Every religion has its weak points, it's true failures. Modern Judaism's greatest fault is that it is discriminatory, perhaps even racist. It's time to talk about this openly.
Let's forget "what the Torah says" for a moment. Say we believe in God. We don't know whether or not the Torah is true... how can we? But we believe in God.
Unlike Moses, we have no burning bush. We do not hear God's voice. If God exists, he has hidden himself... like he hid himself in the story of Joseph, not speaking to anyone for the last 14 chapters of Genesis.
But we can see God's will in the universe. We can look around at the world today and ask ourselves, This is the world that God created. We are Adam and Eve, and this is our garden of Eden. What is our mission in this world?
Today's world is smaller than it once was. Suddenly, we can see what's happening all over the globe, all the time. An ingathering is taking place of Biblical proportions, a reversal of the mythical dispersion of from Babylon. The divisions that the gods set in place -- language, geography, race -- are crumbling before our eyes.
Our greatest challenge -- our *greatest* challenge -- is to overcome the prejudices that divide us as a human race. It is this "senseless hatred" that keeps us from each other, that causes endless pain and suffering in our world today. This is the message God has "encoded" in the world today. It is sad, shameful, that religion is often the cause of these prejudices, not their antidote.
Where is the great religion whose singular goal is human peace?
Judaism is one of the worst religions when it comes to the "other." The goy. The non-Jew. The non-believer. The non-frum. The non-kosher. The slave. The mamzer. The shiksa. The shvartze. The faigele. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
When you say the word shiksa, or faigele, that is the definition of lashon hara/evil speech. You have taken the Torah, thrown it on the ground, and pissed all over it. Because you have learned nothing from it, taken away only the chaff and left the grain.
Jesus said it best: It is not what goes into our mouths that makes us unholy. It is what *comes out* of our mouths.
Does Judaism deserve to survive? Only if it moves humanity forward, instead of holding it back. Let us renounce once and for all the nonsensical notion of a superior race or religion. Let us find other reasons to be Jewish, other than "so that the Jewish race can survive." What good is our survival, if we lose our soul in the process? (Jesus again!) Let us stop using our religious heritage as an excuse to discriminate against our own fellow human beings.
Is it not a global embarrassment that Jews and Arabs, our closest cousins, cannot get along? Is there any bigger indictment of our current Jewish (and Arab) leaders than the fact that, in spite of so much that we have in common, we still have not made peace?
In this week's Torah portion, we encounter many great non-Jews. Bithya has mercy on the baby Moses and raises him as her own. Jethro, a Midianite priest, welcomes Moses into his family (he would eventually found the Jewish court system). When Moses is too lazy to circumcise his child, it is his Midianite wife, Tzippora, who performs the bloody rite and saves his life from the avenger. The Torah honors these non-Jews, welcomes them in in the spirit of Abraham. Where has this welcoming spirit gone?
Perhaps you are already thinking of holy prooftexts with which to disprove me. I argue in advance that even the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose. The Torah contradicts itself every time it violates "love thy non-Jewish neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:34). It is up to us to decide which commandment is true, and which is bubkis. And even were God to command us to do evil, we must not make the mistake of the 9/11 hijackers. We must have the courage to argue! Does not the name "Israel" mean "he who has wrestled with God and prevailed" (Gen. 32:29)? When God contradicts our common sense, our common morality, then something is wrong. It is our responsibility to challenge that notion of God. "Will the judge of the entire world not do justice?" (Gen. 18:25) "If it not be so, erase me please from this book You have written!" (Ex. 32:32)
Want to see God, like Moses did? Want to know what God wants? Close your eyes. Close your holy books. Now open your eyes to the world.
63 comments:
I'm not sure I agree with you 100% that modern Judaism is, on the whole, discriminatory. Perhaps Modern orthodoxy is, but I don't see any of this in my Reform community.
This post was extremely upsetting. I enjoy Candyman's stuff, but this stuff sounded just like when the fanatical left claims the US is all racist and the worst country, responsible for all the bad in the world. Whether its politics or religion, it seems some people want to tear things down.
