This is topic Religious Freedom in Israel in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055618

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Before the two state solution thread was locked, there was a question asked that deserves an answer requesting data about the restiction on proselyting in Israel.

The LDS church is not allowed to participate in any form of proselyting in Israel. The LDS churhc has to the best of my knowledge never been allowed to have missionaries in Israel, certainly not since the 1970s. In order to receive permission to build the BYU Jerusalem center in the late 80s, the LDS church had to agree to do no proselyting whatsoever in Israel. I do not know the legal standing of this agreement but I do know it is an agreement the Church takes very literally. Every person who attends the BYU Jerusalem Center or travels to Israel as part of an official LDS group, must sign an affidavit promising that they will not discuss the LDS religion with any Israeli's or Palestinians during their stay. If an Israeli citizen or Palestinian resident of Israeli territory approaches the LDS church and requests to be taught or baptized, they are refused.

So at least as far as the LDS church is concerned, proselyting is prohibited in Israel unless there has been a recent change. I do not know if this type of agreement is unique to the LDS church or is more widespread law that is frequently ignored. But I do know that the LDS is (or at least was last time I checked) barred from proselyting at any level in Israel.

Furthermore, I have an friend/acquaintance who was born in Jerusalem to German Jewish parents who were fleeing the holocaust. As a young man he immigrated to the United States where he converted to Mormonism. He later returned to Jerusalem where he was for many years denied citizenship despite having been born in Israel to Jewish parents because he had converted to Mormonism. He has repeatedly experienced various types of legal discrimination including being forced to move from his Jewish neighborhood and refused government assistance. He is restricted legally from living in many areas because he is Mormon. His children who were born in Israel have had difficulties getting citizenship.

So based on my first had experience, Israel does not have religious freedom.

I suppose its possible that the LDS church and my friend are lying but both my friend and the LDS church are very pro Israeli and I can't think of any reason they would have to lie about religious freedom in Israel.

I hope posting this does not rekindling the fight. That was not my intension.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Neither example you cited is "first had" (or first hand) experience.

Just sayin'
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Rabbit, from what I understand, the Church agreed to not proselyte in order to stop protests. I don't think that's the same thing as being legally restricted from proselyting; they could proselyte, but they would then have to deal with protesters again.
 
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
It might be wise to wait longer than the very next day after an extremely heated thread is locked.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Yeah, if I enter into an agreement willingly, it seems a bit lame of me to complain about how much that agreement restricts me.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
if I enter into an agreement willingly, it seems a bit lame of me to complain about how much that agreement restricts me.
...

Do you own your own home, perchance?

[Smile]

I don't think the Church, officially, complains. (From one point of view) Israel's going to be converted by the return of the Savior, not by clean-cut boys in shirts and ties, speaking garbled Hebrew.

The reaction to Israeli protests is similar to the reaction to ANY objections from just about all quarters: "Us? Hey, we don't say anything bad about YOU...Why you gotta be mean, huh?"

And then we politely acquiesce.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The LDS church is not allowed to participate in any form of proselyting in Israel. The LDS churhc has to the best of my knowledge never been allowed to have missionaries in Israel, certainly not since the 1970s. In order to receive permission to build the BYU Jerusalem center in the late 80s, the LDS church had to agree to do no proselyting whatsoever in Israel. I do not know the legal standing of this agreement but I do know it is an agreement the Church takes very literally. Every person who attends the BYU Jerusalem Center or travels to Israel as part of an official LDS group, must sign an affidavit promising that they will not discuss the LDS religion with any Israeli's or Palestinians during their stay. If an Israeli citizen or Palestinian resident of Israeli territory approaches the LDS church and requests to be taught or baptized, they are refused.

That makes me respect the LDS Church a bit more. Because there's no law preventing them from doing so. But they made an agreement not to do so, and they're standing by it. I think that deserves some kudos.

In all honesty, I didn't think it'd happen. And I wasn't alone. When the BYU complex in Jerusalem was built, there were huge demonstrations. I was at the biggest one. We were opposed to it for two reasons. One was the fact that LDS is a proselytizing religion, and the other is that it simply isn't appropriate to have big Christian edifices sprouting up in Jerusalem.

But note: the government ignored us and went ahead and sold that land to BYU, and the building went up. And they've been there, unmolested, for over 20 years now. Okay, they conditioned the sale on a commitment from the church not to proselytize, but the church agreed to that deal, so you can hardly call that a lack of religious freedom.

Maybe you're looking at it incorrectly, Rabbit. Maybe instead of castigating us for "banning" missionaries and intimating that it's illegal, you should place a little more reliance in your leaders, who apparently think that it's a good thing to honor commitments made. Clearly, you disagree with them about that. I guess it's a good thing you aren't running the show there.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
So at least as far as the LDS church is concerned, proselyting is prohibited in Israel unless there has been a recent change.

Prohibited by your elders. Complain to them. Stop libeling Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Furthermore, I have an friend/acquaintance who was born in Jerusalem to German Jewish parents who were fleeing the holocaust. As a young man he immigrated to the United States where he converted to Mormonism. He later returned to Jerusalem where he was for many years denied citizenship despite having been born in Israel to Jewish parents because he had converted to Mormonism.

Well, yeah. The guy apostasized, Rabbit. Sure, he's still Jewish, but he's the one who opted out. Now he wants to complain that he isn't being given the same perks as Jews who didn't? That's awfully self-serving.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
He has repeatedly experienced various types of legal discrimination including being forced to move from his Jewish neighborhood and refused government assistance.

Oh, poo. I guarantee you he wasn't forced to move from his Jewish neighborhood. Maybe he was made to feel uncomfortable by neighbors, but if you're implying that there was some sort of governmental coercion, on a national or local level, you're either mistaken or lying through your teeth.

I could say that we were forced to move out of our neighborhood in Ramat Beit Shemesh. After all, we were refused the right to membership in the synagogue we attended. Our apartment was egged. The very first text message I ever received was when we were living there. It said "F--- YOU I KILL YOU". Without the dashes. But we chose to leave. And for all that I criticize the people in town who acted that way, it'd be dishonest in the extreme to claim that we were "forced" to leave.

"Refused government assistence"? For those here who don't know how this works, when a Jew immigrates to Israel and claims citizenship under the Law of Return, there are certain "rights" given to them. Entitlements would probably be a better term. Special mortgage rates. Other things to make immigration easier. Because we want to encourage that. These entitlements are not given to anyone else. If this guy received Israeli citizenship not through the Law of Return, or if he isn't a citizen at all, then of course he wouldn't receive them.

Rabbit, Israel was created as a state for the Jews. As a refuge, but also because it's our home, and after spending almost 2000 years expelled from it against our wishes, and proclaiming our intent to eventually return on a daily basis, we've finally started to do so. So we offer special incentives in order to facilitate the return of our people to our land. To claim "religious discrimination" because we don't offer that to everyone is just silly. Of course it's discrimination. Israel isn't the Israeli state. It's the Jewish state. That's what it exists for.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
He is restricted legally from living in many areas because he is Mormon.

That's a lie. I challenge you to support the claim. When Arabs tried moving into a Jewish neighborhood and an attempt was made to prevent them by the people living there, it went to court, and the court overruled the locals. There is absolutely no law of the sort that you're claiming. Either you're making that up, or your friend made it up, or you misunderstood your friend.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
His children who were born in Israel have had difficulties getting citizenship.

Are they Jewish? Did he marry a Jew? If they aren't Jewish, why do you think they should get citizenship? Just because they were born there? Because that's how it works in the US? Sorry, but that's hardly the rule, and it'll never be the rule in Israel. As I said, Israel is the state of the Jews; not the state of the people who happen to live there at any given time.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
So based on my first had experience, Israel does not have religious freedom.

"First hand"? You have a strange definition of that term.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I suppose its possible that the LDS church and my friend are lying but both my friend and the LDS church are very pro Israeli and I can't think of any reason they would have to lie about religious freedom in Israel.

If they actually told you he's forbidden from living in certain places, then yes, he lied. Or perhaps you misunderstood him. And as far as the proselytizing goes, again, that's because some people in your church have the moral sense to keep their word. It's no law of ours, more's the pity.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:

Do you own your own home, perchance?

I rent. I'm trying to anticipate what you are getting at here, but I'm not sure I've made the connection just yet.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
People complain about rent/mortgage all the time. Despite it being a contract walked into with one's eyes open (supposedly), willingness doesn't always remove the pain of having to comply.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I completely agree with Lisa, this seems very valid and straightforward.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
So - religious freedom, yes. Tempered by significant religious discrimination, yes. Right?q
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
People complain about rent/mortgage all the time. Despite it being a contract walked into with one's eyes open (supposedly), willingness doesn't always remove the pain of having to comply.
Sure, but if I claim that my apartment complex is somehow oppressing me by making me pay rent, I'd be rightfully laughed at. Saying that LDS members don't have religious freedom because they can't proselytize is implicitly claiming oppression.

The word "complaining" was perhaps was not strong enough for what Rabbit was doing.

I am not claiming that religious freedom in Israel is not restricted in other ways, some which are more convincing to me personally than Rabbit's initial example.

Added: For instance, I don't think the amount of "religious freedom" in a country is determined by it's government only. Legal religious freedom is not always actual freedom. I think the population of a country can oppress it's minorities as effectively as it's government can.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
...
So based on my first had experience, Israel does not have religious freedom.

I don't know if that would be literally be "does not have religious freedom." Surely religious freedom, even in the US, is not some boolean value and there are floating-point values of religious freedom that different nations have chosen to permit.

In other words, Israel, taking what you described at face value, is a far cry from areas and periods of history that could really be described as not having religious freedom.

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... Rabbit, Israel was created as a state for the Jews. As a refuge, but also because it's our home ...

In retrospect, it seems less of a refuge than a pretty well "designed" trap. I don't mean designed in the sense that there was any malicious intent, but one would be hard-pressed to design a place with a better draw for a population, better surrounded by enemies, and cursed with worse interfering "allies".

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... To claim "religious discrimination" because we don't offer that to everyone is just silly. Of course it's discrimination.

Heh.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
NOW that we've gotten that out of the way-- I'm not sure we should consider Israel our A#1 national charity case until they agree to stop discriminating against non-Jews.

I'm NOT in favor of a Jewish state. I think it's ridiculous.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
So - religious freedom, yes. Tempered by significant religious discrimination, yes. Right?q

Basically, yes. Discrimination, but no persecution. And for the record, the state is so secular that sometimes the discrimination is reversed. For example, the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish according to Judaism. But Islam (at least according to the Muslims in Israel) says it goes by the father. So in cases where a Muslim man marries a Jewish women (r'ltz), the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Bummer, Scott. God disagrees.

Anyway, if you want to start a petition to cut off all aid to the entire region, I'll sign it. And I live in Chicago, so I can sign it several times, if you like.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
Rabbit, if your friend was born Jewish in Jerusalem, wouldn't he already be a citizen?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
God disagrees.
About what? There being a Jewish state?

That the land of Canaan is meant to be the homeland of the Jews is fine (religiously speaking). I'm perfectly fine with continuing to support democracy there. I'm not fine with continuing to support discriminatory practices, or restriction of non-Jewish immigration.

Israel is the homeland of my religion, too. I'm willing to share, and I think we can get along peacefully.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
...
Anyway, if you want to start a petition to cut off all aid to the entire region, I'll sign it.

Amen to that.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
God disagrees.
About what? There being a Jewish state?

That the land of Canaan is meant to be the homeland of the Jews is fine (religiously speaking). I'm perfectly fine with continuing to support democracy there. I'm not fine with continuing to support discriminatory practices, or restriction of non-Jewish immigration.

Israel is the homeland of my religion, too. I'm willing to share, and I think we can get along peacefully.

Under certain circumstances, and for now. Sure.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
And for the record, the state is so secular that sometimes the discrimination is reversed. For example, the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish according to Judaism. But Islam (at least according to the Muslims in Israel) says it goes by the father. So in cases where a Muslim man marries a Jewish women (r'ltz), the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.

That's your definition of a "secular" state?

This might blow your mind, but some countries are so secular that they don't legally assign a religion to every newborn infant. Scandalous, ain't it?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.
Slavish? If the child was Jewish, they'd have to give it "entitlements..."
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
J4J plans on ending their worldwide city tour in Israel. (They may already have?) I remember them in Baltimore a couple of years ago. When reading about it, I never saw anything about it being illegal to try and spread their religion. I can imagine more than a few protests though. But freedom of speech tends to go along with freeedom of religion.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.
Slavish? If the child was Jewish, they'd have to give it "entitlements..."
Nope. Just new immigrants. Yes, there are some entitlements that are given to soldiers after finishing regular army, but those are different.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
Wouldn't a better term for the benefits recieved by people with 1 Jewish grandparent upon immigration be 'incentives' rather than 'entitlements'.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
But note: the government ignored us and went ahead and sold that land to BYU, and the building went up. And they've been there, unmolested, for over 20 years now. Okay, they conditioned the sale on a commitment from the church not to proselytize, but the church agreed to that deal, so you can hardly call that a lack of religious freedom.
As I understand the sequence of events, the government would not agree to sell the land and permit the building until the church agreed to do no proselyting. Refusing to allow groups to buy property and build schools unless they surrender their religious liberties is an infringement of religious liberty.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
Rabbit, if your friend was born Jewish in Jerusalem, wouldn't he already be a citizen?

He was born in Jerusalem during WWII under the British mandate. He had 4 Jewish grandparents. Based on those facts, he should have been recognized as a citizen automatically when he returned to Jerusalem, he was not because he had converted to Mormonism. He was eventually granted citzenship after a long legal battle. His children were born before he won his battle for citizenship which is why they have also had difficulties. But the fact is that if he had been a Jew who was a completely non-observant athiest, he wouldn't have had any trouble. He was discriminated against because he had converted.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
As I understand the sequence of events, the government would not agree to sell the land and permit the building until the church agreed to do no proselyting. Refusing to allow groups to buy property and build schools unless they surrender their religious liberties is an infringement of religious liberty.
Did the land belong to the Israeli government?

If so, I disagree. They have every right to refuse to sell their land, for whatever reasons they see fit.

Now if it was a private individual or group that was selling the land, and the government blocked it, then I'd have to reconsider. Not sure how I'd feel about that.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... But the fact is that if he had been a Jew who was a completely non-observant athiest, he wouldn't have had any trouble.

