posted
That's better than someone who won't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, but refuses to admit that's how they feel.
I prefer open prejudice to hidden prejudice.
On another topic, I vote for the candidate I deem most likely to destroy our country, which strangely means I voted for Bush.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: That's better than someone who won't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, but refuses to admit that's how they feel.
I prefer open prejudice to hidden prejudice.
On another topic, I vote for the candidate I deem most likely to destroy our country, which strangely means I voted for Bush.
You should move to Canada. Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada would be fun. I'm in my second year of getting a degree in education though, so I might wait until I am certified here in Michigan. Although I have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get certified to teach in Canada, I'm only imagining that being certified here would help.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
That's the impression I got.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
That reminds me of this one guy from high school that said he would not vote for a woman president simply because she was a woman. The whole class was appalled at his comment but he stood by it. Little white trash bastard.
I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, why wouldn't you vote for a Jew for president? I thought you are Jewish yourself. Is it that the most prominent Jewish politician is Joseph Lieberman, and you dislike his politics?
Lieberman professes to be a Sabbath-keeper, but he also claims that his work in the U.S. Senate is important enough to justify working on the Sabbath. I imagine that would make him seem fairly liberal to you. And people who are closest to us in beliefs but differ on only a few points, seem to be the ones who we tend to feel threatened by the most. Among Christians, it was such who we burned at the stake, not Atheists or Hindus. So you Jews are just the same us the rest of us, aren't you? Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible that Lisa thinks the laws of Shabbos would interfere with the administration of a country. I know I do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If no one links Ron to my recent answers to these questions, I'll answer when I get the chance. But it's less than 20 minutes until I have to light candles, and I shouldn't be on the computer at all right now, because there's stuff to do.
But for the record, both Ron and Tom are wrong about my reasons.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
From the Ask the Rebbetzin thread.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Before the split (i.e., during the reigns of David and Shlomo (Solomon)), was it not used for everyone?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No kidding. One thing about Mitt Romney running is that it exposed the mountain of religous bigotry and the hypocrisy apprently rampant in the US. I had no idea. *angry*
Well, yeah. It's the US. When has it ever been good at treating minorities with respect? I hate to sound cold, but get used to it. I am; nothing surprises me anymore when people tell me they hate what I am, what I do, who I love, and all based on religious beliefs.
This is just a small sample of what most gay people have to go through, sadly, and that comes from personal experience and talking to many of my friends.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's the US. When has it ever been good at treating minorities with respect?
As compared to whom?
Turkey? Saudi Arabia? China? Rwanda?
Who says I have to compare it to another country for my statement to be true? I'm stating a fact: the US has had a history of treating minorities as second-class citizens. I'm not saying other countries are better or worse, just that the US hasn't had a great track record.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
I'm terrible at telling tone in posts, so I'll assume you're being sincere.
Well, it's not like the track records of other countries, if they are indeed worse, somehow negate what we've done anyways, and since I'm no historian, I can't speak to the histories of other countries. But we managed to do plenty of damage in the 232 years (assuming my math is correct) we've been a sovereign nation.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When we insisted that we thought it was fine to use when no offense was intended, she then took us to her office immediately for another less-than-cursory lecture on how we should understand that the language is offensive and we shouldn't be using it even to trivialize it, since someone somewhere might still be offended.
Back to the original topic for a moment. Here are a couple more links about the story.
Those articles are from our local newspaper. I thought I would just add a couple words, because I attended and graduated from this school in '04. I quoted Samprimary because that is exactly the kind of attitude the school administration and faculty have taken at Carrillo for quite a few years now. The overall personality of the student-body is northern Californian, progressive, liberal, college prepatory, white, and rich. To be more specific, by white I mean about 95% caucasian, and by rich I mean the school is loathingly called "Gucci High" by other schools in the city. It's infamous for the huge parking lot being filled completely so that students end up parking on the football field because there are so many rich families that buy their kids brand new, shiny, expensive, cars. The school has also been hit a few times with swastikas and really nasty racial slurs on the walls. There have been anti-war sit-ins, public protests against racism and the like. All of this has created a certain degree of tension when it comes to being politically correct, which the staff has taken very seriously. Especially Gans-Rugebregt who is French and has caught wind of her own share of insults from students.
I don't claim to be incredibly educated about this particular case, but I find it hard to take any of it seriously. It's all just such a bizarre mess. When I attended I had a close friend who was Mormon and I never heard a word against her. I asked her if she had ever been insulted because she was Mormon. She said that she never had been while at Carrillo. Then there's the issue of the girl's parents and the vice-principal. They are very open about being anti-homosexual and while I don't actually know what the vice-principal's sexuality is (or care) she comes across as being stereotypically lesbian. Lastly, I know many students who were reprimanded with referrals and warnings for using language that faculty found offensive. My own brother was in almost the exact same situation, for the same offense, and recieved the same exact treatment, but he's not Mormon nor anti-homosexual.
I'm more apt to think that the girl's parents are taking it this far because they can. I'm not really sure how to feel about the issue. I understand that something like "that's so gay" is inherently very offensive, but I also believe that the majority of kids, and my peers, use it as a general insult that has no connotations with homosexuality.
My brother and I have a wierd perspective on the phrase because it was passed onto us by our mother. She has been using it amongst her sisters since the 70s. It's one of those random family tradition things. It was taken from the true/original definition of gay and morphed into being a blanket word that could be used to celebrate, to insult, to replace names,to describe and a million other things. Like 'Yay! The pizza's here! That's gay!' or 'Don't be so grumpy, gay' or 'What time is it? It's gay time!'.
Going to Carrillo, especially after my brother was reprimanded for saying it, I constantly had to check myself when I almost let a phrase like that eek out. It's something we use in our family all the time so it was really challenging to stop myself. The context could even be positive and happy, but I never wanted to offend anyone who was familiar with it only being used negatively.
Ah, rough subject. By all means, go on with the Mormon thing, which is completely over my head. Cheers!
(Editted multiple times for link silliness. Yeesh.)
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Before the split (i.e., during the reigns of David and Shlomo (Solomon)), was it not used for everyone?
I can't think of an instance where it was. Bnei Yisrael, but not Yehudim.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
posted
I doubt that I could ever vote for a Mormon. I mean, I would, if I aggreed with his (or her I suppose) stances, but most Mormons tend to be much more socialy conservative than me.
I don't know if I'm bigoted or not. There are several Mormons on this board whom I like a lot. I have never really known any irl. I've met some of course, but they are a tiny minority where I live.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
It can be reasonable. Imagine that you were someone living in 1000 BC with no knowledge of the present day. Most nations at the time would have no problem with slavery, racism, genocide. You would probably be pretty justified in saying that every nation in the world had a poor track record in regards to their treatment of minorities, even without a specific example of a nation with a better track record.
Or you know, there's Canada Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