Candyman, lets begin with the obvious that there is a different between discrimination and racism. They are not the same. Yes, Judaism is filled with discrimination. I suppose an Israelite can file claim that he is not allowed to partake. Every society has some sort of discrimination going on. Sometimes, its needed. Racism is different. I would also agree with you that it is something that stands in the way of alot of progress in the world. I would NOT claim that it is the WORST problem that Judaism has. Judaism is not racist. People are racist. You yourself bring up things like shiksa, goy etc. Is this really a Judaism issue, or a sociological issue? Jews, as you know have not been treated so well by their neighbors. These feelings of hatred toward them of being animals or inferior is something tha is bound to happen. The Shoah did not help matters either. If anything, to many, it only strengthened what their forefathers said about the genitles. You can't just dismiss this historical aspect in your quest for a world where we all hold hands and sing. You make it seem like all of humanity loved eachother and here comes Judaism as the antagonist to everything.
And then you jump to the Arab/Israeli problem which I don't see has ANY relevence to the issue of an inherent racism within judaism.
I also disagree with you idea of no point of judaism surviving for its own sake unless it moves humanity forward. What? How do YOU determine if something is moving the world/nation/community/family forward? I mean, honostly. How is JUDAISM holding humanity back. Its people that hold people back. There are many out there that do a great deal of chessed. My shul of ORTHODOX Jews just ran a program to go visit convelensense homes during christmas and new years. The rabbi specifically said we HAVE to go out to the non Jewish community. And this is not an LW MO shul. What about charedi organizations that send help out to other countries during disasters?
I really want to write more, but I am really upset. So I wish everyone a shabbat shalom
I have a question I would like to ask. Not being Jewish, the answer is not immediately obvious to me.
I have read the King James version of the Old Testament which refers to not seething a kid in his mother's milk. I am assuming that this is the reason for the separation of red meat and dairy. Can someone explain why chicken and dairy are separated, since chickens do not produce milk?
Thanks,
Homeschool Mom in New York
David, I'm glad your Reform community shows no discrimination. I thought about making an exception for American Reform in my post, but I am not convinced that the movement has gone far enough in encouraging Jews to mix with other people. Reform is still essentially a Jewish-race centered movement. Humanitarian Judaism is closer to a universal religion in my opinion.
anonymous (Avi), I'm also proud of all the good that Jews have done for the world. Besides the famous guys, Jews of all stripes help people of all colors every day they go to work. None of this changes the fact that the discriminatory elements that do exist within our religion have to go. Why not have the best of both worlds?
RG, it's true there's a risk whenever we criticize Judaism that we will "add fuel to the fire" of anti-Semitism. But we cannot let fear stand in our way of doing what's right for Judaism and the world.
I am not sure whether Judaism is racist, but I have no doubt that it is discriminatory. Intermarriage is still a huge issue to Jews, even in some Conservative circles. And there is "a hair's breadth" between racial discrimination and racism.
As for quoting Jesus, he had a lot of good points... many of which still resonate today! And it shouldn't matter who I quote or who I am. Concentrate on the message, not the messenger.
Holy Hyrax,
I am sorry the post upset you. It was probably a little harsh. The discriminatory aspects within Judaism affect my life directly every single day. This is a matter I am passionate about.
You argue that racism and discrimination are two different things. I am not sure you can have racial discrimination without racism.
>Judaism is not racist. People are racist.
No. Religions tell people what to think. If modern Judaism dictates that certain creeds, races, lifestyles, etc. are second-class citizens, then it is causing racism directly. And we'd all be less racist without it.
>And then you jump to the Arab/Israeli problem which I don't see has ANY relevence to the issue of an inherent racism within judaism.
Religions, cultures... these have the potential to divide. But they also have great unifying power. If our religious leaders (on both sides of the security fence) were to use their common Semitic and theistic heritage as a basis for understanding... if American shuls were to cancel Saturday synagogue services in favor of going bowling with a group of Muslims... we could help bring peace. But I see very little evidence for such movements.
I'm impressed with your shul's outreach efforts to convalescents of all stripes. But I'd wager that 95% of your OJ shul's communal activity is by Jews for Jews. That's not good enough.
Homeschool Mom in New York,
you are correct in that the (rather tenuous) Biblical source for milk/meat separation is that verse. The Jewish rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud (oral traditions, first recorded in writing in the centuries after Christ) argued over whether chickens were included in the Biblical prohibition. Most seemed to feel that they were not Biblically forbidden, using the very logic you describe: chickens don't make milk! Nevertheless, the ban on milk and meat was extended to fowl by most rabbis, presumably to prevent people from forgetting the biblical prohibition against red meat. Most of the arguments can be found in the Talmud (Hullin 113a).
