Guardian: "J Street's 'pro-Israel' stance is phoney
Don Levey
I was surprised to find this editorial, though the comments following
were more expected.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Abe Kohen
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:hc4i7q$umm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/j-street-lobby-israel
>
> I was surprised to find this editorial, though the comments following
> were more expected.
At the risk of offending the Judenraat, doesn't "J Street" stand for
Judenraat Street? I say offending the Judenraat because the J Streeters are
under no pressure to do that dirty work, unlike the Judenraat.
Best,
Abe
fla...@verizon.net
On 26-Oct-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/j-street-lobby-israel
>
> I was surprised to find this editorial, though the comments following
> were more expected.
What I found interesting, but also not very thrilling,
was that about half the comments *agreed* with
the article - but, naturally, had the lesser votes than
the ones disagreeing.
Sigh.
Susan
Amitai
> "Don Levey" <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>
> news:hc4i7q$umm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/j-street-lobby-is...
>
> > I was surprised to find this editorial, though the comments following
> > were more expected.
>
> At the risk of offending the Judenraat, doesn't "J Street" stand for
> Judenraat Street? I say offending the Judenraat because the J Streeters are
> under no pressure to do that dirty work, unlike the Judenraat.
>
Amitai
> Best,
> Abe
Abe Kohen
My Xian co-workers don't understand the J Streeters either.
You my friend (if I may), Amitai, are too steeped in Amos Oz and A.B.
Yehoshua and accept J-Streeters as a way of life.
Best,
Abe
"Amitai" <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
news:67e81321-a8d1-4e34...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Amitai
> Actually I myslef find the comparison offensive. The question is to whom?
>
- should be offended by being compared to J Street!
Comparison of any Jew to the Judenrat is coming pretty close to
invoking Godwin's rule.
> My Xian co-workers don't understand the J Streeters either.
>
I have no idea what - if anything - your Xian coworkers do
understand.
> You my friend (if I may), Amitai, are too steeped in Amos Oz and A.B.
> Yehoshua and accept J-Streeters as a way of life.
>
With all due respect, my friend Abe, you haven't a clue about what I
am steeped in. Moreover, the implication that I need guidance from
Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua - or any other pundit - and cannot think for
myself is insulting.
Amitai
> Best,
> Abe
>
> "Amitai" <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
>
> news:67e81321-a8d1-4e34...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 1:36 am, "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:> "Don Levey" <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
>
> >news:hc4i7q$umm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/j-street-lobby-is...
>
> > > I was surprised to find this editorial, though the comments following
> > > were more expected.
>
> > At the risk of offending the Judenraat, doesn't "J Street" stand for
> > Judenraat Street? I say offending the Judenraat because the J Streeters
> > are
> > under no pressure to do that dirty work, unlike the Judenraat.
>
> Am I the only one who finds this comparison offensive?
>
> Amitai
>
>
>
> > Best,
> > Abe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don Levey
No, you're not.
sheldonlg
No, but Abe often falls in line with a few other posters of similar
style so it comes under the "consider the source" category.
Don Levey
I can think of only two other posters who post in that particularly
offensive style.
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , Amitai
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> in
<67e81321-a8d1-4e34...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Not at all, but I have been unable to calm down sufficiently to
respond to Abe. Words have truly failed me.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu>
in <hc5bq7$tgs$1...@harrier.steinthal.us> wrote:
You seem to see two options only: Judenrat and Camp Commander. Were
those the only options, I would chose the former and in that we
differ.
Susan S
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il>:
No.
Susan Silberstein
mirjam
> At the risk of offending the Judenraat, doesn't "J Street" stand for
> Judenraat Street? I say offending the Judenraat because the J Streeters are
> under no pressure to do that dirty work, unlike the Judenraat.
Abe
I find this an extremely offensive comparison ,, just coming home from
a 3 days long international Confference about Women In the Holocuast"
this was not a post i hoped to see .
mirjam
mirjam
In maters /imgaes and comparisons to any Shoah related thing
I don`t think that Non Jews are as sensitive as Jews. , >
> My Xian co-workers don't understand the J Streeters either.
>
> You my friend (if I may), Amitai, are too steeped in Amos Oz and A.B.
> Yehoshua and accept J-Streeters as a way of life.
like all their books in the same way ,, each book is different in my
eyes. But i must say that the Above sentence is a great Enigma to me ,
what are you reffering to ?
And how come their names suddenly appeared in this
subject ?????????????????????
mirjam >
mirjam
play with all this words. Some Judenraat persons used their position ,
to help many people. Some could not or where to afraid to do it. Many
didn`t want the position and were forced to do it. I find that
writing a sentence like Abe wrote is Offensive because it shows lack
of Historical knowledge , lack of Historical sensitivity , and
disrespect to some memmbers here ,
And Shoah victims in general who might carry a bit heavier Shoah
memories or traumas.
mirjam
Yussel
No.
j
Yussel
Not to mention the fact that the J Street organization represents the
opinion of a substantial percentage of the American Jewish population.
If polls are correct, the majority of American Jews, including me. Are
we all Judenraat?
j
Harry Weiss
-> On Oct 29, 8:45?am, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> > I really don`t know how many of you are knowledgeable enough to even
> > play with all this words. Some Judenraat persons used their position ,
> > to help many people. Some could not or where to afraid to do it. Many
> > writing a sentence like Abe wrote is Offensive because it shows lack
> > disrespect to some memmbers here ,
> > And Shoah victims in general who might carry a bit heavier Shoah
> > memories or traumas.
> > mirjam
> Not to mention the fact that the J Street organization represents the
> opinion of a substantial percentage of the American Jewish population.
> If polls are correct, the majority of American Jews, including me. Are
> we all Judenraat?
> j
The Judenratt were not They were usually community leaders who got
forced into a miserable situation. Most did the best they could. Others
may have left some to be desired. In addition Judenraat when they got
transported to the camps, they were never sent to labor, but only to
extermiantion.
What J Street and their type are more similar too are the Assimialted
Americans in the 30s and 40s who like St Wise Dr"y, either passiviely
refused to do anything to about their fellow Jews in Europe or actively
worked to sabotage the effort of those both religolus (e.g . Vaad
Hatzoloh) or secular who were trying to save Jews.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> in
<fa89b3c0-a51e-4afc...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
The question is, are we still Judenrat if we have been excommunicated?
mirjam
> The Judenratt were not They were usually community leaders who got
> forced into a miserable situation. Most did the best they could. Others
> may have left some to be desired. In addition Judenraat when they got
> transported to the camps, they were never sent to labor, but only to
> extermiantion.
> What J Street and their type are more similar too are the Assimialted
> Americans in the 30s and 40s who like St Wise Dr"y, either passiviely
> refused to do anything to about their fellow Jews in Europe or actively
> worked to sabotage the effort of those both religolus (e.g . Vaad
> Hatzoloh) or secular who were trying to save Jews.
read in the newspapers,,, Thus i can`t /won`t react to that .
