Why is the Jew untouchable?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 06:36 pm
@Justin,
Justin;68144 wrote:
Alright, enough is enough. William your thread heavily weighs on the side of discrimination and flaming. It's not about Jews or Christians or any of the other stuff, it's about people and what they do. We're all different and unique with individual characteristics... However, you are using broad generalizations and while you may have not come right out and say it, the overtones of your posts are discriminative towards people.

We all have our moments and make mistakes and maybe say things we regret later. Let's clean it up and communicate effectively.

Please, we're here on the Internet and communicating where we once had barriers separating us all. If you want to find bad things about anyone, you can. Seek to find the good in all and the good will be shown.

If there's any more discriminatory or sweeping generalizations towards blacks, Jews, or any other race or creed you will no longer be able to post on this forum, (let's not do that). Discuss away but do it with great care and an open mind of understanding.

If this thread doesn't turn around, it's going to be closed.


I understand. completely. Sorry, if I have offended anyone.
William
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 07:11 pm
@William,
William;68151 wrote:
I understand. completely. Sorry, if I have offended anyone.
William

Thank you William. It's not so much that you've offended anyone it's just that words spoken have much meaning. Words give physical manifestation to thought and while your brutal honesty and openness about the way you feel about things is admirable, it may be advantageous to strive to find the good rather then to challenge someone to show where your thinking or perception is in err.

You are an elder on the forum and an elder in real life and with that comes responsibility for your thoughts and actions. You have much to bring to the table and much to learn, just like the rest of us. Communication without knives and swords is the key.

Thanks everyone for understanding and your patience during this thread. This thread should be closed however, I feel that Baal should have an opportunity to respond but let's put the past behind us and move forward.
 
William
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 07:37 pm
@Justin,
Justin;68159 wrote:
Thank you William. It's not so much that you've offended anyone it's just that words spoken have much meaning. Words give physical manifestation to thought and while your brutal honesty and openness about the way you feel about things is admirable, it may be advantageous to strive to find the good rather then to challenge someone to show where your thinking or perception is in err.

You are an elder on the forum and an elder in real life and with that comes responsibility for your thoughts and actions. You have much to bring to the table and much to learn, just like the rest of us. Communication without knives and swords is the key.

Thanks everyone for understanding and your patience during this thread. This thread should be closed however, I feel that Baal should have an opportunity to respond but let's put the past behind us and move forward.


Baal doesn't have to respond. But closing it, does that meant it will still be available for view? If not please leave it open for someone may be able to shed more light on what I miserably failed to do. Is that ok? Thanks.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

PS, I wll no longer participate in the thread.
William
 
Baal
 
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 08:45 pm
@William,
I was actually going to post something longer and more comprehensive; the main point thereof would have been directly related to the thread topic; which is mainly that accusations leveled against Judaism, Jewish people etc. (and again, I am just using Judaism as an example; we can take another such creed/people who fit the same profile) are resultant from lack of knowledge and familiarity.

To level constructive criticism, or to even have criticism sound remotely constructive, one must actually appeal to a certain sense of pathos or ethos which is related to the matter being accused.

For example the criticism leveled against Christianity (concerning both abortion and condom usage) derive from Christian ethos itself (which is itself derived from Greek culture) about the woo-haa of Death and the preciousness of the life of a single individual. This is mainly a Western and Christian ethic (although not exclusively so) and hence the argument against Christianity becomes criticism not only in a shunning manner but also in the form of an argument against Christianity actually using Christianity. The rationale of both arguments come to light and have themselves been enough to influence people one way or the other.

To a smaller extent the same can be said about the much less prominent argument regarding male circumcision; in which it teaches against bodily harm and mutilation (Judaism is actually very strict about mutilation - although for various reasons; mainly it being similar to the pagan religions of the time and region), and for it to be a debate per se, it needs to actually appeal to such a sense.

This rule and specification is not universally true in all debates, but it does find a common arguing point and therefore allows a debate to grow on the one hand, and on the other hand be limited to a specific point and a specific form of logical flow to emanate. Once this point is lost and there is no common denominator Or the point was never found to begin with, the argument, if there is any, is no longer an argument but a rant or a statement [depending on the tone], and this leads to racism or other forms of "i am inherently better than you"-isms, because there arises a failure to empathize and understand the other's argument.