Nowadays, some Conservative Jews will eat chicken and cheese but not red meat and cheese.
"Anonymous said...
I have a question I would like to ask. Not being Jewish, the answer is not immediately obvious to me.
I have read the King James version of the Old Testament which refers to not seething a kid in his mother's milk. I am assuming that this is the reason for the separation of red meat and dairy. Can someone explain why chicken and dairy are separated, since chickens do not produce milk?
Thanks,
Homeschool Mom in New York"
In order to not cause confusion so that people shouldn't think it is allowed to have meat with dairy afterall.
"I am not sure whether Judaism is racist, but I have no doubt that it is discriminatory. Intermarriage is still a huge issue to Jews, even in some Conservative circles. And there is "a hair's breadth" between racial discrimination and racism."
Every religion and group and country has special laws that apply only to its members otherwise there is no group. I would much rather have Judaism, than be fakely holier than thou with the majority culture doing whatever looks politically correct but lacking the depth that it really needs. All may not be well in our communities and you will be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with that but to be making the general American culture to be better is false. We can and should learn from all but we will betray idealism if we go with political correctness. Look where it leads. Terrorists and their victims become equated with one another. That's not real idealism. Nor can we ignore the plight we Jews suffer to this very day. Continental Europe cannot point itself out as being enlightened if Jews cannot so much as wear a yarmulka in peace there. And this is supposedly such an advanced century. True in technology yes but in morality and ethics and humanitarianism I find it wanting. The West is better than other places but that's only limitedly comforting. We also cannot forget that it the Holocaust, the most massive scale crime against humanity yet was perpetrated in the West within living memory.
>If modern Judaism dictates that certain creeds, races, lifestyles, etc. are second-class citizens, then it is causing racism directly. And we'd all be less racist without it.
eh eh eh eh. you have already poisoned the well waters. By its nature Judaism cannot accept paganism. This has nothing to do with racism. Democracy can't accept communist representatives either. Is that what you mean by creed? And as you know Judaism delineates seperate rolls for different groups, which is why I joked about the lawsuit of the Israelite. So I guess you are right, Judaism is totally racist. What can we say? I guess the US constitution also is directly responsible for discrimination and racism that it does not allow non citizens the right to vote.
I am not stupid to pretend racism does NOT exist within orthodoxy, but you conveniently skipped over my point about the colective experience of the Jews with the gentiles.
>If our religious leaders (on both sides of the security fence) were to use their common Semitic and theistic heritage as a basis for understanding... if American shuls were to cancel Saturday synagogue services in favor of going bowling with a group of Muslims... we could help bring peace.
And if we eliminated the US/Mexican border and become on large country that would immediatly solve the immigrant problem.
>But I'd wager that 95% of your OJ shul's communal activity is by Jews for Jews.
Well, since its a shul, ofcourse its all by Jews. But I also don't see what communal activities can be done for other communities apart from the standard helping homeless (for example) which other shuls do the same. I mean, would you have us do mishloach manot for the bahai temple? I'm sorry to tell you this, but most activities that even reform shuls do are for Jews as well.
Oh, and I just learned our shul has joined in with Jewish World Watch :)
Hey, infact, if we got rid of borders, cultures, languages etc, that would get rid of racism too.
HH,
> Democracy can't accept communist representatives either.
I disagree. Communists can be represented in a Democracy without the democracy losing its very nature.
>I disagree. Communists can be represented in a Democracy without the democracy losing its very nature.
My point ofcourse being that a communist representative cannot implement any of his ideals, so whats the point?
> My point ofcourse being that a communist representative cannot implement any of his ideals, so whats the point?
What are you talking about? Communist representatives can indeed implement some of their ideas. And if the people agree to the whole manifesto and vote it into law then you still have a democracy so long as you continue to have democratic elections.
Democracy isn't an ideology, its a method of implementing government.
Not in this country. There are certain laws which cannot be ruled OUT. Its not only about voting.This is my whole point. Its about values. This country has certain values it sees as "sacred." Communist ideology runs against it. It is an idea that is discriminated against due to those values. Thats just how the world functions. We all have our identities. To preserve ideas and identities, we throw down and not give the same "equal" footing to things that run against it. This is in a sense a response to Candyman's "lifestyle" issue that Judaism sees as second class. He's right, though calling it "second class" is an anachronism.
CM,
"I am not sure you can have racial discrimination without racism."
