conservative and particularly Orthodox Jews ever hanging around Gentiles?

There's not much you can really do except police your own group(s) as an individual. Sure, I like hanging around Jews because I have a lot in common with them. But if I heard one of my students say "I won't play with him because he's not Jewish" then I'll ask him where he gets such a notion and try to correct such an idea. In that logical, ideal world, my group isn't threatened by your group, we can visit from time to time and learn interesting things, and if anyone in our respective groups start badmouthing the others, others within our own groups will step in and tell that person to STFU.

I think it's more their parents you have to worry about then, rather than the kids. I know I'm pounding my own anecdotal evidence alot in this tangent the thread has gone, but I never had any issue getting along with kids. It was their parents telling them not to get close to the Goyim kid that was the issue.

OK, when Orthodox Jewish groups actually call intermarriage with Goyim a complete rejection of Judaism, who in Judaism tells them to STFU? When they say that gays are an abomination and Palestinians should be kicked off Hebrew lands because they think the Torah is a legally binding land grant straight from Yahu, who tells them to STFU? You don't seem to see that, but you do see large movements like Baal Teshuva.

But, yeah, I have a completely different perspective on this. I really like other groups, cultures, etc and enjoy learning and knowing about them. But then I don't feel threatened by such things as, say, "Black culture" or what have you. I may not participate in them, but I like knowing they're out there.

I don't have any problem with other groups and cultures either. The book on top my nightstand right now is on the topic of Shinto. Heck, I even own a CD from that Hasidic Jewish Raggae guy Matisyahu because knew it was way too awesome to pass up.

I do, however, have a problem with bigots and people who say with a straight face "Israel must be Jewish or dead! A non-Jewish Israel is suicide! Jewish culture only!" as though their rhetoric is any better than the asshats who go around dressing up Curious George dolls with Obama paraphernalia and go on TV talking about how no damn black Muslim terrorist should be President of America, by god.

[Big Phil]

Tell me, how often do you see Conservative and particularly Orthodox Jews ever hanging around Gentiles?

Be honest though, Gil. How often do you see orthodox any religion (Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Jedi, etc.) hanging around with people of a different religion? Religious assholes are assholes regardless of which particular god they worship.

[Coyote]

And let's face it, you get deep enough into the Orthodoxy of any religion (or even a philosophy or political belief system) you start having less and less in common with other people of any stripe. Back when I was doing martial arts on a regular basis, there was a guy I knew whose whole world was martial arts. I don't know if martial arts really is a religion, but to this guy it was. All he could talk about was martial arts, Bruce Lee, yadda yadda. He was, I guess, and Orthodox Martial Arts Guy. He wouldn't be able to have a straight up conversation with a Muslim, an Apache, or a Atheist about anything... unless it was martial arts.

[hongi]

Well, like I pointed out, "chosen people" isn't supposed to be a "racial purity uber alles/crushen zie den untermenshcen" and that people who use it as such are technically in the wrong.

I haven't been able to find the reference since, but I recall coming across a comment that according to one of the midrashim, the Jews were God's last choice for the "chosen people" - all the world's other nations refused.

There's an interesting midrash I heard that God held a mountain over the heads of the Jews to 'encourage' them to agree to sign the covenant.

I don't think that is canon.

Midrash usually aren't.

[Coyote]

Okay, but do you automatically assume that is the goal?

Because that is the sole purpose of a clique- to keep others out.

You're making an unfounded assumption-- that everyone is always seeking the goal of creating a clique to keep others out. Not everyone is seeking to create cliques. Some are, yes, but it seems to be that you find it utterly impossible for three or more people who share common interests to get together without some sort of sinister motive.

I'm not sure what you're looking for... wait, I think I do know what you're looking for: you're looking for a reason to make a conflict.

You are on a debate forum, dedicated to mockery and flaming. What do YOU think?

Manufacturing an fight for no particular reason, except maybe to live up to some idea you think is espoused here, is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

How about this-- I have no real interest in things that might be considered "Hip Hop" culture (A culture that is typically more affiliated with Blacks than with Whites). ...

Which is relevant to anything I said... how? This is a complete and total strawman of my position.

How about this-- since it seems you're not giving me much to work with here, I kind of have to search for meaning in some of what you say.

What I was saying was that in a large enough given population you will have some people interested in a topic. If you have a large enough portion of an ethnic group, some of them will show up.

For example, you don't like hip hop. There are white people who do. If you get a big enough group, you will get one of them.

If you have a big enough group and there is no intermixing... something is wrong.

What's the cutoff point? Is that cutoff point a universal constant? Who decides that cutoff point? What are the criteria? If it's more than, say... 10 people of one race, and no other races are present, then what? It's automatically assumed to be a racist gathering? Does that "10+" rule apply to places like Boise, Idaho, where there's maybe 10,000 Black families in the entire state, if that? So what does that mean, and why are you the person to decide when a group is racist and when it isn't?

...But if you're in a black neighborhood, and the local church is full of black people, does that make it a racist church, or simply a church that reflects the local demographics? Are white people, Asians and Hispanics to be bussed in forcibly on Sundays just to prove a point? And if that is the case, why don't you instead forcibly bus the Blacks to their white, Asian and Hispanic churces instead?

It could as easily be grocery stores as churches, I just used a word that you siezed on because of the potential for loaded connoctations.

Actually, that is still bad. That implies there is ZERO people of any other ethnicities in the neighborhood.

Which is implies that there is an outside factor causing this. After all, blacks make up only 10% the population- which means the majority of new comers would be non-blacks. The fact they aren't coming, but blacks are, implies there is some segregating factor at work.

