How come Judaism is just as insular

as islam but no-one asks jews to examine their society and their way of proceding through life completely unintegrated ? Just as much as I object to muslim women teachers covering themselves in a veil while teaching in British schools I also object to the insular display of religious symbolism that jews portray on the streets of London - If muslims cant wear muslim iconographic clothing then dont let the jewish culture parade its religiosity - religion should be toned down especially in secular societies - If people want to put their religion on display then they should do it in a country of nonsecularism

 

As an American, I have no problem with people putting their religion on display, as long as it doesn't have an impact on my or anyone else's liberties. But once they start trying to force it onto other people, that's when it becomes a problem.

 

In Britain a debate has started because women will not take off the veil when they are conducting themselves in public - to the extent that one of our most prominent government ministers said that he will ask women to remove their veil when they go to consult him at his offices as he finds it disconcerting when someone is talking to him and he cannot see their face - similarly some muslim women teachers are wearing the veil in classrooms and it obviously would have an impact on children who rely on a lot of visual signals from adults when engaged in conversation. It doesnt seem right that the visual imagery of religion should come between people who say they want to act in accordance with the ettiquet of living in a secular society but continue to live as though in some separate land - as though they are willing theocracy upon us and dont want to integrate. What is the point of living in a country if you dont agree with its traditions and share its dreams - Perhaps all religions should demonstrate their willingness to abide with the traditions of a host government. For example in Britain we have a tradition of 400 years of secularism - why should religions think they can ride roughshod over that - perhaps they can tone it down a bit as they seem to be upsetting each other and the secularists

 

Well imo, they should be allowed to wear the veil. It's an individual right whose impact on the society would be greatly diminished if it only stopped focusing on it. If there is anything this world needs more of, it's tolerance, and that's one thing seeing people wearing the veil can help to teach.

For me it is diversity and tolerance that are most primary. Having everyone dress or think alike, be it in the name of Jesus or secularism, I find to be truly a misstep.

 

sorryu I added this in later above - got called away urgent

What is the point of living in a country if you dont agree with its traditions and share its dreams - Perhaps all religions should demonstrate their willingness to abide with the traditions of a host government. For example in Britain we have a tradition of 400 years of secularism - why should religions think they can ride roughshod over that - perhaps they can tone it down a bit as they seem to be upsetting each other and the secularists
surely its a two way street - If you live with our cultural values we wont upset yours - but since you chose to live in our secular society its rather incumbent on the religions to placate the rest of us

 

Perhaps the opportunities are better there. Of course I'm in America so I'm in a different situation than you. Here the focus tends to be on freedom and rights, including for religions, as opposed to secularism.

But as I see it what you're saying is really no different than what, for example, those Christians who claim the US is a "christian" country say, except instead of evangelizing in the name of Jesus, you're doing it in the name of secularism. It's almost like you're trying to create a dhimmi status for all non-secularists, where they're not allowed to live as their religion proscribes.

Britain may have a tradition of secularism, but I know, for example, that there is a head rabbi, and I believe it's the queen who is the head of the COE. So perhaps you are not being entirely honest with me or maybe even yourself about how the situation has been over the past 400 years.

edited to note: A minor correction. Archbishop of Canterbury, not the queen, as head of COE.

 

It is written into law that the queen may be the head of the church but that she may not commandeer the state and that the state take precedence over matters of a political nature - At least now that you call into question my beliefs concerning the secular state I see I'm not too sure where the idea of a separation between church and state lies - all I know is that the queen is the head of the C of E precisely because she is not allowed to take an active part in the business of parliament. I believe that is where church and state are separate here and the reason why she is a figure head and not a leader
we are suckered into paying her to be a spiritual guide
Maybe I can only speak as a brit - maybe the politics is too different - but as a brit I really do want an end to the nonesense, that religion knows anything, and has anything relevent to add to the world today - I Honestly honestly am becoming antagonistic toward religion it is nothing but trouble and fascism. I tolerated it till this year but see how the world is because of it - I dont want these rascist fascist dogmatists anywhere near me or my family, and if it means an end to monarchy so be it - let it happen
Prince charles said he will take on leadership of the christian and muslim faith when he becomes king HA HA HA like the muslims are gonna accept a honky at the helm (and thats a honky talkin about a honky) I asked my muslim friends about that and they laughed their asses off about it. They said a move like that will "kick up a shit storm"

 

Columbo,

I didn't mention the queen because she's a political leader. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state for political decisions (however if the decisions of the people are influenced by their religious values, so be it. ) I mentioned her as well as the Chief Rabbi as evidence that there is a British recognition of religion, and that, at least officially, religion's place in society seems more to have been embraced than shunned. In fact I just looked up the chief rabbi and he's been knighted.