Affirmative action? What if you're looking for an actor to play MLK?
In any case, I disagree with your main thesis. Destroying distinct group identities is one way of fighting prejudice, but the cost in cultural wealth is far too great.
Giving up Shabbos to play bowling with Muslims? No, there should be peace and understanding without destroying our traditions - thank you very much.
"If modern Judaism dictates that certain creeds, races, lifestyles, etc. are second-class citizens, then it is causing racism directly."
It has nothing to do with citizen class, but about having standards of behavior and belief. You may disagree with those standards, but holding your own group up to your own standards doesn't inherently put other groups down.
As an American, you probably think monarchy is an unacceptable form of government and that those who believe in it are just plain wrong. Does your belief mean that you hate the pro-monarchy group?
Does the belief that a married heterosexual couple is the best way to raise a family necessarily induce hate towards single mothers and homosexuals? I don't think so.
Having standards doesn't mean that you hate those who don't meet those standards.
CM,
All religions are particularlist, and Judaism is no exception. And individual Jews, like any other individuals, can be obnoxious or bigots. At the same time, I suggest the following exercise: Every Jewish commandment or custom that appears to you to be "racist" in its explanation, simply substitute "survival as a distinct nation" in its place. In ancient times, certainly there was hostility towards other peoples. At the same time most of the commandments of these sort are for the purpose of preserving us as a distinct people. An exception might be the Shabbat rules regarding gentiles, and these are de facto being changed.
So of all religions I think Jews are the last ones who should be accused of racism.
RG,
>I would much rather have Judaism, than... the majority culture doing whatever looks politically correct but lacking the depth that it really needs.
I disagree *wholeheartedly*. Without a doubt in my mind American culture, with its emphasis on plurality, tolerance, and sensitivity is morally superior to Judaism's.
What you see as fake political correctness I see as one of the great achievements of our culture. Sensitivity to the handicapped, prosecution and public condemnation of racism... these are things no other society has ever achieved.
>Terrorists and their victims become equated with one another.
No, I don't see that.
>Continental Europe... Jews cannot so much as wear a yarmulka in peace there.
I have.
>the Holocaust, the most massive scale crime against humanity yet was perpetrated in the West within living memory.
So we make up for German xenophobia by adopting Jewish xenophobia? Ad'raba... au contraire! Anyways, I think people just use the Holocaust as an excuse. Judaism's been xenophobic from day one.
HH,
>I suppose an Israelite can file claim that he is not allowed to partake.
I don't get it... is this a Passover reference?
>The Shoah did not help matters either... it only strengthened what their forefathers said about the genitles.
Pure folly, to extend the Shoah to all gentiles! Even among the Germans there were dissenters. Even among the Jews, there were those who looked the other way. And anyways, we live in America, a country that has been so kind to us.
See my comment to RG above. If we are to take the Shoah seriously, the first thing we should do is get rid of any and all racist elements within our own culture. Physician, heal thyself!
HH again,
>By its nature Judaism cannot accept paganism. This has nothing to do with racism.
Judaism espouses killing people for practicing paganism. That's a form of racism in my opinion, to kill people for their opinions. Racism might not be the best term, and maybe someone can suggest a better one, but you get the idea.
The ban on paganism was written long ago, in a culture with different values from our own. Why can't Judaism today have mutual respect for pagans? You say we can't have Judaism without this ban. I disagree... Judaism will be much better as soon as it recognizes that it has no clue about absolute truth, any more than pagans do. It's horrifying that even Reform has not made such a declaration (http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=44&pge_id=1606).
>I guess the US constitution also is directly responsible for discrimination and racism that it does not allow non citizens the right to vote.
No, because it is not denying anyone their basic human rights on the basis of race, creed, etc. The right to vote is not a basic human right.
You have identified a criterion by which we can determine which of Judaism's traditions we can keep, and which we must relegate to the dust bin. Anything that denies others human rights on the basis of race, creed, or lifestyle must go.
We can keep the other stuff... but if it's just by-Jews for-Jews, I think you're just building a country club.
>I also don't see what communal activities can be done for other communities... I mean, would you have us do mishloach manot for the bahai temple? I'm sorry to tell you this, but most activities that even reform shuls do are for Jews as well.
I think outreach, dialogue, contact is a good place to start. It's harder for Jews b/c we're a minority, and some of us have food and time rules. But it's really important.