From context, would it be correct to guess that the Israeli government asks about your religion when you return and that the hypothetical non-observant atheist would have to identify as a Jew or something?
Or is it ok to be non-religious, simply not to be "something else"?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Maybe you're looking at it incorrectly, Rabbit. Maybe instead of castigating us for "banning" missionaries and intimating that it's illegal, you should place a little more reliance in your leaders, who apparently think that it's a good thing to honor commitments made. Clearly, you disagree with them about that. I guess it's a good thing you aren't running the show there.
What gives you the idea that I think our church leaders are wrong to honor the commitments they made? I don't. I agree that they should honor those commitments. My point is that they shouldn't have been required to make that kind of commitment before the government would grant them building permits and selling them land. That kind of requirement is an abridgement of religious freedom.

How is this any different from a Condo association banning the display of a Mezuzah? link In this case the condo owner also agreed to follow the rules of the condo association when she purchased her home. Why is restricting peoples religions as a condition of property any less a violation of religious freedom in Israel than it is in the US.

Your religion is not the only one that considers Jerusalem a sacred place. The fact that you find it inappropriate for Christians whose religion was founded in Jerusalem to build a school in Jerusalem is a good reason alone to object to having people who share your views in charge of an area held sacred in 3 major world religions.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
"Refused government assistence"? For those here who don't know how this works, when a Jew immigrates to Israel and claims citizenship under the Law of Return, there are certain "rights" given to them. Entitlements would probably be a better term. Special mortgage rates. Other things to make immigration easier. Because we want to encourage that. These entitlements are not given to anyone else. If this guy received Israeli citizenship not through the Law of Return, or if he isn't a citizen at all, then of course he wouldn't receive them.
The point is that he had four Jewish grandparents and so should have been granted citizenship under the right of return along with all the benefits associate with that. He was not because he had converted to Mormonism. If a law grants citizenship and benefits to all people with at least one Jewish grandparent except those who belong to particular sects -- that is religious discrimination.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
If so, I disagree. They have every right to refuse to sell their land, for whatever reasons they see fit.
No! I mean certainly a government can make any rules it wants to make but if the US government (or even a private group in the US) refused to sell the land to people because of their religious beliefs and practices, we would consider it a violation of religious freedom. I don't see why it is less so in Israel.

As I understand it, the land on which the Jerusalem center is built was not owned by the Israeli government. It is a special class of land whose owners are unknown because they were displaced during one of the Israeli wars. There are a very large number of restrictions to building on this type of land which required government approval. The LDS church met (and I am told) exceeded all these requirements included extensive search for the owners of the land or their descendent and establishing a trust fund of Palestinian students. I believe that the LDS church only leases the land and does not own it (a rare circumstance for the LDS church).

Exceeding all the written requirements was however not considered adequate to receive government approval until the church agreed to what is in essence a gag order. That isn't religious freedom.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Yay Wikipedia:
quote:
The land the church wanted for the center, located on the southwestern side of Mount Scopus, had been acquired by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967 and could not be sold under Israeli law. The church decided to obtain a lease on the land instead. Leasing the land also prevented the politically controversial problem of the church owning a piece of Jerusalem land. Israeli officials saw the building of the center on the land as a way of solidifying control over land whose ownership was ambiguous under international law. By August 1984, the church had the land on a 49-year lease, building permits had been obtained, and construction on the building began.
<snip lots of text about protests>
quote:
A subcommittee of the Knesset requested that the LDS Church issue a formal promise not to proselytize Jews.
So it doesn't sound like it was a requirement, though it's possible it would have become one.

Edit to add: In case it's not clear, they started building long before they made the agreement. The agreement was made at the request of the Knesset in response to protests after construction was already underway.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
From context, would it be correct to guess that the Israeli government asks about your religion when you return and that the hypothetical non-observant atheist would have to identify as a Jew or something?
Or is it ok to be non-religious, simply not to be "something else"?

I don't know but does it really matter? Israel does not require that you observe the Law of Moses to become a citizen. It does not require that you are recognized as Jewish by the Jewish Rabbinate. it does not require you even profess a belief in the Jewish God. What the law requires for citizenship under right of return is at least one Jewish grandparent. If they exclude people with one type of religious belief (Mormonism) but not another (Atheism) that is religious discrimination.

If it were the other way around, they excluded people of Jewish ancestry who confessed to being athiests, wouldn't you consider that religious discrimination?

[ June 11, 2009, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Thanks Matt for confirming my recollection about the ownership of the land.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
So in cases where a Muslim man marries a Jewish women (r'ltz), the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.
Is this true regardless of the wishes of the parents? Could the parents choose to have the child registered as Jewish or something else?

According to my sources, interfaith and non-religious marriages are not recognized in Israel so I'm not sure what you mean about the state Slavishly bending over when Muslim man "marries" a Jewish woman.

What do the do when a child has a Jewish father and a Muslim mother?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
The Rabbit: I'm asking out of curiosity mostly. The mechanics of it are kind of interesting.

As I understand it, Lisa has already acknowledged that it is discrimination, period, so it is not really necessary to ask me [Wink]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
The land the church wanted for the center, located on thSo it doesn't sound like it was a requirement, though it's possible it would have become one.

Edit to add: In case it's not clear, they started building long before they made the agreement. The agreement was made at the request of the Knesset in response to protests after construction was already underway.

From the same Wikipedia article,

quote:
Protests and opposition to the building of the center springing from the Haredim made the issue of building the center a national and even international issue. After several investigative committees of Israel's Knesset reviewed and debated the issue, Israeli officials decided to allow the center's construction to continue in 1986.
It was during this review period that the Knesset requested that the LDS promise it would refrain from proselyting in Israel and only after the church agreed that the building was allowed to go forward. View that how you will.

In my mind, it doesn't really matter whether either side explicitly stated that this was a condition required for building -- the implication is very clear.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Are they Jewish? Did he marry a Jew? If they aren't Jewish, why do you think they should get citizenship? Just because they were born there? Because that's how it works in the US? Sorry, but that's hardly the rule, and it'll never be the rule in Israel. As I said, Israel is the state of the Jews; not the state of the people who happen to live there at any given time.
And this is exactly what I object to. Every human being deserves the right to citizenship in his native land. I can see possible exceptions for people who are born in a country where their parents are visitors and have citizenship in another country, but not for people whose permanent homes and parents homes and citizenship are in that land. This is a fundamental human right and restricting fundamental rights based on religion is wrong.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Under certain circumstances, and for now. Sure.
That's just the sort of talk that engenders long, peaceful relations with one's neighbors.

Edit: And y'know Lisa, you've said many times that you'd support a complete and immediate cessation of US foreign aid to Israel. I believe you mean it, but I'm not so sure at all if you'd keep meaning it if this ever became anything more substantial than the very abstract issue it is right now.

Because right now, and for the forseeable future, US foreign aid is going to keep flowing to Israel. Both parties want it to continue, with no signs showing of that mutual desire tapering off. So I guess what I'm saying is, "It sounds nice."

ETA:
quote:
This is a fundamental human right and restricting fundamental rights based on religion is wrong.
Is it always wrong, in all cases?

[ June 11, 2009, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
Wouldn't a better term for the benefits recieved by people with 1 Jewish grandparent upon immigration be 'incentives' rather than 'entitlements'.

It doesn't connote properly. Zechuyot are usually called rights by Anglos, but to be zakkai to something means to be entitled to it.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
But note: the government ignored us and went ahead and sold that land to BYU, and the building went up. And they've been there, unmolested, for over 20 years now. Okay, they conditioned the sale on a commitment from the church not to proselytize, but the church agreed to that deal, so you can hardly call that a lack of religious freedom.
As I understand the sequence of events, the government would not agree to sell the land and permit the building until the church agreed to do no proselyting. Refusing to allow groups to buy property and build schools unless they surrender their religious liberties is an infringement of religious liberty.
Think of it as zoning.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
Rabbit, if your friend was born Jewish in Jerusalem, wouldn't he already be a citizen?

He was born in Jerusalem during WWII under the British mandate. He had 4 Jewish grandparents. Based on those facts, he should have been recognized as a citizen automatically when he returned to Jerusalem, he was not because he had converted to Mormonism. He was eventually granted citzenship after a long legal battle. His children were born before he won his battle for citizenship which is why they have also had difficulties. But the fact is that if he had been a Jew who was a completely non-observant athiest, he wouldn't have had any trouble. He was discriminated against because he had converted.
Well... yeah. You make it sound like "big deal, he converted". Israel isn't America. Israel is a country of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews. Someone who has utterly turned his back on that and then turning around and asking for the perks that go with being Jewish... that's a fairly good definition of chutzpah.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... But the fact is that if he had been a Jew who was a completely non-observant athiest, he wouldn't have had any trouble.

From context, would it be correct to guess that the Israeli government asks about your religion when you return and that the hypothetical non-observant atheist would have to identify as a Jew or something?
Or is it ok to be non-religious, simply not to be "something else"?

When you move to Israel, you're asked your religion. If you don't identify as a Jew, then you don't get the rights given to a Jew.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
My point is that they shouldn't have been required to make that kind of commitment before the government would grant them building permits and selling them land. That kind of requirement is an abridgement of religious freedom.

How is this any different from a Condo association banning the display of a Mezuzah? link

The United States was founded on the premise that it is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Israel wasn't. It has a specific purpose, and that's for a specific group of people.

I was furious that they allowed BYU to build there, and I still look forward to the day when that building is used for something more appropriate to its location.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Your religion is not the only one that considers Jerusalem a sacred place.

So? It's still our country.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The point is that he had four Jewish grandparents and so should have been granted citizenship under the right of return along with all the benefits associate with that. He was not because he had converted to Mormonism. If a law grants citizenship and benefits to all people with at least one Jewish grandparent except those who belong to particular sects -- that is religious discrimination.

Okay. And I'm fine with that. If I lived in Vatican City, I'd expect that there are things available for Catholics that aren't available for me. But I wouldn't accept that in Chicago. If someone doesn't like the fact that the Jewish state is Jewish, they don't have to go there.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Every word you say makes more convinced that a theocracy is a disaster for human dignity.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... When you move to Israel, you're asked your religion. If you don't identify as a Jew, then you don't get the rights given to a Jew.

If that is correct, then it seems to me that it didn't make sense for The Rabbit to breakout atheist Jews and Mormon Jews as being treated separately, both get treated the same.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
If so, I disagree. They have every right to refuse to sell their land, for whatever reasons they see fit.
No! I mean certainly a government can make any rules it wants to make but if the US government (or even a private group in the US) refused to sell the land to people because of their religious beliefs and practices, we would consider it a violation of religious freedom. I don't see why it is less so in Israel.
You don't see, or you don't want to see? You seem intent on considering Israel a mini-USA, and judging it by the standards of the USA. But it isn't the USA. It's Israel. As a mini-USA, it's a terrible failure. As a Jewish state, it's also pretty screwed up, but at least there's some Jewish character.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
As I understand it, the land on which the Jerusalem center is built was not owned by the Israeli government. It is a special class of land whose owners are unknown because they were displaced during one of the Israeli wars. There are a very large number of restrictions to building on this type of land which required government approval. The LDS church met (and I am told) exceeded all these requirements included extensive search for the owners of the land or their descendent and establishing a trust fund of Palestinian students. I believe that the LDS church only leases the land and does not own it (a rare circumstance for the LDS church).

That's a technicality. All land outside of the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line) is leased. When I bought my home in Maaleh Adumim, I bought the structure, and leased the land. It's a 99 year lease, and while we haven't had to deal with what happens at the end of the 99 years, I suspect they'll all simply be extended. Or rolled over into another 99 year lease.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I don't know but does it really matter? Israel does not require that you observe the Law of Moses to become a citizen. It does not require that you are recognized as Jewish by the Jewish Rabbinate. it does not require you even profess a belief in the Jewish God. What the law requires for citizenship under right of return is at least one Jewish grandparent. If they exclude people with one type of religious belief (Mormonism) but not another (Atheism) that is religious discrimination.

Don't feel bad. It isn't that you're Mormon. It's that you're Christian. A nation that's been targeted by Christians and Christianity for 17 centuries, with forced conversions and pogroms and torture and all the other fun and games, is entitled to require restraint from them in our own damn home!

Also, atheism isn't a religion; it's a mistake.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If it were the other way around, they excluded people of Jewish ancestry who confessed to being athiests, wouldn't you consider that religious discrimination?

If the Jewish state were to do that? Yes, I'd consider that a mighty big problem. As a matter of fact, the State of Israel does discriminate against Jews. I remember a letter in the Jerusalem Post from a Christian lady who'd come to Israel on a visit. She went up to the Temple Mount, and she was so spiritually charged by the experience that she took out a psalmter (is that the right word? A book of Psalms?) and started saying them quietly to herself.

She was immediately arrested, and only released when she managed to prove that she wasn't a Jew.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
So in cases where a Muslim man marries a Jewish women (r'ltz), the State of Israel, in all its slavish wish to bend over backwards and make others happy, registers the child as Muslim.
Is this true regardless of the wishes of the parents? Could the parents choose to have the child registered as Jewish or something else?
Beats me. I doubt it's ever happened.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
According to my sources, interfaith and non-religious marriages are not recognized in Israel so I'm not sure what you mean about the state Slavishly bending over when Muslim man "marries" a Jewish woman.

If they marry elsewhere. Israel accepts marriages performed abroad. Also, Muslim family status is under the aegis of the Muslim religious authorities in Israel, so if they choose to do such a marriage, they can.

More discrimination against Jews. <sigh>

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
What do the do when a child has a Jewish father and a Muslim mother?

Who cares? I'd hope they'd register the child as a Muslim. It certainly isn't a Jew.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Also, atheism isn't a religion; it's a mistake.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
And this is exactly what I object to. Every human being deserves the right to citizenship in his native land.

Says who?

It's funny... you read stories about criminals in Turkey and Spain and other places who've watched American cop shows on cable. When they get arrested, they're all, "But you didn't read me my rights!" Get a grip, Rabbit. As much as some Americans might like it to be otherwise, America doesn't rule the world, and American standards, while good for America, aren't necessarily good in other contexts.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Edit: And y'know Lisa, you've said many times that you'd support a complete and immediate cessation of US foreign aid to Israel. I believe you mean it, but I'm not so sure at all if you'd keep meaning it if this ever became anything more substantial than the very abstract issue it is right now.

I've been saying it for the past 25 years. And I mean it. I'd do quite a lot for it to happen.