However, to address what you have said, I'm not sure that agrees with history. When Henry VIII rebelled from the Catholic Church, I do believe it was well before power was removed from the crown.

edit: And in response to your additional posting, it's my opinion that fundamentalism is a trait that would find its fulfillment elsewhere if not in religion. It can be found elsewhere, when people fight over issues of ethnicity or nationality. If religion is abolished, you're not ending the problem. You're only ending the harmless expression through which it currently manifests. By me, some people just have a dangerous inclination toward fundamentalism.

 

One could say that refusing people the right to practice the religion of their choosing is nothing but trouble and fascism...

 

Not true - The queen can only act with the consent of parliament - if the queen engages in autonomous politics it would or could cause a civil war - the parliamentary rules of conduct are that the queen may not instruct government on the politics of the day, and must take advice from parliament as to how she should conduct her affairs not the other way around - the queen is merely a figurehead - not a president and not an ordinary politician - she merely has jurisdiction over the armed forces - the armed forces owes allegiance to the queen but are paid by parliament - the queen may direct the armed forces but not the political structure and it is the political structure that ultimately tells the queen whether her armed forces are needed or not. She also directs the affairs of the church of England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

That is correct but since then - since the civil war in the 1600's the church maintains itself under the influence and guidance of the monarchy and must not participate in influencing the informed decision of parliament - parliament connects with the people and instructs the church and the monarchy - but out of diplomacy the parliament would listn to their advice if needed - since the civil war the monarch cannot act outside what parliament dictates, they are the political masters the monarchy takes orders from them.
This is why I say we do not need religion - it has no purpose in our political life but it serves as a political institution to the faithful - it must go or act in accordance with reson and that reason is what parliament dictates - if it does not do what the majority want - why should we suffer the dictates of a moral minority
If the religions offend each other AND non religious people then they should live like the majority want them to live - I believe that is in accordance with liberalism which entails a dilution of the extremities and symbolism of religion

or to say it crassly - put away the veil and other symbols of your religious heritage stop parading it in our faces, you live in London not Tel Aviv or Bhagdad or wherever - Also stop threatening each other - or get out and we will ban christianity too and every other religion - we need diplomacy amongst nation states not war amongst religious factions
We are not liberalist because we tollerate the intollerant - we are liberals because at the expense of liberalism we want peace
If religions dont tollerate each other we wont tollerate them

 

I don't think you're understanding what I said. I stated that I did not mention the queen because she is a political leader. In other words, I was responding to your statement that "It is written into law that the queen may be the head of the church but that she may not commandeer the state and that the state take precedence over matters of a political nature" by saying that those matters have nothing to do with why I brought up the queen. I only brought her up, as I said before because "I mentioned her as well as the Chief Rabbi as evidence that there is a British recognition of religion, and that, at least officially, religion's place in society seems more to have been embraced than shunned. In fact I just looked up the chief rabbi and he's been knighted. "

However, you left that part out, giving the impression that it had always been that way, by design.

How is it a political institution for the faithful? I'm sure you can find better definitions for it than that. And why does it matter whether it has a purpose in political life? Is everything about politics?

While I certainly agree with many ideas brought about by the enlightenment, I don't see the difference between forcing people to follow reason and forcing people to follow a book. And truly, if people were to follow reason, all people, it would still lead to strife. Reason does not always lead to the same conclusions, just as people come to argue about the meaning of the words in a book. If you want to give people the tools so that they can make informed decisions for themselves, that's one thing, but when you start pursuing them with leaflets (figuratively) you're treading on a very slippery slope.

You shouldn't. That's whats's so great about democracy. But why should they have to suffer for your intolerance of their beliefs?