Time is precious. Purim is a d'rabbanan... a Rabbinic institution. It's not going to get forgotten. Let's take a few years off from Purim and have a day of interfaith dialogue instead. It's a game of numbers. 95% of the time by-Jews for-Jews is simply egregious. Make it 50%, and now you're getting somewhere.
Reform gets this. Much of Reform is centered on tikkun olam -- making the world a better place. The whole world, not just the Jewish world. They lead Jews in interfaith dialogue and tolerance. They have a lot to be proud of in this arena. Reform (UAHC) is better than Conservative (USY), and both are better than Orthodoxy (the OU), when it comes to discrimination. But even Reform needs to be updated.
Ortho,
>Affirmative action? What if you're looking for an actor to play MLK?
AA is designed to help the disadvantaged, but it's been discontinued in California because it borders on racism.
As for an actor, I don't think that's the same situation. But what a statement it would make if a Chinese actor were to play MLK in a leading role! MLK might be proud.
>Destroying distinct group identities is one way of fighting prejudice, but the cost in cultural wealth is far too great.
Nah, I think we're better off without the cultures, IF they're going to cause racism. But I love Judaism, too. If we think creatively, we can avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We can have the best of both worlds... and create a *sustainable* Judaism for the modern world.
>Giving up Shabbos to play bowling with Muslims? No, there should be peace and understanding without destroying our traditions - thank you very much.
For me, a game of bowling is pretty Shabbasdik (Sabbath-like, restful). But if you want to spend a couple hours in shul on Saturday, that's cool. But do *something* each week to reach out to those who aren't Jewish... even if it means giving up Ma'ariv (the evening prayer, a Rabbinic institution) one night.
>holding your own group up to your own standards doesn't inherently put other groups down.
If your standards say that other groups are wrong, or not equal to those within your group, then the standards are inherently discriminatory. This is the case with Orthodox Judaism, e.g. And there is also racism within the group that is a moral evil... e.g. stoning an idolatrous Jew, or excommunicating a heretic.
>As an American, you probably think monarchy is an unacceptable form of government... Does your belief mean that you hate the pro-monarchy group?
Good question. Of course I don't hate monarchists, any more than I hate Orthodox Jews! But racism isn't defined by hatred. It's the act of discrimination that is wrong.
>Does the belief that a married heterosexual couple is the best way to raise a family necessarily induce hate towards single mothers and homosexuals? I don't think so.
It doesn't *necessarily* cause hate. But denying anyone a human right on the basis of lifestyle is very risky. Our society has taken this position on gay marriage, to our *great* national shame. I do think that the illegality of gay marriage casts a stigma on homosexual relationships. And that's terrible! That's embarrassing! Our society is built around protecting the individual's rights from the majority's "opinion." We just pissed all over our Constitution!
If discrimination is my biggest issue with Judaism, then gay marriage is my biggest issue with American democracy.
>Having standards doesn't mean that you hate those who don't meet those standards.
I never said it does. But I think standards based on race, creed, and lifestyle choices are inherently racist. They are a step in the wrong direction. Better off without 'em! Base your standards on common morality, on the golden rule, on democracy. If you are concerned for the kids and families, then build on that. Protect them in an appropriate way, from both heterosexual and homosexual threats. But start with the presumption that all people are created equal, and that the human rights of the individual can only be denied in extreme circumstances. Don't start with Judaism, or Christianity, or any other religion sagging under the weight of racist history and antiquated philosophy.
drj,
>Every Jewish commandment or custom that appears to you to be "racist" in its explanation, simply substitute "survival as a distinct nation" in its place.
Let's assume for the moment these commandments do what you say they do. Wherefore Jewish survival? Why should it be more important than the survival of any other race? Are we to be Jewish simply for the sake of being Jewish? What is the point of surviving if we lose our soul in the process?
God would want us to rip those racist mitzvot/commandments right out of the Torah. As Moses said, If it not be so, please erase me from your book! Some things aren't worth surviving for.
HH,
>Hey, infact, if we got rid of borders, cultures, languages etc, that would get rid of racism too.
Yishar kochacha, good job. You have been zocheh to (come to the same conclusion as) John Lennon.
"The Candy Man said...
RG,
>I would much rather have Judaism, than... the majority culture doing whatever looks politically correct but lacking the depth that it really needs.
I disagree *wholeheartedly*. Without a doubt in my mind American culture, with its emphasis on plurality, tolerance, and sensitivity is morally superior to Judaism's."
