Judaism and the FAQ file
Lieutenant 030
writes:
> In article <iPcmFB...@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> >Perhaps if we change "the Christian God" to "the God of the Bible" that'll
> >be better?
>
> How about "God"? As in:
>
> >> > Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
> >> > universe]". This quote is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein
> >> > believed in God.
But it's then true. The quote does show that he believed in God, it just
doesn't show that he believed in the Christian God, the Jewish God, a Hindu
God, or any other God except Spinoza's concept of God.
The whole point is that the word "God" itself is too vague to make the point.
> >> "Judeo-Christian" is rather offensive to Jews and Judaism.
>
> >Why?
>
> I told you. It has built into it the implication Judaism leads naturally
> into Christianity.
Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
I suspect not.
> > If you like, we can make it say "Jewish or Christian" instead.
>
> You can include them separately, but it's rather wrong regarding Judaism.
That remains to be seen...
> >> Christianity
> >> finds itself strongly dependent on the myth of it continuing/completing
> >> Judaism.
>
> >Really? I suspect a few Christians may disagree with you there.
>
> "Christianity" is such a hodge-podge that many things are possible. But
> you have to go very far out--and mostly in this century only--to find the
> Christians who don't consider themselves the correct fulfillment of the
> Jewish Scriptures. Meanwhile, Jews have been specially persecuted by
> Christians for nearly two thousand years because of this and related myths.
Call me naive, but most of the Christians around here seem to justify their
faith based on direct experience of God and Jesus Christ, rather than by
saying "Look, we're fulfilling this bunch of ancient prophesies..."
> >> Moreover, the above point, applied to Judaism, is simply untrue. Indeed
> >> belief in God is part of the Jewish religion, but so is arguing with and
> >> against God. One is not in some morbid state of sin if one starts having
> >> doubts--what one does is far more important. There are innumerable stories
> >> on just this point.
>
> >The same is true for Christianity. But ultimately the Christian or the
> >Jew must always overcome his doubts and still believe in God, must he not?
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
>
> "Belief in God" is--according to the Rambam, but not according to the Ramban
> --a Biblical mandate on all Jews--but whether it is carried out or not depends
> on the individual Jew. Meanwhile, he stays 100% Jewish.
Please would you define the term "Jewish" for me. I suspect that you may
be using a technical definition rather than the more everyday one.
> >There is no similar required belief for atheism.
>
> But there is! If you call yourself an atheist, your beliefs about God fall
> into a few limited categories--or else people will call you a liar.
No, an atheist may have no beliefs whatsoever about God. No beliefs are
required for atheism.
> >To put it another way: belief in God is "questionable" in Judaism and
> >Christianity in the sense that you are physically allowed to question your
> >beliefs. It is not "questionable" in the sense that you are allowed to
> >change your mind about whether you believe it and remain a Christian or
> >Jew.
>
> This is simply a total falsehood about Judaism. If you are Jewish, you are
> stuck with it your entire life, belief or not belief.
This is on a par with the Mormons, who claim that if someone becomes a Mormon
all his ancestors are Mormons as well. It's stretching the scope of the
word "Jewish" so far as to make it completely meaningless.
> >> Probably alt.atheism views this Jewish/Christian disagreement over the
> >> status of "Judeo-Christian" and "belief" and so on as further amusing
> >> proof that religion is nuts.
>
> >I am unable to understand your objection to the term "Judeo-Christian",
> >unless it is simply another example of political correctness.
>
> Maybe 2000 years of persecution doesn't constitute an ever present part
> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
[ Cue violins ]
> Giving
> even a milligram of credence to the Christian persecutors' motivations--
> that they were the proper fulfillment of Judaism--is unspeakably loathsome.
I'm not giving credence to any half-baked theories that Christianity is
the proper fulfillment of Judaism. This is *alt.atheism*, remember. We're
saying that *both Judaism and Christianity* are a pile of horseshit. If
you read anything into the FAQ file to suggest that one pile of manure smells
slightly sweeter than the other, then I'm sorry. But I can't help but think
that you're forgetting the context.
> > To me,
> >"Judeo-Christian belief" is simply the union of all Jewish beliefs and
> >Christian beliefs.
>
> In practice, the term is a synonym for Christian. Simply speaking, most
> people have no knowledge of Jewish religion/culture and the like, but they
> do of Christianity, so when they refer non-specifically to a constellation
> of ideas about Western religion/culture, they may say "Judeo-Christian",
> but their examples are almost always "Christian".
Perhaps you would like to help us come up with some non-Christian examples,
then.
> > If you have a problem with that, I'll re-word it as
> >"Jewish or Christian".
>
> Stick to "Christian". You (and most non-Jews) simply don't have a clue
> regarding the what and the how of Jewish belief, and shouldn't put it in
> your FAQ.
Well, we could try it that way. See if we get Jewish posters making stupid
comments again, like we did in pre-FAQ days...
mathew
--
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Ken Arromdee
>> >> "Judeo-Christian" is rather offensive to Jews and Judaism.
>> >Why?
>> I told you. It has built into it the implication Judaism leads naturally
>> into Christianity.
>Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
>I suspect not.
The implication, in fact, is seen by Christian groups who make claims such as
saying the US is a society based on Judeo-Christian values, by which they mean
Christian.
>> "Christianity" is such a hodge-podge that many things are possible. But
>> you have to go very far out--and mostly in this century only--to find the
>> Christians who don't consider themselves the correct fulfillment of the
>> Jewish Scriptures. Meanwhile, Jews have been specially persecuted by
>> Christians for nearly two thousand years because of this and related myths.
>Call me naive, but most of the Christians around here seem to justify their
>faith based on direct experience of God and Jesus Christ, rather than by
>saying "Look, we're fulfilling this bunch of ancient prophesies..."
Although it's not the justification _for_ their faith, they nevertheless do
tend to believe it.
>> "Belief in God" is--according to the Rambam, but not according to the Ramban
>> --a Biblical mandate on all Jews--but whether it is carried out or not depends
>> on the individual Jew. Meanwhile, he stays 100% Jewish.
>Please would you define the term "Jewish" for me. I suspect that you may
>be using a technical definition rather than the more everyday one.
The person's belief is not considered a Jewish belief, but the person himself
remains Jewish.
>> >I am unable to understand your objection to the term "Judeo-Christian",
>> >unless it is simply another example of political correctness.
>> Maybe 2000 years of persecution doesn't constitute an ever present part
>> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
>[ Cue violins ]
Huh?
Jews object to "Judeo-Christian" because the term _is_being_used_, right now,
by people who mean "Christian".
--
This is a new version of the memetic .signature infection. Now that's an idea.
Copy it into your .signature today!
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Joe Francis
>> This is simply a total falsehood about Judaism. If you are Jewish, you are
>> stuck with it your entire life, belief or not belief. [Matthew P Wiener]
> This is on a par with the Mormons, who claim that if someone becomes a Mormon
> all his ancestors are Mormons as well. It's stretching the scope of the
> word "Jewish" so far as to make it completely meaningless. [mathew]
Does this mean "Hispanic" is completely meaningless?
Truly, you folks are talking apples and oranges. A "Jew" can be either
a follower of Judaism OR a descendant of the Hebrew people. It has two
definitions (much like another word used often in this group!)
Jim Perry
>doesn't show that he believed in the Christian God, the Jewish God, a Hindu
>God, or any other God except Spinoza's concept of God.
>
>The whole point is that the word "God" itself is too vague to make the point.
I think "the God of the Bible" makes the point, or "a particular
religious conception of God". This, followed by the reference to QM
and to Spinoza's God seem reasonably clear. I agree that an
unqualified "God" increases rather than clarifies the equivocation.
>> >> "Judeo-Christian" is rather offensive to Jews and Judaism.
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> I told you. It has built into it the implication Judaism leads naturally
>> into Christianity.
>
>Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
>I suspect not.
As widely used in the United States, at least, this implication does
seem to be generally included. If nothing else the implication of the
joint term is that Judaism is essentially a sect of Christianity (an
amusing reversal), "Christianity without the New Testament" as Rob
Strom put it. Although I suspect its use is more intended by the
Christians who use it as a gesture of inclusion, I think it does
create a false impression of what Judaism is really like.
In particular, I don't think the "act of faith" section of the FAQ is
really true wrt Judaism; mainstream Christianity does make a virtue of
it. A quick check of a small concordance reveals 2 references in the
OT, and 16 NT, and a grep of the KJV also reveals 2 OT instances and
229 NT. Only the NT references carry the Christian meaning of faith
(f. the size of a mustard seed, salvation by f., that sort of thing).
So certainly in that instance, "Judaeo-Christianity" is not called
for.
>Please would you define the term "Jewish" for me. I suspect that you may
>be using a technical definition rather than the more everyday one.
I think the message is that the "technical" definition is the "Jewish"
one, the "everyday" one that which lumps it as "Judaeo-Christianity".
>> This is simply a total falsehood about Judaism. If you are Jewish, you are
>> stuck with it your entire life, belief or not belief.
>
>This is [...] stretching the scope of the
>word "Jewish" so far as to make it completely meaningless.
There are several posts in the group at the moment describing the dual
nature of Judaism as a tribal heritage and a religion. Fixating
solely on the religion aspect is one way in which it is wrong to treat
Judaism as just another flavor of Christianity.
>> Giving
>> even a milligram of credence to the Christian persecutors' motivations--
>> that they were the proper fulfillment of Judaism--is unspeakably loathsome.
>
>I'm not giving credence to any half-baked theories that Christianity is
>the proper fulfillment of Judaism. This is *alt.atheism*, remember. We're
>saying that *both Judaism and Christianity* are a pile of horseshit. If
>you read anything into the FAQ file to suggest that one pile of manure smells
>slightly sweeter than the other, then I'm sorry. But I can't help but think
>that you're forgetting the context.
I think Matthew goes overboard here in associating the use of a term
in the FAQ with an "unspeakably loathsome" tradition of Christian
persecution. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I consider its use
by Christians more of an attempt to be inclusive and atone for that
tradition ("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still
better than "damned Christ-killers").
On the other hand, please can the "pile of horseshit", at least in
contexts where you're nominally speaking for the group.
--
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
Matthew P Wiener
>Truly, you folks are talking apples and oranges. A "Jew" can be either
>a follower of Judaism OR a descendant of the Hebrew people.
This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical.
Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
There was a front page WSJ story last spring about a bnei Noach synagogue(?)
founded by a former preacher who saw the (Jewish) light. ("Ah buh-leeeeeve
in ha-SHEMMMM.") His followers are not Jewish. They are, I assume, born
Christians who have rejected J.C. but still believe in God, and don't want
to convert to Judaism.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Ken Arromdee
>>> >> "Judeo-Christian" is rather offensive to Jews and Judaism.
>>> >Why?
>>> I told you. It has built into it the implication Judaism leads naturally
>>> into Christianity.
>>Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
>>I suspect not.
>As widely used in the United States, at least, this implication does
>seem to be generally included.
I suddenly realized that _this_ may be the problem here. mathew is _not_ in
the United States, and sometimes USAns forget that other people live in
places and are exposed to things different from what USAns are exposed to.
And this _does_ go both ways.
Perhaps the term "Judeo-Christian" _isn't_ used that way in the UK. But it's
certainly used that way here.
Matthew P Wiener
>>> Giving
>>> even a milligram of credence to the Christian persecutors' motivations--
>>> that they were the proper fulfillment of Judaism--is unspeakably loathsome.
>>I'm not giving credence to any half-baked theories that Christianity is
>>the proper fulfillment of Judaism. This is *alt.atheism*, remember. We're
>>saying that *both Judaism and Christianity* are a pile of horseshit. If
>>you read anything into the FAQ file to suggest that one pile of manure smells
>>slightly sweeter than the other, then I'm sorry.
I read no more into it than what I've said: an a.a FAQ should not take
cheap shots contra Judaism vis-a-vis Christianity.
>I think Matthew goes overboard here in associating the use of a term
>in the FAQ with an "unspeakably loathsome" tradition of Christian
>persecution.
I consider the general use of J-C, when C is meant, to be annoying and
wrong. I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome. The connection comes when Lt 030
gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite". Come on,
Lieutenant, you're better than that.
> In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I consider its use
>by Christians more of an attempt to be inclusive and atone for that
>tradition ("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still
>better than "damned Christ-killers").
Napoleon thought so too. He figured that liberating the Jews would be a
quicker way to get rid of them then persecuting them--they'd assimilate
themselves out of existence. For better or worse, anti-Semitism comes
out and reminds Jews that they are still Jews.
Jim Perry
>In article <1992Feb11....@apollo.hp.com>, perry@apollo (Jim Perry) writes:
>>I think Matthew goes overboard here in associating the use of a term
>>in the FAQ with an "unspeakably loathsome" tradition of Christian
>>persecution.
>
>I consider the general use of J-C, when C is meant, to be annoying and
>wrong.
Fair enough; I said "mistaken and offensive", about the same thing. A
far cry from "unspeakably loathsome".
>I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
>Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
You have yet to show that this use of J-C is "an attempt to eliminate
Judaism". The net effect of its use in the Christian community (by
which I'll gladly include atheists and others who don't know any
better) may be to cause non-Jews to have a false impression of the
true nature of Judaism, but I fail to see this as a great conspiracy
to eliminate Judaism. I don't think that's the motivation behind the
usage, and I don't think it's the net effect. The use of J-C may
spread the impression that Judaism and Christianity are similar in
certain ways when they aren't, but I don't buy the argument that this
usage disparages Judaism as "completed" by Christianity.
>The connection comes when Lt 030
>gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
>rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
>rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
>propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
If you insist on terms like "Christian propaganda", not to mention
bringing in unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism, it's not surprising
that you get a hostile response. Say "this is not true about Judaism"
and you may get your way. Say "you're an anti-Semite spreading
Christian propaganda" and you get horseshit.
>We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
How about "scratch certain Jews and you'll be *called* an
anti-Semite"? Sorry, but this sort of knee-jerk accusation by some
fanatics tends to dilute the meaning of the term. The most you can
say is that our Lt. is (was?) unaware of some ways in which Judaism is
dissimilar to Christianity (despite popular, i.e. Christian, opinion).
I fail to see that as hostility or prejudice specifically against
Jews. And the general assertion that all non-Jews are hostile to Jews
is scarcely short of paranoia.
>> In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I consider its use
>>by Christians more of an attempt to be inclusive and atone for that
>>tradition ("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still
>>better than "damned Christ-killers").
>
>Napoleon thought so too. He figured that liberating the Jews would be a
>quicker way to get rid of them then persecuting them--they'd assimilate
>themselves out of existence. For better or worse, anti-Semitism comes
>out and reminds Jews that they are still Jews.
What the hell does Napoleon have to do with anything? Is he the one
who started this worldwide Gentile conspiracy to wipe out the Jews by
craftily introducing terminology that pretends they're "just like us"?
Damned sneaky bugger, wasn't he! I hope you don't own any firearms,
Matthew... someone might get hurt when you start blasting at the
anti-Semites in the woodpile.
Matthew P Wiener
>>I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
>>Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
>You have yet to show that this use of J-C is "an attempt to eliminate
>Judaism". The net effect of its use in the Christian community (by
>which I'll gladly include atheists and others who don't know any
>better) may be to cause non-Jews to have a false impression of the
>true nature of Judaism,
Not just non-Jews, but otherwise ignorant Jews.
> but I fail to see this as a great conspiracy
>to eliminate Judaism.
No need to be an actual conspiracy. Just one more part of a long and
too often ugly history.
Do you think Mormon conversions of deceased Jews is a nothing?
> I don't think that's the motivation behind the
>usage, and I don't think it's the net effect. The use of J-C may
>spread the impression that Judaism and Christianity are similar in
>certain ways when they aren't, but I don't buy the argument that this
>usage disparages Judaism as "completed" by Christianity.
Maybe you don't have Jews for J***s hassling you and your friends, but
I do. Phoney baloney appeals to a so-called Judeo-Christian heritage
and so on are all part of their propaganda package.
>>The connection comes when Lt 030 gets it explained nicely and
>>simply, and then he reacts like a trapped rat. He's not Jewish, and
>>his knowledge of it is very second-hand and rather wrong, yet yet
>>response to polite requests to not carry Christian propaganda in the
>>FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
>If you insist on terms like "Christian propaganda",
That's what it is.
> not to mention
>bringing in unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism,
I did not. As I explained previously:
>>>>>>>Hmm. Already this week I've been yelled at for being a
>>>>>>>Communist and yelled at for being a Capitalist. Now I'm
>>>>>>>anti-Jewish. Wonder what's next?
>>>>>>Paranoid? Having an anti-Jewish bias in your knowledge is
>>>>>>nothing unusual nor particularly interesting. Just about all
>>>>>>non-Jews have that bias. This is not the same as _being_
>>>>>>anti-Jewish.
> it's not surprising
>that you get a hostile response. Say "this is not true about Judaism"
>and you may get your way. Say "you're an anti-Semite spreading
>Christian propaganda" and you get horseshit.
When I spell out why Jews have a certain sensitivity--2000 years of
persecution and all that--and all I get is "[cue violins]", I'd say
he has a rather unwarranted hostile attitude towards Jews. It is a
truth that to be Jewish carries with it a heavy historical package.