(Edit) Of course, I'd also campaign for an end to aid for Israel's neighbors as well, but if that wasn't an option, I'd still ask for an end to aid for Israel.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Because right now, and for the forseeable future, US foreign aid is going to keep flowing to Israel. Both parties want it to continue, with no signs showing of that mutual desire tapering off. So I guess what I'm saying is, "It sounds nice."

USA = pusher
Israel = junkie

You do the math.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... When you move to Israel, you're asked your religion. If you don't identify as a Jew, then you don't get the rights given to a Jew.

If that is correct, then it seems to me that it didn't make sense for The Rabbit to breakout atheist Jews and Mormon Jews as being treated separately, both get treated the same.
I doubt it. An atheist Jew who wants to move to Israel is likely to say "I'm Jewish, but I don't believe."
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Every word you say makes more convinced that a theocracy is a disaster for human dignity.

DNFTT.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... I doubt it. An atheist Jew who wants to move to Israel is likely to say "I'm Jewish, but I don't believe."

*shrug* A Mormon could just say the same thing.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Also, atheism isn't a religion; it's a mistake.
And Judaism is a lie. Atheists, however, do not generally attempt to use force to prevent people from believing such lies.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Any system of government based on the idea that some people born in the country are more equal than others is inherently flawed. It was wrong when it was built into the U.S. Constitution, and it's still wrong 150 years after that ended.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nationality_law

wiki on israel's citizenship laws.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... I doubt it. An atheist Jew who wants to move to Israel is likely to say "I'm Jewish, but I don't believe."

*shrug* A Mormon could just say the same thing.
I'd figure an atheist would have no qualms about lying, particularly if it's to get something he thinks he's being denied unjustly because of religion. Do Mormons feel the same way?
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"I'd figure an atheist would have no qualms about lying, particularly if it's to get something he thinks he's being denied unjustly because of religion"

The assertion being that atheists are more prone to lying than religious folk?

I seriously doubt you could demonstrate any objective reason for believing this.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Why would you figure that? Atheists are just as capable of morality as anyone else.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Is that lying though? If someone is literally saying "I'm Jewish, but I don't believe" then clearly they're not saying that they are Jewish due to any religious belief. It would seem to me that they are asserting that they're Jewish in terms of ethnicity/heredity/whatever.

At least, it is not clear to me that they would think that they are lying.
 
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
I'd figure an atheist would have no qualms about lying, particularly if it's to get something he thinks he's being denied unjustly because of religion.

You figure wrong.

But that's not unexpected. Your posts here only show that you're only here to spew and never actually tried to have a conversation.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I'd post something but I'm probably just lying anyway...
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
... When you move to Israel, you're asked your religion. If you don't identify as a Jew, then you don't get the rights given to a Jew.

If that is correct, then it seems to me that it didn't make sense for The Rabbit to breakout atheist Jews and Mormon Jews as being treated separately, both get treated the same.
I doubt it. An atheist Jew who wants to move to Israel is likely to say "I'm Jewish, but I don't believe."
My question is, why would Atheist Jews want to move to Israel? I consider myself one now, loved and cherished the 10 days I spent there, but frankly would rather move to Canada or Australia.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Perhaps a Jew born in Israel could become an atheist.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

Rabbit, Israel was created as a state for the Jews. As a refuge, but also because it's our home, and after spending almost 2000 years expelled from it against our wishes, and proclaiming our intent to eventually return on a daily basis, we've finally started to do so.

So you can trace every one of your ancestors back to the same group of people living in the same little area for 2,000 years? Sounds like that's a big part of your problem right there. Family trees are supposed to have branches.

I'm reminded of a Ben Folds song:

quote:
I can feel that someone's blasting me with hate and bass
Sending dirty vibes my way
'Cause my great-great-great-great-granddad
Made someone's great-great-great-great-granddaddies slaves
It wasn't my idea...

Yes, a long dead group of people once did something bad to another long dead group of people. That was 2,000 years ago, and none of them was you or anyone you know. Maybe it's time to let it go.

Better yet, after all these centuries, maybe it's time for you to marry an Arab. If your mama had married an Arab, there's a chance you'd have been able to live your life in peace, rather than wasting it being consumed with hatred and xenophobia.

That seems like a much better gift to give your children than another generation of inbreeding.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
quote:
Bummer, Scott. God disagrees.
What was that thing about using God's name in vain?

As far as I can tell, saying "Oh God, I wish I had a million dollars" or even "God damnit, this hurts" isn't taking his name in vain, because you're speaking the truth, from your own perspective. But to put words in the mouth of God, well, that's the very essence of blasphemy. Good thing blasphemy is a victimless crime or you'd be up a creek.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
quote:
Perhaps a Jew born in Israel could become an atheist.
No doubt many have.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Lisa

quote:
Originally posted by: Lisa

Well, yeah. The guy apostasized, Rabbit. Sure, he's still Jewish, but he's the one who opted out. Now he wants to complain that he isn't being given the same perks as Jews who didn't? That's awfully self-serving.

.....

Are they Jewish? Did he marry a Jew? If they aren't Jewish, why do you think they should get citizenship? Just because they were born there? Because that's how it works in the US? Sorry, but that's hardly the rule, and it'll never be the rule in Israel. As I said, Israel is the state of the Jews; not the state of the people who happen to live there at any given time.

You made constant references in, I can't remember if it's the locked thread or the Obama thread or both, to a recent court case where, to paraphrase you 'it's now illegal to marry a Jew.' Well, the actual details of the court case do not make it illegal to marry a Jew, but if an Egyptian does marry a Jew, they lose their citizenship.

So here's my question: How is that wrong, but this is okay?

Israel sets the standard of Judaism for citizenship, Egypt sets it as Islam, with a...well, tenuous tolerance of Christian populations at least. In Israel, in your words, children of Jews and Muslims are declared Muslims, and I would imagine don't have citizenship, and in Egypt, now, if a Muslim marries a Jew, they lose citizenship. It would seem you're drawing an extremely fine line here.

Near as I can tell from reading the details of that court case, by the way, the judges involved were far more concerned about Egyptians who move to Israel, get married, and then try to bring their wives back to Egypt, rather than just a blanket attack on Judaism (though I'm not ruling out the possibility).
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The more I see of it, the more I think that if one specifically *wanted* to make people less sympathetic to Israel and less amenable to lisa's causes, the best way to do so would be to argue pretty much like lisa and eventually cycle into this whole idea of a theocratic nation where you have to be a jew to vote and if you do something like marry a non-jew you don't get to vote anymore* and this is the way it should be and god says so and let me smirk and berate you for not finding this the best most appropriate idea etc etc etc.

It may as well have been crafted purposefully to transmit the notion "hi, I'm so radical that people like me can never, ever be trusted with the future of Israel, man, we'd screw that place up gooooooood"

* edit: OR if you marry a non-jew just your KID doesn't get to vote ever, OR if ONLY you are the male and you marry a jewish female, your kid doesn't get to vote ever, but maybe perhaps if it is the other way around and if the mom is jewish then it's okay to be a REAL citizen of Israel, gee, sorry if I get some convoluted literal-interpretation theological social policy details wrong

[ June 11, 2009, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It almost makes you wonder if Lisa really hates Israel, she's such an effective argument against its constitution.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I must admit, I was far more pro-Israel before reading Lisa's posts on the topic.
 
Posted by Geekazoid (Member # 7610) on :
 
Its clear that Israel has an identity crisis which is probably one of the biggest barriers (after actual violence) to peace. Israel can't decide whether it's a Democratic State that is for the Jews as a refuge, or that its a Jewish State that happens to use democracy.

That's whats leads to a lot of the disagreements between hard liners like Lisa and some people who are more moderate. Hard liners hold its a Jewish State and Torah Law and having all of the land is most important while the moderates believe that the state is meant to be as free as possible as long as it can always be a refuge for the Jews to live without fear.

Until Israel can choose which type of state it is, nothing will ever be solved.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
quote:
Israel sets the standard of Judaism for citizenship
No it doesn't. It reacts to the standard of Judaism for persecution. Go check the Nuremburg Laws.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:
Bummer, Scott. God disagrees.
What was that thing about using God's name in vain?

As far as I can tell, saying "Oh God, I wish I had a million dollars" or even "God damnit, this hurts" isn't taking his name in vain, because you're speaking the truth, from your own perspective. But to put words in the mouth of God, well, that's the very essence of blasphemy. Good thing blasphemy is a victimless crime or you'd be up a creek.

Or maybe you simply don't know the definition of blasphemy.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You made constant references in, I can't remember if it's the locked thread or the Obama thread or both, to a recent court case where, to paraphrase you 'it's now illegal to marry a Jew.' Well, the actual details of the court case do not make it illegal to marry a Jew, but if an Egyptian does marry a Jew, they lose their citizenship.

So here's my question: How is that wrong, but this is okay?

It's all in the details. Ordinarily, Muslim men are allowed, and sometimes even encouraged, to marry non-Muslim women. But this ruling was that they aren't allowed to marry non-Muslim women from Israel. Not because they're members of another religion, but because they're Israeli. It isn't even slightly in the same realm.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geekazoid:
Its clear that Israel has an identity crisis which is probably one of the biggest barriers (after actual violence) to peace. Israel can't decide whether it's a Democratic State that is for the Jews as a refuge, or that its a Jewish State that happens to use democracy.

That's whats leads to a lot of the disagreements between hard liners like Lisa and some people who are more moderate. Hard liners hold its a Jewish State and Torah Law and having all of the land is most important while the moderates believe that the state is meant to be as free as possible as long as it can always be a refuge for the Jews to live without fear.

Until Israel can choose which type of state it is, nothing will ever be solved.

QFT
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
My question is, why would Atheist Jews want to move to Israel?

Many do. Some I have met have tried to explain it to me. I didn't entirely understand, but I'll do my best to relay what I was told.

You can be proud to be part of the Jewish nation, and wish to be in our homeland, even if you believe God is a nice idea, rather than an aspect of reality.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
An idea that sounds less and less "nice" (and less and less like God) the more it is described here.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Was that necessary? I have no interest in engaging in any side of the nastiness. I was just trying to answer an honest question.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Rivka, I don't know if you believe as Lisa does or not. And I am not asking you to answer that.

For me, stating that the kind of God who would want what Lisa has been describing is neither nice nor just nor God is as necessary as any part of this conversation.

I have a hard time wondering how someone who doesn't even have the reason of believing that God is real would choose to think that any of it - as described as Lisa has done - is nice.

Added: I mean really. "I don't really believe in God but how wonderful there is a(nother) country where you only have rights if you belong to a certain ethnic group and other people are discriminated against. Let's work toward that!"
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Rivka, I don't know if you believe as Lisa does or not. And I am not asking you to answer that.

I would have to pick apart what she says and explain which parts I disagree strongly with, which I sort of agree with but with caveats, which I don't even understand where she gets them from, and which I actually agree with completely.

I have no interest in doing that sort of unraveling.

Regardless, I strongly object to my statement being used as a springboard for negativity when I was doing my darnedest to stay out of it.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
rivka: For my part, I appreciated the answer and I'm not totally unsympathetic. There are some parallels in the Chinese community.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
Kmb, you are very silly if you want to judge Judaism based on Lisa's personality type.

If you prefer - just see it as Rivka's nation and Rivka's God. Does that make it easier? Rivka is a really nice person.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thanks, Mucus. [Smile]

Armoth, you're very sweet. I expect it doesn't help much; Kate is still pretty angry with me about prop. 8. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
My question is, why would Atheist Jews want to move to Israel?

Many do. Some I have met have tried to explain it to me. I didn't entirely understand, but I'll do my best to relay what I was told.

You can be proud to be part of the Jewish nation, and wish to be in our homeland, even if you believe God is a nice idea, rather than an aspect of reality.

This seems along the lines of how Einstein felt about the the Jewish people.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
"a nice idea"? You DO realize how that sounds right?
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I must admit, I was far more pro-Israel before reading Lisa's posts on the topic.

QFT
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
quote:
Israel sets the standard of Judaism for citizenship
No it doesn't. It reacts to the standard of Judaism for persecution. Go check the Nuremburg Laws.
Um, I'm not sure if that really follows...

This is something I don't really know, it's just what I've picked up from reading Lisa's posts, but do you or do you not need to be Jewish to have full citizenship rights? If you do, then nothing you just said really matters so far as my argument goes. If you don't, then I've gotten the wrong impression, and that takes things in another direction.

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You made constant references in, I can't remember if it's the locked thread or the Obama thread or both, to a recent court case where, to paraphrase you 'it's now illegal to marry a Jew.' Well, the actual details of the court case do not make it illegal to marry a Jew, but if an Egyptian does marry a Jew, they lose their citizenship.

So here's my question: How is that wrong, but this is okay?

It's all in the details. Ordinarily, Muslim men are allowed, and sometimes even encouraged, to marry non-Muslim women. But this ruling was that they aren't allowed to marry non-Muslim women from Israel. Not because they're members of another religion, but because they're Israeli. It isn't even slightly in the same realm.
That's not true actually, in a number of ways. What you linked to was a fatwa, which doesn't have legally binding force, at least not usually. Sometimes it can in matters of marriage, which we're dealing with, but almost always in shia dominant countries, which isn't the case with Egypt. Fatwas are guiding principles on religious matters, and can be taken into consideration in court cases. The original court case that you referenced initially does not outlaw marriage to non-Muslim Jews, it removes citizenship for doing it, though marriage to a Muslim Israeli still allows for the retention of citizenship.

So it still comes back to a matter of citizenship. Even Egypt allows non-Muslims to be citizens. I've gotten the impression that non-Jews aren't given full citizenship. And that the children of Muslim men are considered Muslim, and would thus also not have citizenship.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.
 
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
quote:
Israel sets the standard of Judaism for citizenship
No it doesn't. It reacts to the standard of Judaism for persecution. Go check the Nuremburg Laws.
Um, I'm not sure if that really follows...

This is something I don't really know, it's just what I've picked up from reading Lisa's posts, but do you or do you not need to be Jewish to have full citizenship rights? If you do, then nothing you just said really matters so far as my argument goes. If you don't, then I've gotten the wrong impression, and that takes things in another direction.

Judaism is not a requirement to be a citizen of Israel.

--Edit: If I understand her correctly, Lisa wants things to change so the Judaism is a requirement for citizenship.--

(I'm sure someone's posted about the Arabs who didn't listen to their leaders, stayed put during the War of Independence, and became citizens, while those who listened and fled got stuck by those same leaders in refugee camps.)