But why do you automatically assume that all the people who are in that neighborhood are there because of racial reasons (either by choosing to be "in", or choosing to be "out" by fear). Some people live in my neighborhood because their jobs are here, and wouldn't necessarily leave here otherwise. Does that factor in? Also, what about other factors-- I'm White, but I'm also Jewish. My neighbors across the street are a Lesbian couple. Does this "dilute the whiteness" sufficiently? Or do we need to import more hues to prove we're "okay"?

...Except that is sort of the meaning of the term Chosen people. By definition it is exclusionary.

No, that is the modern accepted meaning of the term. Just as the concept and implications behind the word "slave" has changed over the centuries (slavery was once a class of artisans and skilled workers with definite rights and legal standing that was protected by the state. More recent connotations put slaves as sub-humans below livestock). "Chosen People" does indeed have sinister connotations in today's world, but I assure you the Jewish usage of the term pre-dates modern eugenicists' usage. It is supposed to mean a class of people who first accepted the word of the one true God and rejected polytheism, so they were "chosen" to be the priests and religious leaders to spread the word on Earth and to serve that role in the afterlife.

Of course there's no way to know for certain if a bunch of white dudes are hanging out because they all like cars and AC-DC, or if they are a bunch of racists, but I go on the assumption that it is an innocent gathering until proven otherwise.

It depends where. If we are talking about locations that are mostly monocultural, than no, it could simply be composition. If, however, we are talking about more diverse places, than it is a red flag. If there is an all white group larger than a certain number (around 20 I believe) in California, they are keeping other people out.

Okay, this addresses what I asked earlier; all well and good. I can see some reasoning behind this, but I'd still need to see more evidence of racial exclusion before jumping to the "desired" result of accusations of racism. I really do find your reasoning in these matters to be disturbing-- you condemn by race and size and region without waiting to see if there's more to the observation than meets the eye. It really does seem to me that your kind of thinking here would be perfectly suited to enforcing things like the Patriot Act.

Sure, some obvious factors come into play-- a bunch of white guys listening to Prussian Blue while waving a Confederate flag certainly leaves no questions unasked. But without some obvious cues, I am willing to wait and see.

In that logical, ideal world, my group isn't threatened by your group, we can visit from time to time and learn interesting things, and if anyone in our respective groups start badmouthing the others, others within our own groups will step in and tell that person to STFU.

... You hear that? It is called Balkanization. It is BAD and the whole point of this thread.

Cultural diversity and being able to celebrate other interesting ethnic interests is bad?

What is black culture? How can 30 million unconnected people have one unified culture?

Technically, they can't all be one monobloc, but neither can Whites or even Jews, although some folks here don't seem to have a problem lumping all of them into heaps. How about if I spell it out nice for you and say certain social trends which are generally considered to be centered around the Black population's experience (sorry, I tend to see things like "Black Culture" and "Indian Heritage" and "Chinese culture", etc, as a convenient shorthand for certain accepted paradigms that are admittedly stereotypical in nature, but useful as a shorthand when in these kinds of discussions. Or, more bluntly, I want to be able to write a reply without having to add six pages of fucking lawyer-speak disclaimer every time I drop a phrase).

I haven't been able to find the reference since, but I recall coming across a comment that according to one of the midrashim, the Jews were God's last choice for the "chosen people" - all the world's other nations refused.

I don't think that is canon.

Well, then by all means please do provide the proper insight. I'd be interested in knowing, myself.

[Darth Wong]

You're making an unfounded assumption-- that everyone is always seeking the goal of creating a clique to keep others out. Not everyone is seeking to create cliques.

It doesn't matter; the net effect over time is similar. If a community is segregated along racial lines, does it really matter what the intention was? The effect is segregation, which leads to racial isolation and increases the likelihood of tribalistic thinking.

I mean seriously, how much verbiage do you need to spew in order to cover up what is basically a defense of racial segregation, for fuck's sake? Step back and try to realize what you're defending here.

[Elfdart]

You've gotta be kidding. If Jews had actually tried to assimilate for that long, they would no longer be identifiable as a distinct group at all. Why do you think we can no longer identify groups like the Goths? (the original ones, not the teenaged girls wearing black lipstick)

The problem is that the Jews always did try to maintain their cultural distinctness. You even say it yourself: they either segregated themselves from the surrounding community or they "assimilated" but only in ways they found acceptable. In all other ways they insisted on maintaining their distinctiveness.

I don't think it was all their doing (since so many Christians celebrated Easter with pogroms for centuries), and besides, the vast majority have assimilated over the centuries. As this article points out:

Second, we can look at population trends: While the world population increased from 50 million in the sixth century to 285 million in the 18th, the population of Jews remained almost fixed at just a little over a million. Why were the Jews not expanding when everyone else was? We don't know for sure, but a reasonable guess is that a lot of Jews were becoming Christians and Muslims.

If assimilation wasn't so common, there would be tens of millions more Jews in the world than there are right now.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think it was all their doing (since so many Christians celebrated Easter with pogroms for centuries), and besides, the vast majority have assimilated over the centuries. As this article points out:

Second, we can look at population trends: While the world population increased from 50 million in the sixth century to 285 million in the 18th, the population of Jews remained almost fixed at just a little over a million. Why were the Jews not expanding when everyone else was? We don't know for sure, but a reasonable guess is that a lot of Jews were becoming Christians and Muslims.

If assimilation wasn't so common, there would be tens of millions more Jews in the world than there are right now.