But i do have and had [over the years] experienced some unkind
happenings with Extremely Assimilated Jews who live in USA and
remember their Judaism only when they criticize Israel. The Only
thing i want to say to those people is this , Our parents /grand
parents each chose teir ways to flee the places were they couldn`t
live a normal life as a Jew [ secular or religious] , thus each of
them chose were to find his/her refuge. But all of them when moviong
kept on caring for those that went the other way. Thus you
assimilated person were lucky to be saved from some horros , but we
were lucky to participate in building our country . You assimilated
live your Assimilated life and we don`t judge you nore tell you what
to do , So please let us live our Israeli Jewish life, and don`t tell
us what to. do . Go live your Assimilated life , let us enjoy our
Jewish Israeli life , You CHOSE to live as an assimilated person , you
Chose to Take yourself out of the Khal Israel , so whatever we do or
happens to us , doesn`t concern you anymore .
mirjam
mirjam
sheldonlg
It is not a black-white situation. As an example, I am a fully
assimilated person. I am also part of Klal Israel. I am an assimilated
American and I am Jewish.
One _CAN_ be both Jewish and assimilated.
Supporting Israel does not mean agreeing with all her positions. Giving
our views on topics does not equate with telling her what to do.
Abe Kohen
"mirjam" <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
news:0a27a0cd-f8ac-4cd0...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Depends on who it is offensive to.
Not having been alive during the Holocaust, my knowledge of the Judenraat is
based on extensive reading and on the narratives of survivors, especially of
relatives. Some see the Judenraat as heroes; others as villians. Same with
Kasztner. His granddaughter (daughter of Rivka Michaelis ??) is trying to
portray him in a positive light, while I doubt that Aniko (Hanna Senesh)
Szenes's mother would have agreed. Aniko's mother who, I believe, lived in
Haifa, and who used to give talks at Olei Hungaria in Haifa, according to my
mother who knew her, has passed away.
But my criticism is targeted at Jews (J Street) who do the work of our
enemies. I feel personally offended by them, as if my 3 years of service in
the IDF was for nothing.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
Abe Kohen
Related to an interview Yehoshua gave in Yediot Ahronot. It's not about
their writing styles, but their political ideology.
Do you know Yehoshua personally? He lives part of the week in Haifa.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
Abe Kohen
No disrespect to you intended.
As I wrote in another post the issue is controversial. Some see them as
heroes; some as villians; some as neither - just survivors. My aunt in
Budapest (Osweicim survivor) says we cannot judge them. That people did
terrible things just to survive.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
Abe Kohen
non-O streams.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
"Yussel" <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa89b3c0-a51e-4afc...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Abe Kohen
"sheldonlg" <shel...@giganews.com> wrote in message
news:A7qdnWULIsxxfXfX...@giganews.com...
> Supporting Israel does not mean agreeing with all her positions. Giving
> our views on topics does not equate with telling her what to do.
Not if those views are used to support an anti-Israel agenda by Obama &
Friends.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
sheldonlg
That, sir, is your OPINION. _WE_ see those issues differently AND _WE_
so not agree that there is and anti-Israel agenda there at all. That is
our OPINION.
Shall we start calling people with your position war mongers because you
see a different path to peace? Perhaps since you call us Judenrat we
should call you Gestapo? Frankly, I don't think so and I think we can
have an honest disagreement on the best road to peace without having to
demonize the other side.
Your turn at bat, sir.
mm
How could your 3 years be for nothing. Israel is a wonderful place to
be, and J-streeters are talking. They may do harm in the future, they
may cost lives -- I don't know -- but what you did is good and plain
to see.
>Shavua Tov,
>Abe
>
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
You imagine that that is his agenda.
Did you see what Hillary Clinton said today?
And do you think a middle-man accomplishes more when he's seen as
favoring one side all the time, or when he seems to be in the middle?
And how much good happened to Israel when Bush was president? Iran is
that much further along on its bomb, Ron Arad is still missing, etc.
Some of his opponents don't like his domestic proposals either and
that makes it that much easier to imagine the worst about his Israel
policy. I don't know if that applies to you or not.
mirjam
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sheldung i respect your feelings /i hope you respect mine.
i never said/wrote/believed life was a Black - white situation ,,,
Maybe in America you can be both assinmilated and still feel Jewish ,
in Europe all the Assimilated people i met lomg forgot any sign of
Jewishness ..
mirjam
mirjam
> Related to an interview Yehoshua gave in Yediot Ahronot. It's not about
> their writing styles, but their political ideology.
>
> Do you know Yehoshua personally? He lives part of the week in Haifa.
>
> Shavua Tov,
> Abe
I have seen and met him many times , but i can`t say i know him , [ i
mean to speak with him as an aquaintnace ],,, i remember the
intervieew , it was an interesting point of view , many of us have
various feelings and ideas about people in an out of Israel , i like
it that there are so many different points of views.
mirjam
mirjam
Abe
Mrs Szenesh ` Daughter in law used to be a known Kindergarten Teacher
in our Neigbourhood , Never Sha`anan Haifa , in fact i used to see her
working through my windows.
I have spoken to some people , and read many evidences of all sorts ,
about the various jobs people had to do [ including the Judenraat ,
It is not my place to judge or to compare , but i feel deeply that One
of Us should not Do this comparisons .
As to being offended by this J-Street group, Why would i? theyfeel
that for some reason they want to do it . I am sorry , but not
offended ,,,
mirjam
sheldonlg
Mirjam, having seen many of your postings, and knowing that English is
not your native language, I will assume that your offensive mangling of
my name into an extremely nasty one, was _TOTALLY_ unintentional. My
name is Sheldon. To my friends it is Shelly. (Dung means manure,
feces, shit).
Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in the US,
most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
Evertjan.
>> Sheldung i respect your feelings /i hope you respect mine.
>> i never said/wrote/believed life was a Black - white situation ,,,
>> Maybe in America you can be both assinmilated and still feel Jewish ,
>> in Europe all the Assimilated people i met lomg forgot any sign of
>> Jewishness ..
>> mirjam
>
> Mirjam, having seen many of your postings, and knowing that English is
> not your native language, I will assume that your offensive mangling of
> my name into an extremely nasty one, was _TOTALLY_ unintentional. My
> name is Sheldon. To my friends it is Shelly. (Dung means manure,
> feces, shit).
>
> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in the US,
> most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
I do not agree at all about the European Jews view of Mirjam, I am in
surrounded by many Jews full of Jewishness overhere in the Netherlands, and
all are completely assimilated. We Netherlands Jews have been assimilated
since nearly 200 years, the same goes for many other West-European
countries.
On the other hand being "unintentionally offensive" would not be possible
overhere, as to be offensive, intent is a neccesary part.
What's more, "Sheldung" seems a normal family name,
even in the States, read:
Determination of Scattering Lengths and Magnetic Spin Rotation by Neutron
Interferometry,
Proc. Int. Conf. Interaction of Neutrons with Nuclei, Lowell/MA, USA;
E. Sheldung (Ed.), Vol. II (1976) p. 1027
I suppose Mirjam, correct me if I am wrong, just mistook your
From: sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com>
for "sheldung", I could have done the same, Shelly.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Henry Goodman
I think assimilated means something different in Europe from America.
European nations have strong traditions going back hundreds or even
thousands of years and if one is fully assimilated in a country there is no
room to be Jewish. America doesn't have a native tradition, apart from the
various Red Indian nations, but contains a mish mash of traditions from the
various cultures where the recent immigrants originated. Jewish is just one
of those cultures but it is still possible in America to be a fully
qualified American and remain Jewish. It is getting like that now in
Britain, perhaps less so on the Continent.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
mirjam
Evertjan , i don`t call a person going to Shul an assimilated person .