In a healthy society, the only criticism is self-criticism; criticism of others are signs of severe internal unrest. Criticism can only be directed at the familiar, and in a familiar fashion. This applies for patronizing too or 'reverse-racism' (this does not mean affirmative action which is something else entirely and is a practical integration program rather than a form of patronizing, IMO at leasT)

Personally, at least, I am more offended by reverse-racism than classical racism. It is easier for me to hate someone for degrading me than to hate someone for exalting me.. but that is just a personal feeling.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 01:53 am
@William,
Quote:
Judaism is actually very strict about mutilation - although for various reasons; mainly it being similar to the pagan religions of the time and region

Because a part lost to you in life is denied to you in paradise?
 
William
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 08:03 am
@William,
To all People, I apologise for my lack of understanding of a people I truly know nothing about. Let me first say People are people and there should be no barriers that separate them. Such a religion, speech, ethnicity, cultures and so on. I do not blame the Jew for anything, but to be "chosen" means there are those who are "unchosen". That is, in my opinion the crux of all our problems as we separate each other. It is the enigmatic nature of the Jew that spurred the rationalization behind the thread. There's no reason in the world for any person to have an enigatic existence. That in an of itself instills fear in people and even perhaps me too. And I consider me a fearless person in that I truly have nothing to be afraid of especially hell. If you put me in hell I will roast marshmellows and teach everyone there how they too can roast marshmellows. Ha. If that is what my eternal purpose is, I will do it. But, you see, I want to live too and I hate paying for it. But everything has a price, doesn't it? That is so horrifically sad. You don't have to pay people or charge them, they will gladly offer what they have and the most important is their unfettered participation in life. There are no chosen people, we are one people and we need to work together. That's life. No one knows exactly what heaven is, but I can guarantee you every one wants to go there, wherever it is. Sure it may even be on another planet someday in another solar system, who knows, But I can guarantee you we will have to get it right here first. We just can't use this planet up and think we can discard it as if were a waste product. What does that make us. PARASITES. MY god, we are not parasites.
There is so much we can do with those beautifil tools the Earth offers us, all we need to do is use them properly and not selfishly. We are all in this life togethe. No one is better than the other. All want to participate in life and be productive, loved and appreciated.
We have so much knowledge and once we begin to work together we will truly be able to use the knowledge in such a way that it will benefit all who call this beautiful planet home. Once we are all free, the possibilities for us are endless. Don't let death scare you, it's just a washing machine, that's all. You just have to believe that. That's all I know about and it really makes sense. Life is truly one day at a time. How so very wonderful it would be to live every day eagerly awaiting for tomorrow to come. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. Again, please forgive me for any hurt that I may have cause, in that I am a victim of this reality and have suffered from those human frailties we all do. We can fix all that once we put our mind to it.

Thanks,
William
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 08:30 am
@William,
William, the idea of the Jews being chosen comes from our own tradition -- not some natural fact. You're right that the Jews are hardly unique in their suffering, but the degree of their suffering has been so extreme and so recurrent that one puzzles at the idea of how this group could be divinely favored. My grandparents, only one of whom was educated and who started their adulthoods as starving refugees, worked exceptionally hard to have any success in life, to make it to a new land, and for their children to be educated. God doesn't deserve any credit for this, and neither does some mystical Jewish character -- my grandparents alone deserve the credit. And just as the Jews aren't the only group to suffer, neither should they be given some mystical credit when plenty of disadvantaged people from other backgrounds have worked their way to success.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 10:35 am
@William,
Indeed, a talent for industry is often characteristic of an oppressed minority, as they have learned to work harder to gain less.

As Caroline mentioned earlier, a certain stereotype of asians, particularly those from Pakistan, exists in Britain. This is of the "they make great businessmen" (or, less generously, "they are taking all our jobs") variety. The fact that people from a poorer and more agrarian society might have a better work ethic than British people is of course inconsiderable to many British people, who would supposedly rather earn the right to obtain jobs in Britian without studying hard or working overtime.

Because of the industry of many asians they are in turn victimised by those who spread lies that they "put British people out of work" - because that's easier than admitting that asians put more effort into doing jobs that native Britons would rather not bother with, such as a twelve hour day manning a convenience store.

The Jewish participation in banking and business surely has a basis in this sort of thing too. Christians didn't want to dirty their hands with usury - but still wanted to benefit from it, hence why Jewish people were encouraged to move in to Christian countries and utilise their talents for the benefit of everyone there. If things went badly wrong economically this had the added "benefit" that a quick pogrom could effectively redistribute the wealth.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 05:19 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;68217 wrote:
Because a part lost to you in life is denied to you in paradise?