And what about the atheists who are offending all the religious people? Look, everyone gets offended by everyone. It happens. But if you want to create laws to prevent a person from "covering up" in public, that's a little silly imo. And know that when you oppress people, that's when rebellion comes. Look at us on the other side of the pond. We would probably still be a part of England if we had been treated as an equal part, and not a colony.

You mean you have subjective, non-universal beliefs about the world? I have to say that liberalism and religion most certainly can exist together, as in this case for example:

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/

And if you say there is no extremism in liberalism, that claim is entirely falacious. Just look at the actions of members of liberal groups such as PETA for example, who have commited terrorist acts for their causes, and in other cases simply broken the law and violated the rights of others. Or are these people freedom fighters?

So it is a dhimmi status that you want then, in London, for non-secularists. You get to live according to your way of life, but those who choose a religion cannot.

As a statement to the religions, that's extremely generalized. Might be better as a general statement to fundamentalists of all forms, as well as general nogoodniks.

Please stop generalizing. Thank you.

 

There are and were muslims preaching in the mosques of london that muslims had a duty to overthrow our liberal democracy and to impose shariah law - infact I believe they got scard off from preaching that and now what they want is for muslims to give preference to shariah law and only abide by British law if they are forced to do so - in other words the only crime is getting caught.
Also the christians (in the nice middle class drawingrooms of England, and at the country club) are virtually in open revolt about the deference given to muslims, and according to the conversations around dinner tables that I have heard and overheard they are starting to utter even more extreme sentiments than normal. It would seem the religions will soon be in open hostility then following that whole communities -

I am saying that the political life of this country is and should be determined by parliament - The preists and Imams are openly beggining to politicise their audiences and in a way far more insidious than to tell them to vote. Some of those Imams are preaching suicide bombers how to prepare for heaven etc they are psyching them up for war - civil revolt -
I want to know why these people who have lived here for over 40 years havent integrated better ? How can there be a muslim council of britain unelected that calls for a separate parliament run under shariah law for muslims ? bloody ridiculous isnt it - religion is tearing this nation apart !!!!

My main objection being - wqe are a liberal democracy running a country that has been more than tollerant - welcoming infact much more than other countries - the rest of Europe is very cold toward religions other than christianity . Now these people need to realise its not a one way street - religion and politics is beginning to conflict and they need to tone down the rhetoric and the symbolism and be less demanding because I truly believe that we will sacrifice religion in the name of peace and I want that to happen Mainly cuz theres nothing more ignorant than religious dogma
Priests and preachers need to be accountable to parliament and to the communities around them and that means integrate !!!

My whole argument is simply - I am not against one or other religion but all religion and that we would be better off without these money spinning liars that say there is a god before ignorant unchallenging audiences, and if they want people like me to become more extreme all these people have to do is carry on as they have been - since by far the majority of britains are not religious. they do not use god as a weapon they demand the power of law

so my point is - whats judaism doing to help ease the political situation - why do I still see people of that bias parading in the attire of judaism as though the symbolism of it goes unnoticed by others - why are we demanding muslim women take off the veil if we dont demand Jewish men wear a more suitable attire? They dress as though in Tel Aviv with a political situation far removed

 

However, they are in the minority when you take into account all of the churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. Therefore, your statement that religion is a political institution for the faithful is incorrect. It's just a generalization, misappropriating a quality you dislike in some religious groups to all of religion.

And that's something that I, as a member of a religion, am just as adamantly against, and not just in the extremes. However that's not such an uncommon sentiment among Jews. The only places you see this violated are among certain ultra-orthodox camps whose loyalty to and reverence of their leaders and everything they tell them imo comes dangerously close to idolatry.

It's called fundamentalism, and it's not uniquely Muslim, nor unique to religion. But if you compare the Muslim system to the Jewish system for example, I think you can see where the problem starts in this particular case. Judaism as it exists today developed under the rule of other nations (thus traditionally is supposed to go by whatever the nation's laws are as long as it doesn't force Jews to violate Jewish law, which basically amounts to the personal freedoms Western nations provide) and in addition to that is designed for adaptability, so that it can be interpreted and applied to new situations.

Islam on the other hand is currently at a very conservative stage of saying that the laws aren't going to change and adapt to new situations and new information, and that the being under the rule of Shariah law is really the best option (whereas the rulings of Jewish law are localized and can vary a bit.)