We don't choose to have it, but it's there. It is not melodramatic.
>>We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
>How about "scratch certain Jews and you'll be *called* an
>anti-Semite"? Sorry, but this sort of knee-jerk accusation by some
>fanatics tends to dilute the meaning of the term. [...]
Sorry, you are overreacting to what I've written.
I don't believe Lieutenant 030 is an anti-Semite, and I said as much in
the words you left out.
> The most you can
>say is that our Lt. is (was?) unaware of some ways in which Judaism is
>dissimilar to Christianity (despite popular, i.e. Christian, opinion).
>I fail to see that as hostility or prejudice specifically against
>Jews.
I wouldn't call that in itself hostility or prejudice. But it's getting
pretty close to arrogant and irksome when his response to corrections
about his misknowledge is to feed the same Christian myths back. I've
called other things hostile.
> And the general assertion that all non-Jews are hostile to Jews
>is scarcely short of paranoia.
Where do you get me saying this? I've said that they are all mostly
ignorant of Judaism.
>>Napoleon thought so too. He figured that liberating the Jews would be a
>>quicker way to get rid of them then persecuting them--they'd assimilate
>>themselves out of existence. For better or worse, anti-Semitism comes
>>out and reminds Jews that they are still Jews.
>What the hell does Napoleon have to do with anything?
It was a historical example that while
>>>("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still better than
>>>"damned Christ killers")
is better, it's still pretty lousy.
Lieutenant 030
> In article <JagXFB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) w
> >> into Christianity.
> >Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
> >I suspect not.
>
> The implication, in fact, is seen by Christian groups who make claims such as
> saying the US is a society based on Judeo-Christian values, by which they mea
Do they? When I visited America an awful lot of places seemed to be closed
on a Saturday...
> >> "Belief in God" is--according to the Rambam, but not according to the Ramb
> >> --a Biblical mandate on all Jews--but whether it is carried out or not dep
> >> on the individual Jew. Meanwhile, he stays 100% Jewish.
> >Please would you define the term "Jewish" for me. I suspect that you may
> >be using a technical definition rather than the more everyday one.
>
> The person's belief is not considered a Jewish belief, but the person himself
> remains Jewish.
That's not a definition.
> >> Maybe 2000 years of persecution doesn't constitute an ever present part
> >> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
> >[ Cue violins ]
>
> Huh?
I was overcome (*sniff*) heartbroken (*sniff*) it's so... so... so tragic.
(*sob*) Obviously I must agree with everything he says (*sniff*) the poor
dear (*sob*).
Ken Arromdee
>> >> I told you. It has built into it the implication Judaism leads naturally
>> >> into Christianity.
>> >Is this implication seen by anyone except those who are objecting to it?
>> >I suspect not.
>> The implication, in fact, is seen by Christian groups who make claims such as
>> saying the US is a society based on Judeo-Christian values, by which they mea
>> Christian.
>Do they? When I visited America an awful lot of places seemed to be closed
>on a Saturday...
Such groups are not evenly distributed through the US. Are you seriously
claiming that they don't exist, merely because you visited the US and didn't
happen to notice them?
(PS: though in some neighborhoods stores may close on Saturday or Sunday,
only in the case of Sunday are there laws requiring it even of merchants who
wish otherwise.)
>> >> Maybe 2000 years of persecution doesn't constitute an ever present part
>> >> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
>> >[ Cue violins ]
>> Huh?
>I was overcome (*sniff*) heartbroken (*sniff*) it's so... so... so tragic.
>(*sob*) Obviously I must agree with everything he says (*sniff*) the poor
>dear (*sob*).
If you claim something doesn't exist, and have never been in a position where
you're likely to be exposed to or affected by it, it certainly _is_ relevant
that the person who claims it exists _has_ been exposed to it and _is_
affected by it. It's easy for someone not in the US and not Jewish not to
notice statements directed against Jews in the US; it's a lot harder for Jews
in the US to do so.
Jim Perry
>>>I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
>>>Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
>
>>You have yet to show that this use of J-C is "an attempt to eliminate
>> but I fail to see this as a great conspiracy
>>to eliminate Judaism.
>
>No need to be an actual conspiracy. Just one more part of a long and
>too often ugly history.
We're weaving two strands here. One, there's a long and ugly history
of anti-Semitism, including but not limited to a Christian claim to
supersede Judaism. Two, there's a term in use that in practice
inaccurately lumps Judaism together with Christianity in some
respects. Where's the connection?
>Do you think Mormon conversions of deceased Jews is a nothing?
Frankly, yes. Of all the transgressions under the sun, conversion of
the dead is about as harmless as I can imagine. Your attitude may
vary, but I don't see that this practice in itself poses a threat to
Judaism, nor what this has to do with J-C.
>> I don't think that's the motivation behind the
>>usage, and I don't think it's the net effect. The use of J-C may
>>spread the impression that Judaism and Christianity are similar in
>>certain ways when they aren't, but I don't buy the argument that this
>>usage disparages Judaism as "completed" by Christianity.
>
>Maybe you don't have Jews for J***s hassling you and your friends, but
>I do. Phoney baloney appeals to a so-called Judeo-Christian heritage
>and so on are all part of their propaganda package.
Point granted, but J for J are a fringe group by any standard, and
this does not reflect common usage of J-C. (Of course there's no
questioning that the premise that Christianity completes Judaism is
definitely tied up in the nature and history of Christianity, but not
in common usage of J-C).
>> not to mention
>>bringing in unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism,
>
>I did not.
Did not bring them in (the phrase "anti-Semit*" appeared several times
in your posting) or they were not unwarranted?
>As I explained previously:
>>>>>>>Paranoid? Having an anti-Jewish bias in your knowledge is
>>>>>>>nothing unusual nor particularly interesting. Just about all
>>>>>>>non-Jews have that bias. This is not the same as _being_
>>>>>>>anti-Jewish.
Ignorance of Judaism is not "anti-Jewish bias". Accepting false
"common knowledge" that it's essentially similar to Christianity may
be an anti-Jewish bias if one also has an anti-Christian bias, which
could perhaps be said to be the case in this instance, but it doesn't
generalize to mainstream use of J-C.
>>>We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
>> And the general assertion that all non-Jews are hostile to Jews
>>is scarcely short of paranoia.
>
>Where do you get me saying this?
What I consider straightforward reading: "scratch a Gentile [non-Jew]
and find an anti-Semite [one hostile to Jews]". What interpretation
of that phrase did you have in mind?
Rob Strom
|> In article <65...@netnews.upenn.edu> wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> You have yet to show that this use of J-C is "an attempt to eliminate
|> Judaism". The net effect of its use in the Christian community (by
|> which I'll gladly include atheists and others who don't know any
|> better) may be to cause non-Jews to have a false impression of the
|> true nature of Judaism, but I fail to see this as a great conspiracy
|> to eliminate Judaism. I don't think that's the motivation behind the
|> usage, and I don't think it's the net effect. The use of J-C may
|> spread the impression that Judaism and Christianity are similar in
|> certain ways when they aren't, but I don't buy the argument that this
|> usage disparages Judaism as "completed" by Christianity.
|>
|> >The connection comes when Lt 030
|> >gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
|> >rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
|> >rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
|> >propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
|>
|> If you insist on terms like "Christian propaganda", not to mention
|> bringing in unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism, it's not surprising
|> that you get a hostile response. Say "this is not true about Judaism"
|> and you may get your way. Say "you're an anti-Semite spreading
|> Christian propaganda" and you get horseshit.
|>
Let me try to give another Jewish perspective.
Actually, I don't think that you and I are far apart at all, Jim,
but I think I understand where Matthew is coming from.
There are two pieces of background underlying our sensitivities
regarding terms like Judaeo-Christian.
One is that in America, Christianity is very pervasive and
many people are ignorant about Jews and Judaism. Elementary
school children in America learn far more about Native American
("Indian") customs and beliefs than about Jewish customs
and beliefs. How many of you (Americans) know what a teepee is?
How many of you know what a chuppah is? See what I mean?
In a recent novel by Kurt Vonnegut, one of his characters
is quoted as saying something like "The trouble with Jews
is that they think they can get through life with half a Bible".
This is a reasonably accurate caricature of many Americans'
view of Judaism: people who believe in the "Old Testament"
but who reject Jesus and the "New Testament". People who
think this about Judaism are not hostile or anti-semitic.
But they are ignorant, and it's appropriate to counteract
this ignorance. So when atheists criticize "religion"
or "Judaeo-Christianity" and all their examples are
drawn from Christianity, we object.
Secondly, there is a right-wing religious/political movement
which is growing both in size and in political power
here in the US.
These people want to reverse the trends which
have made America a more liberalized, pluralistic
society. Through legislation, economic pressure,
and social pressure, they want to create a more
homogeneous America centered around so-called
"Judaeo-Christian" moral values. In my opinion, this
movement *is* a dangerous threat --- not just to Jews.
While atheists, neo-pagans, homosexuals, and so forth
might be the first victims of such a movement, before Jews, I see it
as empowering the same attitudes that gave rise to
fascism. This movement has co-opted the term "Judaeo-Christian",
which already was misleading to begin with. It's now just
as hard to use the term neutrally as it would be to use the
term "America First" neutrally.
I think Matthew was justified in getting a little heated after
a rather fruitless dialog with "Lieutenant 030". (I don't
believe the Lieutenant is either a Christian propagandist
or anti-Semitic however --- just somewhat stubborn.)
I had a similar reaction when the Lieutenant posted that
"[belief in God] is not "questionable" in the sense that
you are allowed to change your mind about whether you
believe it and remain a ... Jew", was informed by several
people that that wasn't the Jewish view, and replied that
his critics were being "too technical" in not using
the "everyday" meaning of Jewish. Well that's the point!
If the "everyday" meaning of Jewish to most Americans is
a person trying to go through life with half a Bible,
Jews are going to get upset at people using the everday
meaning and insist on the "technical" meaning --- i.e.,
the one Jews actually use.
It helps both the atheists and non-atheists alike if
everyone who posts here about "religions" distinguishes
religions in general from stereotypes about religion
drawn largely from Christian examples.
--
Rob Strom, st...@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Matthew P Wiener
>We're weaving two strands here. One, there's a long and ugly history
>of anti-Semitism, including but not limited to a Christian claim to
>supersede Judaism. Two, there's a term in use that in practice
>inaccurately lumps Judaism together with Christianity in some
>respects. Where's the connection?
Inaccurate representation of Judaism has been a major part and motivation
of that long and ugly history.
>>Do you think Mormon conversions of deceased Jews is a nothing?
>Frankly, yes. Of all the transgressions under the sun, conversion of
>the dead is about as harmless as I can imagine. Your attitude may
>vary, but I don't see that this practice in itself poses a threat to
>Judaism, nor what this has to do with J-C.
And I will never see it as a nothing. I will never see it as anything but
two millennia of Christianity trying to force their religion on Jews in any
way they could. The Mormons believe they have to convert all the Jews.
>>Maybe you don't have Jews for J***s hassling you and your friends, but
>>I do. Phoney baloney appeals to a so-called Judeo-Christian heritage
>>and so on are all part of their propaganda package.
>Point granted, but J for J are a fringe group by any standard,
Yes, they are the fringe. But they are not the only ones who play that
game. Just the most identifiable.
> and
>this does not reflect common usage of J-C. (Of course there's no
>questioning that the premise that Christianity completes Judaism is
>definitely tied up in the nature and history of Christianity, but not
>in common usage of J-C).
The point is that Christian notions of how religion works are very different
from Jewish notions, and if you make people ignorant of these differences, by
repeated use of J-C to describe what are actually C notions, then the idea
that C completes J actually might seem plausible. As soon as you notice at
what level the shell game is going on, the plausibility evaporates.
>>> not to mention
>>>bringing in unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism,
>>I did not.
>Did not bring them in (the phrase "anti-Semit*" appeared several times
>in your posting) or they were not unwarranted?
The _one_ use was part of a phrase. I immediately denied that it applied
to the Lieutenant, but his insistence on Christian theological notions for
Judaism--is this the only Christian belief he has left?--made the phrase
seem so apropos. Seeing the Lieutenant's latest:
|I was overcome (*sniff*) heartbroken (*sniff*) it's so... so... so tragic.
|(*sob*) Obviously I must agree with everything he says (*sniff*) the poor
|dear (*sob*),
I think I got it in one.
>>As I explained previously:
>>>>>>>>Paranoid? Having an anti-Jewish bias in your knowledge is
>>>>>>>>nothing unusual nor particularly interesting. Just about all
>>>>>>>>non-Jews have that bias. This is not the same as _being_
>>>>>>>>anti-Jewish.
>Ignorance of Judaism is not "anti-Jewish bias". Accepting false
>"common knowledge" that it's essentially similar to Christianity may
>be an anti-Jewish bias if one also has an anti-Christian bias,
By anti-Jewish bias, I don't mean opposed to Judaism as such, but by
talking about theology in "J-C" terms when it's pure C. The FAQ is, in
the way I'm writting, written with a pro-Christian bias, not meaning that
it's in *favor* of Christianity, but that its underlying theological
focus mostly makes sense from a Christian point of view.
No problem--most of the a.a atheists are recovering Christians. But
the problem is any discussion of Judaism with a pro-Christian bias in
your theology. Or pretty much the same, an anti-Jewish bias.
> which
>could perhaps be said to be the case in this instance, but it doesn't
>generalize to mainstream use of J-C.
Mainstream use of J-C is intending J & C, but meaning C, unaware of J.
That was exactly what the FAQ had when it mentioned J-C beliefs.
>>>>We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
>>> And the general assertion that all non-Jews are hostile to Jews
>>>is scarcely short of paranoia.
>>Where do you get me saying this?
>What I consider straightforward reading: "scratch a Gentile [non-Jew]
>and find an anti-Semite [one hostile to Jews]". What interpretation
>of that phrase did you have in mind?
Just what it's meant for I don't know how many centuries. Put the
emphasize on *scratch* on you'll get the meaning. I've seen it happen
too often, personally and to others. Have you?
Jim Perry
Most of this seems to me to be going in circles. I'd still like to
clarify this point though:
>>>>>We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
>
>>>> And the general assertion that all non-Jews are hostile to Jews
>>>>is scarcely short of paranoia.
>
>>>Where do you get me saying this?
>
>>What I consider straightforward reading: "scratch a Gentile [non-Jew]
>>and find an anti-Semite [one hostile to Jews]". What interpretation
>>of that phrase did you have in mind?
>
>Just what it's meant for I don't know how many centuries. Put the
>emphasize on *scratch* on you'll get the meaning.
But I haven't been around for lo these many centuries, and I don't
even have the advantage of Jewish ancestry to assist me, so I'm asking
*you* what *you* think it means. To me, the image presented by
emphasizing "scratch" (which I was doing) is one of gilt lead, or
somesuch: examine a [any given] Gentile closely, looking beneath the
surface, and you'll find an anti-Semite. Thus, any given non-Jew is,
deep down if not on the surface, hostile to Jews; or, all non-Jews are
(in their hearts, or when push comes to shove) hostile to Jews. That,
again, is what seems the straightforward interpretation. I'd love to
hear that I'm mistaken. I suppose there could be some sort of
interpretation that anti-Semites are often hidden, i.e. that you've
got to scratch the Gentiles to find the anti-Semites among them, but
that seems to be twisting the wording considerably -- it's not
"scratch...TO find...", but "scratch...AND find".
> I've seen it happen
>too often, personally and to others. Have you?
I don't know what you mean here. If you're saying that you've
experienced cases where people have revealed themselves to be
anti-Semitic, or seen that happen to others, then I would say that I
have seen that, but only occasionally, and I wouldn't consider it a
general phenomenon. Of course, you'd be more sensitive to that than I
would, so it's a subjective call.
Ray Ingles
In article <1992Feb12....@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
[deletions]
> >> >> Maybe 2000 years of persecution doesn't constitute an ever present part
^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
> >> >[ Cue violins ]
> >> Huh?
> >I was overcome (*sniff*) heartbroken (*sniff*) it's so... so... so tragic.
> >(*sob*) Obviously I must agree with everything he says (*sniff*) the poor
> >dear (*sob*).
>
> If you claim something doesn't exist, and have never been in a position where
> you're likely to be exposed to or affected by it, it certainly _is_ relevant
> that the person who claims it exists _has_ been exposed to it and _is_
> affected by it. It's easy for someone not in the US and not Jewish not to
^^
> notice statements directed against Jews in the US; it's a lot harder for Jews
^^
> in the US to do so.
^^
> --
Just as a point of information, the U.S. hasn't been around for
2,000 years. Neither, I suspect, has the complainant.
Mind you, I am not saying that everything in the U.S. is
hunky-dory for Jews. Far from it. But hyperbole and exaggeration
is no way to score points in an argument.
[ .sig deleted]
> Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
> INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably
|| not those of the University of
ing...@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Matthew P Wiener
>I'd love to hear that I'm mistaken.
"Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
(a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
> I suppose there could be some
>sort of interpretation that anti-Semites are often hidden, i.e. that
>you've got to scratch the Gentiles to find the anti-Semites among
>them, but that seems to be twisting the wording considerably -- it's
>not "scratch...TO find...", but "scratch...AND find".
Ah--the phrase comes from Yiddish! Maybe that's why you are parsing it
wrong. Nor does the phrase refer to *all* Gentiles: it's a maxim which
is neither true nor false in itself, but summarizes succintly what too
many of us have experienced.
Lieutenant 030
> >Truly, you folks are talking apples and oranges. A "Jew" can be either
> >a follower of Judaism OR a descendant of the Hebrew people.
>
> This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
> use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
> Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical.
>
> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
Well, well. So Judaism is a system of institutionalized racism?
Lieutenant 030
> >Truly, you folks are talking apples and oranges. A "Jew" can be either
> >a follower of Judaism OR a descendant of the Hebrew people.
>
> This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
> use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
> Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical.
>
> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
Institutionalized racism. How pleasant.
Then in <65...@netnews.upenn.edu> wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> In article <1992Feb11....@apollo.hp.com>, perry@apollo (Jim Perry)
> writes:
> >I think Matthew goes overboard here in associating the use of a term
> >in the FAQ with an "unspeakably loathsome" tradition of Christian
> >persecution.
>
> I consider the general use of J-C, when C is meant, to be annoying and
> wrong. I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
> Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
What do you mean by "giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
Judaism"?
If you're claiming that my using the term "Judeo-Christian" constitutes
a belief in the historical ideas that led to anti-Semitism, then why don't
you come right out and say so?
> The connection comes when Lt 030
> gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
> rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
> rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
> propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
Christian propaganda in the *alt.atheism* FAQ file? I hate to spoil your
grand conspiracy theory, but why the hell would I be interested in spreading
Christian propaganda? What possible motive could I have?
> We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite". Come on,
> Lieutenant, you're better than that.
Gosh, what a charming saying. Racism and paranoia in one simple sentence.
So you think I'm spreading "Christian propaganda" because I'm an anti-Semite?
> > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I consider its use
> >by Christians more of an attempt to be inclusive and atone for that
> >tradition ("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still
> >better than "damned Christ-killers").
>
> Napoleon thought so too. He figured that liberating the Jews would be a
> quicker way to get rid of them then persecuting them--they'd assimilate
> themselves out of existence.
Why not mention the Big H while you're at it? Sprinkle in a few mentions
of jackboots and swastikas?
> For better or worse, anti-Semitism comes
> out and reminds Jews that they are still Jews.
If you want to see *real* anti-Semitism go read alt.conspiracy. If you want to
spew racist horseshit, go and do it in alt.flame. If you want to whine
about being persecuted, go and do it in soc.culture.jewish. But as far
as alt.atheism is concerned, I for one think you've overstayed your welcome.
Take your over-active imagination elsewhere.
Jim Perry
>
>Let me try to give another Jewish perspective.
>Actually, I don't think that you and I are far apart at all, Jim,
>but I think I understand where Matthew is coming from.
>
>There are two pieces of background underlying our sensitivities
>regarding terms like Judaeo-Christian.
I think we're in general agreement on much of this; I just don't see
the connection between the J-C term and concerted efforts against
Judaism. I can see why you don't like it (I don't either; I agree
with your assessment of its use by the religious right, if nothing
else), I just found the emphasis on historical attempts to eradicate
Judaism and so on a little excessive in context.
>One is that in America, Christianity is very pervasive and
>many people are ignorant about Jews and Judaism.
True; or about other religions, or, for that matter, Christianity
outside one's own tradition (to say nothing of non-religious
philosophies). Perhaps a hazard of the implementation of the church
v. state separation in our schools: no mention of religion at all in
school, no dispassionate mention of other religions in religious
contexts (with exceptions on both sides of course).
>This is a reasonably accurate caricature of many Americans'
>view of Judaism: people who believe in the "Old Testament"
>but who reject Jesus and the "New Testament". People who
>think this about Judaism are not hostile or anti-semitic.
>But they are ignorant, and it's appropriate to counteract
>this ignorance. So when atheists criticize "religion"
>or "Judaeo-Christianity" and all their examples are
>drawn from Christianity, we object.
And rightly, this is valid criticism.
>Secondly, there is a right-wing religious/political movement
>which is growing both in size and in political power
>here in the US.
>These people want to reverse the trends which
>have made America a more liberalized, pluralistic
>society. Through legislation, economic pressure,
>and social pressure, they want to create a more
>homogeneous America centered around so-called
>"Judaeo-Christian" moral values. In my opinion, this
>movement *is* a dangerous threat --- not just to Jews.
>While atheists, neo-pagans, homosexuals, and so forth
>might be the first victims of such a movement, before Jews, I see it
>as empowering the same attitudes that gave rise to
>fascism. This movement has co-opted the term "Judaeo-Christian",
>which already was misleading to begin with. It's now just
>as hard to use the term neutrally as it would be to use the
>term "America First" neutrally.
Again agreed, a very dangerous group. To reiterate, I don't approve
the use of "Judaeo-Christian" in contexts such as the FAQ passage in
question, or by the religious right or those who would appeal to them.
I don't know if there are any legitimate uses not overshadowed by
these problems (I think I've seen it so used, e.g. in the introductory
and explanatory material in the "Old Testament" section of the New
English Bible, which if I recall was a collaborative effort by [at
least] Jewish and Christian scholars).
For what it's worth, of course, there's enough diversity of
understanding of "religion" as it applies to Christianity, as used by
Christians, going around to keep us all pretty busy. So aside from
the fact that each group wants to claim the label as a whole,
"Christianity" is almost as confused a usage as "Judaeo-Christianity"
-- cf. C.S. Lewis's term "Christianity and water". This is getting
far afield of the topic, though.
Matthew P Wiener
>> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
>> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
>> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
>Institutionalized racism. How pleasant.
What the hell are you talking about?
>> I consider the general use of J-C, when C is meant, to be annoying and
>> wrong. I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
>> Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
>What do you mean by "giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
>Judaism"?
Spreading nonsense that deep down Judaism isn't so different from Christianity.
>If you're claiming that my using the term "Judeo-Christian" constitutes
>a belief in the historical ideas that led to anti-Semitism, then why don't
>you come right out and say so?
It's been a common Christian belief over the millennia that Judaism is an
incomplete part of Christianity, and needs to be completed, like it or not.
The J-C word game makes that falsehood sound plausible.
>> The connection comes when Lt 030
>> gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
>> rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
>> rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
>> propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
>Christian propaganda in the *alt.atheism* FAQ file? I hate to spoil your
>grand conspiracy theory, but why the hell would I be interested in spreading
>Christian propaganda? What possible motive could I have?
Yes, that's what I'd like to know. It makes no sense in the world. An
atheist desperately hanging on to one last vestige of Christian religious
thought.
>> We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite". Come on,
>> Lieutenant, you're better than that.
>Gosh, what a charming saying. Racism and paranoia in one simple sentence.
>So you think I'm spreading "Christian propaganda" because I'm an anti-Semite?
No, because you're ignorant about Judaism. I don't have to be paranoid
to notice you trying to prove some Christian notion of belief is what is
right and proper for Judaism. I don't have to be paranoid to notice that
you've decided Judaism is "institutionalized racism".
>> > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I consider its use
>> >by Christians more of an attempt to be inclusive and atone for that
>> >tradition ("one of us", perhaps mistaken and offensive, is still
>> >better than "damned Christ-killers").
>> Napoleon thought so too. He figured that liberating the Jews would be a
>> quicker way to get rid of them then persecuting them--they'd assimilate
>> themselves out of existence.
>Why not mention the Big H while you're at it? Sprinkle in a few mentions
>of jackboots and swastikas?
I mentioned the Big N as someone who was remarkably nice to the Jews on the
surface, but who still didn't like Jews on some obnoxious level. If you
read, you'll notice that such a person fits the context above.
>> For better or worse, anti-Semitism comes
>> out and reminds Jews that they are still Jews.
>If you want to see *real* anti-Semitism go read alt.conspiracy.
I've seen enough **REAL** anti-Semitism in my own personal life.
>Take your over-active imagination elsewhere.
The only imagination here is your Christian notions about Judaism.
Matthew P Wiener
>> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
>> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
>> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
>Well, well. So Judaism is a system of institutionalized racism?
Like I said, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite".
William Mayne
>
>Jews object to "Judeo-Christian" because the term _is_being_used_, right now,
>by people who mean "Christian".
I won't say that no one uses it that way, but I don't believe many people
mean Christian when they say Judeo-Christian. If anything they are going
out of their way to include Jews and the contributions of Jewish tradition
to western culture. Many non-Jews who use it aren't even aware that Jews
think it is offensive. I wasn't until I learned it on the network.
Not knowing about the sensitivity of some (most?) Jews regarding this
I have used "Judeo-Christian" myself, and certainly not as a synonym
for Christian. I am not a Christian. I may not know all the differences
between Judaism and Christianity, but I do know that they are not the
same. I still recognize a common core which they do not share with all
other religions.
Consider this, from the point of view of an outsider, or just one
trying to look at things objectively and cross-culturally, the Jewish
and Christian (and to a lessor extent Islamic) traditions have many
things in common. As insiders you may choose to emphasize the differences
and what makes you unique. Fine. Someone in California or Australia
would probably say that Miami and Tallahassee are close together since
they are both in Florida. I don't object to that, though those of us who
live in Tallahassee are likely to think that Miami is a long way
away if we have to drive there.
Bill Mayne
William Mayne
[Matthew Weiner wrote:]
>> But there is! If you call yourself an atheist, your beliefs about God fall
>> into a few limited categories--or else people will call you a liar.
>
>No, an atheist may have no beliefs whatsoever about God. No beliefs are
>required for atheism.
Is a person who never thought about the question an atheist? How about an
infant who hasn't been taught and doesn't have the capacity for beliefs
even in the way children do? A severely mentally disabled person?
I have seen atheists about to the Jewish practice of counting someone
as Jewish by birth, without any conscious choice of the person who is
declared to be Jewish. If atheism is the mere absence of belief aren't
we doing the same thing?
In short, I disagree. Atheism may mean any of a few, maybe several
different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
about belief. It is not simply a negative.
Bill Mayne
Patrick Willis Pape
>In article <JagXFB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>[Matthew Weiner wrote:]
>
>infant who hasn't been taught and doesn't have the capacity for beliefs
>even in the way children do? A severely mentally disabled person?
>
>I have seen atheists about to the Jewish practice of counting someone
>as Jewish by birth, without any conscious choice of the person who is
>declared to be Jewish. If atheism is the mere absence of belief aren't
>we doing the same thing?
>
>In short, I disagree. Atheism may mean any of a few, maybe several
>different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
>about belief. It is not simply a negative.
>
>Bill Mayne
True, a person who has never thought about this question is not an atheist.
More correctly, he/she is an agnostic. That particular person doesn't know
what the answer is because he/she has no opinion on the subject.
But to consider some one to be of a particular faith before they are able
to confirm their faith is, IMHO, a contradiction. To believe in a god is
to have faith that the god exists. A baby cannot possibly have any opinion
on weather or not a god exists. He/she cannot even survive by him/herself.
This is one of the main problems I have with religion. Most assume that a
new faimly member will follow in the faimlies' religion. I say give the
kid all the facts and let him/her decide. If they want to believe in some
god, that is their problem, but I don't see why they have to be considered a
member of a particular religion when they are born.
Babies should not be a part of any religion until they can really believe
what they are saying.
If there is a god, he must live in my computer because I have no idea where
any of this shit comes from.
Graham Matthews
>>> But there is! If you call yourself an atheist, your beliefs about God fall
>>> into a few limited categories--or else people will call you a liar.
Mathew writes
>>No, an atheist may have no beliefs whatsoever about God. No beliefs are
>>required for atheism.
William Mayne:
>Is a person who never thought about the question an atheist? How about an
>infant who hasn't been taught and doesn't have the capacity for beliefs
>even in the way children do? A severely mentally disabled person?
>
>I have seen atheists about to the Jewish practice of counting someone
>as Jewish by birth, without any conscious choice of the person who is
>declared to be Jewish. If atheism is the mere absence of belief aren't
>we doing the same thing?
>
>In short, I disagree. Atheism may mean any of a few, maybe several
>different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
>about belief. It is not simply a negative.
Bill as I said to someone else who posted alone similar lines, you
can go on thinking what you like about the term atheism. The rest
of us shall use the term 'Havana Cowboy' to mean 'to hold no beliefs
about God(s)'. You can talk all you like about atheists, and us Havana
Cowboys will just sit back and ignore you.
Terminology, terminology ...
Cheers
graham
--
Graham Matthews And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
gra...@maths.su.oz.au
John A. Johnson
seeing how he won't just go away, I'm joining this thread and
extending it to alt.flame.
In article <66...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) says:
>
>In article <qqy3FB...@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (Lieutenant 030) writes:
[Wiener]
>>> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
>>> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
>>> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
>
[Lieutenant 030]
>>Institutionalized racism. How pleasant.
>
[Wiener]
>What the hell are you talking about?
In 99% of the thought systems ("isms") with which I am familiar,
birthright is not a factor. If I want to be a vegetarian or communist
or hollow-earthist by virtue of the fact that I share beliefs with
people in these groups, I am de facto a member. According to Wiener,
this is not true for Judaism. It would not matter if someone's belief
structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
>
. . .
[Wiener]
>>> The connection comes when Lt 030
>>> gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
>>> rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
>>> rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
>>> propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
>
Might I interject that at least one other Jewish reader found no Christian
propaganda in the FAQ file?
[Lt. 030]
>>Christian propaganda in the *alt.atheism* FAQ file? I hate to spoil your
>>grand conspiracy theory, but why the hell would I be interested in spreading
>>Christian propaganda? What possible motive could I have?
>
[Wiener]
>Yes, that's what I'd like to know. It makes no sense in the world. An
>atheist desperately hanging on to one last vestige of Christian religious
>thought.
It makes no sense because it is not true. Until I see evidence that any
atheist here is desperately hanging on to anything Christian, I have
to regard this as paranoia (with clear psychotic features).
>
[Wiener]
>>> We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite". Come on,
>>> Lieutenant, you're better than that.
>
[Lt. 030]
>>Gosh, what a charming saying. Racism and paranoia in one simple sentence.
This saying is the most inflammatory saying I have ever seen on the NET.
To say that--despite outer appearances--all non-Jews hate Jews is
precisely the kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
In other words, this saying creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Matthew P Wiener
>But to consider some one to be of a particular faith before they are able
>be a part of any religion until they can really believe what they are saying.
I just want to emphasize that this is a Christian-inspired view of what is
"religion" and "faith". Judaism places a very heavy emphasis on action and
community, so it makes good sense to speak of the religion of such babies.
Matthew P Wiener
>In 99% of the thought systems ("isms") with which I am familiar,
>birthright is not a factor. If I want to be a vegetarian or communist
>or hollow-earthist by virtue of the fact that I share beliefs with
>people in these groups, I am de facto a member. According to Wiener,
>this is not true for Judaism. It would not matter if someone's belief
>structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
>kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
Guess what: Judaism isn't a thought-system. Christianity is. As long
as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
>>Yes, that's what I'd like to know. It makes no sense in the world. An
>>atheist desperately hanging on to one last vestige of Christian religious
>>thought.
>It makes no sense because it is not true. Until I see evidence that any
>atheist here is desperately hanging on to anything Christian, I have
>to regard this as paranoia (with clear psychotic features).
You've seen Lieutenent 030 insisting that Judaism has to follow the rules
for being a religion according to the Christian model, or that if doesn't
there's something terribly wrong going on. Now you yourself are joining
in with this asinine garbage.
Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
>This saying is the most inflammatory saying I have ever seen on the NET.
>To say that--despite outer appearances--all non-Jews hate Jews is
>precisely the kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
I explained what it means in a different posting to Jim Perry. You haven't
a clue.
John A. Johnson
>writes:
>>In 99% of the thought systems ("isms") with which I am familiar,
>>birthright is not a factor. If I want to be a vegetarian or communist
>>or hollow-earthist by virtue of the fact that I share beliefs with
>>people in these groups, I am de facto a member. According to Wiener,
>>this is not true for Judaism. It would not matter if someone's belief
>>structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
>>kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
>
>Guess what: Judaism isn't a thought-system. Christianity is. As long
>as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
>find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
>won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
Okay, if one looks at Judaism as a race, obviously one can only join
by birthright. Tell me, though, is the term "bnei Noach" at all
derogatory? I really don't know but inferred that it was. If so,
there would then seem to be an air of racial superiority implied here.
>
>>>Yes, that's what I'd like to know. It makes no sense in the world. An
>>>atheist desperately hanging on to one last vestige of Christian religious
>>>thought.
>
>>It makes no sense because it is not true. Until I see evidence that any
>>atheist here is desperately hanging on to anything Christian, I have
>>to regard this as paranoia (with clear psychotic features).
>
>You've seen Lieutenent 030 insisting that Judaism has to follow the rules
>for being a religion according to the Christian model, or that if doesn't
>there's something terribly wrong going on. Now you yourself are joining
>in with this asinine garbage.