No. Perhaps you should do some reading about Jewish eschatology as well to know that "Paradise" per se is not physical, and that there is a physical stage (also not universally agreed upon either) but that is not called 'Paradise'.. and that is not dependent on whether one has been mutilated or not either, but this is a different topic.

And indeed there may not be a reason for this at all. Unlike Chrisitanity and much of the new testament, the Old Testament does not provide many reasons for laws, and indeed the laws are "senseless" to an extent, meaning that a worshiper is required to follow the law not because he understands the reasoning behind it, but simply because such is God's law.

The notion of the "Chosen People" has also been highly misconstrued. It has nothing to do with being genetically superior (since the Jewish people are not technically racially homogeneous, despite the fact that the vast majority are of semitic origin; nevertheless one may convert and marry a fellow convert and their status will be as "Chosen" as Moses himself).

According to Jewish Tradition; being "Chosen" reflects on God having selected the tribes descending from Jacob ("whose bed lay whole" because all of his children were 'pure' in their devotion to the Lord) to follow his law. This being "Chosen" is purely a tribal/religious merit and has nothing to do with being genetically superior (or even genetically different).

In this sense the Christian notion of 'Chosen' in which those who do not accept Christ are doomed to hell (although this is not universally agreed upon) is far more severe than Judaism's notion (which does not believe that all those who are not Jewish will burn in hell).. but again, a different story.

Regarding minorities being industrious, that is rather true. I suggest people go to Israel or Pakistan and see that the diaspora communities are not identical to the origins in many ways.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 05:59 pm
@Baal,
Baal;68403 wrote:
It has nothing to do with being genetically superior (since the Jewish people are not technically racially homogeneous, despite the fact that the vast majority are of semitic origin).
I don't think that's true (the vast majority part). The Ashkenazy Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, of which I count myself a pure example, are not of Semitic origin, at least not since a millenium or two of intermixing with indigenous European populations. Many of the Jews of Israel were refugees from the Soviet Union and before that the population of Israel ballooned with survivors of WWII. Many if not most of the Jews of the USA are of the same origin, and the Jewish population of the United States dwarfs that of Israel. Even discounting the pre-WWII population, I'd estimate that no more than half of the Jews in the world are ethnically semitic.

It's a moot point, though. Even Hitler expressly said that the Jewish "race" was not genetic, but rather a condition of the spirit.
 
Baal
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:09 pm
@William,
Well that's not really true. There are many political motivations for claiming one way or the other, but evidence and scholarly consensus suggests most Jews (including most Ashkenazic European Jews) are of predominantly Semitic origin.

There are many arguments for Jews being semitic and much evidence for such. Arguments to the contrary have been raised to prove a cultural or political point (for example in the 60s there were many Israeli linguists who wished to claim that Hebrew in its current state was an 'indo european' language due to its many borrowed idioms and manner of speech; the point of course was to show attachment with the West and trying to break from the Arabs who are seen as 'The Enemy' and also 'Primitive'; in reality though the structure of Arabic is less 'Semitic' [if you will] due to it being primarily an Analytic language, whereas Hebrew (even in its modern form) is very highly Synthetic -- although the gutturals have been dropped from Hebrew). In any even the large evidence points to most of the Jewish people being from Semitic origin; for better or for worse.

Intermixing is very difficult when you have internal prohibitions against marrying other peoples, and when you have external prohibitions of people wedding Jews (as was the case in Europe until late in the Enlightenment). Secondly, Jewish presence in Europe - especially Ashkenazic presence, is not two millenia but rather a single millenium. The first european Jews were Sephardic, which inhabited Iberia and the Balkans. The Sephardic population originated from Israel/Palestina and was a community distinct from the Babylonian Jews both in customs as well as in language and culture. (In fact, this distinction is still reflected in the religious dialects of Hebrew; the Sephardic dialect sounding more similar to Western Aramaic, the Ashkenazic dialect being more similar to Eastern Aramaic; both of which were the Lingua Franca of the times, although whether the distinction is indeed ancient or more recent has been debated)

The Ashkenazic community of Europe actually originated from Babylon and was there well into the eighth and ninth centuries [The Talmud itself was only redacted in its final form in the seventh century]. These are the Jews who eventually ended up in Germany in the middle ages [although circumstances of their migration from babylonia remains heavily undocumented, nevertheless there are many latin words in Yiddish which are not found in the German dialect of the time, leading many academics to conclude that they had spent some time in romance countries prior to settling in Germany]. This is further reflected in the codifications of Jewish law, Ashkenazim generally favoring the Babylonian Talmud and Sephardim generally favoring the Jerusalem Talmud

Furthermore, the Aharonic and Levitic lineages are still maintained; such lineages would be difficult to fake in communities which were generally close-knit and where lineages like that have much religious (but very little social) implications.