The problem isn't religion. It's the inflexibility that comes with fundamentalism.

What's symbolism got to do with it? Isn't your gripe with politics on the pulpit?

Now that in itself is ignorant. How many liberal places of worship have you been to, where it's okay to challenge the existence of God, to hold different views about God, ask questions, etc? Again, you're complaining about fundamentalism and not religion, and perhaps you've just been seeing a lot more of that flavor because of your time on the forum.

So you're willing to become what you hate the most?

Is this an analogy? I have to say, I consider myself religious and I've never used God as a weapon. I'm not certain exactly how that would work anyway. I guess for a fundamentalist it might make more sense.

I don't know if you've been reading the papers, but Muslims and Jews haven't been relating so well right now. You might want to look to someone else to help ease the political situation with fundamentalist muslims.

Because it's our religious custom. Why should we have to change something that's harmless? That'd be your atheist dhimitude coming into play. Why don't you target the real criminals in the world, like fat people who eat in public as if it goes unnoticed by others? And yes, that was completely sarcastic. But I don't think you realize how silly what you're saying sounds.

That's legitimate. And I've said before, I don't think women should have to remove the veil, and I think most Jews would agree with me that removing freedoms to personal religious expression is a bad step. If you really wanted to restrict wearing of the veil and the kippah, you'd also have to disallow the wearing of the cross in public, priests couldn't wear their collar, and to be honest, I don't think we can stop at religion. Any groups that aren't entirely nationalistic shouldn't be allowed to express their uniqueness, right? So no masonry rings, no pins supporting the fight to cure breast cancer, no flags for anything but the UK as a whole, no sarongs or turbans or those indian tieless suits, and none of those ties from the American South with those strings on them. What you end up with is pretty depressing.

Actually, Jews have been living in the diaspora for thousands of years, so no, the wearing of a kippah is not specifically the dress of "Tel Aviv." Nor does it have anything to do with politics.

Up until recent history, the large majority of Jewry lived outside of Israel. Even now I think it's still a pretty close tie between the US and Israel for largest Jewish population in the world. And our history in England goes way back, although it got pretty ugly at one point with the blood libels and then we were all expelled. But we came back. Some of my family actually comes from England, but they were only there for a generation, a stop between Russia/Poland and the United States.

 

Yeah that'd be about it - but obviously I feel it would neither be in the act of a nationalist display nor would it be depressing - see it more as a move of diplomacy - why provoke others when you could wear these things in private - why publicise your faith when its a private matter between you and god

Thats right and so just who are these unelected politicians that have the right to politicise against the legitimate laws and will of a publicly elected body? If the people want to discuss politics fair enough but when it reaches the temperature of hate filled vennom against other religions and more importantly against the legitimate legislative body then its either time to start wondering whether to crack down - or to tell people - look either be more diplomatic - help us calm this situation or burn with the worst of them. I believe we should all be calling for diplomacy and a temporary if not permanent toning down of of our public displays of sympathy with one side or another - dont forget the muslims are highly critical of Jews and visa versa and it seems ridiculous to go on toward a point where people will be killed in the street for what they wear so why not aim to be more diplomatic - everyone - else I really believe there will be that forced on people - it makes sense and I would advocate it.

Point taken

Please, my arguments may at the moment be a little crass but I am not naive. Muslim women are beginning to wear the veil in bigger numbers as a political statement - that is not merely evidential but spoken of openly by muslims in the UK. This seems to defy reason where if what they are interested in is political settlement then shouldnt they look like they might compromise - we both know wel that christians wear the cross more or less as an identifier as well as a symbol of personal conviction - I cant see how wering something that provokes a negative reaction can be good. Its not like god will crush you for trying to bring peace by removing certain religious garments - At one time sikhs tried to tell us they must carry a knife - turns out that was utter rubbish. I know many sikhs who dont carry a ceremonial knife and eventually they submitted it was best to live under the law that said dont wear one

But also people who dont realise how provocative things like their attire may be in the minds of others