No, I have not seen Lt. 030 telling you that Judaism must follow
Christian rules. I would be shocked if he did. In which reality are
you living?
>
>Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
Oh, Humpty-Dumpty's reality.
>
>They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
>rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
I would be happy if the entire world could have the yoke of Christian rules
lifted from it. I cannot believe that you can keep saying that we
atheists want Christian rules to apply to Judaism.
>
[regarding the "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" saying]
>>This saying is the most inflammatory saying I have ever seen on the NET.
>>To say that--despite outer appearances--all non-Jews hate Jews is
>>precisely the kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
>
>I explained what it means in a different posting to Jim Perry. You haven't
>a clue.
I had already read that explanation and did not buy it for a second.
No one interprets the "scratch a" expression in the way proposed in
your explanation--except perhaps someone who is trying to cover up
the fact that he is projecting his own hostilities on an imaginary
aggressor.
Barry Shein
From: wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
>As long
>as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
>find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
>won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
I agree wholeheartedly, but it's nearly impossible to convince people
of this kind of thing, their entire ethical system is so deeply
entrenched.
I don't practice any religion, in fact, I despise religion. But I was
raised as an orthodox jew and this theme has always been a piece of my
reality.
Jews don't encourage conversions, in fact, most Jews discourage them
(tho it's never impossible, just show little or no interest and don't
go to any effort to make it easy.)
I can see how, in a different ethical system, it's easy to mentally
turn this around to the various negative terms used. But in the end
all it's really saying is that Christian views on such matters are
correct (conversions should be welcome and encouraged) and will be
applied to judge Jewish views. It's one good reason for keeping
religion out of most everything, all religions.
It's reminiscent of the time some guy flamed and flamed on one list
because Blacks had started wanting to be called African-Americans, he
found this an affront or something. I asked if he wasn't acting a bit
like they (African-Americans) owed him an explanation or should have
asked him his permission or something. The sitting in judgement thing
was a bit much to swallow, I don't care what they want to be called, I
try to be accommodating, I dunno, maybe I'm wierd, but an affront to
me? Why?
Another, similar, item which comes up is the whole notion of religious
martyrdom. Judaism doesn't much worship martyrs (not in the sense that
Christians, particularly Catholicism, does.)
Oh, there are some martyrdom stories, Masada (I actually was never
even told this story in my quite religious upbringing.) The Maccabees
or Story of Esther I suppose. But in all those cases it wasn't really
a matter of faith versus courage, it was life versus courage, someone
was really trying to kill individual(s) cited, quite literally
(Maccabees and Masada, a war against outside invaders, Esther, a plot
to kill all the Jews in the city.)
They're more tales of heroism in the typical sense used in American
culture (valiant person(s) meet evil foe and suffer through.)
The types of things I would get (and still see similar things on these
lists) growing up, from Christian friends, are "would you die (starve)
before you ate pork?" No, of course not, what a silly idea. Then
they'd say "see, you don't really believe in your religion" or some
such (innocent) nonsense.
Here's an even sillier experience I've had as an adult, in a work
environment. It's less an "ethical" issue, but illustrates the point
of view problem:
A co-worker asked me what I was doing for Christmas? I said, nothing,
might even come into work, I dunno, hadn't really thought about it (it
was probably like December 23rd.)
I get back this outburst of "sympathy", oooh, how horrible, you have
nothing to do on Christmas! No family?
Well, yes, I have a family, but I doubt they want to see me on
Christmas particularly. See, I'm, uh, not Christian, neither are
they...(she knew that.)
Oh, what does that matter? It's CHRISTMAS! You have something against
Christmas?! (wasn't *that* leap easy!) Families should get together on
Christmas, do you not like your family? What's the problem? Would you
like to come over to my house?
I'm not kidding folks.
Now, I appreciated the sentiment, I wasn't a cad, I thanked her for
her concern and left it at that. But there was no way to convince her
that Christmas holds no nostalgia for me really (oh, yes in the grand
cultural sense, but not personally, not like I yearn to be with family
on Christmas or whatever, really, actually, I don't yearn to be with
my family ever, but that's another matter :-)
But maybe it gives a teensy bit of insight into what it's like to be
from a different belief system, in a less threatening (I hope) way.
But it is a dangerous thing not to get over.
For example, I could see that woman in a more mean mood thinking that
jews were cold-hearted because they work on Christmas instead of being
with their families, or are too cheap to buy their kids presents on
Christmas...not a hard conceptual leap.
I think the original poster's view of conversion to judiasm (and
resistance thereto) as being a symptom of some sort of "racism" is
just a slightly more sophisticated version of that kind of reasoning.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From A to B
> In article <0361FB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030)
> >> >> of your identity. It does, in some form or other, of every Jew.
> >> >[ Cue violins ]
> >> Huh?
> >I was overcome (*sniff*) heartbroken (*sniff*) it's so... so... so tragic.
> >(*sob*) Obviously I must agree with everything he says (*sniff*) the poor
> >dear (*sob*).
>
> If you claim something doesn't exist, and have never been in a position where
> you're likely to be exposed to or affected by it, it certainly _is_ relevant
> that the person who claims it exists _has_ been exposed to it and _is_
> affected by it. It's easy for someone not in the US and not Jewish not to
> notice statements directed against Jews in the US; it's a lot harder for Jews
> in the US to do so.
I'm not claiming that Jews are not persecuted, or that anti-Jewish feeling
does not exist. I just didn't see the point of the comment about persecution.
I've already said I'm happy to remove the phrase "Judeo-Christian". We're
now discussing whether Judaism is a valid example of a religion which requires
particular beliefs. What's the relevance of "2000 years of persecution" to
that? It looks to me like an attempt to win the argument by trying to get
sympathy from the audience. A real sob story.
Followups directed to alt.atheism. I don't see that soc.culture.jewish
has anything to gain from this thread.
From A to B
> I had a similar reaction when the Lieutenant posted that
> "[belief in God] is not "questionable" in the sense that
> you are allowed to change your mind about whether you
> believe it and remain a ... Jew", was informed by several
> people that that wasn't the Jewish view, and replied that
> his critics were being "too technical" in not using
> the "everyday" meaning of Jewish. Well that's the point!
> If the "everyday" meaning of Jewish to most Americans is
> a person trying to go through life with half a Bible,
> Jews are going to get upset at people using the everday
> meaning and insist on the "technical" meaning --- i.e.,
> the one Jews actually use.
My Concise OED gives the following:
Jew n. 1. Person of Hebrew descent; person whose religion is Judaism.
Now, I was talking about "Jewish" purely in the religious sense. I would
have thought it was obvious that choosing not to believe in God would not
change your race.
Now, Matthew and others seem to be arguing for a rather different definition
of "Jewish". The claim being made is that even if one believes in Judaism,
one cannot REALLY be Jewish unless one is BORN Jewish.
That, to me, sounds like pure racism. It's like "You can't be a REAL
Protestant unless you're BORN white." I refuse to have anything to do with
such a narrow and divisive definition. Maybe my dictionary is more of that
"Christian propaganda". Personally I think it does reflect general usage;
if you don't like that general usage, go educate the general population.
Joe Francis
wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> Truly, you folks are talking apples and oranges. A "Jew" can be either
>> a follower of Judaism OR a descendant of the Hebrew people.[Joe Francis]
> This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
> use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
> Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical. [Matthew Wiener]
What leads you to make this claim? Can millions of American English
speakers all be wrong on a question of usage? Perhaps you are of that
school of linguistic analysis that holds that a minority of the
population may define a term in spite of the majority?
Ken Arromdee
>Jew n. 1. Person of Hebrew descent; person whose religion is Judaism.
>
>Now, I was talking about "Jewish" purely in the religious sense. I would
>have thought it was obvious that choosing not to believe in God would not
>change your race.
>
>Now, Matthew and others seem to be arguing for a rather different definition
>of "Jewish". The claim being made is that even if one believes in Judaism,
>one cannot REALLY be Jewish unless one is BORN Jewish.
Conversion exists. One cannot be "really" Jewish unless one either is born
Jewish or converts. The requirements for conversion do include certain
beliefs.
--
This is a new version of the memetic .signature infection. Now that's an idea.
Copy it into your .signature today!
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Merlyn LeRoy
>>I'd love to hear that I'm mistaken.
>"Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
>everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
>NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
>(a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
>overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
This is not how the vast majority of English-speaking people would
interpret "Scratch an XXX and find an XXXXX"; as others have pointed
out, this phrase is based on scratching gold items to see if
they are gold all the way through, or only on the surface.
"Scratch" is not a small incident, it's a test of appearance vs.
true nature.
If you are going to complain about misleading phraseology in the
FAQ file, watch your own phraseology. But now I sound like the
mayor of River City.
I do agree that "Judeo-Christian" almost always means "Christian".
I think I'll start referring to Christmas & Easter as "Christo-Pagan"
holidays...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Scratch a mounted monkey and find a hacker's dictionary.
Rob Strom
|> I've been trying to ignore the paranoid rantings from Mr. Wiener, but
|> seeing how he won't just go away, I'm joining this thread and
|> extending it to alt.flame.
I'd like to lower the level of shouting, so I have directed followups
back to alt.atheism.
|>
|> In article <66...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
|> Wiener) says:
|> >
|> >In article <qqy3FB...@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (Lieutenant 030) writes:
|>
|> [Wiener]
|> >>> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
|> >>> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
|> >>> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
|> >
|> [Lieutenant 030]
|> >>Institutionalized racism. How pleasant.
|> >
|> [Wiener]
|> >What the hell are you talking about?
|>
|> In 99% of the thought systems ("isms") with which I am familiar,
|> birthright is not a factor. If I want to be a vegetarian or communist
|> or hollow-earthist by virtue of the fact that I share beliefs with
|> people in these groups, I am de facto a member. According to Wiener,
|> this is not true for Judaism. It would not matter if someone's belief
|> structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
|> kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
|> >
I have to defend Mr. Wiener here. Judaism isn't *only* an "-ism" or
thought system. It's a nationality --- what used to be called a tribe.
You have to be born into the tribe or adopted by conversion.
Just as you can't automatically become French even though you speak French,
learn French cooking, and adopt the majority religion of France,
you can't become Jewish merely by imitating Jewish practices. To become
French you must comply with the naturalization procedures as
defined by the French. If you don't comply, you're not French
no matter how French you feel, and no matter how unfair and
institutionally racist you think the French are for making it
harder for you to become French than for the child of a French couple,
who is French even if he hates his country and everything about it.
The Jews have similar rules about conversion. They're difficult,
but probably less difficult than the rules for becoming French.
Certainly less difficult than the rules for becoming Swiss.
Are the French and Swiss racist? What about the Americans
with their quotas?
Incidentally (now this may just be my pilpul showing), if a
non-Jew *really* accepted Judaism 100%, that person would also
accept that part of the halacha which included the rules
for conversion, and would know that he/she was *not*
de facto a member!
|> . . .
|> [Wiener]
|> >>> The connection comes when Lt 030
|> >>> gets it explained nicely and simply, and then he reacts like a trapped
|> >>> rat. He's not Jewish, and his knowledge of it is very second-hand and
|> >>> rather wrong, yet yet response to polite requests to not carry Christian
|> >>> propaganda in the FAQ brings forth hostile denial.
|> >
|> Might I interject that at least one other Jewish reader found no Christian
|> propaganda in the FAQ file?
I don't think the FAQ file has any conscious propaganda or anti-Jewish
bias, or hostility.
On the other hand, everyday language does contain a lot of
Christian habits which embed assumptions about what religion
is which are false for Judaism.
I just encountered a perfectly innocent example a few minutes
ago when I noticed that a (presumably atheist) poster referred
to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ". So many people are Christians
(and therefore use these two terms interchangeably) that
in what Lieutenant 030 would call the "everyday language"
the two terms are synonyms. But they're not: Christ means
Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth means the individual whom
Christians *believe* to be Messiah. (For that matter, many
people erroneously believe Messiah means a divine personage,
when it actually means a king.)
The Christian religion is based upon salvation through faith.
Because Christianity is so common, there is a tendency to
equate "religion" with "faith" or at least with "belief system".
Judaism is not the belief system of the faithful; it is (originally)
the legal system of our tribe. It has evolved from that,
but it is still inappropriate to try to redefine it into
Christian categories. I think that for the most part
this is done from ignorance and not from malice. However,
I can understand why people can get upset when after a Jew
points out the ignorance, that person is told either that
he's being too technical, or that it's inappropriate and
racist to have a religion which behaves like that.
[flames deleted]
|> It makes no sense because it is not true. Until I see evidence that any
|> atheist here is desperately hanging on to anything Christian, I have
|> to regard this as paranoia (with clear psychotic features).
What about the use of "Christ" to mean Jesus?
[more flames deleted]
Rob Strom
You overstate the claim you attribute to "Matthew and others".
They don't say that conversion is impossible. Conversion
is possible, but it is discouraged, and there are very
strict rules for becoming a convert. Christians encourage
conversion --- at least some of them believe that your
soul is damned if you don't convert. Jews don't believe
in hell, and they don't believe that non-Jews are any
less potentially righteous than Jews, so there is no
motivation to convert anyone.
There is a conversion process, however. And people do
convert for a variety of reasons. It is important to
state that once that conversion has happened, the
convert is treated *exactly* the same as a person
who was born Jewish. It's forbidden to treat converts
as second-class citizens in any way.
As I mention in another post, becoming Jewish is
more like becoming British than like becoming Christian.
Don't you also have a rule that people born British
are British even if they yell "Down with the Queen",
while people not born British, no matter how Anglophile
they may be, will have a hard time becoming British?
Isn't that the same kind of racism you condemn from
the Jewish nation?
Rob Strom
|> What leads you to make this claim? Can millions of American English
|> speakers all be wrong on a question of usage? Perhaps you are of that
|> school of linguistic analysis that holds that a minority of the
|> population may define a term in spite of the majority?
Millions of speakers can be wrong on a question of fact. Assumptions
can be embedded into linguistic usages.
Example:
"Religion = faith"
"Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people".
To hold both the above as true by definition would entail
either accepting misleading assumptions about the Jewish
people or accepting the bizarre fact that the people
who think they're Jewish aren't.
From A to B
> >> Anyone who is not born Jewish but thinks the Jewish religion is the way to
> >> go with his beliefs ("a follower of Judaism") is not Jewish. The common
> >> term for such a person is Judaizer, aka righteous gentile, aka bnei Noach.
>
> >Institutionalized racism. How pleasant.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
You discriminate whether someone is a *real* Jew or a "Judaizer", based
upon his race.
> >> I consider the general use of J-C, when C is meant, to be annoying and
> >> wrong. I consider giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
> >> Judaism to be unspeakably loathsome.
>
> >What do you mean by "giving credence to historical attempts to eliminate
> >Judaism"?
>
> Spreading nonsense that deep down Judaism isn't so different from Christianit
To an atheist maybe they're not :-)
> >If you're claiming that my using the term "Judeo-Christian" constitutes
> >a belief in the historical ideas that led to anti-Semitism, then why don't
> >you come right out and say so?
>
> It's been a common Christian belief over the millennia that Judaism is an
> incomplete part of Christianity, and needs to be completed, like it or not.
> The J-C word game makes that falsehood sound plausible.
Fine. So you don't like the word. It's already gone. Now what's the problem?
> >> We have a saying, "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite". Come on,
> >> Lieutenant, you're better than that.
>
> >Gosh, what a charming saying. Racism and paranoia in one simple sentence.
> >So you think I'm spreading "Christian propaganda" because I'm an anti-Semite
>
> No, because you're ignorant about Judaism. I don't have to be paranoid
> to notice you trying to prove some Christian notion of belief is what is
> right and proper for Judaism.
If you think my notion of belief is the Christian notion, you obviously
haven't been reading this newsgroup for long. I'm always getting Christians
yelling at me for using "unusual" ideas about what belief is.
> I don't have to be paranoid to notice that
> you've decided Judaism is "institutionalized racism".
Two people have the same beliefs, but those beliefs are labelled differently
because the people are of different races. Sounds like racism to me.
It's pretty obvious that however fervent a believer is, the implication
is that he'll always be a "Judaizer", never someone with "Jewish" beliefs,
because he belongs to another race.
Ken Arromdee
>It's pretty obvious that however fervent a believer is, the implication
>is that he'll always be a "Judaizer", never someone with "Jewish" beliefs,
>because he belongs to another race.
If someone is a fervent believer in the Jewish religion, he may convert.
Matthew P Wiener
>>Guess what: Judaism isn't a thought-system. Christianity is. As long
>>as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
>>find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
>>won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
>Okay, if one looks at Judaism as a race, obviously one can only join
>by birthright.
It's a race, a culture, a society, a tribe, a religion, a bit of this,
a bit of that.
> Tell me, though, is the term "bnei Noach" at all
>derogatory? I really don't know but inferred that it was.
You inferred wrong.
> If so,
>there would then seem to be an air of racial superiority implied here.
"bnei Noach" literally means children of Noah--ie, everybody. In common
use, it means everybody but "bnei Yisroel", literally the children of Jacob
aka Israel, ie, the Jews.