When you go to shul you are part of a Jewish community , you are part
of Jewish culture. The people i call [as my scholar teachers taught
meAssimilated are those who don`t do ANYTHING Jewish at all , besides
remembering that they had a Jewish family.
mirjam
mirjam
>
> - Show quoted text -
I apologize , i answered at night , and it was a mistake Sorry , i am
really sorry i misspelled you name !!!!
mirjam
lee
I wear a star of david round my neck cos my dad did,
I would wear his but it got stolen when he was mugged a few years
before he died,
along with the expensive fake rolex I took great pains to get him in
Thailand.
I bought the Magan David (is that the right terminology?) online from
an israeli site.
I have a Mezuzah on my front door, which I try & remember to touch.
I'm not sure if our G-d is any diffrent to the Christain, Moslem,
Hindu, or what the bhuddists call nirvana.
I dont think I believe the Torah & after reading some stuff that David
or Solomon even existed
I occasionally feel a pang of guilt when eating lasagne or bacon,
possibly a bit more now than I used to.
I probably will refrain form eating whats obviously chametz, ie bread,
this pesach
I dont think I'll ever go in a synagogue again,
unless I meet a nice Jewish girl, I suppose it'll have to be a nice
jewish woman now,
who insists I go with her
So what does that make me assimilated or not
I felt assimiliated,
but now somehow alienated from what I've become assimilated with
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mirjam wrote:
>> sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> It is not a black-white situation. As an example, I am a fully
>>> assimilated person. I am also part of Klal Israel. I am an
>>> assimilated American and I am Jewish.
>>>
>>> One _CAN_ be both Jewish and assimilated.
>>>
>>> Supporting Israel does not mean agreeing with all her positions.
>>> Giving our views on topics does not equate with telling her what
>>> to do
>>
>> Sheldung i respect your feelings /i hope you respect mine.
>> i never said/wrote/believed life was a Black - white situation ,,,
>> Maybe in America you can be both assinmilated and still feel Jewish ,
>> in Europe all the Assimilated people i met lomg forgot any sign of
>> Jewishness ..
>
> Mirjam, having seen many of your postings, and knowing that English is
> not your native language, I will assume that your offensive mangling of
> my name into an extremely nasty one, was _TOTALLY_ unintentional. My
> name is Sheldon. To my friends it is Shelly. (Dung means manure,
> feces, shit).
Shelly, I assume she was trying to copy your name as it appears in
the attribute line "sheldonlg", which _is_ a "funny" name. "U" and
"O" are adjacent on the keyboard.
> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in
> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
sheldonlg
What about three-day-a-year attendance Jews? Do you call them
assimilated? I am not much more than that in attendance. I call myself
assimilated -- AND Jewish. So, please clarify your views.
sheldonlg
> I apologize , i answered at night , and it was a mistake Sorry , i am
> really sorry i misspelled you name !!!!
> mirjam
As I said, I believed 100% that it was unintentional. No problem.
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com> writes:
>> mirjam wrote:
>>> sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>>> It is not a black-white situation. As an example, I am a fully
>>>> assimilated person. I am also part of Klal Israel. I am an
>>>> assimilated American and I am Jewish.
>>>>
>>>> One _CAN_ be both Jewish and assimilated.
>>>>
>>>> Supporting Israel does not mean agreeing with all her positions.
>>>> Giving our views on topics does not equate with telling her what
>>>> to do
>>> Sheldung i respect your feelings /i hope you respect mine.
>>> i never said/wrote/believed life was a Black - white situation ,,,
>>> Maybe in America you can be both assinmilated and still feel Jewish ,
>>> in Europe all the Assimilated people i met lomg forgot any sign of
>>> Jewishness ..
>> Mirjam, having seen many of your postings, and knowing that English is
>> not your native language, I will assume that your offensive mangling of
>> my name into an extremely nasty one, was _TOTALLY_ unintentional. My
>> name is Sheldon. To my friends it is Shelly. (Dung means manure,
>> feces, shit).
>
> Shelly, I assume she was trying to copy your name as it appears in
> the attribute line "sheldonlg", which _is_ a "funny" name. "U" and
sheldonlg is for Sheldon Larry Glickler. The name of my company is SLG
Development, Inc. I sometimes make a joke that my last name should have
been Cohen because then my name would have been Yisrael Levi Cohen.
BTW, there is an "I" between "O" and "U" on the keyboard -- and I had
_NO_ doubt it was accidental.
> "O" are adjacent on the keyboard.
>
>> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in
>> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
>
> Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
>
True.
mirjam
[what does that mean ???]
>
> What about three-day-a-year attendance Jews? Do you call them
> assimilated? I am not much more than that in attendance. I call myself
> assimilated -- AND Jewish. So, please clarify your views.
But you do`participate` in this discussion group , thus i might assume
that you are interested in `Jewish` subjects or culture or some
connection with other Jews ,, so i assume you haven`t disasociated
yourself from Jewis matters. The people i reffer to , have no
connection whatsoever with anything Jewish [only whebn they criticize
Israel] , they live like Dutch people celebrate Christmas, New Year
etc... Now i am not Judging only observing.
mirjam
from RAINY Haifa
Amitai
Babylon defines "assimilate" as: incorporate, take in, absorb; adopt
the cultural characteristics of another group, which Shelly certainly
has, as I have too to a large extent.
However, the Hebrew translation of "assimilated" is "mitbolel", which
the same Babylon engine renders back as "assimilated", absorbed by the
other culture, thus losing your cultural identity. This I certainly
haven't, nor - as I see it - neither has Shelly.
It is merely a matter of the active vs. the passive voice.
Amitai
> mirjam
> from RAINY Haifa
Evertjan.
>> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in
>> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
>
> Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
Is the U.S. First Ammendment a separation?
Evertjan.
Well Mirjam, that is not my interpretation of the word "assimilated",
unless you don't call an person going to church or to mosque assimilated.
Otherways it becomes just a matter of word definition.
btw, I would prefer the word "integration" to "assimilation",
as assimilation means that the integration process would be onesided,
while it never is.
Dutch culture and society has so many lovely influences of Jewishness, like
it has so many of Indonesian, in language, custom, stories and believes.
Nowadays, also the integration with Islam begins to bring two sided
integration, which augments the society, not in the amount that older
integrations like Jewish and Indonesian culture brought.
Any rich culture is augmented by the cultures of the people joining such
society, and I am proud to live in a nation I feel free and integrated and
where I befriend anyone that is part of that society without even
considering if he or she is Jewish, Protestant, Islam or without belief.
Yes, there are people here that are not integrated, because they concider
their culture not part of this multiculturuous society, and do not want to
learn the language and are not interested in the peaple outside their
little group.
Dutch Jews, wether Sjoel-going or not, wether kosher or not, wether
orthodox or not, are fully integrated in Dutch society since far more than
150 years.
sheldonlg
> Sheldonig
> [what does that mean ???]
>> What about three-day-a-year attendance Jews? Do you call them
>> assimilated? I am not much more than that in attendance. I call myself
>> assimilated -- AND Jewish. So, please clarify your views.