People of all religions are treated the same under the law with 2 major exceptions that I can think of:

1)Only (non-chareidi) Jews are drafted into the army. Non-Jews must volunteer if thet want to serve.

2)The Law of Return. This was enacted so that whenever Jews were being persecuted because they were Jews, there would be a place that would welcome them for because they were Jews. Most Anti-Semites don't actually care about the definition of a Jew according to halacha (Jewish Law) and consider anyone with 1 Jewsih grandparent Jewish enough to kill. The law reflects that as we don't want anyone persecuted as a Jew to be without options.

However, lots of areas, like marriage, are left under religious juristiction, which obviously has different rules for members and non-members. So when people want to get married, they go to the appropiate religious authority for their faith who presumably won't let them marry outside the faith.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
--Edit: If I understand her correctly, Lisa wants things to change so the Judaism is a requirement for citizenship.--
Ah, okay. I got that mixed up then.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Added: I mean really. "I don't really believe in God but how wonderful there is a(nother) country where you only have rights if you belong to a certain ethnic group and other people are discriminated against. Let's work toward that!" "

What Lisa has described is her vision of what israel should be. Not how it is, and not how atheist jews work to make israel.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The only ways to become a citizen, according to wikipedia:

1. By return. Jews only.
2. By residence if you lived there before 1948.
3. If you parents are already citizens. Not actually a method.
4. By naturalization, which is only available to permanent residents. You can only become a permanent residence at the discretion at the Minister of the Interior, who has basically carte blance to set policy about who and when.

quote:
To be eligible for naturalization, a person must have resided in Israel for three years out of the previous five years. In addition, the applicant must have a right to reside in Israel on a permanent basis. All naturalization requests are, however, at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.
I'm having a very, very hard time finding instructions for becoming a permanent resident, although all sorts of rules about who can't become a permanent resident (if you aren't already a citizen and live in Gaza, for instance) are everywhere.

I did find this:
quote:
there is no immigration law that applies to non-Jews
from some instructions on how to live in Israel.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=182&view=item&idx=1638&skintype=G&skinname=_default&skinsrc=printmodule.ascx&containertype=G&containername=_default&containersrc=pri ntContent.ascx&mid=942

The tagline:
quote:

How can Christian Zionists gain long-term status in Israel, which only officially accepts Jewish immigrants?

Long-term status - not citizenship. Reading it, you basically have to be related to someone Jewish and sneak in through a back door, back doors that have been forced open by the courts.

Citizens of all religions may be the same under the law, but citizenship is officially only open to Jews and special cases the courts have forced Israel to allow.

Discrimination is far, far too weak a word for this.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
If someone's goal was to turn people against Israel's present constitution and convince them it is inherently discriminatory, I think they would act exactly as Lisa does.

I am honestly curious as to what she thinks she is doing. Is this a secret vendetta?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I am honestly curious as to what she thinks she is doing
Being honest and forthright to the point of bull-headedness. That's Lisa's thing, and to be frank I respect her for it.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
--Edit: If I understand her correctly, Lisa wants things to change so the Judaism is a requirement for citizenship.--

Correct.

quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
1)Only (non-chareidi) Jews are drafted into the army. Non-Jews must volunteer if thet want to serve.

Some non-Jews can serve if they volunteer. Some can't. And the "non-chareidi" is not true. Chareidim are drafted just like anyone else. Some of them get exemptions to learn in Yeshiva. Some secular kids get exemptions for other reasons, or simply leave the country for a while to avoid service.

Women do a shorter stint, and they're allowed to do national service instead of army if their religious views require it. They're allowed to do neither, too, if their religious views require it.

quote:
Originally posted by adenam:
2)The Law of Return. This was enacted so that whenever Jews were being persecuted because they were Jews, there would be a place that would welcome them for because they were Jews. Most Anti-Semites don't actually care about the definition of a Jew according to halacha (Jewish Law) and consider anyone with 1 Jewsih grandparent Jewish enough to kill. The law reflects that as we don't want anyone persecuted as a Jew to be without options.

Well, I'm all for people being allowed in if they meet the anti-semitic definition, but I still want citizenship limited to Jews.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Lisa, Would you consider it acceptable if any other country restricted citizenship based on religion. Suppose the US were to limit citizenship to Christians or France were to withhold citizenship from Jews, would you find that acceptable? Do you think it is acceptable for Muslim countries to restrict citizenship to Muslims?

If not, why do you see Israel as an exception to this rule and if "God wants it that way is your answer" you need to explain why you believe God wants it that way and why your belief should be considered any more valid than the say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad belief that God wants the Jews removed from Palestine.

As Barack Obama said

quote:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. . . . . Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.
So if you are not simply depending on God to make his will law in Israel but are hoping for cooperation of others in achieving what you see as the God's will for Israel/Palestine, you need to persuade us not just make unprovable irrational claims.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
If not, why do you see Israel as an exception to this rule...
One of the reasons that Holocaust-denying is a popular sport among anti-semites is that the Holocaust is often used as an argument to prove that the Jews need a state they can keep to themselves.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
If the Holocaust is the reason why Jews should be allowed a strictly Jewish state, would you support this kind of state for other groups who have experienced genocide, for example Gypsies or the Lakotah? If not, why not?

Also, if the Holocaust if the reason for restricting citizenship, why would you not allow citizenship to all those who were considered Jews in the Holocaust and not solely those who are considered Jews by the Rabbinate.

BTW, my friend was considered a Jew by the Germans during WW II. His parents fled Nazi Germany. Even if he had converted during WW II, the Nazi's would still have considered him a Jew yet he would not be allowed refuge in Israel under current laws as I understand them.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Lisa, Would you consider it acceptable if any other country restricted citizenship based on religion. Suppose the US were to limit citizenship to Christians or France were to withhold citizenship from Jews, would you find that acceptable? Do you think it is acceptable for Muslim countries to restrict citizenship to Muslims?

In order, depends on the country, no, and yes.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If not, why do you see Israel as an exception to this rule and if "God wants it that way is your answer" you need to explain why you believe God wants it that way and why your belief should be considered any more valid than the say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad belief that God wants the Jews removed from Palestine.

Um... because Judaism is true?

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
As Barack Obama said

[QUOTE] Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. . . . .

Not really. Democracy is simply a method of reaching decisions. American democracy is a different thing, as it's based on the idea of a nationality that comes from the people, rather than a people with a certain nationality. Do you get the difference? It seems not.

France is to French as America is to American as Israel is to Jewish. Not as Israel is to Israeli. So long as you don't get that, this entire "discussion" is pointless.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If not, why do you see Israel as an exception to this rule...
One of the reasons that Holocaust-denying is a popular sport among anti-semites is that the Holocaust is often used as an argument to prove that the Jews need a state they can keep to themselves.
Why bother denying the Holocaust? Wouldn't it be much easier to just point out what a terrible argument that is?
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
If the Holocaust is the reason why Jews should be allowed a strictly Jewish state,

It isn't. God, I hate the "Jewish history began in Auschwitz" crowd. And Rabbit, you don't "allow" us or not "allow" us a state. God decided that that's the land of the Jews. Yes, it's worthwhile to point out that since you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries, it's unreasonable for us to be completely at your whim. In all honesty, we have no idea when you're going to revert to that sort of behavior again. It's been our experience that Christian "tolerance" of Jews never lasts more than a century or two in any given locale. And hell, things were getting pretty bad for Jews in the US up until the Holocaust. "No Jews or Dogs" wasn't that uncommon a sign in these United States. The Holocaust shocked Americans into pulling out of that direction, but we're going to need a lot more than 60 years or so to be convinced that you're actually safe.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Also, if the Holocaust if the reason for restricting citizenship, why would you not allow citizenship to all those who were considered Jews in the Holocaust and not solely those who are considered Jews by the Rabbinate.

Your premise is false, since it isn't, but as it happens, Israel allows anyone with one Jewish grandparent (any grandparent) to get citizenship under the Law of Return. One of the horrible side effects of that is that when the Soviet Union fell, Israel was inundated with non-Jews, many of whom are actually quite anti-semitic themselves. But they got all the entitlements, and it was too good to pass up.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
BTW, my friend was considered a Jew by the Germans during WW II. His parents fled Nazi Germany. Even if he had converted during WW II, the Nazi's would still have considered him a Jew yet he would not be allowed refuge in Israel under current laws as I understand them.

Well, maybe he shouldn't have apostasized. Christianity is idolatry for a Jew, and idolatry is one of the things that we're obligated to die rather than commit. You're not going to find any sympathy here.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You'd think. But I don't think that the ability to construct a coherent argument correlates well with a tendency to deny that the Holocaust happened.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
So long as you don't get that, this entire "discussion" is pointless.
Does "get that" equal "agree with that?"

You don't have to participate in conversations which you find pointless, Lisa.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think it kinda needs to be understood is that a) if we can agree that the majority of ethnic groups desire a nation-state ergo we can agree that the Jews deserve one, and since they already have a state it is thus disingenuous to at this junction imply or discuss the possibility of them not having a state or force them into some sort of framework where they're no better then an autonomous part of another state.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum the Jews deserve a state and since they already have a state they thus ergo have every right to defend it to their fullest capabilities, all other concerns are secondary to the cause of national survival, that Israel currently does undertake actions to prove it IS more civilized and holds the moral high ground demonsrates they're moral character.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Lisa, please don't accuse other members of murder.

Unless we're playing Clue. For the record, we're not playing Clue. Also, this monkey wrench? TOTALLY for my work.

Er...stay out of the library. It's...uh...being renovated. Bad plumbing.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Yes, it's worthwhile to point out that since you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries, it's unreasonable for us to be completely at your whim.
That was completely uncalled for. I have not killed Jews, do not support the killing of Jews, and in fact have actively worked to protect the rights of Jews. My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
... Why bother denying the Holocaust? Wouldn't it be much easier to just point out what a terrible argument that is?

Alternatively, if one *was* a rational anti-semite, why would one point that out?

The current situation almost seems perfect, rather than having to go around invading countries and then killing people off, why not establish a trap with the cheese essentially being their own belief that they have to be in a specific land? Why not let them isolate themselves in a strategically unwise location surrounded by moody and unpredictable theocracies armed with weapons of mass destruction and give them both enough time and money to gather most of themselves there? Even better, why not give them the false-confidence that they can stand toe-to-toe with that crowd indefinitely even as the US is deteriorating?

I'm not unsympathetic to the human desire to establish a place, a safe haven, for one's own people. But this seems to be a very very terrible way of going about it. The flip-side of this is that an anti-semite should be happy about the existence of Israel and especially happy if it follows the path laid out in this thread.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.
Well-- that's not quite true. I support Jews' rights to eat babies, and if they eat JEWISH babies, then I guess I support killing Jews.

It bugs me that they don't share, though. I'm totally willing to share all the babies I'd eat. Why they gotta be mean, huh?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
It isn't. God, I hate the "Jewish history began in Auschwitz" crowd. And Rabbit, you don't "allow" us or not "allow" us a state.
What have I said to imply that Jewish history began with Auschwitz? Can you please stick to the arguments I make and not the ones someone else has made at some point in time.

And now I'm going to live and cool off because I don't like being accused of murdering for sport.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I don't like being accused of murdering for sport.
I know. I eat what I kill. That way, it's not a "sport" at all.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
France is to French as America is to American as Israel is to Jewish.
America is not to American as France is to French, so I'm not sure how to interpret this. You become American simply by living in America and accepting the idea of being American, whereas I think becoming French requires more than that.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think becoming French requires more than that.
You have to wear a beret and grow a mustache. Even the ladies.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.
Well-- that's not quite true. I support Jews' rights to eat babies, and if they eat JEWISH babies, then I guess I support killing Jews.

It bugs me that they don't share, though. I'm totally willing to share all the babies I'd eat. Why they gotta be mean, huh?

quote:

OK, killing for food isn't the same as killing for sport.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
I think becoming French requires more than that.
You have to wear a beret and grow a mustache. Even the ladies.
And speak French.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
I think becoming French requires more than that.
You have to wear a beret and grow a mustache. Even the ladies.
And speak French.
I'm pretty sure they require that in order to consider you human.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.

Wait, Mormons aren't Christians now?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Mormons aren't Christians now?
Of course we are!

You are what you eat, after all!
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Thanks, Mucus. [Smile]

Armoth, you're very sweet. I expect it doesn't help much; Kate is still pretty angry with me about prop. 8. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Honestly, it had nothing to do with that. It actually had nothing to do with you at all. I would have made that response to that post whoever made it. It was, as you suggested, a springboard. The idea of God being a nice idea in juxtaposition to the God that was being described was appalling.

Armoth, nice people can believe really horrid things. I have no idea what parts of this Rivka believes or doesn't and I respect her wish not to make that clear. If you or others care to refute what Lisa says God wants Israel to be, that would be great.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Lisa, please don't accuse other members of murder.

Oh. Gee. I guess I missed the part where I did that. Maybe you should quote it if you think I did.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The more Lisa talks, the more I'm convinced that she is hellbent on making Israel appear as loony, racist, and tyrranical as possible.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Lisa, please don't accuse other members of murder.

Oh. Gee. I guess I missed the part where I did that. Maybe you should quote it if you think I did.
No way. I have no desire to lift this thread from the absurd abyss to which you pushed it and I've buried it.

The only thing that can stop me now is Claudia Therese! AND SHE'S IN CANADA!

MWAHAAA!
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
The holocaust is not the only argument for the creation of the state of Israel. Herzl had been putting things in motion for an Israeli homeland for years before. His motivator was actually the progroms in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

What Lisa means about Jewish history beginning in Auschwitz (If I am correct) is that Jews have been at the mercy of their not-so-welcoming Christian hosts for centuries.From the 11th century to the 15th - we have faced crusades, libels, expulsions from all of Western Europe, ritual murder trials, collective punishment, laws restricting Jewish freedoms, laws ensuring the Christian doctrines of perpetual servitude. Jews were portrayed as pigs, demons, witch-lovers, host desecrators, etc. etc.

When Jews were living in Eastern Europe they faced similar threats, and were massacred in the 17th century when they were caught in between Poles and Cossacks. Stuff like that + Progroms in Russia until the Holocaust leads the average Jew to believe that we need our own homeland. Is this a difficult argument to understand in light of our Jewish history?