I don't know where this air you're breathing comes from.
>>You've seen Lieutenent 030 insisting that Judaism has to follow the rules
>>for being a religion according to the Christian model, or that if doesn't
>>there's something terribly wrong going on. Now you yourself are joining
>>in with this asinine garbage.
>No, I have not seen Lt. 030 telling you that Judaism must follow
>Christian rules. I would be shocked if he did.
You've seen him get told the rules of the role of belief in Judaism are
rather different from the rules of Christianity, and rather than go "huh?
now ain't that weird!" he's been calling it "absurd" or "racist" or what
not.
Close enough.
> In which reality are
>you living?
USENET.
>>Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
>Oh, Humpty-Dumpty's reality.
See above.
>>They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
>>rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
>I would be happy if the entire world could have the yoke of Christian rules
>lifted from it. I cannot believe that you can keep saying that we
>atheists want Christian rules to apply to Judaism.
I can and I will, as long as atheists criticize Judaism for its version
of the role of belief vis-a-vis Christianity.
>I had already read that explanation and did not buy it for a second.
How many more Jewish phrases and ideas are you going to tell us the real
meaning?
Matthew P Wiener
>> This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
>> use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
>> Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical. [Matthew Wiener]
>What leads you to make this claim?
Because almost all usages of "Judeo-Christian" that I have come across
are actually describing something "Christian". If you aren't sensitive
to the differences, you wouldn't notice.
> Can millions of American English
>speakers all be wrong on a question of usage?
You better believe it!
> Perhaps you are of that
>school of linguistic analysis that holds that a minority of the
>population may define a term in spite of the majority?
What is "Jewish" is up the Jews, not the majority. What school would have
otherwise?
Matthew P Wiener
>This saying is the most inflammatory saying I have ever seen on the NET.
>In other words, this saying creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You have this exactly backwards, by the way. It was not a saying that
Jews had for millennia, that just pissed off their Gentile neighbors into
pogroms and holocausts. It was the neverending insanity of anti-Semitic
violence over the millennia that led to the saying.
Joe Francis
wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> What is "Jewish" is up the Jews, not the majority. What school would have
> otherwise?
Here, then, is where we part company. One cannot even decide who the
"Jews" are until one accepts a definition.
By your standards of usage, you could declare people identical to
yourself to be called cucumbers, and mandate any other usage of the
word as incorrect.
You can continue to deny that followers of Judaism are Jews all you
like. You'll just be wrong. Perhaps someday, if enough people come
around to your view, you'll be right. Good luck.
Eric Pepke
>One is that in America, Christianity is very pervasive and
>many people are ignorant about Jews and Judaism. Elementary
>school children in America learn far more about Native American
>("Indian") customs and beliefs than about Jewish customs
>and beliefs. How many of you (Americans) know what a teepee is?
>How many of you know what a chuppah is? See what I mean?
An interesting question. I'll answer it honestly, as I was born in this
country to agnostic parents of Catholic an Protestant ancestry and educated
exclusively in public schools in the Northeast and Southeast United States.
I learned about an order of magnitude more about Jewish customs and beliefs
than I did about Native American customs and beliefs.
I have been to a number of bar-mitzvahs. I have never been to any Native
American coming-of-age ceremonies. My Yiddish vocabulary is small, limited
to about 200 words. However, it is much larger than my Cherokee vocabulary
or my Inuit vocabulary, which together number, oh, around zero words, give
or take 0.01. I even know a few Hebrew words.
Oh, sorry. There was that film with the Philip Glass music--Koyaanisqaatsi.
So, there's one Native American word right there.
>In a recent novel by Kurt Vonnegut, one of his characters
>is quoted as saying something like "The trouble with Jews
>is that they think they can get through life with half a Bible".
>This is a reasonably accurate caricature of many Americans'
>view of Judaism: people who believe in the "Old Testament"
>but who reject Jesus and the "New Testament".
Ahem. Kurt Vonnegut is a cynic, and nearly everything he says or writes is
encased in about eleventy-five layers of sarcasm. Hi-ho.
Which brings up an interesting question. Are there any cultures, other than
English, where sarcasm is recognized as the art form it truly is? Or is this
planet, as it seems, nothing more than a competition about who can first
squeeze his sphincter tight enough to make diamond?
-EMP
William Mayne
>In article <1992Feb11.1...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ma...@cs.fsu.edu writes:
>
>been exposed to the concept of gods, and formed some opinion or belief
>concerning them. Nobody posting to this group, or reading it, can be
>said to be an atheist in this particular sense (and by the commonplace
>meaning of "belief").
We can play all the naming games we want. Even in our society there
can be those who hold no opinion one way or the other about god/s.
You may call them atheists if you want. I'll stick with Havana Cowboy.
:-)
>>In short, I disagree. Atheism may mean any of a few, maybe several
>>different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
>>about belief. It is not simply a negative.
>>
>>Bill Mayne
>
>In practice in our society, yes. In general, no. Consider a society
>which for some unknown reason exists without contact with the rest of
>the world, and which has no teachings about gods. That would be an
>atheistic society.
It would be an atheistic society in a vacuous sense, at most. It would
have no word or concept of atheism.
Actually there are religions which don't say anything about god(s), e.g.
Taoism, at least in its philosophical form known to western people with a
casual interest such as myself. (Scholars my differ, and my understanding
is that in Chinese practice there is a lot of superstitution mixed in.)
I prefer to call such religions or philosophies non-theistic rather than
atheistic. It comes as quite a shock to ethno-centric people that there
can be whole religions and philosphies which don't even have the concept
of god(s), but it is true. Contrary to some theist's arguments the idea
of God is not universal.
Examples of atheistic religions or philosphies are Communism (may it rest
in peace) and some forms of Buddhism, where the concept of a supreme
god is considered and specifically denied. (The denial can be an opinion
or hypothesis rather than the claim of certain knowledge, but it is a
denial.)
Bill Mayne
John A. Johnson
Strom) says:
>
>In article <92045.0...@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson
><J...@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>|> I've been trying to ignore the paranoid rantings from Mr. Wiener, but
>|> seeing how he won't just go away, I'm joining this thread and
>|> extending it to alt.flame.
>
>I'd like to lower the level of shouting, so I have directed followups
>back to alt.atheism.
I've been hoping Rob would join this thread. I much prefer civil
conversation to shouting.
>|> According to Wiener, [accepting Jewish beliefs is insufficient for
>|> being Jewish]. It would not matter if someone's belief
>|> structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
>|> kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
>
>I have to defend Mr. Wiener here. Judaism isn't *only* an "-ism" or
>thought system. It's a nationality --- what used to be called a tribe.
>You have to be born into the tribe or adopted by conversion.
[Parallel with becoming naturalized deleted]
>The Jews have similar rules about conversion. They're difficult,
>but probably less difficult than the rules for becoming French.
>Certainly less difficult than the rules for becoming Swiss.
>Are the French and Swiss racist? What about the Americans
>with their quotas?
My racist inferences came from a misunderstanding of Mr. Wiener's
comments. He seemed to denigrate a person holding Jewish beliefs
but not born Jewish with what I assumed to be epithets "righteous
Gentile" and "bnei Noach." He did not explain, as Rob does, that
one can indeed convert to Judaism. Rob furthermore pointed out
in another post that it is "against the rules" to treat a convert
as a second class citizen. According to what Rob has said, Mr.
Wiener seems to be breaking Jewish rules.
Wiener gave me the impression that Jews looked down on people who
wished to convert. That, to me, is racism. I also got the
impression from him that true conversion is impossible. To be
completely exclusionary is also, to me, racism.
I thank Rob for correcting my misimpressions. And I certainly
would not call a group racist just because it is difficult to
join.
[Wiener claims that there is Christian propoganda in the FAQ file]
[I said]
>|> Might I interject that at least one other Jewish reader found no Christian
>|> propaganda in the FAQ file?
>
>I don't think the FAQ file has any conscious propaganda or anti-Jewish
>bias, or hostility.
You were precisely the person to whom I was referring.
>On the other hand, everyday language does contain a lot of
>Christian habits which embed assumptions about what religion
>is which are false for Judaism.
>
>I just encountered a perfectly innocent example a few minutes
>ago when I noticed that a (presumably atheist) poster referred
>to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ". So many people are Christians
>(and therefore use these two terms interchangeably) that
>in what Lieutenant 030 would call the "everyday language"
>the two terms are synonyms. But they're not: Christ means
>Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth means the individual whom
>Christians *believe* to be Messiah. (For that matter, many
>people erroneously believe Messiah means a divine personage,
>when it actually means a king.)
I do not remember this post, so I have no idea whether it was
posted by an atheist or Christian. Remember, a lot of Christians
post here. Even if an atheist did refer to Jesus as "Christ," it
certainly does NOT mean that the atheist believes Jesus to be
Messiah (why on earth would an atheist accept Jesus as king?)
Rather, he would be using the term to mean "the individual whom
Christians *believe* to be Messiah."
Personally, I prefer NOT to dignify Jesus of Nazareth with the
label "Christ" or "Messiah," just as I prefer to avoid the term
"Judeo-Christian." I think both are an affront to Jews. Even if
the allegedly atheist poster did not mean to imply that Jesus was
actually Messiah by refering to him as Christ, I think he would
be wise to avoid using that title in the future.
>
>The Christian religion is based upon salvation through faith.
>Because Christianity is so common, there is a tendency to
>equate "religion" with "faith" or at least with "belief system".
>Judaism is not the belief system of the faithful; it is (originally)
>the legal system of our tribe. It has evolved from that,
>but it is still inappropriate to try to redefine it into
>Christian categories. I think that for the most part
>this is done from ignorance and not from malice. However,
>I can understand why people can get upset when after a Jew
>points out the ignorance, that person is told either that
>he's being too technical, or that it's inappropriate and
>racist to have a religion which behaves like that.
Don't be too quick to assume that we atheists know nothing about
Judaism. I was already aware that Louis Finkelstein claims that
Judaism is a way of life rather than the acceptance of a creed or
a confession of faith. (For those of you unfamiliar with
Finkelstein, I suggest doing some reading before joining this
discussion). Finkelstein does point out, however, that the central
doctrine of Judaism is the belief in the One God, the Father of all
mankind, and that the beliefs within the creed of Maimonides are
accepted by many Jews as dogma.
>|> [Me]: Until I see evidence that any
>|> atheist here is desperately hanging on to anything Christian, I have
>|> to regard this as paranoia (with clear psychotic features).
>What about the use of "Christ" to mean Jesus?
If the poster was indeed an atheist, using "Christ" to refer to Jesus was
a poor choice of words. This hardly constitutes "desperately hanging on"
to the Christian doctrine. I'm not sure which is worse: being accused
of being a closet anti-Semite or a closet Christian. I am neither.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J...@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Cynicism is the first religion. It is the means by which to discover
all else, since cynicism implies skepticism. Skepticism results in
examination, and examination leads to understanding." from
_The Spirit of Shaolin_ by David Carradine
John A. Johnson
>writes:
>>Tell me, though, is the term "bnei Noach" at all
>>derogatory? I really don't know but inferred that it was.
>
>You inferred wrong.
>
>>If so,
>>there would then seem to be an air of racial superiority implied here.
Good thing I asked. How about the term "righteous gentile?" Was that
meant to be derogatory, or not?
>
[Discussion of Matthew Archer's (Lt. 030's) comments deleted. I cannot
speak better for him than he can for himself]
>>I would be happy if the entire world could have the yoke of Christian rules
>>lifted from it. I cannot believe that you can keep saying that we
>>atheists want Christian rules to apply to Judaism.
>
>I can and I will, as long as atheists criticize Judaism for its version
>of the role of belief vis-a-vis Christianity.
I follow Louis Finkelstein's view of the role of belief in Judaism, not
the Christian view. Maybe other atheists do not. Maybe I'm digging
a hole for myself by defending them. You guys can sort it out.
>>I had already read that explanation [of the "scratch a Gentile" saying]
>>and did not buy it for a second.
>
>How many more Jewish phrases and ideas are you going to tell us the real
>meaning?
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
The "scratch a _____ and find a ______" saying is generic, not Jewish.
If you really mean that only some gentiles are anti-Semitic, I will
apologize for misinterpreting your intentions. In fact, let me
aoplogize in advance: I am sorry I misinterpreted what you said.
Matthew P Wiener
>Here, then, is where we part company. One cannot even decide who the
>"Jews" are until one accepts a definition.
We are the Jews. We get to say who we are.
>By your standards of usage, you could declare people identical to
>yourself to be called cucumbers, and mandate any other usage of the
>word as incorrect.
Not in the least. Cucumbers designating a certain plant came first.
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
This is spot on, I think. Many Jewish people *are* distrustful of
non-Jewish people in general[1]. It is nuts to simply dismiss this as
racism. Given the historical facts, I personally call it a rational
self-preservation reaction, and take no particular offense when a
Jewish person does not trust me -- they don't know me very well, and
they do know that I am not Jewish. The simple facts of the life are
that on the basis of this limited information, some degree of distrust
is entirely reasonable, and should not be cause for offense.
I find this explanation of the phrase "scratch a gentile and find an
anti-semmite" to be far more convincing than your previous one.
I also suspect myself that this kind of caution is becoming less common.
And by the way -- agree that the atheism FAQ file handling of the term
religion is excessively coloured by Christianity. For example -- the
notions that religion is closely related to "faith", and to the revelation
of an absolute truth that invalidates or transcends all others, are a bit
forced when one takes the wider view.
Disagree that the atheism FAQ file's references to Judaism reflect some
kind of anti-Jewish bias.
Agree that most common use of the term Judaeo-Christian would be better
replaced by the term Christian.
Qualify the above by observing that the term Judaeo-Christian remains a
useful term, and that Christianity does in fact have its roots in Judaism.
Christianity very quickly picked up a lot of extra baggage along the way,
such as the notions of "immortal soul", and startlingly non-Jewish meanings
for the term "son of God", and the ludicrous idea that God has a perfect
notion of justice which means anyone less than perfect can't go to heaven
unless someone totally innocent had been punished on their behalf. Trying
to understand Jesus of Nazareth in the context of all this later baggage
makes a package which frankly boggles the mind. But start from the basis
that Jesus was Jewish and all this other stuff followed shortly after his
death and Jesus' teaching makes passable sense.
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
[1] I wish to emphasize in the strongest possible terms -- my
hypothesis that there are many Jewish people who are distrustful of
gentiles in general neither implies nor supports the hypothesis that a
particular Jewish person, and Matthew in particular, is distrustful of
gentiles in general. You might be, you might not be, and the question
should be irrelevant to this discussion.
From A to B
> In article <1992Feb11.1...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ma...@cs.fsu.edu writes
> >different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
> >about belief. It is not simply a negative.
>
> More correctly, he/she is an agnostic.
Why? Agnosticism is the belief that we do not AND CANNOT know anything
about the existence of God. It was defined that way by the man who invented
the term. How does that apply to someone who hasn't thought about the
question?
From A to B
> In article <1992Feb11.1...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ma...@cs.fsu.edu writes
> >as Jewish by birth, without any conscious choice of the person who is
> >declared to be Jewish. If atheism is the mere absence of belief aren't
> >we doing the same thing?
>
> As our Jewish friends have pointed out, the same can be said of the
> American practice of counting someone as American by birth, without
> any conscious choice of the person who is declared to be American.
What's the alternative?
Start children off with no nationality, and force them to try and fulfil
immigration requirements or face being deported once they reach 18?
Doesn't sound that great to me.
From A to B
> In article <JagXFB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) w
> [Matthew Weiner wrote:]
> >> But there is! If you call yourself an atheist, your beliefs about God fal
> >> into a few limited categories--or else people will call you a liar.
> >
> >No, an atheist may have no beliefs whatsoever about God. No beliefs are
> >required for atheism.
>
> Is a person who never thought about the question an atheist?
I'd say not. I'd say one has to have considered the question. That does not
mean that one has to have decided on a particular belief, though.
> I have seen atheists about to the Jewish practice of counting someone
> as Jewish by birth, without any conscious choice of the person who is
> declared to be Jewish. If atheism is the mere absence of belief aren't
> we doing the same thing?
Not really. The Jewish practice is asserting what someone's beliefs must
be because of his birth. The weak definition of atheism does not.
> In short, I disagree. Atheism may mean any of a few, maybe several
> different things. But it does mean something, and it means something
> about belief.
Yeah, it means you don't have a particular belief. The belief in God.
And that you may have other beliefs, such as a belief in the non-existence
of God.
From A to B
> >birthright is not a factor. If I want to be a vegetarian or communist
> >or hollow-earthist by virtue of the fact that I share beliefs with
> >people in these groups, I am de facto a member. According to Wiener,
> >structure were 100% Jewish--he/she would be merely bnei Noach. If this
> >kind of exclusionary thinking is not racism, it is pretty close.
>
> as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
> find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
> won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
I see the problem now. You are using some unusual foreign language with
the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosaic
and rabbinical teachines
Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
That's the "Judaism" I'm talking about. If you want to talk about some
other "Judaism", then sorry, but I'm not interested.