>
> But you do`participate` in this discussion group , thus i might assume
> that you are interested in `Jewish` subjects or culture or some
> connection with other Jews ,, so i assume you haven`t disasociated
> yourself from Jewis matters. The people i reffer to , have no
....and neither have all the Jews in the US who are affiliated with
synagogues of all three denominations who consider themselves as
assimilated. All of us dress indistinguishably from the rest of the
population, watch TV, drive cars, go to movies, etc., etc. Yet we all
identify as being Jewish. Some identify as American Jews and some, like
me, identify as Jewish Americans -- but we all identify as both
Americans and Jews. (I have excluded the chassidim above because they
are not assimilated and I was only talking about the ones that are
assimilated).
> connection whatsoever with anything Jewish [only whebn they criticize
> Israel] , they live like Dutch people celebrate Christmas, New Year
> etc... Now i am not Judging only observing.
....and you were told by Evertjan -- who LIVES there -- that you
"observation" is inaccurate.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
Excellent point. She and I are using the same language but with
different meanings for the word.
sheldonlg
> wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>>> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in
>>> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
>> Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
>
> Is the U.S. First Ammendment a separation?
>
Yes!
Text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the government licenses the line as a monopoly, having segregated
because of religion is an "establishment of religion".
Evertjan.
I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
Steve Goldfarb
>I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
>And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
The word "separation" probably came to mind because this aspect of the 1st
Amendment is often referred to a creating a "separation between church and
state."
It is my understanding that many if not most European countries have a
state religion, rather than having such a separation.
--s
--
Evertjan.
> Amitai wrote:
>>
>> Babylon defines "assimilate" as: incorporate, take in, absorb; adopt
>> the cultural characteristics of another group, which Shelly certainly
>> has, as I have too to a large extent.
>> However, the Hebrew translation of "assimilated" is "mitbolel",
>> which the same Babylon engine renders back as "assimilated", absorbed
>> by the other culture, thus losing your cultural identity. This I
>> certainly haven't, nor - as I see it - neither has Shelly.
>>
>> It is merely a matter of the active vs. the passive voice.
>
> Excellent point. She and I are using the same language but with
> different meanings for the word.
That's why I suggest to use "integration", becoming part of the culture
without losing your own, but bringing part of your own culture into tha
target culture.
"Integration" as a mutual "adaptation", respecting eachothers habits and
believes and enjoying the fruits such integration brings.
Yes, I know this might not always come easily, but there is no other way in
the end.
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> Evertjan. wrote:
>>> wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>>
>>>>> Other than than on this group, I know no European Jews. Here in
>>>>> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
>>>> Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
>>> Is the U.S. First Ammendment a separation?
>
>> Yes!
>>
>> Text of the first amendment:
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>> Since the government licenses the line as a monopoly, having segregated
>> because of religion is an "establishment of religion".
>
> I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
We call it "separtion of church and state".
>
> And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
I never said that. I said it is not in you founding documents. Also,
since it is in our founding document, we are much more sensitive to it
and make a big deal about violations.
Evertjan.
No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
"When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for themselves
during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of confederation in
which this feature of the Netherland republic was incorporated in all its
fulness."
"The American Constitution of 1787 was a faithful copy, so far as it was
possible to make one out of the materials at hand, of the contemporary
Constitution of England...."
On May 31, 1775, Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts
Bay, declared: �Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up
over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to
its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent
general model�
Henry Goodman
news:Xns9CB7CAEA...@194.109.133.242...
> Steve Goldfarb wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> In <Xns9CB7C625...@194.109.133.242> "Evertjan."
>> <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
>>
>>>And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
>>
>> The word "separation" probably came to mind because this aspect of the
>> 1st Amendment is often referred to a creating a "separation between
>> church and state."
>>
>> It is my understanding that many if not most European countries have a
>> state religion, rather than having such a separation.
>
> No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
>
> Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
>
> "When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for themselves
> during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of confederation in
> which this feature of the Netherland republic was incorporated in all its
> fulness."
>
> "The American Constitution of 1787 was a faithful copy, so far as it was
> possible to make one out of the materials at hand, of the contemporary
> Constitution of England...."
>
There seem to be 2 problems here.
(a) There was no written constitution of England in 1787 (or 2009)
(b) The Church of England was the established church in 1787 (and 2009). The
Queen is head of the church.
Steve Goldfarb
>> It is my understanding that many if not most European countries have a
>> state religion, rather than having such a separation.
>No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
Sure - wikipedia has a nice list, btw, at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state-established_religions
Looks like most were disestablished, often around WWI, WWII, bu some more
recently - , but there are still quite a few people living with an
"official religion," including:
Denmark / Churck of Denmark (lutheran)
Czech Rupublic / Roman Catholic
England / Church of England
Finland / Finnish Orthodox
Greece / Churck of Greece
Iceland / Lutheran
Malta / Roman Catholic
Norway / Church of Norway
>Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
>"When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for themselves
>during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of confederation in
>which this feature of the Netherland republic was incorporated in all its
>fulness."
According to Wikipedia, which could be wrong of course, the Dutch Reformed
Church was disestablished as the official church of the Netherlands in
1795. A bit late to be the source of the US Constitution.
>"The American Constitution of 1787 was a faithful copy, so far as it was
>possible to make one out of the materials at hand, of the contemporary
>Constitution of England...."
Which Constitution is that?
>On May 31, 1775, Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts
>Bay, declared: ?Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up
>over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to
>its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent
>general model?
he said that in 1775? :-) Not sure of your point here though.
--s
--
lee
No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
Americans invented them for us
lee
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB7CAEA...@194.109.133.242...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Goldfarb wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
> >> <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
>
> >>>I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
>
> >>>And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
>
> >> The word "separation" probably came to mind because this aspect of the
> >> 1st Amendment is often referred to a creating a "separation between
> >> church and state."
>
> >> It is my understanding that many if not most European countries have a
> >> state religion, rather than having such a separation.
>
> > No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
>
> > Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
>
> > "When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for themselves
> > during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of confederation in
> > which this feature of the Netherland republic was incorporated in all its
> > fulness."
>
> > "The American Constitution of 1787 was a faithful copy, so far as it was
> > possible to make one out of the materials at hand, of the contemporary
> > Constitution of England...."
>
> There seem to be 2 problems here.
> (a) There was no written constitution of England in 1787 (or 2009)
> (b) The Church of England was the established church in 1787 (and 2009). The
> Queen is head of the church.
>
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Henry I think you're forgetting the English civil war that established
the primacy of Parliament, the king or queen can say whatever they
want as long as parliament lets them. We have a separation between the
legislature & the judiciary, which I think most democracies have.
Steve Goldfarb
>No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
>Americans invented them for us
Ideas are like... let's say navels. Everybody's got one. No one's saying
we invented the CONCEPT of separation of church and state - we're just one
of the earliest and most rigorous in actually implementing it.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>The
>> Queen is head of the church.
>>
>> --
>> Henry Goodman
>> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
>Henry I think you're forgetting the English civil war that established
>the primacy of Parliament, the king or queen can say whatever they
>want as long as parliament lets them. We have a separation between the
>legislature & the judiciary, which I think most democracies have.
OK, so the Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury in the
Queen's name, rather than she doing it herself. (thanks, wikipedia) How is
that any less an official state religion?
--s
--
Evertjan.
>>Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
>
>>"When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for
>>themselves during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of
>>confederation in which this feature of the Netherland republic was
>>incorporated in all its fulness."
>
> According to Wikipedia, which could be wrong of course, the Dutch
> Reformed Church was disestablished as the official church of the
> Netherlands in 1795. A bit late to be the source of the US
> Constitution.