Interesting. OK, let's put this another way: all those tens of millions of people descended from medieval Jews are not being persecuted right now, because they assimilated. The segregationist holdouts, on the other hand, are basking in the benefits of Holocaust Guilt right now but that won't last forever. If they can't get off their high horse, people will start actively hating them again sooner or later. Maybe not now, maybe not even 50 years from now, but 100? 200?

[Gil Hamilton]

And let's face it, you get deep enough into the Orthodoxy of any religion (or even a philosophy or political belief system) you start having less and less in common with other people of any stripe. Back when I was doing martial arts on a regular basis, there was a guy I knew whose whole world was martial arts. I don't know if martial arts really is a religion, but to this guy it was. All he could talk about was martial arts, Bruce Lee, yadda yadda. He was, I guess, and Orthodox Martial Arts Guy. He wouldn't be able to have a straight up conversation with a Muslim, an Apache, or a Atheist about anything... unless it was martial arts.

Wait wait wait. You can't just pull "Yeah... well... those people that demonstrate your point don't count." Orthodox Jews are a major part of politics in Judaica and very pressing in the politics of Israel. You can't brush Orthodox or even Conservative Jews off the discussion, because their attitudes are actually somewhat important to it. They aren't just some funny bearded dudes who live in kibbutzes in the middle of Asscrackenon, Occupied Territories, they are major players and not a reasonably large percentage of Jews in general, everywhere with growing numbers.

Secondly, it's not like they don't have anything in common with others, they specifically go out of their way to not be integrated with non-Jews. This isn't the martial arts guy who had a one track mind and whose deficiency boils down to a lack of basic social skills outside his comfort zone. That's just a bad analogy.

Besides, you didn't answer any questions in my previous post that I posed or even really addressed it. You virtually conceded the point as it is by conceding that they don't really get along at all with anyone else because those "anyone elses" aren't their kind of people. We are talking about people with specific written rules to not even eat with Gentiles or even enter their house (and yes, you get folks that hold to that). Yet, as per what you said there should be people telling them to STFU. So where are these people?

[eyl]

Interesting. OK, let's put this another way: all those tens of millions of people descended from medieval Jews are not being persecuted right now, because they assimilated. The segregationist holdouts, on the other hand, are basking in the benefits of Holocaust Guilt right now but that won't last forever. If they can't get off their high horse, people will start actively hating them again sooner or later. Maybe not now, maybe not even 50 years from now, but 100? 200?

Maybe I'm missing something in your argument, but didn't you argue earlier in this thread that a Jewish state was unneccessary as a haven due to the principles and tolerance of modern democracies as opposed to earlier times? And yet, now you're saying that even in the modern world, anti-Semetism is inevitable unless the Jews completely assimilate into the surrounding population (which is essentially the same claim made throughout the centuries).

[Coyote]

Besides, you didn't answer any questions in my previous post that I posed or even really addressed it. You virtually conceded the point as it is by conceding that they don't really get along at all with anyone else because those "anyone elses" aren't their kind of people. We are talking about people with specific written rules to not even eat with Gentiles or even enter their house (and yes, you get folks that hold to that). Yet, as per what you said there should be people telling them to STFU. So where are these people?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to evade your question, I just had time to address the post from Samuel.

As for specific written rules not to eat at a Gentile's house I personally think that's just dickitude. They have those rules to keep Kosher, and they go to extremes to avoid a situation where they may encounter non-kosher food items. Even having two separate refrigerators, sets of utensils, etc-- more anal-retentive than a German Army officer trying to assemble a Smurf's vertebrae in a dark room. Basically, if a fork is used for meat, it must never, ever be used for dairy, that sort of thing, and they must never even entertain the thought of eating from utensils that may have once been used to prepare --horrors!-- pork or shellfish.

It's what I call "cooties syndrome"; kids who never grew out of that "you have cooties!" phase. A fork once touched steak, so now it forever is tainted with "meat cooties". I find it fucking ridiculous, and fortunately outside of Orthodox Jewish circles you don't see it too much. I didn't even encounter it in Israel, really, outside the Orthodox circles.

From that rule about simple food preparation comes this asinine interpretation that becomes "never eat at a Gentile's house" even though that is insulting and will inevitably breed a sense of superiority among the Jewish kids or contempt for their Gentile neighbors. Again, they are wrong, because the word Gentile comes from the word for "stranger", and Jews are supposed to be respectful of the stranger and we are reminded that we, ourselves were strangers before. There are supposed to be rules of hospitality about "do not turn out the stranger from your house on the Sabbath" and stuff like that, which would imply that "strangers" (Gentiles) were welcome among Jews. So in other words, unsurprisingly, a bunch of religious assholes have gone too far and are twisting shit up to make life difficult.

Anyhow, I have to go to work right now and I'll try to get back to you on this, but bear in mind that we can go through the ideals and interpretations of Judaism as needed but it will be a slow process and in the end, unless you want to go through and double-check with a Rabbi in your area or pore through this stuff on your own to follow up, you'll pretty much be taking my word for it.

[Coyote]

I didn't say anything about "crushen zie den untermenschen", I was saying it came across as "we are set aside and special to God Almighty and you aren't, but we'll be polite about it. Just don't ask out daughter out. Or hang out with her too much." Unless you actually read and believe the Torah, which is full of "crushen zie den untermenschen", as you colorfully put it, depicted as a positive thing with orders coming straight from on high and to this day is referred to when Jewish groups condemn intermarriage, refuse Gentile foods, and most pressingly to this thread, think that Israel was literally granted to them by God.