It is actually the Sephardic (although this is more applicable to North African Jewish populations specifically) communities which are more assimilated and may not be 'purely semitic-Jewish' as they were the least oppressed and they were respected religiously as well. There are countless stories about Jewish Rabbis' burial places being a shrine for local muslim populations, and vice versa...

Of course there had been much intermarriage and assimilation, but the assimilated population became part and parcel of the other party and religion. There have been cases of mass conversion, such as the Khazars (and the extent of the conversion has been debated as well) which at the most liberal estimates would have not accounted for more than 10% of the european Jewish population, as well as the Hasmonean forced conversion of much of the Nabateans (numbers here are unknown) but these are exceptions..
 
7skullz
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 01:23 am
@William,
Quote:
As for it being a parents choice - I think that's rather weak. Would you support the right of parents to choose to dig out the clitoris of their infant daughter? I hope not. Yet it is apparently fine to remove a sensitive part of the male anatomy just because "that's what people of my/their culture do".


Well, I DO NOT and quite frankly, ABHOR female circumsision. I am actually GLAD that I'm "cut", As I find it easier to do some things, for some reson, physical activity, such as my martial arts is easier without my foreskin. Dont judge me on that, It is really more of a gut feeling, and I TRUST MY GUT!
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:34 am
@William,
I think Aedes has it right, Baal.

Recall that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the 8-9th century. They were not Semitic. There is nothing political about 11th century Muslim observes saying that Khazars are Jews (well, nothing relating to modern politics).
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 07:04 am
@7skullz,
7skullz;68715 wrote:
Well, I DO NOT and quite frankly, ABHOR female circumsision.

Well, is it the parents' choice or not then?

And if it's the parents' choice in regard to male circumscison and an abhorrant practice in the case of female circumscision, why is that?
Quote:
I am actually GLAD that I'm "cut", As I find it easier to do some things, for some reson, physical activity, such as my martial arts is easier without my foreskin. Dont judge me on that, It is really more of a gut feeling, and I TRUST MY GUT!

I try not to think with my gut.

I'm sure that there are some women out there who will admit (or claim) to being glad that they had their labia and clitoris removed and their vaginas stitched up. Does that make it right to remove the choice to determine what one has done with one's own body? Just because you have rationalised or accepted what has become of your own body why should I respect the practice?

And I'm not judging you - you are the inflictee, not the inflictor.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 07:19 am
@William,
Male circumcission is done for medical reasons where femal is done for no other reasons then 'cultural' reasons. It is illegal in the UK because of the horrific process the female goes through. There is no medical reasons for this procedure and if you look at the cultural reasons you will find they are based on myths not truths. In truth the female endures agonising pain with no medical attention what so ever. It is nothing but barbaric and cruel which is why it is illegal in the United Kingdom taking the choice away. You will also find that the females are not always cooperative and are held down against their will, you will find the ones that do agree to it have been coerced and brainwashed into the belief that cultural myths are true, there is no reason at all for this disgusting proceedure. Many girls have died after having bled to death.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 07:57 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;69065 wrote:
Male circumcission is done for medical reasons where femal is done for no other reasons then 'cultural' reasons.

No, both types of circumscision are done for either medical or cultural reasons.

Covered medical already - if you need a part of your body chopped off to avoid disease or disorder then that might be regretable, but OK. However, it strikes me that most men who don't get circumcised live pretty healthily with their foreskins.

The foreskin might develop problems - but it is much less likely to do so than the appendix or the tonsils, if we are to remove parts of the body that might be imperfect or go wrong at birth we would be mincing babies wouldn't we?

Quote:
It is illegal in the UK because of the horrific process the female goes through. There is no medical reasons for this procedure and if you look at the cultural reasons you will find they are based on myths not truths. In truth the female endures agonising pain with no medical attention what so ever. It is nothing but barbaric and cruel which is why it is illegal in the United Kingdom taking the choice away. You will also find that the females are not always cooperative and are held down against their will, you will find the ones that do agree to it have been coerced and brainwashed into the belief that cultural myths are true, there is no reason at all for this disgusting proceedure. Many girls have died after having bled to death.