No I said it because the main point of a legislative group is to promote economics based on policy that is offered to the voting public - we know the government must be about money - I believe institutions like the catholic church are mere money makeers - ever heard how much wealth its actually got? Well they claim it goes to the poor - first time I found out the city of New York and its property developers counted as "poor" was when I found the catholic church owned some of the land - quite a few years ago (or was it Sanfransisco) anyway they dont seem to do much for the poor - we can all commit to the poor but not if we omit to help them - Most religions wont help anyone that dont convert dont matter if theyre starving or not
Seems more like the money buys a decent lick of paint for the temple rather than a nice tent or a plot of land for the people

Thats why I said earlier that most liberalists now want peace at the expense of liberalism. They are willing to give up freedoms to fight intollerance and in doing so - become less tollerant. I am not one of those people yet but I feel daily that much of what I once reasoned and held in esteem such as the right of free association etc is slipping away - - I am fighting this inside me - I am fighting hard to retain the belief that we could still have an open tollerant society - I did believe this but it seems others intollerances are disturbing my peace - I nearly got blown up in london

Surely not if it is harming the greater society to wear a veil - why not think about what you are doing to others - to the people who actually couldnt care if your religion survives or not - better to tone it down than lose the right surely -Dont believe you have human rights - these things are granted by permission of governments in the UN
No-one has invaded china to uphold human rights - no-one will invade the uk or USA to do it either

Yes but thats fair enough - in a society like britain that has tried hard to integrate people of many cultures and faiths the one point these people arent getting is how to be less selfish and more diplomatic to each other and in society as a whole

If religions and sects dont tone it down legislation might. I would support a toning down of liberalism too - and that would be a disaster because liberalism is a good friend to tollerance - Because I also wonder why I should pay for state funded religious schools when I dont believe in the faiths that are being preached there - britain provides the Jewish faith, islamic faiths, and christians with fully state funded schools - why should I support places that are causing children to be manipulated and fed such intollerant doctrines?
That is what I mean - and then I would further advocate the dismantling of religious places and ceremonies

 

That statement's a little vague. Can you be more specific? Historically Jews and Muslims have gotten along very well, and to this day there aren't any religious problems between us (except among Muslim extremists.) In fact what is kosher is regarded as hallal, which is helpful for Muslims who are travelling. And I'll bet if you were to do some investigating, you'd find the views of Jews on issues like the Palestinians are much more diverse and complicated than you currently believe.

Which is exactly what I suggested earlier. If you oppress a people, that is when rebellion comes. Why do you think the Jewish people remained so cohesive and undivided for such a long period of time? We don't see the formation of denominations until Jews are starting to be accepted into the culture. Of course, they weren't really accepted as they were, and that's why the German movement that became Reform Judaism at first resembled Christianity in some aspects, with the Sabbath moved to Sunday, etc. Now, this isn't to say that all people will immediately wish to assimilate. There was a group of people within the Jewish community who were looking for an escape from millenia of persecution and ostracism at that time, and others who simply were taken by the philosophy of the enlightenment.

It's about standing up for personal rights. Would you suggest african americans in the US should have kept themselves in the backs of buses, not marched, etc, just because it would upset some people?

Okay, so I think I understand what you mean by symbolism. You mean specifically making a political statement by taking up the wearing of an item of clothing previously unworn in support of one's fellows. You're not referring (in this conversation) to all of that other symbolism that comes with religion in the form of myth, often in sacred literature.

We're each responsible for our own actions. Would you suggest that anything an individual in a society finds offensive ought to be removed, even if it removes personal freedoms? I think I know the answer to that question. A better question for you may be where freedom and censorship are relatively in your set of values.

Are you sure we're in agreement that the primary motivation for the government must be money?

It's true. Some religions are like that. But you're really preaching that message in the wrong place. Judaism doesn't evangelize. And traditionally, 10% of everyone's income goes to the poor, not to religious institutions. Tzedakah (charity) is actually a very big deal, related to the word tzedek which is justice. Tzedakah is simply a form of justice. I'm sure if you did some investigation on other religions that aren't terribly evangelical, you'd find their charitable practices vary as well, and even for other evangelical religions.

It sounds like you're going through a bit of an existential crisis right now, all of your old ideas and values called into question. I've always liked to hold onto those periods of internal conflict. I think that being unable to settle on one way of looking at the world is far safer than becoming secure in one outlook. I hope it goes well for you, and I'm sorry to hear you had a brush with some extremists. I have a feeling the whole world is going to continue to become more dominated by conservatives over the next few generations (due in large part to birth rate) and then it'll flip over to liberalism once enough people start getting fed up with that.

