I said I would not respond because the issues here were off topic. I did not say that Judaism cannot spark hot debate, I am simply saying that it generally does not. You are failing to realize that although you have much to debate about Judaism, most people do not; that, and only that, is the point of mine that you are playing on.
I did note that there was a large secular and atheist population in Israel which debates and criticizes Judaism
frequently, however that is a rather small segment (and not very vocal outside of Israel) of the western [if it be called western] and global population.
Then again, it should come as no surprise that a religion which has less than two million religious practitioners [the rest of the Jewish population is secular to one degree or another] does not come up often in debates. Or when it does, it comes up as mis-information -> (by the way I have never heard about the Knesset having a "Seat for king David") -> in which, by the way, the argument you were placing was not often heard and not often a criticism against Judaism specifically.
Again, let's take two hot issues - Criticisms -
against Christianity (or at least of some denominations which I will from this point simply refer to as "Christianity").
1) Abortion is considered murder, and therefore anyone who undergoes an abortion, and anyone who assists in such is a murderer.
Counterargument "This is a backwards position.." etc.. and eventually blaming the religion itself for being backwards
2) Condoms should not be distributed as they increase promiscuity
Counterargument "This is an absurd position; to place imposed sexual morality above the lives of people dying from AIDS and protecting people from HIV" etc.
You see; in both these cases the reason given for the "offensive" notion is religious and the counter-argument as well is generally a complaint against the religion (or at least against those who interpret the religion as such).
Now.. your case with circumcision fails this qualification as it is simply not an issue which is sufficiently popular, and your case with Israel fails simply because complaint against it is not directed against the religion or even against religious authorities; and is again, more of a Nationalistic
issue (which you may or may not agree with). You will ask "Well, what about the case of conversion"; in which it should be said that in conversion you are able to join a people. One does not simply change religion upon conversion to judaism but enters among the Jewish people. Just as if I were to join a tribe, I would not only be adapting the customs of the tribe, but I would become one of them
. Of course I understand if it is a bit hard to grasp the concept, but it holds true for many systems in the world (Particularly among indigenous American and African peoples). Nevertheless the issue of immigration has nothing to do with any religious code; and religion plays a part here merely as a reference of the definition of being part of the Jewish people (Just as the Greek, German, and Russian consitutions have definitions about who is a national of that respective country; and yes, there are such laws there too, and yes, preference is given to nationals in those places too - also in respect to immigration).
Oh what nonsense! So essentially what you are saying is that as part of a debate about whether or not Judaism is subject to criticism like other faiths, it wouldn't be relevent to discuss issues that are directly influenced by, or characteristic of, Judaism.
I do not see what is so absurd about a thread discussing why some religions are more subject to criticism than others. But regarding the quote, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Things that are Influenced
by Judaism are not Judaism itself and a criticism against it will not necessarily be a criticism against Judaism. For example the Condom and Abortion debates are sourced in the old testament; yet Judaism itself has a different view about both of these topics than that which Christianity has, as I elaborated in my first response.
I suppose the same can be said about Islam (although Islam has received a fair amount of criticism of late, I would not necessarily call it critical but more of a general animosity towards it; and this too, only because Islam itself (by means of political Islamism) has come to the forefront of global affairs in recent years. Nevertheless the main criticism is still received by Christianity (and it is also the source of the most persistant criticism) simply because there are more people familiar with it, and because it is a Confronting Issue
which is a native element in society.
My point in all this has simply been that the west is far more familiar with Christianity and therefore Christianity is far more a subject that can influence
the opinions and therefore be more heard; and thusly be scorned in rebuttal.