Well, now we're moving into things like Biblical Literalism, which is a whole 'nother can of worms, I think, and I'm not going to defend Biblical Literalism because I don't believe it is literal. If the Jews are supposed to "crush the untermenschen" they really chose a stupid way to go about it-- they don't encourage converts and never really had much of a warrior tradition, arguably until recently.

These weren't Orthodox Jews either. I believe the congregation most of them belonged to were Conservative, but the conceit was there none the less. Incidentally, I DARE you to claim that Orthodox Jews don't take the Chosen People thing to mean that they are far more special than everyone else or that they are open to any sort of assimilation. Further, I'd ask why the Baal Teshuva movement is so popular, even in the United States, if the Jewish population was so open to assimilation, given that the specific goal of Baal Teshuva is a return to orthodoxy. Hell, they even play the game of More Hebrew Than Thou with the Conservative sects.

Do they take the "special" thing too far? Yes, a lot of them do. Are you under the impression that I like and support this? It seems to me you're getting really riled up about something that happened to you years ago as a kid, for which I'm sorry about it, but I had nothing to do with it and I'm not defending or condoning it. It can be hard for a young person, still forming ideas about the world, to be rejected so vehemently and under such arbitrary circumstances, but I do kinda wish you'd see me on my own merits rather than as a mouthpiece for this kind of behavior.

Tell me, how often do you see Conservative and particularly Orthodox Jews ever hanging around Gentiles?

Quite a bit, actually, or I used to. There's not a lot of Orthodox here in Boise, so I don't really get to rub elbows with them overmuch. True, that doesn't negate the fact that there are some incredibly assholish Orthodox who would turn their faces and shield their eyes when they saw a perfectly normal Jewish woman walking down the street who was wearing a halter and tight pants. But not all are like that. I don't want to pound the matter overmuch because it'll sound like I'm trying to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, which I'm not.

There's not much you can really do except police your own group(s) as an individual. Sure, I like hanging around Jews because I have a lot in common with them. But if I heard one of my students say "I won't play with him because he's not Jewish" then I'll ask him where he gets such a notion and try to correct such an idea. In that logical, ideal world, my group isn't threatened by your group, we can visit from time to time and learn interesting things, and if anyone in our respective groups start badmouthing the others, others within our own groups will step in and tell that person to STFU.

I think it's more their parents you have to worry about then, rather than the kids. I know I'm pounding my own anecdotal evidence alot in this tangent the thread has gone, but I never had any issue getting along with kids. It was their parents telling them not to get close to the Goyim kid that was the issue.

OK, when Orthodox Jewish groups actually call intermarriage with Goyim a complete rejection of Judaism, who in Judaism tells them to STFU? When they say that gays are an abomination and Palestinians should be kicked off Hebrew lands because they think the Torah is a legally binding land grant straight from Yahu, who tells them to STFU? You don't seem to see that, but you do see large movements like Baal Teshuva.

Well, I for one tell people to STFU when I come across asinine attitudes like that, so I can at least assure you of that. I've actually studied the Arab-Israeli issue quite a bit and delved deep into studies of Islam and Islam's effects on the political realm in the Middle East and so I can see the points being made by the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side.

But what about when non-Jewish parents reject their kids for dating or marrying a Jew? This isn't entirely one-sided here. There are racist assholes in Judaism, I never denied that. You ran across a bunch of them, and I tend to think that a lot of these exclusionary assholes in the Orthodox movement are fucked up.

As for the Baal Teshuva movement, there is a concerted effort among Reform and Conservative Jews that I know of to get back some of what they cut loose as far as traditions and observances. Paying more attention to the dietary laws, for example. In my synagogue here in Boise, after services there's the oneg, the social hour with snacks and goodies, and schmoozing, etc. People used to bring shrimp salads, beenies and weenies, that sort of thing, 20+ years ago. There was a concerted effort to break with traditions that some found to be 'silly' and 'anal retentive', and being picky about eating seemed one way to go about that. Lots of Jews put up Christmas trees even though they didn't celebrate Christmas per se.

But many people felt it sort of lost the spirit (note small 's', not capitol 'S') of the whole thing, and was so watered-down as to be meanigless. membership dwindled. Eventually we got a new Rabbi and he's no Orthodox by any stretch (he was married to a female Rabbi for years) but he advocated getting back to some of the basics and do simple things like kashrut (for the unknowing: keeping kosher, the whole meat-cheese/pork/shellfish thing) to remind folks that we have our own traditions.

Now I'm sure folks will pounce on this and use this as "evidence" that "we Jews feel we're better'n everybody else" but I say that there's "better than" and then there's just "different". There's nothing wrong with "different". "Different" can be fun, I say, even interesting. It's one thing to say "we don't eat pork, so that makes us better than you, you filthy Gentile!" and it is entirely another thing (IMO) to say "we don't eat pork because we're different. Ahmed over there also doesn't eat pork, nor does he drink alcohol; Brigham here doesn't drink coffee; and Mr. O'Malley down the street doesn't eat meat on Friday."

Anyhow, to bring it to a circle here, the Baal Teshuva movement has a purpose (I know most people here will find it stupid and pointless, sure, but we're talking about a religion here, which by definition isn't supposed to make sense) but if someone is using it as a means to point out "racial superiority" then I'd call them on it, if I were you. If I were there hearing that nonsense, I would.

I don't have any problem with other groups and cultures either. The book on top my nightstand right now is on the topic of Shinto. Heck, I even own a CD from that Hasidic Jewish Raggae guy Matisyahu because knew it was way too awesome to pass up.

I always liked Rav Carlebach, and 'the Moshav Band' popular around Jerusalem, or they were back in '99-'01 at least.