The wearing of a veil isn't harming the society. Extremists are. Forcing people to remove the veil is not going to help with them. It will probably only make matters worse.

I don't believe there's such thing as a natural or God-given law. These things are in my opinion determined by a society in a time and a place, however that in itself is not an argument not to uphold personal liberties. Now I myself am of course an American, so my outlook on liberties and freedom may be different than yours.

Who are "these people"? Do you mean the fundamentalists? Don't expect everyone to assimilate completely. That will never happen.

If liberals like you are its spokesperson, Ihardly see the truth in that. If liberals like me are its spokesperson, then I can see some truth in it.

I don't think you should have to.

Now you're generalizing again.

So you're really not out to create peace. You're out to incite war. If that happened, you'd see more religious people becoming fundamentalists, or simply conservative in support of religious rights. You may want to rethink a solution to the fundamentalist dilemma.

 

.Well on the streets of Whitechapel in London it doesnt seem that way to me - Every single muslim I have ever met in Britain has some gripe against Jews - I have laughed in their faces at some of the things they say. One of my friends told me that his grandfather taught him this (I am not a muslim BTW I am white - rejected christianity - and am now atheist)
anyway a muslim told me his grandfather taught him this
"You can sleep in the house of a christian but you cant eat his food
you can eat the food of a jew but you cant sleep in his house he will stab you as you sleep"
Hardly peaceful in my opinion and the 20 or so muslim friends I have all have sympathies in line with that quote. This is what lead me to assume that relations are awful and to be honest these are considered to be non extremists in London - they are as much in fear of muslim extremists as I am. Yet they consider stuff like the above true and blame Jews for ALL the worlds problems - to be honest I havent got many Jewish friends -our nextdoor neighbours have a chat over the fence an they have sat with us a while to talk but it seems impolite to mention politics to them. I do know Jews and they do not much want to talk with me on the matter and left me with a sense they feel victimised by islam -

Dont get me wrong I'm not saying assimilatte and lose your culture - I'm suggesting that by-and-large each of the religions has superflous political attributes it could give up and one of those is merely the style of dress its supporters adopt. When we first meet someone appearance is everything - we judge each other within 5 seconds - so attire is very powerful
and when the Jewish men wear their big black hats and tailed coats - surely that is a statement that they need not make on the streets but in private - same as with the veil.
I am saying all this because if the tension increases I KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN I just know things are reaching boiling point amongst those who are sick of religious tension in britain and there will be a backlash soonso my suggestions is do it for your own good

No but I would not suggest they hang about in gangs in the ghettoes toting guns and wearing tee shirts with "Fuck The Police" written on them either - But that is the effect of political attire and group identity wear
Ghandi needed nothing but civil disobedience - not a bomb not a coat hat veil - whatever - he broke the back of Britain by tearing up a card and by walking down a road. I dont want religious bombers and people wearing political statements inciting eavh other - it could be a lot more peacefull and still win. Infact Ghandi broke up the largest empire the world has known without firing a single shot or issuing a single word of violence

Similar to the above really - except that a few months ago a young girl was arrested in London for wearing a teeshirt saying "Jesus is a ****" Personally I never thought this offensive - but could see how others would so yes I think the police officer was right to say remove it or be arrested - she made the point she wsnt wearing anything underneath so he arrested her rightly so.
However in the case of a turban - no because that is not superfluous to the belief system - a coat and hat is superfluous it could be more subtle - So is the veil

Historically yes - it always has been about money and power

No I'm not - you beleve you are right in your faith - your god is the one
your culture is the one god prefers - and so do all religions to the exclusion of others - that in itself is the intollerance from which all others follow

Yeah a bit like the second world war was the war to end war - that would be the intollerance to end intollerance
Britains way of life is being threatened - time to sort it out one way or the other ! Crack down now and have 5 years turmoil to gain 30 years peace
or let the problem fester and get no peace for twenty - thirty years like with the IRA
And its not all in the hands of extremists - its up to the communities that breed that extremism to turn the extremists in else the crackdown will happen but it must be the case that all communities must offer diplomacy to each other and show willingness to lead the way to peace by example huh?