> You've seen Lieutenent 030 insisting that Judaism has to follow the rules
> for being a religion according to the Christian model, or that if doesn't
> there's something terribly wrong going on. Now you yourself are joining
> in with this asinine garbage.
I'm not arguing that Judaism has to follow the rules for being a religion
according to the "Christian model" (whatever that is). I'm saying that
if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion. If you want
to confuse the issue by calling it a religion when it isn't, using some
bizarre personal definition of the term "religion", then go ahead and do
so. Elsewhere.
> Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
One might say the same about the KKK.
> They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
> rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
I'm not enforcing rules here. I'm saying that if Judaism is the way you
say it is, using conventional meanings of the words used, then it fits the
description "racist". Nothing at all to do with "Christian rules".
> > > "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite"
> >This saying is the most inflammatory saying I have ever seen on the NET.
> >To say that--despite outer appearances--all non-Jews hate Jews is
> >precisely the kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
>
> I explained what it means in a different posting to Jim Perry.
In <66...@netnews.upenn.edu> Matthew P Wiener writes:
> "Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
> everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
> NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
> (a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
> overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
So let's re-phrase John Johnson's comment in line with your new interpretation
of the saying:
To say that -- despite outer appearances -- all non-Jews will behave with
anti-Semitic hatred towards Jews whenever discomforted, is precisely the
kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
Like to try a third interpretation?
From A to B
> As I mention in another post, becoming Jewish is
> more like becoming British than like becoming Christian.
> Don't you also have a rule that people born British
> are British even if they yell "Down with the Queen",
> while people not born British, no matter how Anglophile
> they may be, will have a hard time becoming British?
Someone is British if he owns a valid passport which lists his nationality
as "British citizen". I have several friends who are British, but were
not born in Britain. One ceases to be British when one gives up the passport
-- for example, in order to obtain some foreign nationality.
Obtaining British citizenship is sometimes difficult; personally I'd like
to see it equally difficult for all, and I feel that current immigration
requirements are ridiculous.
Since nationality says nothing about beliefs, the beliefs of the individual
are entirely irrelevant.
> Isn't that the same kind of racism you condemn from
> the Jewish nation?
I don't know. Are you claiming that a person's beliefs are entirely irrelevant
with regard to whether he is Jewish or not? I don't think you are. I think
you're trying to tie together personal beliefs and race. And I don't think
you'll find many palatable analogies.
From A to B
> >by birthright.
>
> It's a race, a culture, a society, a tribe, a religion
It's a fashion accessory! It's a piece of abstract art! It's a new way
to get brighter whites and that cool, fresh taste!
Wash those tired old racist beliefs whiter-than-white with new, improved
Judaism -- with miracle biological ingredient X! Guaranteed flameproof!
Detects anti-Semitism at a range of up to three hundred metres!
From A to B
> > Perhaps you are of that
> >school of linguistic analysis that holds that a minority of the
> >population may define a term in spite of the majority?
>
> What is "Jewish" is up the Jews, not the majority. What school would have
> otherwise?
The School of Real Life.
As opposed to the School of Political Correctness.
mathew
[ Both sides of the same debate in one week? Just watch me. ]
From A to B
> rather different from the rules of Christianity, and rather than go "huh?
> now ain't that weird!" he's been calling it "absurd" or "racist" or what
> not.
It's absurd, yes. The mistake you're making is to assume that I think it's
absurd because it's not Christian.
[ Regarding "Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" ]
>
> >I had already read that explanation and did not buy it for a second.
>
> How many more Jewish phrases and ideas are you going to tell us the real
> meaning?
We're just telling you the meaning of the English saying you posted. If
the Jewish original phrase has a different meaning, I suggest that you obtain
a better translation.
mathew
Matthew P Wiener
>Good thing I asked. How about the term "righteous gentile?" Was that
>meant to be derogatory, or not?
Not. It's a standard term, rarely used outside of its own context.
Matthew P Wiener
> Rob furthermore pointed out
>in another post that it is "against the rules" to treat a convert
>as a second class citizen. According to what Rob has said, Mr.
>Wiener seems to be breaking Jewish rules.
I've been doing this? I hope not!
>Wiener gave me the impression that Jews looked down on people who
>wished to convert. That, to me, is racism.
We discourage people who wish to convert. "You want to convert to
Judaism? You must be crazy!"
> I also got the
>impression from him that true conversion is impossible. To be
>completely exclusionary is also, to me, racism.
I wouldn't even agree with that. You cannot convert to Hinduism or
Druze or many other religions. It doesn't make me feel the least bit
excluded. They are they and I am I.
You cannot "convert" to Asian or Hispanic, etc.
>Personally, I prefer NOT to dignify Jesus of Nazareth with the
>label "Christ" or "Messiah,"
When they bother me, I now use J***s. The ultimate swear word.
>I was already aware that Louis Finkelstein claims that Judaism is a
>way of life rather than the acceptance of a creed or a confession of
>faith.
That's certainly closer to what Judaism "is".
Eric Rescorla
>>Here, then, is where we part company. One cannot even decide who the
>>"Jews" are until one accepts a definition.
>
>We are the Jews. We get to say who we are.
us, and so you don't get a choice.
Any other claimants to the title?
-Ekr
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider resc...@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
Ken Arromdee
>I see the problem now. You are using some unusual foreign language with
>the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
>
> Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosaic
>
> Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
>
>That's the "Judaism" I'm talking about. If you want to talk about some
>other "Judaism", then sorry, but I'm not interested.
If you wish to define religion such that real-world Jews don't fit your
definition, then you should not pretend that your statements about Jews and
Judaism are about real Jews and Judaism.
>I'm not arguing that Judaism has to follow the rules for being a religion
>according to the "Christian model" (whatever that is). I'm saying that
>if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
>is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion.
Here, the "Christian model" does mean the one in the dictionary. Sure, most
people use it. Most people are Christians, too (at least here and in the UK).
>If you want
>to confuse the issue by calling it a religion when it isn't, using some
>bizarre personal definition of the term "religion", then go ahead and do
>so. Elsewhere.
But it's not a personal definition--it's the definition used by Jews.
>> They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
>> rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
>I'm not enforcing rules here. I'm saying that if Judaism is the way you
>say it is, using conventional meanings of the words used, then it fits the
>description "racist". Nothing at all to do with "Christian rules".
You also seem to have used the idea that conversion to Judaism does not exist
in calling it racist. (Wrong. One can convert to Judaism.)
Ken Arromdee
>I don't know. Are you claiming that a person's beliefs are entirely irrelevant
>with regard to whether he is Jewish or not? I don't think you are.
Well, I am.
Ken Arromdee
>wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >Okay, if one looks at Judaism as a race, obviously one can only join
>> >by birthright.
>> It's a race, a culture, a society, a tribe, a religion
>It's a fashion accessory! It's a piece of abstract art! It's a new way
>to get brighter whites and that cool, fresh taste!
One can join by birthright _or by being converted_, mathew.
Matthew P Wiener
>wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> What is "Jewish" is up the Jews, not the majority. What school would have
>> otherwise?
>The School of Real Life.
We're the Real Jews. You'll have to adapt to that someday.
Matthew P Wiener
>> Guess what: Judaism isn't a thought-system. Christianity is. As long
>> as you hold on to Christian notions of how belief is relevant, you will
>> find Judaism to be nonsense. Throw away your Christian blanket, and you
>> won't find anything remotely close to "racism".
>I see the problem now. You are using some unusual foreign language with
>the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
> Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosaic
> and rabbinical teachines
> Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
>That's the "Judaism" I'm talking about. If you want to talk about some
>other "Judaism", then sorry, but I'm not interested.
So you're using a dictionary that understands "religion" from a Christian
perspective. Not very informative when you want to understand religion
from a Jewish perspective.
>> You've seen Lieutenent 030 insisting that Judaism has to follow the rules
>> for being a religion according to the Christian model, or that if doesn't
>> there's something terribly wrong going on. Now you yourself are joining
>> in with this asinine garbage.
>I'm not arguing that Judaism has to follow the rules for being a religion
>according to the "Christian model" (whatever that is).
See your dictionary definition above.
> I'm saying that
>if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
>is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion.
So quit calling it a religion, if it bothers you. We are what we are, and
if the verbal taxonomists come afterwards and don't take the time to
understand us, or can't figure out where to put us most simply, they are
guaranteed to be wrong.
> If you want
>to confuse the issue by calling it a religion when it isn't, using some
>bizarre personal definition of the term "religion", then go ahead and do
>so. Elsewhere.
I couldn't care less what "religion" means, or whether Judaism is such a
"religion". If you like the Christian notion of "religion", fine--just
don't apply it to Judaism, since it's wrong.
>> Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
>One might say the same about the KKK.
And what does that mean, other than you know how to string words together
grammatically?
>> They only psychotic features present are atheists insisting on Christian
>> rules are what ought to apply to Judaism.
>I'm not enforcing rules here. I'm saying that if Judaism is the way you
>say it is, using conventional meanings of the words used, then it fits the
>description "racist". Nothing at all to do with "Christian rules".
Like I said:
>> > > "scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite"
Speaking of conventional meanings, the conventional meaning of "racist"
refers to bias based on skin color. I have known numerous varieties of
Jews--white, black, brown, yellow, etc. I have known numerous converts.
There is no Judaic bias against anyone based on skin color (although I
know personal exceptions).
Come on tell us: just how is Judaism racist? Where does it, for example,
single out Chinese for discrimination?
Your accusations of racism are sick in the head.
>In <66...@netnews.upenn.edu> Matthew P Wiener writes:
>> "Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
>> everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
>> NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
>> (a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
>> overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
>So let's re-phrase John Johnson's comment in line with your new interpretation
>of the saying:
> To say that -- despite outer appearances -- all non-Jews will behave with
> anti-Semitic hatred towards Jews whenever discomforted, is precisely the
> kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
>Like to try a third interpretation?
Yeah: like where did I say anything about "all"? Where did I say that the
saying was anything but a saying, as opposed to an axiom of faith or whatnot?
It's a succint way to describe a certain all too common situation.
Matthew P Wiener
>> It's a race, a culture, a society, a tribe, a religion [...]
>It's a fashion accessory! It's a piece of abstract art! It's a new way
>to get brighter whites and that cool, fresh taste!
>Wash those tired old racist beliefs whiter-than-white with new, improved
>Judaism -- with miracle biological ingredient X! Guaranteed flameproof!
>Detects anti-Semitism at a range of up to three hundred metres!
Scratch a Gentile a find an anti-Semite.
Matthew P Wiener
>wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> You've seen him get told the rules of the role of belief in Judaism are
>> rather different from the rules of Christianity, and rather than go "huh?
>> now ain't that weird!" he's been calling it "absurd" or "racist" or what
>> not.
>It's absurd, yes. The mistake you're making is to assume that I think it's
>absurd because it's not Christian.
If you keep applying a Christian-based notion of religion to Judaism,
than what else can I assume that you've made your deduction on?
Matthew P Wiener
>> As our Jewish friends have pointed out, the same can be said of the
>> American practice of counting someone as American by birth, without
>> any conscious choice of the person who is declared to be American.
>What's the alternative?
>Start children off with no nationality, and force them to try and fulfil
>immigration requirements or face being deported once they reach 18?
>Doesn't sound that great to me.
And Jews consider themselves to be a nationality. As in our country
ceased to exist 1900 years ago, but maintained its existence anyway.
For example, we had our own courts.
Is Estonia offering quick-and-easy citizenship to the descendants of
emigre Estonians who fled in 1941? If so, would you consider that
inherent racism?
The difference is that the Jewish nation came entangled with the Jewish
religion.
Jim Perry
>In article <1992Feb17.1...@watson.ibm.com>, st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob
>Strom) says:
>
>>On the other hand, everyday language does contain a lot of
>>Christian habits which embed assumptions about what religion
>>is which are false for Judaism.
>>
>>I just encountered a perfectly innocent example a few minutes
>>ago when I noticed that a (presumably atheist) poster referred
>>to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ". So many people are Christians
>>(and therefore use these two terms interchangeably) that
>>in what Lieutenant 030 would call the "everyday language"
>>the two terms are synonyms. But they're not: Christ means
>>Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth means the individual whom
>>Christians *believe* to be Messiah. (For that matter, many
>>people erroneously believe Messiah means a divine personage,
>>when it actually means a king.)
>
>I do not remember this post, so I have no idea whether it was
>posted by an atheist or Christian. Remember, a lot of Christians
>post here. Even if an atheist did refer to Jesus as "Christ," it
>certainly does NOT mean that the atheist believes Jesus to be
>Messiah (why on earth would an atheist accept Jesus as king?)
>Rather, he would be using the term to mean "the individual whom
>Christians *believe* to be Messiah."
Discussion has to be carried out under some terminology; for better or
worse much of the discussion here is in the context of Christianity
(the religion based on acceptance of Jesus as the Christ, with
considerable spin on what that phrase means). Depending on exactly
the thread in question, the use of "Christ" as a synonym may be
questionable (in the "who was Jesus according to atheists" thread it
would be a mistake). In general parlance, though, it's just a job
title; Jesus Christ, the Christ, the Messiah. Everybody knows who you
mean, whether you think he *was* the Messiah or not (remember, we talk
about God a lot here, also, though we don't really think he deserves
the job title; we've got to hang some moniker on the concept). Call
that a residue of living in a Christian culture if you will; if we
didn't live in such a culture we would not address our reaction to
that culture in those terms. Now, if there are known to be Jews in
the audience (and hitherto they have been silent on such topics if
present), then it may be politer to try to be clear when one is
speaking of Jesus the human being, whoever he might have been [though
then one may offend the Christians...], and when one is speaking of
Jesus the Son and Incarnation of God as taught by Christianity (or
even the "G*d" business, which seems to me to be stretching things).
Final question: etymology aside, do the terms "Christ" or even
"Messiah" enjoy much currency among Jews? Most of my Jewish friends
seem to use the Hebrew word (w/ "messiah" translation for goys).
--
Jim Perry pe...@apollo.hp.com HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
Rob Strom
I think that when the flame quotient is high, it is easy for
either side to interpret the other in the least favorable light.
I wasn't standing in the heat of the battle, and to me I
didn't get the impression that Mr. Wiener was looking down
either at non-Jews or at converts. Perhaps this is related
to your assumption that "righteous Gentile" and "bnei Noach"
are pejoratives. They are not. As someone else (perhaps
Mr. Wiener himself) has already posted, "b'nei Noach"
just means "children of Noah". Since Noah is the (legendary) survivor
of the Biblical flood, every human being can be called
a child of Noah. The term is usually used to mean non-Jews:
(traditional) Jews believe that there are basic moral laws (like not killing)
which apply to all people (children of Noah), and 613 special
laws (like wearing fringes) which apply only to our nation.
There is a pejorative term (unfortunately) for non-Jews -- "goyim".
It just means "nations" in Hebrew, and it is possible to use
it innocently to mean the other nations, but over time
it has taken on enough of a pejorative connotation that
it is best avoided by Jews. The term "righteous Gentile", on
the other hand is a very positive term. Even the most
traditionalist, "fundamentalist" Jews believe that
God looks with equal favor on the righteous Gentile and
the righteous Jew. For those Jews who believe in the
afterlife, converting to Judaism doesn't make it one bit
easier to be rewarded.
[discussion about atheists using the term "Christ" instead of Jesus]
|> I do not remember this post, so I have no idea whether it was
|> posted by an atheist or Christian. Remember, a lot of Christians
|> post here. Even if an atheist did refer to Jesus as "Christ," it
|> certainly does NOT mean that the atheist believes Jesus to be
|> Messiah (why on earth would an atheist accept Jesus as king?)
|> Rather, he would be using the term to mean "the individual whom
|> Christians *believe* to be Messiah."
|>
Of course I don't think that atheists believe Jesus is the
Messiah. I was just making an example of how it is possible
to unconsciously pick up habits of language which contain
embedded Christian biases. This doesn't imply any actual
Christian bias on the part of the speaker.
|>
|> Don't be too quick to assume that we atheists know nothing about
|> Judaism. I was already aware that Louis Finkelstein claims that
|> Judaism is a way of life rather than the acceptance of a creed or
|> a confession of faith. (For those of you unfamiliar with
|> Finkelstein, I suggest doing some reading before joining this
|> discussion). Finkelstein does point out, however, that the central
|> doctrine of Judaism is the belief in the One God, the Father of all
|> mankind, and that the beliefs within the creed of Maimonides are
|> accepted by many Jews as dogma.
I don't wish to imply that atheists are ignorant about
Judaism. Some particular postings on this newsgroup
have reflected ignorance of Judaism. I think that
one of the purposes of having these newsgroups is
for each group to improve understanding by reducing
misconceptions.
As to Maimonides: most Orthodox accept the twelve principles
of Maimonides. Many non-Orthodox reject one or more of them.
For example, I am dubious about the existence of an afterlife.
It's not dogma in the Christian sense, anyway --- people aren't
declared heretics for not believing it.
--
Rob Strom, st...@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Kristin Blais
A better question might by why would they read alt.atheism in the
first place. I am a devout Irish Catholic *and* an Astronomer.