I do, however, have a problem with bigots and people who say with a straight face "Israel must be Jewish or dead! A non-Jewish Israel is suicide! Jewish culture only!" as though their rhetoric is any better than the asshats who go around dressing up Curious George dolls with Obama paraphernalia and go on TV talking about how no damn black Muslim terrorist should be President of America, by god.

I'm with you there, really. As with all religion, ideally it is something you carry inside you, and is not necessarily reliant on a piece of land or a necklace, artifact, or pendant. "Faith" does not need physical proofs, or it isn't faith at all. In my version of an ideal world, there wouldn't even be political borders, and the only way you'd know when you passed into another land was when you started noticing the culture, language, architecture and customs changed... but that's not anytime soon, unfortunately.

[Coyote]

If a community is segregated along racial lines, does it really matter what the intention was? The effect is segregation, which leads to racial isolation and increases the likelihood of tribalistic thinking.

I... actually do think it matters what the intent is/was. If the community is isolated for the purposes of racial segregation, it is wrong. If it is isolated by circumstance of demographics and geography, and there's no reason why another racial family couldn't move in and be accepted if they wished, I don't see a problem.

I mean seriously, how much verbiage do you need to spew in order to cover up what is basically a defense of racial segregation, for fuck's sake? Step back and try to realize what you're defending here.

I feel that I'm defending cultural diversity, rather than racial segregation. I've tried to make it clear that segregation for racial reasons is wrong-headed; in truth I am a bit surprised and somewhat dismayed that some here seem to think I'm favoring racial segregation. I felt my views on this sort of thing were fairly clear for a long time standing...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its funny on Mike has an article on his website about how "culture" has become the chosen euphemism for "race".

[Coyote]

Its funny on Mike has an article on his website about how "culture" has become the chosen euphemism for "race".

Are you making an accusation or just trolling?

[Edi]

Its funny on Mike has an article on his website about how "culture" has become the chosen euphemism for "race".

Are you making an accusation or just trolling?

Neither, I think. Mike does have an article to that effect and "culture" is indeed often used instead of "race" when making the exact same argument, because racism no longer gets a free pass.

Cultural diversity is good as long as we're not talking about shit that harms people (like female genital mutilation or "honor killings"), but when "culture" becomes a justification for refusing to cooperate with the rest of society, fuck them. For example, in Finland Jews are a very goddamn small minority. Yet every time there is talk about circumcision, it's the fucking Jewish community leaders who start frothing at the mouth about it and appealing to Holocaust Exceptionalism to defend their frankly fucking retarded views. Even the Muslim immigrant communities are more goddamn reasonable about it, when it comes right down to it. The biggest problem group of Muslims we have are a bunch of native converts who have started a party with a fucking Taliban platform.

If Jews were serious about cultural diversity, there would be no problem with what you have been saying, Coyote, but they are not. They are all about Jewishness only, only they don't have the numbers to enforce it over everyone else. Where the society around them does not follow their religious rules, they refuse to compromise at all, which leads to them being regarded, legitimately, as fuckwits that society could just as well do without.

I know some Finnish Jews and I've talked with them about the Jewish community leadership, which is more of the fundamentalist variety than not. Those leaders didn't get too high marks from those people. But as long as that community as a whole supports those asshats, fuck them all and let them get the fuck out of the country. The sooner, the better.

That is the reason anti-Jewish sentiment rears its head again and again. And there's will come a point in the future where people will say "Who gives a fuck that Hitler killed six million Jews, it has no relation to this and fuck you, you brought it on yourselves!" without any protest from anyone else.

I deal with Jews, just as I deal with Muslims or Christians or anyone else, as individual people first, anything else second. I have friends who are Muslims, friends who are Christian and friends who are atheists and I know some Jews. But whenever someone lets something other than basic decency take first place, it becomes a different ball game. They don't want to play by the rules of the society here, then they can fuck off to wherever people do live by their preferred rules. If they want to whine about being persecuted, they can fuck off once more. I'm not interested, I have no sympathy, no patience and no tolerance for that shit.

When you look at the current Western world, most nations are by and large pretty enlightened and tolerant as a whole and will work to find accommodating solutions and compromises. But if someone pushes beyond that, then fuck them, they deserve what they get in return.

[Samuel]

You're making an unfounded assumption-- that everyone is always seeking the goal of creating a clique to keep others out. Not everyone is seeking to create cliques. Some are, yes, but it seems to be that you find it utterly impossible for three or more people who share common interests to get together without some sort of sinister motive.

: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons ; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/clique

Manufacturing an fight for no particular reason, except maybe to live up to some idea you think is espoused here, is not necessarily the best way to go about it.



How about this-- since it seems you're not giving me much to work with here, I kind of have to search for meaning in some of what you say.

Here is my point. If you have a group that is composed entirely of one ethicity, there is segregation being involved somehow. In any society that is reasonably plural you will have a variety of ethnic groups. Not all the people of each ethnic group will be the same and some from each ethnic group will have common interests.

Example. You have a place that is a third white, a third asian and the rest black and hispanic. If you make a fire fighter club for kids you'd expect that the club would roughly reflect that mixture if it had enough members.

Which is how clubs where I live. Club I went to today had about 7 members- 5 asian, 2 white, one female (it was a boardgames).

What's the cutoff point? Is that cutoff point a universal constant? Who decides that cutoff point? What are the criteria? If it's more than, say... 10 people of one race, and no other races are present, then what? It's automatically assumed to be a racist gathering? Does that "10+" rule apply to places like Boise, Idaho, where there's maybe 10,000 Black families in the entire state, if that? So what does that mean, and why are you the person to decide when a group is racist and when it isn't?