It will not be nice when the government loses its temper - historically the british government are absolutely brutal when it comes to getting what they want - thatcher and the miners strike is a point in case - wikipedia it

 

And that's why I questioned you. You were being vague. That has more to do with the types of lies that are being churned out by different muslim organizations as a tactic against the Jewish people, and not religion. Jews are the cause of WWII, Jews are responsible for 9/11, Jews control the Western gov'ts. media, banks, etc. And those kinds of conspiracy theories really don't have their roots in Muslim society at all. They were just picked up at a time when they became politically relevant. But it's not a matter of religion, as your statement clearly shows, except with the extremists and their simpathizers, who have twisted Muslim teachings.

Yeah, that's certainly valid. If you want to know the political opinions of real Jews, I would suggest glancing at this blog:

http://www.jewschool.com/

It's a pretty diverse group blog of young adults, and what helps balance it more is that in the comments you always tend to get at least one person who disagrees on some point or another made in the particular article. And I'd suggest that over traditional news sources such as Israeli or Jewish papers because it is, of course, biased, opinionated, and personal. btw It's not all politics, but you can filter for the tags you want, like war or politics or racism or whatever.

But clothing is cultural, not political. In Hebrew we have two words for the types of religious obligations. One if mitzvah, which means commandment, and the other is minhag which means custom. Often a minhag is simply the particular way in which a mitzvah is expressed, while at other times, a minhag is a custom expressed by a particular group of Jews, or even one that has been accepted universally. Traditionally however, a minhag is still binding. But it's religious, not political. I think you're over-politicizing religion in response to the politicization you see in fundamentalist Islam.

Well, only the ultra-orthodox dress like that. The rest of us either just wear a yarmulke and tzittzit, or less than that. The majority of Jews in the world aren't Orthodox and probably don't consistently wear any sign of their religion, except maybe a Jewish star or mezuzah on a chain, if that. However, dressing like that is minhag. And I can explain to you why they dress that way.

As I'm sure you can guess by their way of dress, it's not something that would have been worn in the Middle East a long long time ago. It's the style of dress their ancestors adopted in Europe. But for the ultra-orthodox, they don't want to start changing even that. They feel that things like that have become minhagim that shouldn't be changed. They don't want to lose even that little thread of culture and memory that lives on in their dress. They want to preserve that. For some ultra-orthodox, they even still use a lot of yiddish, and not just the funny words that, at least in America, are becoming a part of the English language anyway. I mean conversational Yiddish. But that's their right, and they're not harming anyone. There are some ultra-orthodox groups who cloister themselves, and they really don't want anything to do with anyone else for the most part. And then there are other groups who are much more open and interact a lot with people outside their community. And with issues other than dress, ultra orthodox Jews can vary a lot. So you could see an ultra-orthodox Jew holding to some very liberal rulings on some issues. The definer is the dress, really.

But if I can put the stereotype to rest, no, the average Jew does not have a big black hat and sidecurls.

So are you making threats? Or are you some type of prophet or herald of a day of reckoning where the atheists will come together to smite their enemies? I really can't speak for England. I have your p.o.v. which is probably biased and that's about it. But in the US I have to say that right now the conservatives have too much weight to knock them down.

This is the second stereotype I've seen in this post, if we include the Jewish one. Are you a bigot? I thought you said you're a liberal.

Then stop telling others to be like Ghandi and be like Ghandi. They can't control you or anybody else. If you want peace, be peace.

I will point out, however, that the way Ghandi dressed was intentional and political. When he was still in Africa he used to dress in more Western fashion. He was a very calculating individual.

See for me, that shirt is fine. Heck, if someone wants to wear a schwastika that's fine. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

I have no idea how you make the distinction between censoring a turban and censoring a coat and hat. Both are cultural adornments. You find that kind of dress among ashkenazim and not sefardim or any of the other regionally divided Jewish groups because it's cultural, just like how food varies between ashkenazim and sefardim.

I was asking about if you thought we were in agreement about what a gov't must be, not what it has been in the past. To be honest, you're sounding less and less like a liberal to me.

Imo, a government should be about balancing the needs of the people with the needs of the nation and the needs of the world as a whole (not just the human community but also the planet.)