Edit: I felt like I was an American my entire life, until a swatstika was painted on my garage door. In light of our history, can you not understand how Jews are skittish even with the U.S., best hosts they have ever had in history?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
we can agree that the majority of ethnic groups desire a nation-state
It's worth noting that ethnic groups who desire this are stupid. It never works out.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It isn't difficult to understand. It's just a bad argument.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It isn't difficult to understand. It's just a bad argument.

I would appreciate you demonstrating why it is a bad argument. I think I have done my best to explain why I think it is not.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Stuff like that + Progroms in Russia until the Holocaust leads the average Jew to believe that we need our own homeland. Is this a difficult argument to understand in light of our Jewish history?
Not at all. Jews have a right, like every other civilized human being to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They have a right to participate in the government and the defense of the society in which they live.

So do the non-Jews living in, or coming to, Israel.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What Scott said. The right to pursue a life free from persecution and discrimination is not a license to persecute and discriminate against others.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
can you not understand how Jews are skittish even with the U.S., best hosts they have ever had in history?
We're not your "hosts." Most of us, we're your people.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
The civil rights movement is an incredibly new movement. While I choose to live in America, the option of living in Israel makes me feel safe. The reason for this is because we, as a people, have not experienced tolerance and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for more than a century in any country.

Check out the mass exodus of Jews from France going on right now. British Jews are only faring a bit better. French Canadian Jews experience anti-semetic attacks all the time.

The U.S. is infinitely better - but like I said, I had a swatstika painted on my garage. While I firmly believe the U.S. is different, my survival instinct tells me that it is not in my interest not to be skeptical.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
Wait a minute.

I was only defending the right of Israel to exist. Not on the right of Israel to discriminate.

I do not agree with Lisa. As was explained above - Lisa is an extreme opinion. Muslim citizenship is another story right now because of security issues, but I have no problem with Christian or Druze citizenship.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
The civil rights movement is an incredibly new movement.
Only about 8 years or so younger than the formation of Israel.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
The civil rights movement is an incredibly new movement.
Only about 8 years or so younger than the formation of Israel.
Yup. I hope they are both permanent.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I am starting to understand that the statement "Israel has a right to exist" has the unspoken addendum of "as a discriminatory theocracy."
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I am starting to understand that the statement "Israel has a right to exist" has the unspoken addendum of "as a discriminatory theocracy."

ok. You're not listening to me.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
we can agree that the majority of ethnic groups desire a nation-state
It's worth noting that ethnic groups who desire this are stupid. It never works out.
QFT.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Armoth, I understand. I disagree.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Kat, what is it that you disagree with armoth about?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
we need our own homeland
This, if the homeland is a theocracy.

Like Tom said, many ethnic and religious groups want a state where they can keep anyone who doesn't belong to that group out. That doesn't make it okay - it's an inherently bad idea.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm not sure that Armoth is arguing for discrimination.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I'm not sure that Armoth is arguing for discrimination.

Correct. I am not.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
If you don't discriminate against who is allowed to immigrate and become citizens, how does it remain an exclusively Jewish state? *serious question*
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Well-- Utah is a Mormon state, isn't it? You could reasonably expect your kids not to be teased for being Mormon if you lived there.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I am and have been a long time supporter of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. In fact, I support the existence of Muslim states. As a person who has argued the need for a Mormon state (and agree fully it isn't going to happen), then I would be a complete hypocrite to not be supportive.

My problem is that Israel doesn't know what it wants to be as a poster said above. No matter what those say who disagree with Lisa, her explanations are closest to the reality of Israel as seen by an outsider. Even one like me who is in support. It infuriates me that Israel so much wants to have its cake and eat it too so far as religious freedom. When it is described as a democracy I have a big question mark above that.

Is the state of Israel a Jewish state or not? If it isn't than deciding citizenship on "Jewishness" should be done away with. If it is then stop voting with one hand while crossing your fingers when it comes to Jewish related laws. I admit that it has some similarity to early Roman citizenship status laws. That is fine, but the least Israel could do is be consistent with those laws.

This does bring up a question that hasn't been answered, or I missed it. Is proselyting illegal in Israel?
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
The U.S. has immigration laws as well. If the entire Muslim world decided to move to the U.S. and exercise voting rights - it'd be a bit of a problem.

It is difficult to deal with the Palestinian population because you can't exactly naturalize enemies of the state.

As for everyone else - It's like my undergraduate university. Yeshiva. There aren't many non-Jews who apply to Yeshiva University, but YU will not discriminate against non-Jews who wish to attend. But YU is Jewish - it teaches Judaism, is organized around the Jewish calendar, bends over backwards to facilitate a Jewish lifestyle, etc.

Additionally, Israel has the right of return to make it easier for Jews to be citizens.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
... While I choose to live in America, the option of living in Israel makes me feel safe.

Ah, this must be some new use of the word "safe" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Under the old one, living in a border-line war zone and being bombarded weekly if not daily, is not quite "safe."
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"If the entire Muslim world decided to move to the U.S. and exercise voting rights - it'd be a bit of a problem."

It would only be a problem if Muslims didn't follow the laws to become citizens. However, there is nothing in the U.S. laws that would keep them from voting; even if that meant voting the Constitution out of existence.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
... While I choose to live in America, the option of living in Israel makes me feel safe.

Ah, this must be some new use of the word "safe" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Under the old one, living in a border-line war zone and being bombarded weekly if not daily, is not quite "safe."

Have you been to Israel? It is not a border-line war zone, even if the media portrays it as such.

If you are a persecuted Jew living in France - you want to join your brethren in Israel where you can, at least, fight for your survival.

If I were living in the U.S. without the existence of an Israeli state, anti-semitism in America would be a whole lot scarier to me.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
"If the entire Muslim world decided to move to the U.S. and exercise voting rights - it'd be a bit of a problem."

It would only be a problem if Muslims didn't follow the laws to become citizens. However, there is nothing in the U.S. laws that would keep them from voting; even if that meant voting the Constitution out of existence.

Which is why, I'm sure, that if that happened, something would be done to stop it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
If I were living in the U.S. without the existence of an Israeli state, anti-semitism in America would be a whole lot scarier to me.
I imagine the percentage of anti-semites in Israel is considerably higher.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
". . . anti-semitism in America would be a whole lot scarier to me."

Are you serious? You are a protected minority. So much breath against Jews in the United States and there is so much vitriol against you that you might as well be branded a child-molester. True, it does depend on where you live; such as the Southern United States. Try living as a Mormon that has no land to go to (Utah and S. Idaho perhaps), no political correctness protection, and are hated by all sides.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Utah is a Mormon state, isn't it?
No, it isn't. It's an American state - it's not a theocracy. There is a Mormon majority in it, but there are no laws that expect the governor or key officials to be Mormon, and there are not laws that make it very difficult for non-Mormons to move there.

quote:
Additionally, Israel has the right of return to make it easier for Jews to be citizens.
Not just easier. From what I read, it is almost impossible to become an Israeli citizen unless you are Jewish or married to someone who is.

Natural groupings of people are fine - expected, normal. It's the institutionalization that creates such discrimination.

If the entire Muslim world decided to move the U.S., they would not be stopped because of their religion. If they were, that'd be very wrong and someone is being corrupt somewhere. Within 50 years, there will no longer be a white majority in the United States. A few states - Texas among them - are already there or are almost there. The USA will do just fine.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Armoth: *shrug* When was the last actual armed conflict? Lebanon? Gaza? How many years do you figure until the next one?

I suggest that living in America should be a whole lot scarier to you. An escape plan that involves fleeing into war zone to escape antisemitism in the form of signs painted on garages is like fleeing the gun crime in Toronto for the safe haven of Detroit.

[ June 12, 2009, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, yes, let's please have a battle of the persecution complexes.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Try living as a Mormon that has no land to go to (Utah and S. Idaho perhaps), no political correctness protection, and are hated by all sides.
I have, in the deep south.

It's not that bad.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Utah is a Mormon state, isn't it?

No, it isn't. It's an American state - it's not a theocracy. There is a Mormon majority in it, but there are no laws that expect the governor or key officials to be Mormon, and there are not laws that make it very difficult for non-Mormons to move there.

I imagine-- because Armoth has said s/he doesn't want to discriminate-- that's the sort of thing s/he envisions for Israel.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, yes, let's please have a battle of the persecution complexes.

Here we have an agnostic, who knows a thing or two about persecution complexes...

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Is it? Because it seems like Israel is sitting on some ground that is deeply wanted by many people. While Utah is still majority Mormon, it's only stayed that way because non-Mormons aren't clamoring to move there.

Armoth, would you still want non-discrimination if it meant (and it would) that Jews would become a minority in Israel?
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
*shrug* When was the last actual armed conflict? Lebanon? Gaza? How many years do you figure until the next one?

I suggest that living in America should be a whole lot scarier to you. An escape plan that involves fleeing into war zone to escape antisemitism in the form of signs painted on garages is like fleeing the gun crime in Toronto for the safe haven of Detroit.

Wow. I'm glad we are having this conversation. Before sitting down to have it, I had a feeling I would be understood immediately upon explaining myself. I realize now that we are coming from really different perspectives.

First - I will point out that I felt your characterization of the garage incident to be a bit insensitive. It was really scary for me. You always grow up feeling like you are an American, like you vote the same way and have the same input as the rest of the nation. That incident made me feel rejected - it made me question that. I answered the question relatively quickly for myself, but it isn't the same once you are forced to ask yourself if you are truly wanted.

My point isn't that I needed an escape plan from graffiti. That's not fair. My point is that I would be paranoid and worried that the U.S. might turn into France and that more serious vandalism, synagogue burnings,and murders are up next. And that even though I am protected by U.S. law, U.S. law is created by the majority opinion of its citizens. And if the majority of citizens in the U.S. decided not to like Jews, then that'd be it for me.

The existence of Israel at least allows me the opportunity to join my fellow Jews in a productive fight for our survival. Yes, there are wars. But we have been minorities amongst Christian or Muslim dominate countries for 2000 years. And we were almost wiped out.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Lisa, please don't accuse other members of murder.

Oh. Gee. I guess I missed the part where I did that. Maybe you should quote it if you think I did.
I quoted it before but since you can't remember what you posted let alone what other's have posted, here it is again.

quote:
Rabbit . . . Yes, it's worthwhile to point out that since you and your coreligionists have made Jew-killing a sport for the past 17 centuries, it's unreasonable for us to be completely at your whim. In all honesty, we have no idea when you're going to revert to that sort of behavior again.

 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Is it? Because it seems like Israel is sitting on some ground that is deeply wanted by many people. While Utah is still majority Mormon, it's only stayed that way because non-Mormons aren't clamoring to move there.

Armoth, would you still want non-discrimination if it meant (and it would) that Jews would become a minority in Israel?

I don't know why you say it would? As I said, I don't know how to deal with Palestinians. You can't give citizenship to people who view you as the enemy.

Would you be okay with millions of Muslims moving to the U.S., getting naturalized and undoing the bill of rights? I wouldn't be. We, the majority in the country at the time, would do our best to preserve the ideals we believe in. As such, if the people moving here did not believe in the separation of Church and State, in the Bill of Rights, in our constitution - then we would do something to prevent them from coming.

Same thing in Israel. If a majority wanted to move to Israel and did not believe in Israel functioning as a Jewish state, I would have a problem with that.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Armoth, what does the term "Jewish state" mean to you?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
When you say Jewish state, you mean legally, right? As in, written into its constitution and guiding its legal system and everything? You don't mean Jewish state the way Utah is a Mormon state.

In that case, you do support discrimination. You would allow non-Jews in if they act like Jews. That's not actually non-discrimination.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
No, it isn't. It's an American state - it's not a theocracy. There is a Mormon majority in it, but there are no laws that expect the governor or key officials to be Mormon, and there are not laws that make it very difficult for non-Mormons to move there.
In fact there are no laws which distinguish between Mormons and non-Mormons in any way. People are not required to declare whether or not they are Mormon. There are no laws that prohibit or restrict peoples citizenship, voting rights, free speech, military service, or any civil right, privilege or responsibility based on their religious or ethnic affiliation. There is no government aid given to Mormons that is not given to non-Mormons. If there was an attempt to restrict a non-Mormon church from building a school or place of worship through zoning laws or other wise -- it would be struck down by the courts. In the last 50 years I know of no cases where hard core LDS people have protested another church's presence or activities in Utah. I know of no cases where a political entity has requested any religion not to proselyte, worship or freely practice their religion in Utah.

And I say that as a person who thinks that Mormon's have too much politcal power in Utah and that the state would be far more livable if their were more diversity in Utah politics.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"Would you be okay with millions of Muslims moving to the U.S., getting naturalized and undoing the bill of rights?"

I wouldn't be ok with it, but as the U.S. laws currently stand there isn't much I could do about it. That is especially the case when it comes to the U.S. as a Constitutional and not a Mobocratic Democracy. In fact, it is the very possibility that you bring up that the whole illegal alien battles are all about. So far the only thing that has changed is, well, not much. Then again, I believe that the U.S. Constitution has within it the ability for the citizenship if it so wishes to legally abandon the whole thing.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
Jewish State in the sense that if facilitates a Jewish lifestyle. Jewish calendar, Jewish holidays, preservation and protection of Jewish tradition, etc.

I am a fan of public sensitivity to Jewish tradition as well - no bread on Passover sold publicly, no television on the high holy days, and I am anti the gay parade taking place in Jerusalem.

That is certainly discriminatory - it's a Jewish calendar but not a Christian one. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

I don't think non-Jews need to act like Jews, they only need respect the Jewish character of the state.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.

Wait, Mormons aren't Christians now?
It depends on how you define Christian. We worship Jesus Christ and consider ourselves part of the religious tradition Jesus established. We also believe that Christian's apostatized from the teaching of Jesus somewhere around the first century AD. We consider all the people who were persecuting Jews, fighting in Crusades, leading Inquisitions, writing creeds, burning heretics, apostates from true Christianity. They are not our co-religionists any more than my Jewish friend who converted to Mormonism is Lisa's co-religionist.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Would you have a problem if Blue Laws were reenacted in the US?