Ask a statistician. They can tell you when it pass chance.

But why do you automatically assume that all the people who are in that neighborhood are there because of racial reasons (either by choosing to be "in", or choosing to be "out" by fear). Some people live in my neighborhood because their jobs are here, and wouldn't necessarily leave here otherwise. Does that factor in? Also, what about other factors-- I'm White, but I'm also Jewish. My neighbors across the street are a Lesbian couple. Does this "dilute the whiteness" sufficiently? Or do we need to import more hues to prove we're "okay"?

I didn't say that the racism has to be inside- for the black community, I am implying that a large amount is from outside. The existance of a "pure community" shows that there is racism. It doesn't say who is responsible. That is the job of land values.

Whiteness refers to the color of your skin. Lesbian isn't a skin color. And it is a problem is a large portion of the population is nonwhite and all you have in the area is white. It implies discrimination or having an underclass.

"Chosen People" does indeed have sinister connotations in today's world, but I assure you the Jewish usage of the term pre-dates modern eugenicists' usage. It is supposed to mean a class of people who first accepted the word of the one true God and rejected polytheism, so they were "chosen" to be the priests and religious leaders to spread the word on Earth and to serve that role in the afterlife.

I knew that. That is what I meant. It STILL implies they consider themselves better than everyone else.

Okay, this addresses what I asked earlier; all well and good. I can see some reasoning behind this, but I'd still need to see more evidence of racial exclusion before jumping to the "desired" result of accusations of racism. I really do find your reasoning in these matters to be disturbing-- you condemn by race and size and region without waiting to see if there's more to the observation than meets the eye. It really does seem to me that your kind of thinking here would be perfectly suited to enforcing things like the Patriot Act.

Sure, some obvious factors come into play-- a bunch of white guys listening to Prussian Blue while waving a Confederate flag certainly leaves no questions unasked. But without some obvious cues, I am willing to wait and see.

... I thought this was obvious? If there is no black people in a Indian organization, it isn't a sign of racism, but a sign of the lack of black people in the sub continent.

Of course, the US is mixed enough for this to not really apply. I believe the same holds true for Israel, no?

Cultural diversity and being able to celebrate other interesting ethnic interests is bad?

No, having each culture have its own area and defining itself by said culture is bad.

Technically, they can't all be one monobloc, but neither can Whites or even Jews, although some folks here don't seem to have a problem lumping all of them into heaps. How about if I spell it out nice for you and say certain social trends which are generally considered to be centered around the Black population's experience (sorry, I tend to see things like "Black Culture" and "Indian Heritage" and "Chinese culture", etc, as a convenient shorthand for certain accepted paradigms that are admittedly stereotypical in nature, but useful as a shorthand when in these kinds of discussions. Or, more bluntly, I want to be able to write a reply without having to add six pages of fucking lawyer-speak disclaimer every time I drop a phrase).

My point is that black culture is shorthand for ghetto culture and rap (correct me if I am wrong). It is a bit like calling red neck culture "white culture". The fact of the matter is that it is not black culture. It is just a convient name. My point was that "black culture" contains non-blacks.

Well, then by all means please do provide the proper insight. I'd be interested in knowing, myself.

THE Midrashim are ancient Rabbinical expositions of Holy Writ. The term Midrash (of which Midrashim is the plural form) occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible (2 Chron. Xiii. 22, and xxiv. 27); and in both passages it is represented in the Anglican version by the word "story," while the more correct translation, "commentary," is relegated to the margin. "Legendary exposition" best expresses the full meaning of the word Midrash.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/hl92.htm

If anyone has a better source, I'd love to hear it. But it seems it is no more canon than Wong's website.

I... actually do think it matters what the intent is/was. If the community is isolated for the purposes of racial segregation, it is wrong. If it is isolated by circumstance of demographics and geography, and there's no reason why another racial family couldn't move in and be accepted if they wished, I don't see a problem.

To be honest, my mind just slips and slides on this. Anyway, I don't complain about if it is one group- it just is a general sympton of segregation.

[Darth Wong]

I feel that I'm defending cultural diversity, rather than racial segregation. I've tried to make it clear that segregation for racial reasons is wrong-headed; in truth I am a bit surprised and somewhat dismayed that some here seem to think I'm favoring racial segregation. I felt my views on this sort of thing were fairly clear for a long time standing...

Sorry my friend, but you are favouring racial segregation. You're just saying it's OK if the intentions are good (and I don't know how many people are really sold on your claim that "chosen people" and Jewish racial exceptionalism and prohibitions against intermarriage actually have nothing to do with feeling superior).

In other words, you have literally recommended a road to Hell which is paved with good intentions.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, now we're moving into things like Biblical Literalism, which is a whole 'nother can of worms, I think, and I'm not going to defend Biblical Literalism because I don't believe it is literal. If the Jews are supposed to "crush the untermenschen" they really chose a stupid way to go about it-- they don't encourage converts and never really had much of a warrior tradition, arguably until recently.

What I was pointing is that the Torah kind of does take the "crushen the untermenschen" track, particularly the Pentateuch, which are still regarded as holy by all Jews.

And for the sheer shake of being anal, the Jews had a warrior tradition for a damn long time, right from Moses if you believe the stories. The problem is that they also have a long history of being conquered by by whatever invading army happens to be blowing through there on the way to someplace more important. I mean, I can think of no less than three Jewish holidays that are celebrated by all Jews that are celebrations of Hebrew military battles (Hanukkah, Purim, and arguably Passover, though the last one is more celebrating slaughter done by God on their behalf rather an actual battle... but I've always found Passover kind of macabre).