No, I believe my faith is right for me. There's a difference, big part of which has to do with the fact that I couldn't ever assume my beliefs are universally applicable. It's all subjective.

No, Judaism is the religion for Jews. It's based on a covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God which has to do with the mitzvot, the commandments (and yes there are more than ten.) This covenantal relationship does not exclude other people from having their own relationships with God. The Talmud makes a comparison between the kohanim, who are the Jewish priests, a hereditary position, and their relationship to the Jewish people, with the Jewish people's relationship to the world. And basically, to paraphrase, it says that God doesn't care whether you're a kohein or just an ordinary Jew, or if you're a Jew or a gentile. What matters is that you're a good person, and a gentile can be as righteous as the kohein gadol. It also says elsewhere that the righeous of all nations have a place in the world-to-come.

Please, before you make assumptions, try asking a few questions instead.

Nevermind the fact that Judaism is by definition not like that, you're also excluding all of liberal religion. Now, even were it not for the nature of Judaism, the majority of it is still liberal anyway. Nevermind liberal Christianity and all of the other liberal forms of religion.

So are you after extremists or are you after all people who practice religion? Thinking back on our conversation it seems like you're having a little trouble deciding.

 

the dauer, thank you for being informative - I have more information now than I had before and am scertainly impressed that even though my tone began in a blatantly arrogant style you certainly have given me the basis on which to become better informed - I thank you immensely for being reasonable - and you might see in another thread - I forget which and where - I tried this line of attack and it is because of reasoned opinion against me that I could not ignore my own unreasonable approach and made a statement to the effect that it is you and others like you that convince me - the right way is to be liberal and not push the boundaries of that liberalism beyond what it was meant to be
I will visit that forum you mention and learn !- I have really honestly changed my opinion on the issues of legislation and the right to believe a notion though I still believe it is a false notion !
It is true to say you did a good thing !
http://www.jewschool.com/
(bookmarked)
this thread - Bookmarked - thank you for the debate and the information I will reprogramme myself - but what are we if we never see where the boundaries are ? You are a very reasonable reasoner

 

Columbo,

You deserve the highest praise for being able to re-assess your approach and look for a healthier way on a forum of all places, the type of place where more often than not when people meet with strong opinions they're only interested in shouting theirs the loudest and seeing whose is bigger. I am truly amazed by the good people are capable of despite all the terrible stuff in the world every time someone such as yourself is able to reflect and reconsider. Thank you for the reminder.

Personally, I think the boundaries are highly localized, to individuals, to societies, to cultures, to sub-cultures, to families, age groups, and yeah, lots of overlap. That's where the questions come in. I don't think that we can establish the boundaries for others based on our own subjective experience. Rather I think as a guide we need to consider whether or not what a person is doing is actually harmful to other. And there's still gray area. I know. imo better that way. I think that mostly the boundaries in all groups are something that naturally develop and shift over time. Fashion changes, and that effects what is deemed modest or immodest for example, over time. Different things. I doubt I could guess at half of the influences. But when pressure is applied, I think that's when you get more resistance. And as I mentioned earlier about how cohesive Judaism was when it was being persecuted, without denominational divisions, well, I think that's a very good example of it.

 

That site you have shown me is A REAL eye opener - I had not expected that at all, and have visited a couple of times. Its amazing infact it restored some faith in humanity within me. Its difficult sometimes to see this violence prevail unreasonably - its almost out-of-hand and I suppose I am afraid, just like other people are, that it will engulf the world and consume us all unless the arrogant and violent are tamed. I love the thought that I can go on holiday and do nice things for example - and am totally afraid of the idea of world war and terrorism and the bad things people do in the name of religion and politics -

I wish peacefulness and good things to you dauer - and all the good people such as you - the website you showed is a good example of humanity itself

That is one of the arguments that persuaded me that I was wrong - also I remember my father saying to me that I should always remember that when fighting a monster we have a duty not to become a monster. It was your argument that reminded me
Its a reminder that peace begets peace and war begets war.

concerning my ability to alter my beliefs - I feel one has a duty to believe what is true and to alter beliefs where others point out their fallability
that is my guiding principle and in truth I am hoping that even if I cannot prove there is a god and even if I say there is no god - that if I am wrong - god will love me for it, and be against those that caused only harm in gods name