I agree with everything you say, but I don't understand why everything you have said about female circumscision is not equally applicable to ritual (note: not medical - can we get past medical - no one is complaining about medicine) male circumscision, which is also "painful" "cultural" "against their will" and results in the occasional death.

Why is female circumscision a case of "oh the poor girls!" but male a case of "meh"?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 08:52 am
@William,
Re: Dave
Smile, i didnt know it was so bad for the males aswell. But you say that it results in the occasional death. A few more than that in the case of females.
Do you know what they do to the females, it's not just a snip and whip it off and you're in agony for whatever time, they have to bind the females legs together for weeks.
 
Joe
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 09:03 am
@Caroline,
Im coming from left field but why is it, that as more time goes along, the more Jew Jokes i hear in movies and shows. I find myself laughing more and more at the randomness of it all. Dont judge me. Its just something I noticed.
 
Baal
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 10:00 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;69063 wrote:

I try not to think with my gut.


... Of course there must be some purely cerebral impetus for you to scorn circumcision or even mutilation in general.

I would even argue cultural relativism here in respect to female circumcision; however I am not aware of any large groups or organizations devoted in whole or in part against male circumcision out of pure "Humanity". There are quite a few addressing female circumcision, many of which were born in such a culture; and not just the Enlightened people of the developed world again worried for the sake of all Humanity.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 10:08 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;69094 wrote:
Re: Dave
Smile, i didnt know it was so bad for the males aswell. But you say that it results in the occasional death. A few more than that in the case of females.
Do you know what they do to the females, it's not just a snip and whip it off and you're in agony for whatever time, they have to bind the females legs together for weeks.

Female circumscision refers to a number of different operations which can range from slicing off the clitoral hood (the nearest equivalent to a male circumscision) or parts of the labia to excision of much of the clitoris and labia and stitching up of the vagina until the victim's wedding night.

There are many different forms male circumscision can take as well, though the removal of the foreskin seen as a covenent with God in Jewish and Muslim tradition is the most common. As with all operations there is a chance of death through bleeding or infection, and the video I posted before describes how a number of children in New York died of Herpes as a result of unhygenic male circumscisions.

However, I think it's besides the point really. Even if it was safe and painless it would still be mutilation of part of someone's body without their consent. I still can't really gather why that doesn't strike more people as odd and unnecessary.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

Baal;69123 wrote:
... Of course there must be some purely cerebral impetus for you to scorn circumcision or even mutilation in general.

Primarily, it is the denial of agency over one's own body that provokes my scorn. I think people should be allowed to make up their own minds about what bits they keep, remove or alter unless it is for sound medical reasons. I don't think this is a gut feeling because I can think to myself quite clearly why I think denial of agency over self to this degree, and for ritual reasons alone, is not something I wish to support.

So whether it's scarification, or the sharpening of teeth or Maori tattoos or whatever. I can see that it's part of the rich tapestry of human diversity, yes, but I also think it's a bigger insult to the individual to not have any say in the matter - to have other people dictate what it is to undergo a rite of passage. I don't think this is a case of "white man's burden" talking here, I wouldn't really feel moved to go out and evangelise against these practices because I do feel a certain degree of regard in the self-determination of cultures as well as individuals. Plus I can't be bothered. However, asked my opinion on the issue I must say that I'm sorry people are denied the choice to make themselves.

I mean, in extreme example I would say I am opposed to the idea of baptism of infants, as I regard it an unnecessary removal of choice. I think it's pettier than any of the other examples given and leaves no traces.

I think you're right to say that there's some cultural relativity involved in the scorn shown to female circumscision by those who defend male circumscision - as well as the fact that most female circumscisions presented in the media tend to be of the more severe cases.

So cerebral reasons for scorn might include:
[INDENT]1) The big one - Removal of the right to self determination.
2) Infliction of suffering - however trifling it may be.
3) Risk of serious injury or infection.
4) Infliction of a mark of ownership - a physical reminder that the child belongs to a certain creed or tribe which may not be restored even if the individual ceases to feel that he belongs.
5) Denial of a sensitive part of the body, a part which contains more nerves than the glans, which might prove a source of pleasure in the future.
[/INDENT]
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:27:14