If so, could you explain how the enforcement of Sunday as a holy day in America is different from the enforcement of Saturday in Israel?
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
No, it isn't. It's an American state - it's not a theocracy. There is a Mormon majority in it, but there are no laws that expect the governor or key officials to be Mormon, and there are not laws that make it very difficult for non-Mormons to move there.
In fact there are no laws which distinguish between Mormons and non-Mormons in any way. People are not required to declare whether or not they are Mormon. There are no laws that prohibit or restrict peoples citizenship, voting rights, free speech, military service, or any civil right, privilege or responsibility based on their religious or ethnic affiliation. There is no government aid given to Mormons that is not given to non-Mormons. If there was an attempt to restrict a non-Mormon church from building a school or place of worship through zoning laws or other wise -- it would be struck down by the courts. In the last 50 years I know of no cases where hard core LDS people have protested another church's presence or activities in Utah. I know of no cases where a political entity has requested any religion not to proselyte, worship or freely practice their religion in Utah.

And I say that as a person who thinks that Mormon's have too much politcal power in Utah and that the state would be far more livable if their were more diversity in Utah politics.

I'm glad. That makes me happy - and it is entirely consistent with everything I believe as an American.

But that isn't what I want for the state of Israel.

It seems we are arguing over whether it is okay for there to be a country that governs in a way that is different than the U.S. governs. I think that the U.S. should be governed as it is. I think Israel should be governed in a different way. I also think any Muslim country should be governed as I think Israel should be governed - religious freedom, but with religious preference.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
There the question rears its head again. Is Israel a Jewish State or is it a state with lots of Jews? And again, you make the claims that it is both, depending on where you want to argue from. That bothers me because it makes it difficult to know what "Israel" I am supporting.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
The more Lisa talks, the more I'm convinced that she is hellbent on making Israel appear as loony, racist, and tyrranical as possible.

DNFTT.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
can you not understand how Jews are skittish even with the U.S., best hosts they have ever had in history?
We're not your "hosts." Most of us, we're your people.
Sorry, Scott. Hosts.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
The more Lisa talks, the more I'm convinced that she is hellbent on making Israel appear as loony, racist, and tyrranical as possible.

DNFTT.
PBBBT!

Hey, you make your rasberries, and I'll make mine.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I respect her wish not to make that clear.

Kate, give me a freaking break. That is NOT what I said.

And the way you and Katie and Rabbit are reacting surely does not make me want to get remotely involved with this. To be clear: I do not support the changes Lisa is suggesting. I have made that clear several times in the past, and would hope that I would not have to again. Why on earth should I put in the time and energy to do so when it is clear I will not be given the benfit of the doubt and y'all are invested in seeing these issues in the worst possible light?
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I am starting to understand that the statement "Israel has a right to exist" has the unspoken addendum of "as a discriminatory theocracy."

ok. You're not listening to me.
And now you're starting to understand her.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
can you not understand how Jews are skittish even with the U.S., best hosts they have ever had in history?
We're not your "hosts." Most of us, we're your people.
Sorry, Scott. Hosts.
Nope. People. Get used to it.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
My problem is that Israel doesn't know what it wants to be as a poster said above. No matter what those say who disagree with Lisa, her explanations are closest to the reality of Israel as seen by an outsider. Even one like me who is in support. It infuriates me that Israel so much wants to have its cake and eat it too so far as religious freedom. When it is described as a democracy I have a big question mark above that.

You're exactly right. Jewish State and Democracy can have areas of intersection, but they can't be completely congruent. The question is, which one takes precedent? The last politician in Israel to raise the issue was banned from running for parliament because of it.

For my part, it's clear. Israel is first and foremost a Jewish state. Within that, it's a democracy.

quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
This does bring up a question that hasn't been answered, or I missed it. Is proselyting illegal in Israel?

Offering monetary or other considerations to try and get someone to convert to another religion is illegal. Unfortunately, even this is rarely enforced.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
It seems we are arguing over whether it is okay for there to be a country that governs in a way that is different than the U.S. governs.
No the argument is much more specific than that. The argument is whether it is OK for a government to make legal distinctions based on peoples religion and ethnicity. And my belief is that this is not OK, that it does and always will lead to oppression of some group.

I think that Jews who have been on the losing end of that kind of laws for centuries would understand that. In fact, in the time I spent in Israel (an here in the US) I have known many Jews who did deeply understand that problem. This is why I had hoped that Israel could be an exception to this rule. I had hoped that Jews had enough empathy for oppressed people that they could avoid oppressing even in a country in which they had the power to oppress non-Jews. My observation and studies over the past 20 years have disillusioned me of that hope.

I think that you and others here are two emotional attached to Israel to see what the country has become and what it is doing.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
... While I choose to live in America, the option of living in Israel makes me feel safe.

Ah, this must be some new use of the word "safe" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Under the old one, living in a border-line war zone and being bombarded weekly if not daily, is not quite "safe."

Everything's relative. I had a friend whose 6 year old daughter used to walk out of the house and down the block to the bus stop and get on a public bus. This isn't a cause for concern in Israel. When Tova was born, I remember we used to go to stores, and because aisles are a lot narrower in Israel than they are here, it was just too much of a pain to bring her in her stroller up and down the aisles. So we parked her in her stroller at the front of the store and went shopping. Again, most Americans probably don't even remember what it's like to be able to do that. When we came back to the US, I was petrified. We thought about getting one of those obnoxious harnesses with a leash for when she started walking around, and when we go to a department store and she's out of our sight for even a minute (and she's 9 now), we freak.

And you guys take this all for granted.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
". . . anti-semitism in America would be a whole lot scarier to me."

Are you serious? You are a protected minority. So much breath against Jews in the United States and there is so much vitriol against you that you might as well be branded a child-molester. True, it does depend on where you live; such as the Southern United States. Try living as a Mormon that has no land to go to (Utah and S. Idaho perhaps), no political correctness protection, and are hated by all sides.

There'll be a backlash. There always is. You should look around the internet. A lot of people blame the financial crisis on Jews, as Jews. Because of people like Madoff, Greenspan, Bernanke...
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
My religion is less than 200 years old and in that time my co-religionists have never supported the killing of Jews.

Wait, Mormons aren't Christians now?
It depends on how you define Christian. We worship Jesus Christ and consider ourselves part of the religious tradition Jesus established. We also believe that Christian's apostatized from the teaching of Jesus somewhere around the first century AD. We consider all the people who were persecuting Jews, fighting in Crusades, leading Inquisitions, writing creeds, burning heretics, apostates from true Christianity. They are not our co-religionists any more than my Jewish friend who converted to Mormonism is Lisa's co-religionist.
Sorry if that distinction doesn't really mean that much to us.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Thank you Lisa, and the distinction between athiest Jews and Mormon Jews means very little to me.

Either way, neither I nor those who share my religious beliefs have ever been involved in killing Jews for sport. That accusatio was utterly out of line.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Am I the only person here baffled by what seems like the intention here by people that A) Democracy is automatically best, B) Multuculturalism is automatically best? not everyone can be like Canada, if Japan wants to stay like a Japanese country and restrict immigration wouldn't they have the right to do so? Whats different with Israel? They're a SOVEREIGN nation and in international politics Sovereignty is the highest form of "Rights" and is that, Sovereignty. There's limits but only so much if they signed the UN Charter of Human Rights.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I respect her wish not to make that clear.

Kate, give me a freaking break. That is NOT what I said.

And the way you and Katie and Rabbit are reacting surely does not make me want to get remotely involved with this. To be clear: I do not support the changes Lisa is suggesting. I have made that clear several times in the past, and would hope that I would not have to again. Why on earth should I put in the time and energy to do so when it is clear I will not be given the benfit of the doubt and y'all are invested in seeing these issues in the worst possible light?

If you "have no interest in doing that sort of unraveling" which would clarify which parts of Lisa's idea of what God wants Israel to be "[you]disagree strongly with, which [you] sort of agree with but with caveats, which [you] don't even understand where she gets them from, and which [you] actually agree with completely" you are under no obligation to do so. I respect that. That was all I was saying. If you don't want to do that clarification, though, it is not going to be clear. I am not going to assume one way or another.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
We thought about getting one of those obnoxious harnesses with a leash for when she started walking around, and when we go to a department store and she's out of our sight for even a minute (and she's 9 now), we freak.
Why? What about moving to America made you overprotective?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
if Japan wants to stay like a Japanese country and restrict immigration wouldn't they have the right to do so?
Sure, they'd have the legal right. I'd argue that they would not have the moral right, and in so trying would reveal themselves to be a corrupt state.

Ethnic divisions are an evil.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I respect her wish not to make that clear.

Kate, give me a freaking break. That is NOT what I said.

And the way you and Katie and Rabbit are reacting surely does not make me want to get remotely involved with this. To be clear: I do not support the changes Lisa is suggesting. I have made that clear several times in the past, and would hope that I would not have to again. Why on earth should I put in the time and energy to do so when it is clear I will not be given the benfit of the doubt and y'all are invested in seeing these issues in the worst possible light?

I'm sorry it the way I am reacting is making you wish to avoid participation. I respect your views and know that you do not support many of the thinks Lisa supports.

As for why you might want to participate, I don't know. If I were Jewish, I would want to participate to make it clear that Lisa does not represent me or my people.

For some time, I was of the opinion that Lisa was actually some sort of anti-semite impersonating an obnoxious spiteful Lesbian Jew in order to provoke anti-semitic feelings. I doubt anyone could keep up the act as long as she has so I am now convinced she is for real. But she certainly does a good job of stirring up anti-Jewish, anti-Israel feeling in people. If I were Jewish, I would be very interested in countering that.

Luckily I do know many other Jews both IRL and here at Hatrack so I know that Lisa is not representative of the majority of Jews. I hope others who interact with her do as well. Thank you for participating rivka, I'm sorry if my tone has turned you away from participation, I am always open to listen to what you have to say.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
if Japan wants to stay like a Japanese country and restrict immigration wouldn't they have the right to do so?
Sure, they'd have the legal right. I'd argue that they would not have the moral right, and in so trying would reveal themselves to be a corrupt state.

Ethnic divisions are an evil.

So your saying Japan is evil and corrupt?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... It depends on how you define Christian. We worship Jesus Christ and consider ourselves part of the religious tradition Jesus ...

You do realize that in context, Lisa would hardly have used the Mormon definition for Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
...
First - I will point out that I felt your characterization of the garage incident to be a bit insensitive...

I'm not sure why it would be insensitive. It should be scary. That things in Israel are more scary doesn't contradict that.

quote:
My point isn't that I needed an escape plan from graffiti. That's not fair. My point is that I would be paranoid and worried that the U.S. might turn into France and that more serious ...
This is true. However, I believe that you're assuming that if things get dangerous in the US that somehow things will remain exactly as safe as it is in Israel now. I believe that this is most likely false. The level in danger in Israel should go up *even more* if things get that bad in the States.

quote:
The existence of Israel at least allows me the opportunity to join my fellow Jews in a productive fight for our survival.
Sure. I get that it might make you feel better. But I just don't think that it is productive in terms of actually making you any safer.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Armoth:
Jewish State in the sense that if facilitates a Jewish lifestyle. Jewish calendar, Jewish holidays, preservation and protection of Jewish tradition, etc.

I am a fan of public sensitivity to Jewish tradition as well - no bread on Passover sold publicly, no television on the high holy days, and I am anti the gay parade taking place in Jerusalem.

That is certainly discriminatory - it's a Jewish calendar but not a Christian one. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

I don't think non-Jews need to act like Jews, they only need respect the Jewish character of the state.

Actually I wouldn't consider most of that discriminatory. Having Jewish calender and holidays makes sense in any area that has a significant percentage of Jews because it facilitates Jews keeping their traditions.

I would be opposed to laws that prohibited stores from selling bread during Passover or prohibited television and radio from broadcasting during high holy days as such laws would be coercive. In the same sense, I would oppose laws that would prevent restaurants in predominantly catholic countries from serving meat on Friday's during lent and oppose laws that unduly restrict the sale of alcohol in Utah.

I have no problem with businesses that choose to respect a religious traditions and in a country with a large proportion of Jews I would expect there to be many such businesses. But I have a big problem with laws that require businesses and individuals to adhere to a religious tradition, that violates something I consider to be a fundamental human right.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
The argument is whether it is OK for a government to make legal distinctions based on peoples religion and ethnicity.
Exactly. That kind of discrimination is always wrong, and it seems like Israel justifies its present discrimination from being victims of discrimination in the past. That's a flawed argument.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Ah, this must be some new use of the word "safe" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Under the old one, living in a border-line war zone and being bombarded weekly if not daily, is not quite "safe."

... Again, most Americans probably don't even remember what it's like to be able to do that. When we came back to the US, I was petrified. ...
And you guys take this all for granted.

I'm not American either [Razz] I often feel petrified in the States as well [Wink]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
My point is that I would be paranoid and worried that the U.S. might turn into France and that more serious vandalism, synagogue burnings,and murders are up next. And that even though I am protected by U.S. law, U.S. law is created by the majority opinion of its citizens. And if the majority of citizens in the U.S. decided not to like Jews, then that'd be it for me.
What you are talking about is an emotion. How far do you think a group of people should be willing to go to escape fear? When is it okay to do harmful things to others to make yourself less afraid?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... It depends on how you define Christian. We worship Jesus Christ and consider ourselves part of the religious tradition Jesus ...
You do realize that in context, Lisa would hardly have used the Mormon definition for Christian.

You do recognize that doesn't make being directly accused of supporting murder for sport or of sharing the beliefs of those who support murder for sport any more palatable?

I do not consider myself affiliated in anyway with any individual or group who has ever supported killing Jews or any other human being for sport. I am offended by the accusation that I am. Would you not also take offense at such an accusation?

Was it that unreasonable for me to clarify that I do not consider myself a part of any religious tradition that has ever justified killing people for sport?
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
...
I do not consider myself affiliated in anyway with any individual or group who has ever supported killing Jews or any other human being for sport. I am offended by the accusation that I am. Would you not also take offense at such an accusation?

No. I would apologize and move on. I would not deny it and split hairs that are of no relevance to the person at hand.

For example, as a Canadian we're responsible for killing off most of the native Americans. If I was talking to a native American, I would not quibble and mention that as a Chinese Canadian we wouldn't even have gotten there yet at the time of the killings.

If you want to be Canadian/Christian/whatever, you have to be prepared to accept the whole responsibility and benefits of that. You can't just cherry-pick and say that you're Christian when it is of benefit and then immediately disavow it when it is not.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
We thought about getting one of those obnoxious harnesses with a leash for when she started walking around, and when we go to a department store and she's out of our sight for even a minute (and she's 9 now), we freak.
Why? What about moving to America made you overprotective?
They steal kids here. I don't know if you're aware of that. Dangerous place, America. And believe me, I'm not being tongue-in-cheek.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Oddly enough, the one person I know personally who was kidnapped (and, I presume, killed) was kidnapped in Israel.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Thank you Lisa, and the distinction between athiest Jews and Mormon Jews means very little to me.