I started reading this group about a week ago because I thought
that it be discussing issues that I am interested in. i.e.
preventing mandatory prayer in public schools, getting in God we
Trust off our currency, keeping the government from legislating
when we should believe life begins. I intend to keep reading this
news group I do not intend to try and convert anyone to
my beliefs - I could care less what you believe, not believe
believe not- that's you're own personal business. Oh yeah
and I am a radical feminist, believe in birth control,
I pray the rosary and take communion- and despite all that
I haven't had my M.S. revokes or been excommunicated ;-)
SO QUESTION: How do we get in "GOD WE TRUST" off our currency???
or a better question : "Why do we have such ugly currency?????"
I bet every atheist here a six pack that there is a God-
to be collected in paradise. haa haa is that a win-win scenario
or what??? If there is a God I collect, if there isn't
you guys can't possibly collect. hee hee and they say
that religous people aren't rational
;-)
Kristin Blais
Graham Matthews
>I bet every atheist here a six pack that there is a God-
>to be collected in paradise. haa haa is that a win-win scenario
>or what??? If there is a God I collect, if there isn't
>you guys can't possibly collect. hee hee and they say
>that religous people aren't rational
BZZZZZZZZ - you lose Kristin.
There may indeed be a God but there is no guarantee that you will be
in paradise to collect. This God may put you in hell.
Cheers
graham
--
Graham Matthews And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
gra...@maths.su.oz.au
Kristin Blais
>(Kristin Blais) writes:
>>I bet every atheist here a six pack that there is a God-
>>to be collected in paradise. haa haa is that a win-win scenario
>>or what??? If there is a God I collect, if there isn't
>>you guys can't possibly collect. hee hee and they say
>>that religous people aren't rational
>
>BZZZZZZZZ - you lose Kristin.
>There may indeed be a God but there is no guarantee that you will be
>in paradise to collect. This God may put you in hell.
The God I personally believe in loves everyone irregardless of whatever they
believe or do. He/She/it loves atheists, Buddhists, and Catholics all the same.
I believe this because it's what I've experienced thru my personal meditation &
prayer. Based on this experience I have come to the conclusion that this
God would never I mean not ever *send* (note the key word is denotes active
judgement on the part of God) anyone to hell. So I don't believe
in hell in the convential sense. I told my priest that and told him
my reasoning and he agreed with me. I do believe in hell in a form but
it's not worth describing because this is not alt.religion (though it often
times sounds like it ;-) ) So in my mind the way I phrased it I *do*
still win my six-pack ( let's keep focusing on the important issues here!!!)
because the existence of God means that an overwhelming majority of people
would be in paradise (although it could be plural I suppose?!). If there isn't
a god I am assuming it follows that there isn't life after death- not
necessarily a validassumtion either, but I still think it would be pretty hard
for you to collect!! Incidentally someone e-mailed me with the idea that there
could be more than one god so that the one I pray to doesn't control paradise-
well to borrow a line - I have never seen evidence that there is more than one
God;I only have my personal life experience that shows the untruth that there
is more than one God. ;-) (What's sauce for the goose or whatever that phrase
is:) Now if there really *was* more than one God clearly I don't have a hedged
bet.
:)
Kristin Blais
Eric Rescorla
>In article <graham.698472018@bizet> gra...@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>(Kristin Blais) writes:
>it's not worth describing because this is not alt.religion (though it often
>times sounds like it ;-) ) So in my mind the way I phrased it I *do*
>still win my six-pack ( let's keep focusing on the important issues here!!!)
>because the existence of God means that an overwhelming majority of people
>would be in paradise (although it could be plural I suppose?!).
entirely possible that there exists a God who will send YOU to Hell
and Me to Heaven.
>well to borrow a line - I have never seen evidence that there is more than one
>God;I only have my personal life experience that shows the untruth that there
>is more than one God. ;-) (What's sauce for the goose or whatever that phrase
>is:) Now if there really *was* more than one God clearly I don't have a hedged
>bet.
Well, your personal life experience carries no weight here, and we've
seen no evidence that there is ANY God.
From A to B
| >I see the problem now. You are using some unusual foreign language with
| >the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
|
| > Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosai
|
| > Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
|
| >That's the "Judaism" I'm talking about. If you want to talk about some
| >other "Judaism", then sorry, but I'm not interested.
|
| So you're using a dictionary that understands "religion" from a Christian
| perspective. Not very informative when you want to understand religion
| from a Jewish perspective.
Not very surprising when you consider that dictionaries reflect common usage.
What percentage of the world population is Jewish?
| > I'm saying that
| >if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
| >is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion.
|
| So quit calling it a religion, if it bothers you.
Fine. So Judaism isn't a religion. What is it?
| >> Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
|
| >One might say the same about the KKK.
|
| And what does that mean, other than you know how to string words together
| grammatically?
"We have our own rules, they're just not the same as yours" is a pretty
poor excuse for doing something.
| Speaking of conventional meanings, the conventional meaning of "racist"
| refers to bias based on skin color.
racism n. 1. = racialism 2. Theory that human abilities etc. are determined
by race.
racialism n. Belief in superiority of a particular race; antagonism between
different races.
(Concise OED, as ever)
What sort of "conventional" meaning did you have in mind?
| Come on tell us: just how is Judaism racist? Where does it, for example,
| single out Chinese for discrimination?
|
| Your accusations of racism are sick in the head.
You think the only racism is based on skin colour? Take off those blinkers.
| >In <66...@netnews.upenn.edu> Matthew P Wiener writes:
| >> "Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
| >> everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
| >> NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
| >> (a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
| >> overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
|
| >So let's re-phrase John Johnson's comment in line with your new interpretati
| >of the saying:
|
| > To say that -- despite outer appearances -- all non-Jews will behave with
| > anti-Semitic hatred towards Jews whenever discomforted, is precisely the
| > kind of insult that will provoke anti-Semitism.
|
| >Like to try a third interpretation?
|
| Yeah: like where did I say anything about "all"?
Where you didn't say "Scratch some Gentiles and you find anti-Semites".
If I said "Trust a black man, get your wallet stolen" would you try to argue
that that wasn't supposed to apply to ALL black men, and that it therefore
wasn't racist?
| Where did I say that the saying was anything but a saying, as opposed to an
| axiom of faith or whatnot?
Nowhere. Attitudes of a group can often be revealed by that group's sayings,
however.
mathew
Rob Strom
|>
|> Final question: etymology aside, do the terms "Christ" or even
|> "Messiah" enjoy much currency among Jews? Most of my Jewish friends
|> seem to use the Hebrew word (w/ "messiah" translation for goys).
The term "Christ" is not used by Jews, because as you point out,
it is generally used to refer to Jesus, even when such use
is inappropriate. Using it to mean "Messiah" is confusing.
Jews will either say "Messiah" or "Moshiach". Both
terms are used on soc.culture.jewish, in various threads
relating to whether it's possible/impossible/right/wrong
to speed his coming.
When I was growing up, the phrase "When the Messiah comes"
meant something between "not in my lifetime" and
"when hell freezes over", i.e. it would be wonderful
if that were to happen, but don't expect it anytime soon.
From A to B
> >Here, then, is where we part company. One cannot even decide who the
> >"Jews" are until one accepts a definition.
>
> We are the Jews. We get to say who we are.
The problem is, we get Christians trying to pull the same sort of stunt every
week.
"Oh, *I'm* a real Christian, but those nasty people over there aren't real
Christians -- they just say they are. Well, yes, they do believe in God,
and in Christ, but they're still not Christians. Because they're nasty.
And because I say so."
From A to B
> In article <T1gcgB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
> >the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
> >
> > Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosai
> >
> > Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
> >
> >That's the "Judaism" I'm talking about. If you want to talk about some
> >other "Judaism", then sorry, but I'm not interested.
>
> If you wish to define religion such that real-world Jews don't fit your
> definition, then you should not pretend that your statements about Jews and
> Judaism are about real Jews and Judaism.
Real-world Jews do usually fit the definition. They just don't *agree*
with the definition, which is something else entirely.
> >I'm not arguing that Judaism has to follow the rules for being a religion
> >according to the "Christian model" (whatever that is). I'm saying that
> >if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
> >is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion.
>
> Here, the "Christian model" does mean the one in the dictionary. Sure, most
> people use it. Most people are Christians, too (at least here and in the UK)
"Christian" in what sense? Over here, people who go to church are in the
minority.
> >If you want
> >to confuse the issue by calling it a religion when it isn't, using some
> >bizarre personal definition of the term "religion", then go ahead and do
> >so. Elsewhere.
>
> But it's not a personal definition--it's the definition used by Jews.
It's a definition used by a small minority, and it's very odd in comparison
to the normal definition. Furthermore, we've already seen how it can cause
confusion and hostility. Jews talking to Jews can use their own private
definitions of everyday words, but Jews talking to atheists, Christians
or anyone else should use everyday English.
> You also seem to have used the idea that conversion to Judaism does not exist
> in calling it racist.
This seems to be a misunderstanding caused by Matthew Wiener's use of strange
Jewish redefinitions of everyday words. See my previous paragraph.
From A to B
> In article <0iNcgB...@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis (From A to B) writes:
> >wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> >> You've seen him get told the rules of the role of belief in Judaism are
> >> rather different from the rules of Christianity, and rather than go "huh?
> >> now ain't that weird!" he's been calling it "absurd" or "racist" or what
> >> not.
>
> >It's absurd, yes. The mistake you're making is to assume that I think it's
> >absurd because it's not Christian.
>
> If you keep applying a Christian-based notion of religion to Judaism,
> than what else can I assume that you've made your deduction on?
Common usage?
William Bradley Knight
debate sounds surprisingly like the various arguments over what
the term "atheist" actually means.
--
Brad Knight
kni...@abulafia.b21.ingr.com
Bob Hammarberg
>The God I personally believe in loves everyone irregardless of whatever they
>believe or do. He/She/it loves atheists, Buddhists, and Catholics all the same.
>I believe this because it's what I've experienced thru my personal meditation &
>prayer.
>:)
>Kristin Blais
Talk about a *personal* god!!! What you have said here just supports what
atheists have always claimed, namely that people create gods in their own
image. You seem to be a nice person, so you have constructed a nice god.
But why do you need to construct this god? One can be nice without having
to appeal to supernatural sanctions.
Luv,
Bob
Matthew P Wiener
>| So you're using a dictionary that understands "religion" from a Christian
>| perspective. Not very informative when you want to understand religion
>| from a Jewish perspective.
>Not very surprising when you consider that dictionaries reflect common usage.
>What percentage of the world population is Jewish?
Probably the same proportion that *uses* the word Jewish with any frequency.
>Fine. So Judaism isn't a religion. What is it?
It's a bit of many things as I said in a previous posting. Ignoring them
is as wrong as focusing on them exclusively.
>| >> Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
>| >One might say the same about the KKK.
>| And what does that mean, other than you know how to string words together
>| grammatically?
>"We have our own rules, they're just not the same as yours" is a pretty
>poor excuse for doing something.
In what way is it an excuse? As in "excuse us for not being Christian?"
>| Speaking of conventional meanings, the conventional meaning of "racist"
>| refers to bias based on skin color.
>racism n. 1. = racialism 2. Theory that human abilities etc. are determined
>by race.
>racialism n. Belief in superiority of a particular race; antagonism between
>different races.
>What sort of "conventional" meaning did you have in mind?
Race, as in Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. Terms way out of fashion,
but a division that matches up with skin color.
Meanwhile, where do you find anything about Judaism that accords with the
definitions above?
>| Come on tell us: just how is Judaism racist? Where does it, for example,
>| single out Chinese for discrimination?
>| Your accusations of racism are sick in the head.
>You think the only racism is based on skin colour? Take off those blinkers.
Spell it out: just how is Judaism racist? You've spelled out more precisely
what you mean by racism, and you completely fail to show how Judaism comes
anywhere near it.
>| Yeah: like where did I say anything about "all"?
>Where you didn't say "Scratch some Gentiles and you find anti-Semites".
"a" often means "some".
>If I said "Trust a black man, get your wallet stolen" would you try to argue
>that that wasn't supposed to apply to ALL black men, and that it therefore
>wasn't racist?
Good point. Yiddish does not translate into English directly.
>| Where did I say that the saying was anything but a saying, as opposed to an
>| axiom of faith or whatnot?
>Nowhere. Attitudes of a group can often be revealed by that group's sayings,
>however.
And conversely, a portion of our history can be revealed by its sayings.
Most definitely true in this case.
Rob Strom
|> wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> >
|> > What is "Jewish" is up the Jews, not the majority. What school would have
|> > otherwise?
|>
|> The School of Real Life.
|>
|>
Let me try again to explain why I think we are arguing about
facts, not language. (This also may be relevant to Joe Francis'
posting.) Language is arbitrary (at least assuming the
linguistic descriptivists' view); facts are not.
However, language can embed erroneous assumptions about
facts; these need to be corrected.
Here's an analogy, drawn from my own experiences in
the School of Real Life.
When I was in college, and even more ignorant than I
am now, I attended a class taught by a professor
who spoke with such a thick accent I could barely
understand him.
Being brash and insensitive (then), I went up to him
after class and asked him what his native language
was. "English", he replied. "I'm from Edinborough".
Being ignorant as well as brash and insensitive,
I followed up with "Oh. I had no idea that you
were from England".
Later, a friend who heard the discussion pointed out to me that
Edinborough Scotland was not in England, and that referring
to a Scotchman as "English" was somewhere between
insulting and boorishly ignorant, and that basically
I had come off sounding like a fool and an ignoramus.
Now I could have pointed out that for the vast majority
of American English speakers, the terms "England", "Great Britain",
and "United Kingdom" are synonymous --- much the way
for the vast majority, "religion" and "faith" are
synonymous. I could have argued that the mistake
was not my ignorance of geography
(and the political history of the British Isles), but the Scottish
professor's hypersensitivity and ignorance of how
the English language was popularly used.
(Or rather, the self-styled "Scottish" professor
who was unaware that he was "English".) I could
have insisted that Edinborough *is* in England, the
way the term "England" is used by the majority
of Americans.
I think that if I had argued that way, it would have
just compounded the negative impression I had already
made. The reason is that there is an implicit meaning
of "England" as a political entity which is empowered
by an authority which defines its boundaries. This meaning is
also generally accepted by the population. Otherwise,
it would make sense to argue that the linguistic
minority of Britons and Scotchmen are just wilfully
using hypertechnical locutions and are unwilling
to go with the flow and learn the language.
The same is true with Jews, Judaism, and "religion".
There are paradoxes when you apply the popular
definitions to the actual cases. You wind up
either inferring that Judaism isn't a religion,
or you wind up inferring that there are these
people going around wearing kippot, going
to synagogue, setting up organizations like
the "Union of Jewish ...." who are misapplying
the term "Jewish" to themselves, and should
learn to speak proper English.
As I see it the (non-arbitrary, non-linguistic) facts are:
There is a continuous community of people, who
for more than 3000 years have defined and evolved
a body of customs, practices, laws, and literature.
These customs and practices correspond to some
aspects of religions (e.g., ritual worship,
belief in a deity), some aspects of legal systems
(e.g., judges, courts, laws), some aspects of
nations (e.g. rules for becoming a member in which
it is easy to become a member by birth but hard
to become a member by naturalization), some aspects of
moral codes (e.g. the notion that right behavior is
more important than the belief system which inspires
the right behavior). With very few exceptions
this community agrees within itself on who is in it
and who is not in it.
What I think the dictionaries intend to say is
that Jews are "the religious community which follow
the Torah of Moses. For exact details, consult
the visible leaders of that community", exactly
as the definition of England in the dictionary
should be read with an implicit: "for exact boundaries, please consult
the civil authorities of the government in London".
Rob Strom
|> st...@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> > As I mention in another post, becoming Jewish is
|> > more like becoming British than like becoming Christian.
|> > Don't you also have a rule that people born British
|> > are British even if they yell "Down with the Queen",
|> > while people not born British, no matter how Anglophile
|> > they may be, will have a hard time becoming British?
|>
|> Someone is British if he owns a valid passport which lists his nationality
|> as "British citizen". I have several friends who are British, but were
|> not born in Britain. One ceases to be British when one gives up the passport
|> -- for example, in order to obtain some foreign nationality.
|>
|> Obtaining British citizenship is sometimes difficult; personally I'd like
|> to see it equally difficult for all, and I feel that current immigration
|> requirements are ridiculous.
|>
Really? Suppose you have a son or daughter who is rejected
for citizenship under your proposed "equally difficult for all"
rule --- what do you suggest should happen then?
|> Since nationality says nothing about beliefs, the beliefs of the individual
|> are entirely irrelevant.
|>
|> > Isn't that the same kind of racism you condemn from
|> > the Jewish nation?
|>
|> I don't know. Are you claiming that a person's beliefs are entirely irrelevant
|> with regard to whether he is Jewish or not? I don't think you are. I think
|> you're trying to tie together personal beliefs and race. And I don't think
|> you'll find many palatable analogies.
|>
Let's try again.
There are two Jewishly relevant terms: "Jew" and "(religiously) observant Jew".
My analogy is this: "Jew" is like "British citizen". "Observant Jew"
is like "law-abiding British citizen".