Disestablishments were not the source of of the US constitution,
but the thoughts, and they were European thoughts, From Leyden NL, from
Boston GB, from Hugo Grotius, from Baruch Spinosa, etc..
Even the paper it was written on came from the Netherlands.
Steven, I think some overthere are so impressed by the uniqueness of that
constitution, that the thought that the thoughts that made it possible,
like from the free thinkers from the Netherlands and other European
countries and even the influenence of the Torah must be choked.
<http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/specialseries/insigh
t/insight050430.html-redirected>
"And look at the great American constitution, which not only guarantees its
citizens the right to bear arms and shoot an overzealous vacuum cleaner
salesman between the eyes, but also to free speech, to freedom of religion
and to a note in your tray on Friday that says "don't bother to come in on
Monday and please clear your desk before you go. Have a nice day."
sheldonlg
>
The first ten amendments to the constitution (our founding document) are
referred to as "The Bill of Rights". The constitution itself merely
defines the organization of the government and what rights are taken
from the states and what remains with the states. It is The Bill of
Rights -- and many of the ensuing amendments to the consitution -- that
form the civil liberties part of the constitution.
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>Disestablishments were not the source of of the US constitution,
>but the thoughts, and they were European thoughts, From Leyden NL, from
>Boston GB, from Hugo Grotius, from Baruch Spinosa, etc..
>Even the paper it was written on came from the Netherlands.
>Steven, I think some overthere are so impressed by the uniqueness of that
>constitution, that the thought that the thoughts that made it possible,
>like from the free thinkers from the Netherlands and other European
>countries and even the influenence of the Torah must be choked.
I guess I don't see your point. Even if every single one of those thoughts
were absolutely European in origin, and let's say not a single American
had any influence on this ideas whatosver but simply lifted them wholesale
from those fertile European minds, nevertheless - we actually did it. So
shame on you, if anything, for having those fabulous ideas and then
refusing to implement them.
><http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/specialseries/insigh
>t/insight050430.html-redirected>
>"And look at the great American constitution, which not only guarantees its
>citizens the right to bear arms and shoot an overzealous vacuum cleaner
>salesman between the eyes, but also to free speech, to freedom of religion
>and to a note in your tray on Friday that says "don't bother to come in on
>Monday and please clear your desk before you go. Have a nice day."
Right - so, what are you saying? Celebrating the fact that in some
European countries you're expected to lie down and die rather than lifting
a finger to defend yourself, let alone defend your family, and that you
guys can't be fired? Oh, wait, then why does Europe have unemployed
people?
I'm not following your point at all.
BTW, how would you prefer to be addressed? Is your name actually
"evertjan" or is that an artifact of usenet / username convention? (I
googled, and got some hits for "Evert-Jan," wondering if that's how you
actually render your name)
Listen, bottom line is I certainly appreciate the contribution that
European thinkers made to our system of government, I'm not denying that
contribution in any way, just celebrating the fact that we do, indeed,
have a constitution and that for now at least it's holding firm.
--s
--
Evertjan.
> I guess I don't see your point. Even if every single one of those
> thoughts were absolutely European in origin, and let's say not a
> single American had any influence on this ideas whatosver but simply
> lifted them wholesale from those fertile European minds, nevertheless
> - we actually did it. So shame on you, if anything,
I do not want to diminish the work of the founding fathers in combining the
free thoughts of that age, but the result is far from unique, like all
inventions and discoveries where the result of many thought processes.
> for having those
> fabulous ideas and then refusing to implement them.
I didn ot have those idea's, neither had you, and those idea's were
implemented in many countries.
It seems that American schooling convinces the pupils of the unicity of the
american constitution, which is true in the sense that other countries are
not duplicates lawwize.
> So shame on you, if anything,
However this schooling indoctrination seems to put you in the defensive by
these words, as the unicity must be believed by others.
Shooting overzealous vacuum cleaner salesmen is not a Dutch tradition, but
I quoted that just to test superiority feelings.
Steve Goldfarb
>I do not want to diminish the work of the founding fathers in combining the
>free thoughts of that age, but the result is far from unique, like all
>inventions and discoveries where the result of many thought processes.
The ideas were not unique - the implementation was.
>> for having those
>> fabulous ideas and then refusing to implement them.
>I didn ot have those idea's, neither had you, and those idea's were
>implemented in many countries.
Later, in most cases considerably later.
>It seems that American schooling convinces the pupils of the unicity of the
>american constitution, which is true in the sense that other countries are
>not duplicates lawwize.
Do the Netherlands have a constitution? Don't you have a queen, or
something?
>> So shame on you, if anything,
>However this schooling indoctrination seems to put you in the defensive by
>these words, as the unicity must be believed by others.
I don't think "unicity" is a word, but it probably should be it's a pretty
cool formulation.
>Shooting overzealous vacuum cleaner salesmen is not a Dutch tradition, but
>I quoted that just to test superiority feelings.
Well just to be clear, the US constitution does not, in fact, authorize us
to shoot vacuum cleaner salesmen simply for being overzealous. However,
our legal system does, generally speaking, acknowledge a right to
self-defense, particularly in one's own home.
As to "superiority," well, from what I know about the Netherlands it seems
like a pretty commendable country. However, the US is a much more
difficult challenge than your European countries - for one thing we're
much, much larger both geographically and in terms of population. Also,
we're much more diverse than most of your countries, in terms of religion,
race, personal history, wealth, etc. So I'm not knocking Holland - just
pointing out that what works for you wouldn't necessarily work for us.
Overall, I do indeed think we Americans are doing pretty well - not
perfect, but at least as well as any of you have done and probably better
than most.
In any case, a compliment to my own country's system of government is by
no means an insult to yours - even though you Europeans often seem to take
it that way.
--s
--
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Nov-2009, "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> > It is my understanding that many if not most European countries have a
> > state religion, rather than having such a separation.
>
> No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
England, Ireland, Scotland - probably Wales as well.
And that's just one little* country
Susan
*physically speaking!
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Nov-2009, lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
> Americans invented them for us
Seems more like you guys never thought to put
them into action until you saw how well we did
w/them. When *is* Ireland going to do so?
Susan
Micha Berger
> No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
> Americans invented them for us
I am putting together something on the difference between Locke's model
of law as being based in inalienable rights, and halakhah's notion of
covenant.
It used to be about rights vs duties, but then I realized that halakhah
frames its duties in the context of various berisim (singular: beris).
What I mean when I define beris as covenant as opposed to contract:
In a contract, two parties get together to get their needs met by each
helping the other. In a covenant, two parties become one, and they commit
themselves to contribute that community's wellbeing.
I'm keeping my observation that a rights-based law encouragaes people to
protect their own domains.
However, rather than contrasting it to duties that force me to protect
the other's domain, I'm now thinking (half-baked, so far) about duties
that force me to protect the common good.
Please feed the thought process. TIA!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Abe Kohen
(Blessed rain!)
Best,
Abe
"mirjam" <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
news:781f3771-a117-45ab...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Sheldonig
[what does that mean ???]
>
> What about three-day-a-year attendance Jews? Do you call them
> assimilated? I am not much more than that in attendance. I call myself
> assimilated -- AND Jewish. So, please clarify your views.