Either way, neither I nor those who share my religious beliefs have ever been involved in killing Jews for sport. That accusatio was utterly out of line.

Ah. So it's all about you and how you feel. How we feel doesn't matter. The fact that there've been all sorts of versions of Christianity over the past 17 centuries and that we aren't even slightly interested in delving into their various theologies to see whether we're safe... well, that doesn't mean much to you. Fair enough: why should it?

But it means something to us. And if you're so entirely bereft of empathy that you can't see that you (Christians) are like sweating dynamite for most of us, that's not my problem.

Why do you think so many Jews are so bloody hypersensitive? It's fear. Well earned fear. Justified fear. We've had times in history when the non-Jews we lived among were nice, like they are for the most part in the US today. It's never lasted. Never. How many times do we play Charlie Brown with Christians and other gentiles as Lucy before even you figure we have a right to be a bit on edge?

I always figured Charlie Brown was an idiot, btw. Either don't try to kick the ball any more, or boot Lucy into orbit.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
If you want to be Canadian/Christian/whatever, you have to be prepared to accept the whole responsibility and benefits of that. You can't just cherry-pick and say that you're Christian when it is of benefit and then immediately disavow it when it is not.
But that's wrong. Part of being Mormon is believing that we are punished for our own sins. No original sin, no Adam's transgression, and no sins of lunatics a thousand years ago.

Conversely, I don't expect present-day citizens of Illinois to apologize to me.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Oddly enough, the one person I know personally who was kidnapped (and, I presume, killed) was kidnapped in Israel.

I think Lisa is referring to Child Protection Services.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
the stealing of kids is actually because when a child seeks to become a wizard they have to take a test, if they fail the test they die.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Black Blade, what you are basing that on? That is not what she has been saying.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Oddly enough, the one person I know personally who was kidnapped (and, I presume, killed) was kidnapped in Israel.

I think Lisa is referring to Child Protection Services.
I wasn't trying to refute her allegation; I just thought it curious.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
katharina: I have no idea how original sin or whatever you're talking about relates to me.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
As for why you might want to participate, I don't know. If I were Jewish, I would want to participate to make it clear that Lisa does not represent me or my people.

It's a difficult situation, Rabbit. Leave her alone. Rivka's wishing I'd just shut up, because she knows that as much as she disagrees with many of my positions and virtually all of the way in which I express them, if she were to start discussing this openly, she'd either have to fudge things or offend you.

Deal with it, Rabbit. We're a separate people, and we'll always be one. We have a task in the world, and it's going to get done even if it offends your sensibilities. And at the end of the day, you'll realize that it was a good thing.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
For some time, I was of the opinion that Lisa was actually some sort of anti-semite impersonating an obnoxious spiteful Lesbian Jew in order to provoke anti-semitic feelings.

No, you weren't. That's rhetoric, and it's cute, but you never actually thought that.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
My point is that I would be paranoid and worried that the U.S. might turn into France and that more serious vandalism, synagogue burnings,and murders are up next. And that even though I am protected by U.S. law, U.S. law is created by the majority opinion of its citizens.
I don't understand how the existence of Israel reduces antisemitism in the US. If anything, in recent years, I have observed antisemitism increasing in the US as Americans become increasingly disturbed by Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Are you simply saying that anti-semitism in the US would bother you more if you did not have the option of fleeing to Israel or do you really think there would be more anti_semitism in the US if Israel was not a Jewish state.

quote:
And that even though I am protected by U.S. law, U.S. law is created by the majority opinion of its citizens. And if the majority of citizens in the U.S. decided not to like Jews, then that'd be it for me.
That isn't actually correct. You're rights as a Jew are protect by several amendments to the US constitution and it would take a great deal more than a majority of citizens deciding not to like Jews to change that. Right now in the US, the majority of Americans (at least by some polls) have negative views of Mormons and Muslims, in some areas like the Bible Belt that's probably even a super majority but that has not resulted in restriction of my legal rights or the legal rights of Muslims in the US. I guess it happened to the Japanese during WW II, so perhaps its possible but it hardly seems like a realistic fear. I find it very difficult to imagine any change in the US that would result in amendment of the US constitution to make discrimination against Jews or any other religious or ethnic group legal.

And by the way, although my religion is not nearly as old as yours and has not had the severe persecution you have experienced, my ancestors were driven from their homes in the US at gun point because of their religion. If the US government were to decide that was acceptable again, I would have no country of refuge.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think it is a very distinct possibility. If that's really who you are, well done! You are doing an excellent job! Your leader must be very proud of you for the way you make Israel look so bad.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Oddly enough, the one person I know personally who was kidnapped (and, I presume, killed) was kidnapped in Israel.

I think Lisa is referring to Child Protection Services.
Um... no. I'm talking about milk carton kids. Some are runaways. Many (particularly the ones who went missing youngest) are not.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
the stealing of kids is actually because when a child seeks to become a wizard they have to take a test, if they fail the test they die.

See, now if I'd understood that, I never would have been worried.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Deal with it, Rabbit. We're a separate people, and we'll always be one. We have a task in the world, and it's going to get done even if it offends your sensibilities.
God may indeed have a plans for you, but since you were unable to stand against the Romans, unable to stand against the Babylonians, unable to stand again the Nazis, I sincerely doubt you will be able to stand against world opinion today. If God does actually want you to be in Israel, perhaps you should start persuading the rest of the world you deserve to be there rather than offending our moral senses.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
For some time, I was of the opinion that Lisa was actually some sort of anti-semite impersonating an obnoxious spiteful Lesbian Jew in order to provoke anti-semitic feelings.

No, you weren't. That's rhetoric, and it's cute, but you never actually thought that.
On what grounds do you think you have the right to make that claim. I am the world expert on my thoughts and I'm sorry Lisa, but you are wrong on this. My orginal statement is the honest truth. I pretty much dismissed you as a Neo-Nazi troll for a very long time. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only one at hatrack who has entertained that idea from time to time either. If you find that difficult to believe, you are lacking in self awareness.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
We have a task in the world, and it's going to get done even if it offends your sensibilities. And at the end of the day, you'll realize that it was a good thing.
What's the task?
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
For clarification, most unexpected disappearances of children (17 yrs old or less) are runaway situations. Most of those that are not runaways are abduction by non-custodial parents or other close caregivers -- especially those abducted while quite young.

---

Added: Nicole Neal did a series on this topic ("How Dangerous is Childhood?") a few years ago in The Palm Beach Post, summarizing demographics and odds. The excerpt is from Part 2:

quote:
Child abduction is the airplane crash of parental fears.

Intellectually, we know the odds: The chances of dying aboard a plane are slim (Lifetime odds: 1 in 500,000, and that’s for frequent fliers). But emotionally, we aren’t convinced.
...
Either way, with 60,700,000 children 14 and under in the United States, the odds of your child being the victim of an Adam Walsh-style abduction are roughly 1 in a million.

You’d be wiser to cancel those horseback-riding lessons. Your child is more likely to be killed in an equestrian accident. (Odds in one year for people who ride horses: 1 in 297,000.) Or better yet, pull him off the football team. (Yearly odds of dying for youth football players: 1 in 78,260.) And if you really want to protect them, sell your car. (Lifetime odds of dying as a passenger: 1 in 228. Odds of dying this year alone: 1 in 17,625.)

Or, to put another spin on it, your child is 700 times more likely to get into Harvard than to be the victim of such an abduction.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

[ June 12, 2009, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... I guess it happened to the Japanese during WW II, so perhaps its possible but it hardly seems like a realistic fear. I find it very difficult to imagine any change in the US that would result in amendment of the US constitution to make discrimination against Jews or any other religious or ethnic group legal.

You mean aside from a WWIII [Wink]
I have no doubt that if there were a couple more 9/11 attacks, or worse a real Muslim-American war, that Muslims would be subject to legal discrimination.

It took only one 9/11 to get racial profiling, the Patriot Act, and warrant-less wiretapping after all.

And as gays know, you don't necessarily need even that to make discrimination legal.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Um... no. I'm talking about milk carton kids. Some are runaways. Many (particularly the ones who went missing youngest) are not.
You are aware that the majority of those kids were kidnapped by a non-custodial parent who has gone into hiding. There are very few children kidnapped by strangers in the US. It does happen but the overwhelming majority of kidnappings would be better described as custody disputes than anything else. Unless Tova has other parent(s) who are interesting in getting custody and who would be likely to resort to kidnapping, her chances of being kidnapped in the US are vanishingly small.

Edited to note CT beat me too it.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
the stealing of kids is actually because when a child seeks to become a wizard they have to take a test, if they fail the test they die.

See, now if I'd understood that, I never would have been worried.
"So you want to be a Wizard" reference from the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Deal with it, Rabbit. We're a separate people, and we'll always be one. We have a task in the world, and it's going to get done even if it offends your sensibilities.
God may indeed have a plans for you, but since you were unable to stand against the Romans, unable to stand against the Babylonians, unable to stand again the Nazis, I sincerely doubt you will be able to stand against world opinion today. If God does actually want you to be in Israel, perhaps you should start persuading the rest of the world you deserve to be there rather than offending our moral senses.
I don't think they had a strong nation to actually protect them in any of those cases.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... I guess it happened to the Japanese during WW II, so perhaps its possible but it hardly seems like a realistic fear. I find it very difficult to imagine any change in the US that would result in amendment of the US constitution to make discrimination against Jews or any other religious or ethnic group legal.

You mean aside from a WWIII [Wink]
I have no doubt that if there were a couple more 9/11 attacks, or worse a real Muslim-American war, that Muslims would be subject to legal discrimination.

It took only one 9/11 to get racial profiling, the Patriot Act, and warrant-less wiretapping after all.

And as gays know, you don't necessarily need even that to make discrimination legal.

You are right. But considering how many ethnic groups have been subject to severe legal persecution in just the last century, it does not seem that creating countries with ethnically specific rights for every possible persecuted group is a practical solution to the problem. It seems much more rational to work toward creating many countries that guarantee equal rights for all people and if that fails, we need many countries with open immigration laws for any oppressed persons.

Solving the problem of oppression of minority groups by giving every group a corner where they are the majority doing the oppressing isn't a solution.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Rivka's wishing I'd just shut up, because she knows that as much as she disagrees with many of my positions and virtually all of the way in which I express them, if she were to start discussing this openly, she'd either have to fudge things or offend you.

About as accurate as everything else. Which is to say, not very. [Smile]

For example, I don't wish you would shut up. I do wish you would use some tact, and make more of a distinction between what things are your opinion and which are halacha.

And I'm not terribly concerned about offending people. I just don't see the point in doing so davka. All nuance in this discussion is loooong gone. Heck, most nuance at Hatrack is long gone, period.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Deal with it, Rabbit. We're a separate people, and we'll always be one. We have a task in the world, and it's going to get done even if it offends your sensibilities.
God may indeed have a plans for you, but since you were unable to stand against the Romans, unable to stand against the Babylonians, unable to stand again the Nazis, I sincerely doubt you will be able to stand against world opinion today. If God does actually want you to be in Israel, perhaps you should start persuading the rest of the world you deserve to be there rather than offending our moral senses.
I don't think they had a strong nation to actually protect them in any of those cases.
What's your point? Lisa doesn't want the US to protect Israel and is trying to persuade Americans we should stop doing that. She thinks Israel can take care of themselves or perhaps that God will take care of them.

I wonder if she would be willing to have Israel give back all the weapons we've already sold/given Israel and stop using all the military technology we've already shared. I suspect she would.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
But considering how many ethnic groups have been subject to severe legal persecution in just the last century, it does not seem that creating countries with ethnically specific rights for every possible persecuted group is a practical solution to the problem.

This is true. I've been on the record in this thread that Israel (or indeed, most ethnically based nations) is not a practical solution to providing a safe haven.

I'm just saying that Jews (and Chinese, Muslims, etc.) are right to fear that you only need a few sudden events to see a big sudden increase in persecution and discrimination.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
I actually try to do what Rivka doesn't. I also wish that Lisa had more tact. While I often don't agree with her - I respect her tremendously.

I think it is important that I communicate another perspective with more sensitivity and understanding. I hope that I am mildly successful.

Rabbit/Kat - I understand your misgivings about coercive religious adherence. However - I believe Israel only forbids these things in public. For instance - the public display and sale of bread on Passover. Or the gay parade. Homosexuality in Israel is not illegal. Nor is the eating of bread on passover. It is just a law that protects the traditional character of the state of Israel.

I understand how this may offend - but a small paradigm shift may help you see this in a better light. Especially, comparing Israeli law to other theocratic governments makes Israel look mild in it's protection of it's Jewish character.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Um... no. I'm talking about milk carton kids. Some are runaways. Many (particularly the ones who went missing youngest) are not.
You are aware that the majority of those kids were kidnapped by a non-custodial parent who has gone into hiding. There are very few children kidnapped by strangers in the US.
Specifically, it ranges from about 40-120 children per year, out of more than 60,000,000 children under age 14 in the US.

(A pleasure to concur. [Smile] I am delighted that the overall situation is not as dire as much media reporting and stories would have us believe.)

---

Edited to add: I care about making the clarification because investing in time and money to worry about or fight against stranger abduction of children in the US detracts from worrying about and fighting against much, much greater risks to our children's well-being, many of which are easier to prevent than this very very rare event, even when it does occur.

But I'm not involved in the larger discussion; I have nothing to add, and I could only make things worse here.

[ June 12, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Ah. So it's all about you and how you feel. How we feel doesn't matter. The fact that there've been all sorts of versions of Christianity over the past 17 centuries and that we aren't even slightly interested in delving into their various theologies to see whether we're safe... well, that doesn't mean much to you. Fair enough: why should it?
Lisa, I never asked you to understand the various theological nuances between different Christian faiths. I asked you to understand why it was offensive to accuse me, directly and personally, of killing Jews for sport and being part of a groups that kills Jews for sport.

If you don't want to know anything about my beliefs or the groups with which I associate, no problem. Just don't accuse of killing for sport until you actually bother to find out whether we have or not.

If you think you are justified in accusing me, directly and personally, of killing Jews for sport or being part of a group that kills Jews for sport, you are an ass. Plain and simple. I challenge you to find one person on this board who thinks that accusation was even remotely justifiable.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I think its remotely justifiable.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You want to explain that? Rationally?