You are a Jew if either (a) you were born to a Jewish mother, (b)
you converted to Judaism. Qualifying under (a) requires no beliefs
or practices, and is automatic if your mother is Jewish, impossible otherwise.
Qualifying under (b) is difficult. It is discouraged, and as part of
the process, you must promise to be a religiously observant Jew, among
other things.
By analogy, you are a British citizen if either (a) you are born
to (one? two?) British parents, or (b) you are naturalized. Qualifying
under (a) requires no beliefs or acts of patriotism, and is automatic
if the circumstances of your birth are appropriate, impossible otherwise.
Qualifying under (b) is difficult. It is discouraged (?), and as part of
the process, you must promise to be a patriotic and law-abiding citizen, swearing
allegiance to the Queen, among other things.
You are a religiously observant Jew if you do the commandments (best effort).
(Let's ignore for now the difference between how Orthodox and
Reform interpret the commandments.) If you do the commandments,
e.g. give charity, keep Sabbath, etc., you are an observant Jew.
The fact that you doubt or deny this or that commonly accepted
article of faith doesn't change anything as long as you do the
commandments. God said "Better they should forget Me but keep
My commandments", according to our legends. After the Holocaust,
many Jews had their faith shattered to pieces. Quite a few
proclaimed either that God did not exist or did not love us.
Many of these people continued to practice Judaism, however.
You are a law-abiding British citizen if you obey the British
laws. The fact that you deny the British myths, hate the Queen,
and believe that the sun sets over the British empire doesn't
change that, as long as you obey the laws.
There's no mixing Jewish belief and race. There is a connection
between the racial/national meaning of Jewish and the
religious one, however, because converts have to accept
the religion in order to become Jews, while born Jews
don't have to accept the religion.
Bryan O'Sullivan
> Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosaic
> and rabbinical teachines
> Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
>I'm not arguing that Judaism has to follow the rules for being a religion
>according to the "Christian model" (whatever that is). I'm saying that
>if it doesn't fit the definition of "religion" used by most people -- that
>is, the one in the dictionary -- then it isn't a religion. If you want
>to confuse the issue by calling it a religion when it isn't, using some
>bizarre personal definition of the term "religion", then go ahead and do
>so. Elsewhere.
Has it occured to you, Matthew, that the definition of religion used by
most people is coloured by the fact that, for our purposes here, most
people are Christian? As has been said before by others, my own
understanding of Judaism is that it is _both_ a religion _and_ a
"tribal" grouping, with various features, such as the possibility of
conversion, that make it different in some ways to either.
>> Judaism has its own rules. They are not the Christian rules. So what?
>One might say the same about the KKK.
You are being far more provocative in your own wording than any of the
Jewish people posting to this group; think about it.
-- Bryan
--
"Hell must be isothermal; for | "Either you are part of the solution or
otherwise the resident engineers and | you are part of the precipitate."
physical chemists (of which there must | "Consumer-grade religion does not
be some) could set up a heat engine to | encourage logical thinking." -- K.Jones
run a refrigerator to cool off a +----------------------------------------
portion of their surroundings to any | Bryan O'Sullivan (Tetragrammaton) :-)
desired temperature." | Internet: bosu...@unix1.tcd.ie
-- Henry Albert Bent, _The Second Law_ | This mind intentionally left blank.
John A. Johnson
>
>>| Yeah: like where did I say anything about "all"?
>
>>Where you didn't say "Scratch some Gentiles and you find anti-Semites".
>
>"a" often means "some".
But "a" does not mean "some" in the expression in question, at least
in standard English. It clearly means "all" in this case, and that
offends those of us Gentiles who are pro-Jewish.
>
>>If I said "Trust a black man, get your wallet stolen" would you try to argue
>>that that wasn't supposed to apply to ALL black men, and that it therefore
>>wasn't racist?
>
>Good point. Yiddish does not translate into English directly.
It is becoming more and more clear that this English translation
of the Yiddish expression is a poor one indeed. Not only does "a" not
mean "some," but also "scratch" does not mean to attack, irritate, or
annoy, as it does (according to Mr. Wiener's prior explanation) in
Yiddish. Several posters have already pointed out that "Scratch a
_____ and find a ____" means "something is other than what it seems
on the surface."
Given conventional English understanding, the Yiddish expression seems
to say "Despite appearances to the contrary, all Gentiles are
anti-Semites." You can understand how one could regard that as
inflammatory.
I am genuinely curious about how poorly the Yiddish expression seems
to translate into English. Could you post the saying in the original
Yiddish so that I could discuss it with my Jewish colleagues
in our university's language department?
John
Matthew P Wiener
>Has it occured to you, Matthew, that the definition of religion used by
Please distinguish between Matthew (me) and Mathew (the other guy).
I'm sure this is one thing we agree on.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@libra.wistar.upenn.edu) "[George Bush] is a man
who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." --Jim Hightower
Kristin Blais
I really believe that people can be just as moral as I am, probably more
so and completely belief that there is no "higher power" for me
that isn't the point. I am the only one who knows what I experienced
therefore I don't try to convince anyone else I don't care what they
believe. This started because of my joke about the six pack and that
was what it was a pure joke. In responding to it someone claimed
certain things about beleifs and I corrected them as to what I believe
I am not trying to get anyone else to believe it God. But you forget
from my point of view I did *not* create this god. For me my experience
is as real as anything else in this life. Suppose as someone said
God really did show up on your doorstep (philosophically speaking)
as some people have considered before , say ala Moses burning bush
*now* I know most of you don't believe that happened but
just *suppose* you were walking past a bush and it spontaneously
burst into flames and there were trumpets etc and it registers
on physical instruments -i.e. it is not some sort of hallucination.
Now there are probably as many different ways of interpreting that as
there PEOPLE, but that doesn't make the actual event any less real!
Each person interprets it according to their point of view,
i.e. their own "truth". I do not believe in an absolute truth
so anyone elses truth is completely non-treatening. I *do* have a
personal god, because I've been taught that each Catholic
should *have* a personal relationship with God. And since no
two people are the same, none of the relationships are the
same so everyone will have a slightly different view of God.
So we come together at church and learn from one another. Listen
to the scriptures and teach to one another what we have learned from our
own relationships. As a SCIENTIST I could spout off all sorts
of things that to me are proof of God's existance, but I'm not going
to because I don't believe science and religion have any business
mixing. If science is defined as things in nature that already have been
explained or are known in nature, that doesn't exclude the supernatural,
because if everything is explained or known their would be no point in
doing science. Science is about discovering the previously
unknown and learning to explain the things about us in a certain
framework, it doesn't exclude things from existing outside that
framework!!!! Anyway I don't site my beleifs because I want
people to beleive them, but because people mistakenyl assume
what my religion consists of when in fact most people
are quoting pre-Vatican II Catholicism which *NO LONGER EXISTS*
Most of what people *think* Catholics practice is untrue
(at least on this newsgroup ;-) ) also most of what
people think we have to *believe* is untrue.
:)
Kristin
bl...@hubble.ifa.hawaii.edu
Graham Matthews
>>>I bet every atheist here a six pack that there is a God-
>>>to be collected in paradise. haa haa is that a win-win scenario
>>>or what??? If there is a God I collect, if there isn't
>>>you guys can't possibly collect. hee hee and they say
>>>that religous people aren't rational
Me:
>>BZZZZZZZZ - you lose Kristin.
>>There may indeed be a God but there is no guarantee that you will be
>>in paradise to collect. This God may put you in hell.
(Kristin Blais) writes:
>The God I personally believe in loves everyone irregardless of whatever they
>believe or do. He/She/it loves atheists, Buddhists, and Catholics all the same.
>I believe this because it's what I've experienced thru my personal meditation &
>prayer. Based on this experience I have come to the conclusion that this
>God would never I mean not ever *send* (note the key word is denotes active
>judgement on the part of God) anyone to hell. So I don't believe
>in hell in the convential sense. I told my priest that and told him
>my reasoning and he agreed with me. I do believe in hell in a form but
>it's not worth describing because this is not alt.religion (though it often
>times sounds like it ;-) ) So in my mind the way I phrased it I *do*
>still win my six-pack ( let's keep focusing on the important issues here!!!)
>because the existence of God means that an overwhelming majority of people
>would be in paradise (although it could be plural I suppose?!). If there isn't
>a god I am assuming it follows that there isn't life after death- not
>necessarily a validassumtion either, but I still think it would be pretty hard
>for you to collect!! Incidentally someone e-mailed me with the idea that there
>could be more than one god so that the one I pray to doesn't control paradise-
>well to borrow a line - I have never seen evidence that there is more than one
>God;I only have my personal life experience that shows the untruth that there
>is more than one God. ;-) (What's sauce for the goose or whatever that phrase
>is:) Now if there really *was* more than one God clearly I don't have a hedged
>bet.
Sorry Kristin but you can still lose the bet. The God I believe in is
a total schmuck. He condemns everyone whose names begins with K to hell.
If it is my God that exists you cannot collect your beer.
Your argument is known as Pascal's Wager and has been demolished many
times before.
Mcirvew P Wiener
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 7
Nntp-Posting-Host: ost: o're aply- you m you m
In article <rticle <r93420202>meant to be derogatory, or not?
Not. It's a standard term, rarely used osed osde of its own context.
--
-Ma-Ma-#! rnews 714
much.murill
ill
iom!think osura.net!jjj.net!.net!.s.us.us!upenn5.hep.up.upblankman
From: blanlanln@upenn
William Mayne
>>[every Gentile is a closet anti-Semite reading]
>>I'd love to hear that I'm mistaken.
>"Scratch a Gentile and find an anti-Semite" means that your nice
>everyday non-Jew whom you've known all your life and who really is
>NOT an anti-Semite will, without warning, take the smallest incident
>(a mere scratch) as grounds for an incomprehensible and often hostile
>overreaction, usually in an anti-Semitic way.
Hmmm. After reading many of your articles in this thread an seeing
your use of "incomprehensible and often hostile overreaction" the
expression "The pot calling the the kettle black" comes to mind.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't like you, or gets angry
at you, even if it is over a trifle, and you happen to be Jewish, does not
mean that these are in any way connected except, perhaps, that your
paranoia which you express through your personal identification with
Judaism is the thing which is scratching some of us gentiles.
Bill Mayne
William Mayne
>>> This is simply false, which is part of the reason I've been calling the FAQ
>>> use of "Judeo-Christian belief" to be nonsense, since the context describes
>>> Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones. And this is typical. [Matthew Wiener]
>
>>What leads you to make this claim?
>
>Because almost all usages of "Judeo-Christian" that I have come across
>are actually describing something "Christian". If you aren't sensitive
>to the differences, you wouldn't notice.
You really should get out more, Mr. Wiener. Are the only people
you listen to as extreme on the other side as you seem to be on
yours?
Most of the uses of J-C values and ideas which I hear (and I admittedly
don't listen to extreme right wing Christians much) refer to things like
respect for the lives, property, and dignity of people, marital fidelity,
truthfulness, justice, the obligation to help those less fortunate - ideals
our culture values even though it certainly has not and does not always
live up to them. These values aren't found exclusively in western religions
or cultures by any means. As a non-Christian gentile I sometimes find
the implication that these values aren't found equally among atheists,
humanists, and others offensive, but not that there is anything
anti-Jewish in the use of J-C. Rightly or wrongly many people trace the
presense of these values in western culture to religious roots, and they
seem to be found at least as strongly in Judaism as in Christianity.
Far from thinking of Judaism as an incomplete form of Christianity,
my prejudices run the other way, to viewing Christianity as in many
ways a corruption of Judaism, due more to Paul and others than to
Jesus.
Bill Mayne
Patricia Shanahan
>I bet every atheist here a six pack that there is a God-
>to be collected in paradise. haa haa is that a win-win scenario
>or what??? If there is a God I collect, if there isn't
>you guys can't possibly collect. hee hee and they say
>that religous people aren't rational
>
>;-)
>Kristin Blais
>
I will take you up on this, with some small adjustments. I want to collect
if the number of gods is not exactly one, or if you end up in hell for
not believing in exactly the right form of deity. That way, I get the
six-pack if we both end up in Valhalla, where it might be somewhat
superfluous, or if we both end up in Hell, where it would be rather
useful. You should take into account the fact that with the number of
different fomulae for what one has to do to get into Paradise that have
been proposed by different groups of Christians, the probability that
any individual Christian is actually doing and believing the right things
to get there is very small even if some form of Christianity is correct.
Since I don't expect to have to pay, I am not worrying about how to
arrange to take the six-pack with me. If you accept the revised bet, I
assume you will arrange to get your six-pack to Valhalla or wherever
we end up.
--
Patricia Shanahan
p...@fps.com
uucp : ucsd!celerity!ps
phone: (619) 271-9940
William Mayne
>In article <iukagB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>>It's pretty obvious that however fervent a believer is, the implication
>>is that he'll always be a "Judaizer", never someone with "Jewish" beliefs,
>>because he belongs to another race.
>
>If someone is a fervent believer in the Jewish religion, he may convert.
I Believe that the first quoted paragraph is an almost accurate restatement
of one of Mr. Wiener's posts, except that Mr. Wiener would have said that
the hypothetical believers/would be convert will always by a "Judaizer",
never "*Jewish*". There was no mention of beliefs in the second part.
From Ken Arromdee's post and others seen recently (e.g. Mr. Strom's, that
conversion is possible and it is forbidden to treat the convert as a second
class Jew in any way) it seems that Mr. Wiener is speaking for himself and
not for Judaism or the Jewish people generally. It is a relief to hear more
moderate voices.
Bill Mayne
Kristin Blais
>I will take you up on this, with some small adjustments. I want to collect
>if the number of gods is not exactly one, or if you end up in hell for
>not believing in exactly the right form of deity. That way, I get the
>six-pack if we both end up in Valhalla, where it might be somewhat
>superfluous, or if we both end up in Hell, where it would be rather
>useful. You should take into account the fact that with the number of
>different fomulae for what one has to do to get into Paradise that have
>been proposed by different groups of Christians, the probability that
>any individual Christian is actually doing and believing the right things
>to get there is very small even if some form of Christianity is correct.
>
>Since I don't expect to have to pay, I am not worrying about how to
>arrange to take the six-pack with me. If you accept the revised bet, I
>assume you will arrange to get your six-pack to Valhalla or wherever
>we end up.
Deal!!!! *but* let me qualify that with if we end up in Vahalla
I don't know if they let you thru the gate with beer, the guards
might snatch it??!. Anyway it's not all bad at least I'd
know someone there!
;-)
Kristin
Bob Hammarberg
How could anyone possibly disagree with this??!!
Matthew P Wiener
>Hmmm. After reading many of your articles in this thread an seeing
>your use of "incomprehensible and often hostile overreaction" the
>expression "The pot calling the the kettle black" comes to mind.
I would say that a simple polite correction to Lieutenent 030 that we
Jews know what we are talking about when it comes to Judaism would have
sufficed. It didn't, and Lieutenant 030 kept asserting that the only
meaning of "religion" is the Christian-inspired meaning, and if us Jews
don't like it, we're playing word games.
Maybe to you that's politeness. To me it's not.
>Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't like you, or gets angry
>at you, even if it is over a trifle, and you happen to be Jewish, does not
>mean that these are in any way connected except, perhaps, that your
>paranoia which you express through your personal identification with
>Judaism is the thing which is scratching some of us gentiles.
There is no paranoia here. You will note that Mr B has been attacking
Judaism from a state of massive ignorance and hostility.
I haven't flamed you, for example, since you basically stick to the facts.
hillel.e.markowitz
>arro...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> In article <T1gcgB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
>> >I see the problem now. You are using some unusual foreign language with
>> >the same words as English, but different meanings for those words.
>> >
>> > Judaism n. Religion of the Jews, with belief in one God and based on Mosai
>> > and rabbinical teachings
>> >
>> > Religion n. 1. Particular system of faith and worship [...]
>>
>> But it's not a personal definition--it's the definition used by Jews.
>
>It's a definition used by a small minority, and it's very odd in comparison
>to the normal definition. Furthermore, we've already seen how it can cause
>confusion and hostility. Jews talking to Jews can use their own private
>definitions of everyday words, but Jews talking to atheists, Christians
>or anyone else should use everyday English.
>
A Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother or who converts to
Judaism. Someone born Jewish stays Jewish even if they deny the
belief. Someone who wishes to *become* Jewish must first agree to
the belief. An analogy is to citizenship. A person can be born a
citizen and then is a citizen unless he/she renounces it in the
manner set forth *by that group*. A person cannot become a citizen
unless expreesing the desire to join and follow the procedures for
joining as set forth *by that group*. The only definition of being
Jewish is that set forth by Jews not the OED or Webster or anyone
else just as the only definition for Mormon, Islam, Atheist,
etc. is that set forth by those groups.
The last sentence above implies that Jews are not entitled to our
beliefs and standards. If you want to speak to Jews, use the
correct terms don't impose your own. Jews talking to Xians have
to, for example, accept that Catholic and Protestant are
different. That is the Xian definition. Xians talking to Jews
have to accept the Jewish definition of Judaism.
Hillel Markowitz H_Mar...@att.com