But you do`participate` in this discussion group , thus i might assume
that you are interested in `Jewish` subjects or culture or some
connection with other Jews ,, so i assume you haven`t disasociated
yourself from Jewis matters. The people i reffer to , have no
connection whatsoever with anything Jewish [only whebn they criticize
Israel] , they live like Dutch people celebrate Christmas, New Year
etc... Now i am not Judging only observing.
mirjam
from RAINY Haifa
Abe Kohen
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:hcnr94$3uh$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
>> Americans invented them for us
>
> I am putting together something on the difference between Locke's model
> of law as being based in inalienable rights, and halakhah's notion of
> covenant.
>
> It used to be about rights vs duties, but then I realized that halakhah
> frames its duties in the context of various berisim (singular: beris).
Strawberries?
I assume you mean britot (singular brit).
Some think of halakha as a constraint system - "meh toor nisht ..." (thou
shalt not ...) - rather than a covenant between two parties.
Best,
Abe
mirjam
> On Nov 2, 4:25 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [what does that mean ???]
>
> > > What about three-day-a-year attendance Jews? Do you call them
> > > assimilated? I am not much more than that in attendance. I call myself
> > > assimilated -- AND Jewish. So, please clarify your views.
>
> > But you do`participate` in this discussion group , thus i might assume
> > that you are interested in `Jewish` subjects or culture or some
> > connection with other Jews ,, so i assume you haven`t disasociated
> > yourself from Jewis matters. The people i reffer to , have no
> > connection whatsoever with anything Jewish [only whebn they criticize
> > Israel] , they live like Dutch people celebrate Christmas, New Year
> > etc... Now i am not Judging only observing.
>
> the cultural characteristics of another group, which Shelly certainly
> has, as I have too to a large extent.
> However, the Hebrew translation of "assimilated" is "mitbolel", which
> the same Babylon engine renders back as "assimilated", absorbed by the
> other culture, thus losing your cultural identity. This I certainly
> haven't, nor - as I see it - neither has Shelly.
>
> It is merely a matter of the active vs. the passive voice.
>
>
>
Assimilated is also like Similac Milk , trying to be as the
other ..... in fact i look at the [alas ] many assimilated people i
know , and find them without any Jewish/Hebrew `thing` .
And since i lived 2 years in UK , 2 years in USA , and have many
connections with European Assimilated people [ also visited Europe
twice a year over 16 years, staying with such people in their
houses ] , i saw the will to disassociate themselves with any thing
Jewish - some to the point of finding flaws [only] with any thing
Jewish.
mirjam
mirjam
>
> --
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Evertjan , i am not going to start and argument with you about , the
matter of
>Dutch Jews, wether Sjoel-going or not, wether kosher or not, wether
>orthodox or not, are fully integrated in Dutch society since far more than
>150 years.
But let me have my historical based memories and doubts about this !
have you read/ heard about the OPK Commissie
that declared the 4000 war orpahns "belonging to the Dutch Volk" ,,,,
and trying to keep them in their Not Jewish War Adoptive families ? ,
i wondered how come their parents weren`t called Dutch Volk ?
40 years after i last visited my Opa`s town i went there for a visit ,
on my own , walking the ways i remember ,,, several people who sort of
recognized me [ as one of the tribe] , while praising my Grandfather
also said ' Ja hij een van de Goede Jooden`.
in a doctorate written in Nijmegen , the researcher found it important
to mention that when My Opa and his co-working Committee started
helping , Jewish refugees from Germany into Holland , they didn`t ask
the help of their Non Jews Neigbours.
Last not least , about a Year ago the Nederlands Auschwitz Commitee
was trying to build a Memorial to "the 110 Dutch victims that were
killed in the German Camps "
NO mention, of the fact that 105000 , were JEWS not only Dutch [in
fact many of those Jews weren`t even Dutch, and of course we know why
the word Nazi was omitted and the word German slipped in ...
......Fully intergrated ?
mirjam
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mirjam
> from RAINY Haifa
It's also RAINY Jerusalem. But from what I hear, Haifa is getting
a lot more rain than Jerusalem. Thank G-d for every drop!
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> sheldonlg wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>> Amitai wrote:
>>>
>>> Babylon defines "assimilate" as: incorporate, take in, absorb; adopt
>>> the cultural characteristics of another group, which Shelly certainly
>>> has, as I have too to a large extent.
>>> However, the Hebrew translation of "assimilated" is "mitbolel",
>>> which the same Babylon engine renders back as "assimilated", absorbed
>>> by the other culture, thus losing your cultural identity. This I
>>> certainly haven't, nor - as I see it - neither has Shelly.
>>>
>>> It is merely a matter of the active vs. the passive voice.
>>
>> different meanings for the word.
>
> That's why I suggest to use "integration", becoming part of the culture
> without losing your own, but bringing part of your own culture into tha
> target culture.
>
> "Integration" as a mutual "adaptation", respecting eachothers habits and
> believes and enjoying the fruits such integration brings.
>
> Yes, I know this might not always come easily, but there is no
> other way in the end.
Evertjan. I'm reading a lot now about Europe's "multiculturalism".
You explain it very well. In another post you metion the problems of
those who have no wish to "integrate". You make it sound like it's a
problem just of those minorities. What happens when that minority
gets rather large and, more important, if it _insists_, violently at
times, that the host country _must_ adapt the minorities' customs,
laws and culture?
lee
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
>> sheldonlg wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>> > Evertjan. wrote:
>>
>> >>>> the US, most Jews are assimilated -- and are still Jewish.
>> >>> Because of the First Ammendment. Europe doesn't have that seperation.
>>
>> >> Is the U.S. First Ammendment a separation?
>> > Yes!
>>
>> > Text of the first amendment:
>> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>>
>> > Since the government licenses the line as a monopoly, having segregated
>> > because of religion is an "establishment of religion".
>>
>> I see, I would never heve called that "separation".
>>
>> And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
>
> Americans invented them for us
While Rousseau & Voltaire may have had the ideas, who was it that
_enshrined_ them in their founding document.
--
Moshe Schorr (pinch-hitting for Shelly)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> I am putting together something on the difference between Locke's model
> of law as being based in inalienable rights, and halakhah's notion of
> covenant.
>
> It used to be about rights vs duties, but then I realized that halakhah
> frames its duties in the context of various berisim (singular: beris).
>
> What I mean when I define beris as covenant as opposed to contract:
> In a contract, two parties get together to get their needs met by each
> helping the other. In a covenant, two parties become one, and they commit
> themselves to contribute that community's wellbeing.
Hmm, where do you get a "bris" among members of a community. The
"brisim" that I know about are between HaShem and the Jews.
> I'm keeping my observation that a rights-based law encouragaes people to
> protect their own domains.
>
> However, rather than contrasting it to duties that force me to protect
> the other's domain, I'm now thinking (half-baked, so far) about duties
> that force me to protect the common good.
I can "hear" that. The laws of Hashavat Aveida - returning lost items
seem to be in that category.
> Please feed the thought process. TIA!
I tried.
--
Moshe Schorr
Fiona Abrahami
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> writes:
>
>>On May 31, 1775, Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts
>>Bay, declared: ?Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up
>>over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive
>>to
>>its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent
>>general model?
>
> he said that in 1775? :-) Not sure of your point here though.
Before 1948 Israel would have meant the People of Israel, i.e. us, the Jews
(but you knew that). He would have been talking about Jewish communal
organisations; Battei Din, community leadership councils, charities etc.
Only a non-Jew looking in from the outside could be impressed, from the
inside it doesn't look so pretty.