Armoth - I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I think that you are leaving out the enormous, important detail that the Jewish nature of Israel is not restricted to public holidays.

The process of citizenship is one example. It isn't just not selling bread during passover - the discrimination goes much, much deeper than that.

And I'm wildly curious - what about Lisa arouses your respect? Do you extend the same respect to people with her attitude and calls for action who come a religion that isn't yours?

Comparing Israel to other theocracies is damning with faint praise - human-run theocracies are inherently wrong. Israel should be better than that, I would think. All weeping over past discrimination is useless and hypocritical if it is used as a justification for becoming the discriminators yourselves.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
I have to agree with Rabbit on that issue. My point was that Christians have been unkind to Jews in the past. I will not accuse Rabbit of the same thing though, not will I accuse any of my fellow American citizens of the same.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
katharina: From her perspective you*'re a Christian. You don't deny being a Christian, you split hairs to say that the other people that in good faith claimed that they were Christian were not in fact Christian.

* by you, I mean Rabbit here

But from an outside perspective, we can only take on good faith that all people that claim they are Christian are in fact Christian. We don't have special powers to read their minds and find out whether in fact they believed in Jesus Christ.

So from her perspective, you're Christian ... a group which has murdered and killed Jews.

*shrug* You don't have to be Christian. You made a choice to identify as Christian.

And as I said. Personally, I think it is more appropriate to go the kmbboots approach on child abuse in the Catholic Church. You take responsibility, you don't deny what happened, you try the best you can to make amends. Splitting hairs directly to the victims just seems imprudent.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
You want to explain that? Rationally?

Armoth - I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I think that you are leaving out the enormous, important detail that the Jewish nature of Israel is not restricted to public holidays.

The process of citizenship is one example. It isn't just not selling bread during passover - the discrimination goes much, much deeper than that.

And I'm wildly curious - what about Lisa arouses your respect? Do you extend the same respect to people with her attitude and calls for action who come a religion that isn't yours?

Comparing Israel to other theocracies is damning with faint praise - human-run theocracies are inherently wrong. Israel should be better than that, I would think. All weeping over past discrimination is useless and hypocritical if it is used as a justification for becoming the discriminators yourselves.

As I said, I don't believe we are being discriminatory. But perhaps I do not know enough. If you can think of some examples that we can discuss, I'd be more than happy to.

I addressed my reasoning for citizenship above. I have no problem with Christian citizenship.

As for my respect for Lisa. I have respect for her as a person, but that doesn't mean I respect all of her choices. I think that she is sometimes abrasive, and shoots herself in the foot. But, she is fearless, she is passionate about what she believes in she is smart and educated, and she deals with people who disapprove of her and her lifestyle on a regular basis.

An Orthodox Jewish lesbian woman is something that arouses my deepest respects. Especially with what she had to deal with in Israel. It hurt when I read someone calling her a neo-Nazi. That's not very nice. Not that Lisa is very nice, but still, it's a bit much.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I think its remotely justifiable.

The exact phrase was 'you and your co-religionists' Mucus. Explain how that is remotely justifiable. Do you reject the premise that one should find out whether a person associated themselves with a group before making such and accusation? You are Chinese and some Chinese groups killed intellectuals for sport during the cultural revolution. Would you consider it remotely justifiable if I said 'you and your kind have killed intellectuals for sport'.

If you then pointed out that you and your family opposed the cultural revolution, would you consider it remotely justifiable if I said, that distinction was irrelevant to me, I can't be expected to differentiate between different stripes of Chinese?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
As I said, I don't believe we are being discriminatory. But perhaps I do not know enough. If you can think of some examples that we can discuss, I'd be more than happy to.

I addressed my reasoning for citizenship above. I have no problem with Christian citizenship.

I gave two examples at the start of this thread. Do you consider it just that the Knesset requested the LDS church give up their right to speak publicly about their religion in order for BYU to build a branch campus in Jerusalem.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... Would you consider it remotely justifiable if I said 'you and your kind have killed intellectuals for sport'.

Uh yeah.

I'm Chinese. Chinese people have killed intellectuals at many times in history dating back to at least the first emperor of China.

That was kind of the whole point of my native American example.
_____

I don't reject the principle whether one should find out whether a person is associated with a group before making such an accusation. But AFAIK, you're on record stating that you are in fact Christian. You placed yourself in that group.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
The phrasing of "you and your" is obviously a crappy one. If someone said "you and your country killed native americans" I'd tell them that "you are mistaken, I've never anybody".
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am finding an interesting comparison between Lisa's idea that discrimination is okay if her group is the one doing the discrimination and the equally horrible twist on the idea of American exceptionalism we are seeing with the torture debate. There is in both the odd sense that because "we" (whoever that is) are the people doing it, it is okay. "We" must have a good reason for it because we are exceptional.

I believe that exceptional lies in what you do rather than who you are and when you behave like an "unexceptional" country or people, you are no longer exceptional.

Added: Historically, lots of bad things happen when one ethnic/religious/national group believes that it has a more special mission or place in history than other groups.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
...
If you then pointed out that you and your family opposed the cultural revolution, would you consider it remotely justifiable if I said, that distinction was irrelevant to me, I can't be expected to differentiate between different stripes of Chinese?

(I think this was added later.)

Think about it this way.

kmbboots apologizes (or is at least apologetic) for the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't for one moment think she was directly involved. In fact, I think she might be too young to have been alive for any of it.

I would sincerely hope that if she did encounter someone that identifies with the victims that they would in fact understand that difference.

But I think it would be presumptuous to assume that they *must* understand that difference and agree with it. I think trust has to be earned over a longer period of time.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
So from her perspective, you're Christian ... a group which has murdered and killed Jews.

*shrug* You don't have to be Christian. You made a choice to identify as Christian.

And as I said. Personally, I think it is more appropriate to go the kmbboots approach on child abuse in the Catholic Church. You take responsibility, you don't deny what happened, you try the best you can to make amends. Splitting hairs directly to the victims just seems imprudent.

You really that's the most appropriate approach? How about this one: Don't accuse someone of committing a crime unless they actually committed a crime.

I don't care what religion Rabbit is. Lisa accusing her of killing Jews makes as much sense as Rabbit trying to collect from Lisa all the money that Bernie Madoff stole from her fellow white people.

This entire line of reasoning is an excellent example of the harm of all this hyper-nationalistic groupthink, and why any ethnic or religious group sequestering themselves and inbreeding for thousands of years is a terrible idea.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think group guilt in general is completely ridiculous. People are culpable for what they have done and what they had a personal part in supporting or allowing to happen. They are not culpable for what people did centuries before they existed, and they are not culpable for what someone belonging to their race or religion is doing right now on the other side of the world.

You are only accountable for that for which you have some responsibility.

This holds for all races and religions and groups in history.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:

Think about it this way.

kmbboots apologizes (or is at least apologetic) for the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't for one moment think she was directly involved. In fact, I think she might be too young to have been alive for any of it.

I would sincerely hope that if she did encounter someone that identifies with the victims that they would in fact understand that difference.

But I think it would be presumptuous to assume that they *must* understand that difference and agree with it. I think trust has to be earned over a longer period of time.

Thanks, Mucus. Sadly, the child abuse scandal, while somewhat addressed, is far from over. MY cousin is a (rather noteworthy) activist and advocate for victims of sexual abuse by priests. He is himself a priest and has spoken about the impact that his apologizing has for victims. It is usually the first time someone for the Church has apologized.

As a part of a group, I am not individually responsible for the actions of members of that group, but I am corporately responsible for the actions of that group, particularly if those actions were endorsed by the group as a whole.

Another example: I personally protested our invasion of Iraq, including participating in civil disobedience. That doesn't mean I can wash my hands of responsibility for our actions there.

I do think that "you and your co-religionists killed Jews for sport" is misleading and inflammatory.
 
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
As I said, I don't believe we are being discriminatory. But perhaps I do not know enough. If you can think of some examples that we can discuss, I'd be more than happy to.

I addressed my reasoning for citizenship above. I have no problem with Christian citizenship.

I gave two examples at the start of this thread. Do you consider it just that the Knesset requested the LDS church give up their right to speak publicly about their religion in order for BYU to build a branch campus in Jerusalem.
I think that LDS should have been allowed to build a branch campus, but not based on an ultimatum. I think that a law against missionizing is appropriate.

Plugged into the framework of publicly respecting Judaism in Israel, I think that is pretty reasonable.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
They steal kids here.
The odds of your daughter being kidnapped here are surprisingly low, you realize.

------

quote:
So your saying Japan is evil and corrupt?
I think it'd be hard to look at the Japanese government and conclude anything else.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"God may indeed have a plans for you, but since you were unable to stand against the Romans, unable to stand against the Babylonians, unable to stand again the Nazis, I sincerely doubt you will be able to stand against world opinion today. If God does actually want you to be in Israel, perhaps you should start persuading the rest of the world you deserve to be there rather than offending our moral senses. "

Frankly, Israel is one of the 20 or so most religiously free nations in the world. It is surrounded by 20 of the least religiously free nations in the world, and most of those are bent on destroying Israel.

If you started applying your moral sense equally to all nations, you'd never have time to worry about most of what Israel is doing, because compared to whats going on in the rest of the world, its pretty much bupkus.

And that is not to dismiss the plight of the Palestinian people at all. What has happened to them is pretty horrible. But they could have had a nation a dozen times over already, if not for awful leadership. And the UN, the US, the Arab nations, Israel, Britain, are all responsible for that plight, not just Israel. But residents and citizens of israel? Have it a whole hell of a lot better than the vast majority of the people around the world.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
They steal kids here.
The odds of your daughter being kidnapped here are surprisingly low, you realize.

------

quote:
So your saying Japan is evil and corrupt?
I think it'd be hard to look at the Japanese government and conclude anything else.

So by this measure then every government in the world is evil and corrupt.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I wouldn't say that. But, yeah, I think the vast majority of them are.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Not really. Even modern countries like Japan and Italy have problems that you can't say other modern countries have.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
So your saying Japan is evil and corrupt?
I think it'd be hard to look at the Japanese government and conclude anything else.
So by this measure then every government in the world is evil and corrupt.
I know nothing good will come of trying to engage Blaine on a rational level, but God help me, I have to ask.

I can infer two things from that question. Which is correct?

a. You think that Japan has the most moral, incorruptible government in the world.

b. You think that every other government in the world is exactly the same as the Japanese government.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I think Japan is a good example of a modern Parliamentary democracy with a good track record for enforcing the rule of law. Its society is functional and stable, assuming we agree on corruption as to mean civil servants and public servants who accept bribes and take favours then the amount of which to my knowledge doesn't exceed average for what amount it happens in other "Western" countries and if "caught" is punished, if by this metric you think the Goverment of Japan is by your implication "wholly corrupt" then so is probably 90% of nations.

Now if you say its corrupt because they do not subscribe to your brand of moral thinking then thats just a wall banger right there as whats makes your moral opinion more valid then there's? Morality is relative.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
In other words, your answer is:

c. What was the question again?

You sure can think outside the box, I'll give you that.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The Japanese gov't has far more frequent bribery scandals than the gov'ts of most other developed nations, a few outliers such as Italy excepted. And that's in a country where it is socially preferred to hush up bribery scandals and just shuffle people out of office quietly.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
... He is himself a priest and has spoken about the impact that his apologizing has for victims. It is usually the first time someone for the Church has apologized.

Precisely. Whatever other disagreements I have with the Catholic Church, this is one policy(?) that I have great respect for. I think its a good idea.

quote:
As a part of a group, I am not individually responsible for the actions of members of that group, but I am corporately responsible for the actions of that group, particularly if those actions were endorsed by the group as a whole.

Another example: I personally protested our invasion of Iraq, including participating in civil disobedience. That doesn't mean I can wash my hands of responsibility for our actions there.

Indeed. That is a less provocative way than I put it, but I fully agree.

quote:
I do think that "you and your co-religionists killed Jews for sport" is misleading and inflammatory.
I don't know how misleading it is. Certainly no one thinks that The Rabbit personally killed Jews. But it is certainly incredibly inflammatory.

Luckily, "remotely" justifiable is a pretty low threshold to meet.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Well, I mentioned Japan as a morally upstanding citizen of the International community respected by all whom I assume limit citizenship/immigration, Tom implied they were "evil and corrupt" which really really throws me off as if THEY'RE evil its like calling Claudia Theresa a vampire.
 
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
 
I asked you a question of logic, not morality.

But apparently it's gone over your head. And since I have no interest in derailing this thread for the next 3 pages trying to walk you through it, I'll just chuckle and leave it there.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Well, I mentioned Japan as a morally upstanding citizen of the International community respected by all whom I assume limit citizenship/immigration, Tom implied they were "evil and corrupt" which really really throws me off as if THEY'RE evil its like calling Claudia Theresa a vampire.

whoa whoa whoa there dude. You're completely missing his entire question.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It is also worth pointing out that Japan's restrictions on immigration and citizenship are causing them a lot of domestic problems, even though they've been quite successful at keeping out the sorts of people they don't like.
 
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Hate to even keep this thread alive at this point, but since I was unavailable for most of its existence thus far, perhaps I should. There's lots of stuff through this thread than I would find unnecessarily inflammatory, accusatory, and ridiculously inconsiderate. I'm not sure if the thread can get past it -- if it reverts, I'll lock it.

If you (general) can discuss a topic without resorting to attack, feel free to discuss it. If you can't, please don't. And because communication in this medium loses a lot, please consider that hyperbole isn't always understood to be hyperbole, and even if it is that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate. Since there are people who have endeavored to make it clear that they mean what they say, even when it sounds hyperbolic, please consider that people may believe you mean exactly what you say.

--PJ
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Janitor:
Hate to even keep this thread alive at this point, but since I was unavailable for most of its existence thus far, perhaps I should. There's lots of stuff through this thread than I would find unnecessarily inflammatory, accusatory, and ridiculously inconsiderate. I'm not sure if the thread can get past it -- if it reverts, I'll lock it.

If you (general) can discuss a topic without resorting to attack, feel free to discuss it. If you can't, please don't. And because communication in this medium loses a lot, please consider that hyperbole isn't always understood to be hyperbole, and even if it is that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate. Since there are people who have endeavored to make it clear that they mean what they say, even when it sounds hyperbolic, please consider that people may believe you mean exactly what you say.

--PJ

QFT. And I strongly doubt it was merely hyperbole.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2