Do they take the "special" thing too far? Yes, a lot of them do. Are you under the impression that I like and support this? It seems to me you're getting really riled up about something that happened to you years ago as a kid, for which I'm sorry about it, but I had nothing to do with it and I'm not defending or condoning it. It can be hard for a young person, still forming ideas about the world, to be rejected so vehemently and under such arbitrary circumstances, but I do kinda wish you'd see me on my own merits rather than as a mouthpiece for this kind of behavior.

Cut the psychoanalysis, Coyote. I've been using those examples to show that my understanding of the issue is somewhat more than theoretical. However, you do seem to be defending it, under the aegis of them "celebrating cultural diversity".

Well, I for one tell people to STFU when I come across asinine attitudes like that, so I can at least assure you of that. I've actually studied the Arab-Israeli issue quite a bit and delved deep into studies of Islam and Islam's effects on the political realm in the Middle East and so I can see the points being made by the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side.

Somehow I doubt that you'd tell an Orthodox Jew to shut the fuck up if started spouting smack, particularly if he was a Hasid.

But what about when non-Jewish parents reject their kids for dating or marrying a Jew? This isn't entirely one-sided here. There are racist assholes in Judaism, I never denied that. You ran across a bunch of them, and I tend to think that a lot of these exclusionary assholes in the Orthodox movement are fucked up.

Any bigotry is fucked up and assholes who forbid their kids from seeing, dating, or marrying Jews can go to hell in my book. However, I'm arguing that its actually a bit more systemic in Conservative and Orthodox Judaism than you seem to be willing to admit.

For example, let's continue with intermarriage. You can look this up, but most Conservative Jewish scholars, who are actually taking a more liberal track on the issue than it is presented halakhah, say that marriage between a Gentile and a Jew is no celebration of the community and while it should be accepted, it should ONLY happen if it seems likely that the spouse will convert to Judaism. Further, they should make sure to keep their faith high so to make sure the resultant kids are to be raised Jewish. Exactly how tolerant is that?

As for the Baal Teshuva movement, there is a concerted effort among Reform and Conservative Jews that I know of to get back some of what they cut loose as far as traditions and observances. Paying more attention to the dietary laws, for example. In my synagogue here in Boise, after services there's the oneg, the social hour with snacks and goodies, and schmoozing, etc. People used to bring shrimp salads, beenies and weenies, that sort of thing, 20+ years ago. There was a concerted effort to break with traditions that some found to be 'silly' and 'anal retentive', and being picky about eating seemed one way to go about that. Lots of Jews put up Christmas trees even though they didn't celebrate Christmas per se.

But many people felt it sort of lost the spirit (note small 's', not capitol 'S') of the whole thing, and was so watered-down as to be meanigless. membership dwindled. Eventually we got a new Rabbi and he's no Orthodox by any stretch (he was married to a female Rabbi for years) but he advocated getting back to some of the basics and do simple things like kashrut (for the unknowing: keeping kosher, the whole meat-cheese/pork/shellfish thing) to remind folks that we have our own traditions.

Now I'm sure folks will pounce on this and use this as "evidence" that "we Jews feel we're better'n everybody else" but I say that there's "better than" and then there's just "different". There's nothing wrong with "different". "Different" can be fun, I say, even interesting. It's one thing to say "we don't eat pork, so that makes us better than you, you filthy Gentile!" and it is entirely another thing (IMO) to say "we don't eat pork because we're different. Ahmed over there also doesn't eat pork, nor does he drink alcohol; Brigham here doesn't drink coffee; and Mr. O'Malley down the street doesn't eat meat on Friday."

Anyhow, to bring it to a circle here, the Baal Teshuva movement has a purpose (I know most people here will find it stupid and pointless, sure, but we're talking about a religion here, which by definition isn't supposed to make sense) but if someone is using it as a means to point out "racial superiority" then I'd call them on it, if I were you. If I were there hearing that nonsense, I would.

Come on, Baal Teshuva actually means "Return to Movement" in Hebrew, very specifically, Orthodoxy. It's always been an Orthodox outreach movement to try and get Jews who've fallen off the wagon, so to speak, back into practicing Jewish law. The problem is, of course, is that Jewish law has baked into it all the intolerance I've been talking about.

As for specific written rules not to eat at a Gentile's house I personally think that's just dickitude. They have those rules to keep Kosher, and they go to extremes to avoid a situation where they may encounter non-kosher food items. Even having two separate refrigerators, sets of utensils, etc-- more anal-retentive than a German Army officer trying to assemble a Smurf's vertebrae in a dark room. Basically, if a fork is used for meat, it must never, ever be used for dairy, that sort of thing, and they must never even entertain the thought of eating from utensils that may have once been used to prepare --horrors!-- pork or shellfish.

It's what I call "cooties syndrome"; kids who never grew out of that "you have cooties!" phase. A fork once touched steak, so now it forever is tainted with "meat cooties". I find it fucking ridiculous, and fortunately outside of Orthodox Jewish circles you don't see it too much. I didn't even encounter it in Israel, really, outside the Orthodox circles.