Fiona
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
I think that Evertjan is talking from the Jews' point of view. They
indeed feel themselves "fully Dutch". Your points seem to show that
no matter how "Dutch" the Jews there consider themselves, the Dutch
people do _not_!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Evertjan. wrote:
>> Steve Goldfarb wrote on 02 nov 2009 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>> "Evertjan."
>>>
>>>
>>>>And you think such laws do not exist in Europe?
>>>
>>> 1st Amendment is often referred to a creating a "separation between
>>> church and state."
>>>
>>> state religion, rather than having such a separation.
>>
>> No, I do not think so. Could you name some?
>
>
> Italy for another
>
> Finland (used to, may have changed)
>
> There would probably be a few others too. My understanding is that that
> was the reason that the USA has that in their constitution.
>
> We have a similar clause in the Australian Constitution
>>
>> Where did you think all those exellent idea's in US law came from?
>>
>> "When the rebellious American colonies framed a government for themselves
>> during the Revolutionary War, they adopted articles of confederation in
>> which this feature of the Netherland republic was incorporated in all its
>> fulness."
>>
>> "The American Constitution of 1787 was a faithful copy, so far as it was
>> possible to make one out of the materials at hand, of the contemporary
>> Constitution of England...."
>
> implies that it was not part ofthe original).
AIUI, it was assumed the various States would enshrine those laws
since the were so _basic_ to the American's ideas of freedom and
liberty. When that did not happen, the Ten were put into the
Constitution.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
>> > "Integration" as a mutual "adaptation", respecting eachothers habits
>> > and believes and enjoying the fruits such integration brings.
>>
>> > Yes, I know this might not always come easily, but there is no
>> > other way in the end.
>>
>> Evertjan. I'm reading a lot now about Europe's "multiculturalism".
>> You explain it very well. In another post you metion the problems of
>> those who have no wish to "integrate". You make it sound like it's a
>> problem just of those minorities. What happens when that minority
>> gets rather large and, more important, if it _insists_, violently at
>> times, that the host country _must_ adapt the minorities' customs,
>> laws and culture?
>
No. I'm talking about the Muslims.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Fiona, most things, from the *inside*, don't look as pretty.
That's the basis of the saying; "The grass is alays greener
in the neighbor's yard".
lee
We dont need to we have law based on precedent, & that precedent was
usually bloody civil war to restrain the catholic churchs iron grip &
later royalty & the aristocracy, on the common man. Theres more than
one way of skinning a cat. Plus in europe its only the military &
police who have easy access to automatic weapons. I'm sure the
founding fathers had something more like the IDF when they envisioned
the right to bear arms, albeit to fight the nasty brits. Just cos you
enshrine it doesnt mean it works out how you intended. Only our
scriptures are immutable
mirjam
> ....and you were told by Evertjan -- who LIVES there -- that you
> "observation" is inaccurate.
>
> --
> Shelly
Evertjan knows part of his people i have connections with different
people , probably we are both right , but only see other parts of that
community Dutch Jewery , which is not and never was One Entity ,
mirjam
Don Levey
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
>>> "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On May 31, 1775, Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts
>>>> Bay, declared: ?Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up
>>>> over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to
>>>> its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent
>>>> general model?
>>> he said that in 1775? :-) Not sure of your point here though.
>> Before 1948 Israel would have meant the People of Israel, i.e. us, the Jews
>> (but you knew that). He would have been talking about Jewish communal
>> organisations; Battei Din, community leadership councils, charities etc.
>> Only a non-Jew looking in from the outside could be impressed, from the
>> inside it doesn't look so pretty.
>
> Fiona, most things, from the *inside*, don't look as pretty.
> That's the basis of the saying; "The grass is alays greener
> in the neighbor's yard".
>
that one for a moment.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Steve Goldfarb
>>>On May 31, 1775, Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts
>>>Bay, declared: ?Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up
>>>over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive
>>>to
>>>its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent
>>>general model?
>>
>> he said that in 1775? :-) Not sure of your point here though.
>Before 1948 Israel would have meant the People of Israel, i.e. us, the Jews
>(but you knew that). He would have been talking about Jewish communal
>organisations; Battei Din, community leadership councils, charities etc.
>Only a non-Jew looking in from the outside could be impressed, from the
>inside it doesn't look so pretty.
Actually I assumed that we were missing a hard return, and that the last
line was Evertjan's comment, not something that Langdon wrote in 1775.
Can't (quickly) find the source for the cite though to verify.
--s
--
Micha Berger
> Hmm, where do you get a "bris" among members of a community. The
> "brisim" that I know about are between HaShem and the Jews.
Genesis 14:13 desribes Mamrei, Eskhol and Aneir as members of a beris
with Avraham.
Avimelekh and Avraham in Genesis 21:27, and again with Yitzchaq at 26:28
Lavan and Yaaqov, 31:44
Hashem warns against a beris between the Jews and the Canaanites in
Exodus 34:15
The Chivi get a beris with the Jews under Yehoshua ch 9, which was
binding even though made under false pretenses. The Chivi claimed to be
from far away, not one of the Canaanite nations.
Yonasan and Dabid enter a bris in Samuel I 18:3.
Avneir and David - Samuel II 3:13
Etc...
My definition of "community" is more in a technical sense. I'm looking
for a name of the union of parties formed by the beris.
...
>> However, rather than contrasting it to duties that force me to protect
>> the other's domain, I'm now thinking (half-baked, so far) about duties
>> that force me to protect the common good.
> I can "hear" that. The laws of Hashavat Aveida - returning lost items
> seem to be in that category.
>> Please feed the thought process. TIA!
> I tried.
Thanks.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM)
Steve Goldfarb
>My definition of "community" is more in a technical sense. I'm looking
>for a name of the union of parties formed by the beris.
Isn't that essentially what the US is, with the Constitution forming the
beris?
--s
--
sheldonlg
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> writes:
>>>> "Integration" as a mutual "adaptation", respecting eachothers habits
>>>> and believes and enjoying the fruits such integration brings.
>>>> Yes, I know this might not always come easily, but there is no
>>>> other way in the end.
>>> Evertjan. I'm reading a lot now about Europe's "multiculturalism".
>>> You explain it very well. In another post you metion the problems of
>>> those who have no wish to "integrate". You make it sound like it's a
>>> problem just of those minorities. What happens when that minority
>>> gets rather large and, more important, if it _insists_, violently at
>>> times, that the host country _must_ adapt the minorities' customs,
>>> laws and culture?
>> Are you talking about those damn bicycle riders again?
>
> No. I'm talking about the Muslims.
Moshe, are _YOU_ a victim of SDNWOTN? Wow!
Evertjan.
> Assimilated is also like Similac Milk , trying to be as the
> other ..... in fact i look at the [alas ] many assimilated people i
> know , and find them without any Jewish/Hebrew `thing` .
> And since i lived 2 years in UK , 2 years in USA , and have many
> connections with European Assimilated people [ also visited Europe
> twice a year over 16 years, staying with such people in their
> houses ] , i saw the will to disassociate themselves with any thing
> Jewish - some to the point of finding flaws [only] with any thing
> Jewish.
You are wrong about Similac, Mirjam.
Despite the name these "humanized" milksare made more optimal in the sens
that they contain the right amount of additives, among others far more
vitamin K, than breast milk, and far less [read zero] antibodies and even
antigens that come from the original factory. And the administering action
is far less intense.