From that rule about simple food preparation comes this asinine interpretation that becomes "never eat at a Gentile's house" even though that is insulting and will inevitably breed a sense of superiority among the Jewish kids or contempt for their Gentile neighbors. Again, they are wrong, because the word Gentile comes from the word for "stranger", and Jews are supposed to be respectful of the stranger and we are reminded that we, ourselves were strangers before. There are supposed to be rules of hospitality about "do not turn out the stranger from your house on the Sabbath" and stuff like that, which would imply that "strangers" (Gentiles) were welcome among Jews. So in other words, unsurprisingly, a bunch of religious assholes have gone too far and are twisting shit up to make life difficult.

And yet it occurs and is out there than merely Orthodox Jews. My next door neighbors weren't Orthodox either, but when they moved to the neighborhood they declined my parents invitation to have dinner with us EXACTLY because what you describe above. However, Mike's got you on the point already, what you are calling "cultural diversity" comes out as "segregation". Bigots have ALWAYS had reasons to dislike people, no matter how asinine, and typically always play the "We don't HATE <insert group>, we just feel we outta stay separate from them."

[Coyote]

Cultural diversity is good as long as we're not talking about shit that harms people (like female genital mutilation or "honor killings"), but when "culture" becomes a justification for refusing to cooperate with the rest of society...

But I addressed this earlier, although I did not pound on it much-- so long as a group isn't undermining the society with its "difference", there's no problem IMO. I used the example of child marriages or multiple forced marriages as one facet of such.

...in Finland Jews are a very goddamn small minority. Yet every time there is talk about circumcision, it's the fucking Jewish community leaders who start frothing at the mouth about it and appealing to Holocaust Exceptionalism to defend their frankly fucking retarded views. Even the Muslim immigrant communities are more goddamn reasonable about it, when it comes right down to it.

Circumcision is going to be a hard fight either way, I'm not debating that. It's one of those realms where one group is looking at it in one perspective and the other group is looking at it in another perspective, and they're very defensive about it. It's been one of those "Jewish Practices" that non-Jews have been trying to eradicate for centuries, but usually for religious reasons rather than health or cultural ones. Many Jews see it not in that framework but as an assault on their identity, which I think is what you're seeing here. What you see is a bunch of people clinging to an ancient, barbaric ritual that serves no purpose; they see one more attempt to eradicate their identity. I'm not necessarily saying that their point of view is right, but that's why there's such vehemence in their response.

If Jews were serious about cultural diversity, there would be no problem with what you have been saying, Coyote, but they are not. They are all about Jewishness only, only they don't have the numbers to enforce it over everyone else. Where the society around them does not follow their religious rules, they refuse to compromise at all.

Again, I think that "all Jews do this..." is painting with too wide a brush. I also don't know what you mean when you say "when society around them does not follow their religious rules". I need more context to determine what is being said. Did Jews try to push a bill through the Finnish Parliament to ban pork in the entire country? Or did Finns try to pass a law saying that everyone must display a Christmas tree, and forbid Menorah candles? I've never heard of any Jewish political group that ever tried to ramrod some sort of all-sweeping Jewish religious rule on a society outside of Israel-- and even in Israel it's not all-encompassing, with pork sold in some stores, some restaurants that have pork and shrimp available for those that want them, and Christian and Muslim communities having a great deal of autonomy in their own village affairs, rather than being forced to adhere to Jewish customs.

I know some Finnish Jews and I've talked with them about the Jewish community leadership, which is more of the fundamentalist variety than not. Those leaders didn't get too high marks from those people. But as long as that community as a whole supports those asshats, fuck them all and let them get the fuck out of the country. The sooner, the better.

Well, I'd say the same thing about Evangelical Christians and their Republican puppets, so in a sense I think we're on the same wavelength here.

That is the reason anti-Jewish sentiment rears its head again and again. And there's will come a point in the future where people will say "Who gives a fuck that Hitler killed six million Jews, it has no relation to this and fuck you, you brought it on yourselves!" without any protest from anyone else.

I actually agree with you on this, as well-- overplay the Holocaust card as a club to bash people with and people will be remembering the Holocaust all right-- by calling for a sequel. Minorities all over the world have been pushed around and killed for various reasons; at some point you have to move on. The thing about the Holocaust is that for years after the war, it wasn't really talked about (1950's for example), then after the capture of Eichmann it opened up the old wound, so there's been a glut of discussion since the people that experienced it are dying off.

Whenever the Holocaust is brought up, I always make it a point to say "12 million" because in theory one of the reasons why we Jews are supposed to keep the memory alive is as a warning that this sort of thing can, and may, happen again, and that any of us can become victims for one reason or another. But when all we harp about are 6 million Jews, we make it exclusive and we forget about the Slavs, gays, Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, and other 'undesirables' that were killed off. I wish there was as much reminder given to the fact that in Pol Pot's Cambodia, all you needed was glasses, or to be left-handed, or just have "soft" hands and you were killed. If I were somehow in charge of Judaism I'd just go on and on about the indecent massacres of history regardless. I'm not in charge, so I have to manage my small foothold in it as best I can.

I deal with Jews, just as I deal with Muslims or Christians or anyone else, as individual people first, anything else second. I have friends who are Muslims, friends who are Christian and friends who are atheists and I know some Jews. But whenever someone lets something other than basic decency take first place, it becomes a different ball game. They don't want to play by the rules of the society here, then they can fuck off to wherever people do live by their preferred rules. If they want to whine about being persecuted, they can fuck off once more. I'm not interested, I have no sympathy, no patience and no tolerance for that shit.

When you look at the current Western world, most nations are by and large pretty enlightened and tolerant as a whole and will work to find accommodating solutions and compromises. But if someone pushes beyond that, then fuck them, they deserve what they get in return.

Again, I'd need more of a context to know what you mean by "the refuse to play be the rest of the rules".