As a fugitive during the war in England, I had to do with skimmed cowmilk,
and it made me a very sick very slim little boy.
Perhaps there in Switserland you had the same experience, or did your
primary source suffice?
================
Your vision about integration, I do not accept your word "assimilation" as
these things are never onsided, is far more beneficial for both comunities
than you sketch, perhaps you looked at it with preconceived ideas?
Evertjan.
What nonsense, Mirjam.
Far more non-Jewish Dutch perished in the camps than 110, homosexuals,
hardline polititians from communist to far rightwing, underground
fighters, many of the hiding givers that where found out, either by
accident of by treason. I do not know the exact number.
Integration is not measured by exesses of individuals,
but by the feeling of the people in general.
Jewish integration in the Netherlands is what the Netherlanders that are
Jews feel to be their home country and where they feel happy to live and
have their children live. Were they feel safe, just as safe as others
walking on the streets at night. Where they are accepted as having
different festivals as other groups. Where the synagoge has invited the
nearby mosque to organize an religious-educational programme for ten year
olds, where volontiers of both organisations, together with the local
suroya [syrian orthodox] church. Integration is in a country where they
fought side by side to liberate it from the Germans. Integration is where
[exept from some Amsterdam groupe] all children go to non-jewish schools,
but also go to the synagoge school if they are so inclined to learn
Hebrew and Jewish religion.
For me, there is no difference between Nazi and German in WWII context.
My many many close relatives were killed by the Germans, as Netherlands
was invaded and occupied by Germany and not just by the Nazis.
Your fact about nationality is wrong.
I think over 95% of the Jews in the Netherlands on the brink of WWII had
the Dutch Nationality, contrasting with Belgium, where 95% of the Jews
were not Belgian.
Evertjan.
> Shelly:
>> ....and you were told by Evertjan -- who LIVES there -- that you
>> "observation" is inaccurate.
> Evertjan knows part of his people i have connections with different
> people , probably we are both right , but only see other parts of that
> community Dutch Jewery , which is not and never was One Entity ,
> mirjam
That is part of integration, Mirjam, that you are part of many cultures
without losing the specialness of the one[s] you integrated with.
To all:
I feel this sometimes heavy discussion with Mirjam is like Asjkenazi
lehrnen in the sense that we both want to bring our ideas, knowledge and
perhaps convictions to, to eachother, while discussing with someone you
agree with isn't my idea of fun.
We both, Mirjam and I, encounter and try to educate many people, Mirjam in
an Israel museum, I in our Orthodox Synagogue that is also a museum on
most Wednesdays and Sundays.
Have a look [sorry, mostly in Dutch, the pictures speak a 1000 words]:
<http://www.synagoge-enschede.nl/>
Ghetto Fighters' Museum:
<http://gfh.org.il/eng/>
mirjam
we reminded them that 105.ooo of those were Jews ...
mirjam,
Evertjan.
> OF COURSE I MEANT thousnads , they wanted to wrote 110.000 Dutch and
> we reminded them that 105.ooo of those were Jews ...
That number looks more logical.
.. of the 110.000 Dutch, 105.000 were Jewish Dutch ..
> we reminded them ...
Strange?
Why?
The other 5.000 deaths are just as important.
Who is "we"?
sheldonlg
> Have a look [sorry, mostly in Dutch, the pictures speak a 1000 words]:
> <http://www.synagoge-enschede.nl/>
It's beautiful.
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Nov-2009, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > No Rousseau & Voltaire never thoughts of these ideas until the
> > Americans invented them for us
>
> While Rousseau & Voltaire may have had the ideas, who was it that
> _enshrined_ them in their founding document.
GMTA!
:-)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Nov-2009, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > Before 1948 Israel would have meant the People of Israel, i.e. us, the
> > Jews
> > (but you knew that). He would have been talking about Jewish communal
> > organisations; Battei Din, community leadership councils, charities etc.
> >
> > Only a non-Jew looking in from the outside could be impressed, from the
> > inside it doesn't look so pretty.
>
> Fiona, most things, from the *inside*, don't look as pretty.
> That's the basis of the saying; "The grass is alays greener
> in the neighbor's yard".
And here I was, thinking that "Outside of a dog,
a man's best friend is a book. Inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read!"
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Before 1948 Israel would have meant the People of Israel, i.e. us, the Jews
>>> (but you knew that). He would have been talking about Jewish communal
>>> organisations; Battei Din, community leadership councils, charities etc.
>>> Only a non-Jew looking in from the outside could be impressed, from the
>>> inside it doesn't look so pretty.
>>
>> Fiona, most things, from the *inside*, don't look as pretty.
>> That's the basis of the saying; "The grass is alays greener
>> in the neighbor's yard".
>>
> The grass is also always greener over the septic tank
I am aware of Erma Bombeck's provacative title. :-) I didn't want
to quote it because it is not the point I'm making. If you want, I
can say "The grass is alays greener over the _neighbor's_ septic
tank".
> - let's think on that one for a moment.
Even more than a moment. For green grass you need the nutrients that
are "designed" for grass. A septic is full of such nutrients. For
other things that grow, you need the nutrients which are "designed"
for them. An important lesson.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>> Hmm, where do you get a "bris" among members of a community. The
>> "brisim" that I know about are between HaShem and the Jews.
>
> Genesis 14:13 desribes Mamrei, Eskhol and Aneir as members of a beris
> with Avraham.
> Avimelekh and Avraham in Genesis 21:27, and again with Yitzchaq
> at 26:28 Lavan and Yaaqov, 31:44
> Hashem warns against a beris between the Jews and the Canaanites in
> Exodus 34:15
> The Chivi get a beris with the Jews under Yehoshua ch 9, which was
> binding even though made under false pretenses. The Chivi claimed
> to be from far away, not one of the Canaanite nations.
> Yonasan and Dabid enter a bris in Samuel I 18:3.
> Avneir and David - Samuel II 3:13
> Etc...
>
> My definition of "community" is more in a technical sense. I'm
> looking for a name of the union of parties formed by the beris.
Two differences between the many examples you gave and what I thought
you were trying to say. 1. Those brisim were between individuals.
(Your last sentence _may_ refute this) 2. and more important, those
brisim were _initiated_ by one or both of the parties involved.
There is o "automatic" bris for all of Klal Yisroel with each other.
OTOH, we do find that in the bris between HaShem and the Jewish
People, each and every Jew is an "arev" a "guarantor" for all the
other Jews. And that guarantor is multiplied many times over.
613*48*603550(*603550)!
> ...
>>> However, rather than contrasting it to duties that force me to
>>> protect the other's domain, I'm now thinking (half-baked, so far)
>>> about duties that force me to protect the common good.
Well, in my example of "guarantor" there _is_ responsibility for the
common "good" in a spiritual sense.
>> I can "hear" that. The laws of Hashavat Aveida - returning lost
>> items seem to be in that category.
>
>>> Please feed the thought process. TIA!
>
>> I tried.
>
> Thanks.
It's a mutual exercise.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Shelly, I'm well aware of that joke (Who is responsible for all the
problems in the world? The Jews and the bicycle riders. Why the
bicycle riders? Why the Jews?)
But 1. I didn't want my observation be negated by an old joke. And
2. there may be others who are ot aware of the joke and were just
scratching their collective heads.