Is it? I see people trying to make an impression with big things but is there really all this tolerance and sensitivity and plurality? Not in political correctness or so much amongst more conservative people too. Much is just for show or not in any depth but just because people do things but on the small scale there is too much of a lack of real tolerance and sensitivity and plurality.
"What you see as fake political correctness I see as one of the great achievements of our culture. Sensitivity to the handicapped, prosecution and public condemnation of racism... these are things no other society has ever achieved."
Jews have been sensitive to the handicapped way before and doesn't make the handicapped feel like special cases as in Western society. Judaism is light years ahead of Western civilization in that regard. Nor is racism a part of Judaism's belief system. Western civilization pays lip service to fighting racism but feeling that blacks are too inferior to compete freely with whites is hardly so enlightened.
">Terrorists and their victims become equated with one another.
No, I don't see that."
Where have you been? You equated the Arabs and the Jews that's a step in that direction that others have taken.
"Pure folly, to extend the Shoah to all gentiles! Even among the Germans there were dissenters. Even among the Jews, there were those who looked the other way. And anyways, we live in America, a country that has been so kind to us."
The Holocaust is not being used as an excuse. Nor were the Germans the only ones who were guilty of it. The Gentile world was silent. My mother survived the Holocaust. I'm not falling for your nonsense. You talk of sensitivity and yet look how insensitive you are being with your own people with the full influence of today's society.
"The Candy Man said...
HH again,
>By its nature Judaism cannot accept paganism. This has nothing to do with racism.
Judaism espouses killing people for practicing paganism. That's a form of racism in my opinion, to kill people for their opinions. Racism might not be the best term, and maybe someone can suggest a better one, but you get the idea.
The ban on paganism was written long ago, in a culture with different values from our own. Why can't Judaism today have mutual respect for pagans? You say we can't have Judaism without this ban. I disagree... Judaism will be much better as soon as it recognizes that it has no clue about absolute truth, any more than pagans do. It's horrifying that even Reform has not made such a declaration (http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=44&pge_id=1606)."
If we had paganism you would not be having the values you are touting. Do Jews feel that Pagans are to be killed? No. We don't say that. Did you find Jews hanging blacks no. The worst that happened was people just being prejudiced. You are just being biased.
">holding your own group up to your own standards doesn't inherently put other groups down.
If your standards say that other groups are wrong, or not equal to those within your group, then the standards are inherently discriminatory. This is the case with Orthodox Judaism, e.g. And there is also racism within the group that is a moral evil... e.g. stoning an idolatrous Jew, or excommunicating a heretic."
Jews had the death penalty almost or fully theoretical thousands of years ago. Further if you condemn the Orthodox you can't say as you did "If your standards say that other groups are wrong, or not equal to those within your group, then the standards are inherently discriminatory." without contradicting yourself.
HH,
> Not in this country. There are certain laws which cannot be ruled OUT.
Wrong. Every law CAN be changed. There is a system for altering the constitution. If the will was there America could revoke the right women have to vote. Everything is on the table if you have a 2/3rds majority of the Congress and 2/3rds of the State governments. If America wanted to institute racism and oppression it could. The thing is the way democracy works you are probably not going to have people vote away their own rights.
You said "Democracy can't accept communist representatives either." I think what you are talking about is the current US democracy. But even the US democracy in its current form can accept communist representatives so long as the larger American ideals are sustained. This is contrasted with Judaism where foreign ideas or ideals are almost always forbidden.
DrJ,
> Every Jewish commandment or custom that appears to you to be "racist" in its explanation, simply substitute "survival as a distinct nation" in its place.
Why is "survival as a distinct nation" important?
LNM said:
"Why is "survival as a distinct nation" important?"
1. Its part of our biology. Just like we value our own children above those of others. I don't see anything wrong with that.
2. By negating this idea you essentially negate any kind of nationalism. A nation naturally values its own survival/well-being/autonomy above that of others, although this does not rule out altruism or good will.
We're a nation. So we behave.
So candyman can pursue John Lennon's fantasy, but unless the whole world gives up on nationalism, religion and every other "ism", why do I have to be the first to disappear?
DrJ,
1. Survival of your kin is not the same as survival of a nation. If it was then you could apply the same logic to say that racism is an important value to have. Wanting your children to survive does not automatically mean you want your nation/culture to survive.
2. Nationalism can be good but it should be tossed to the side if it harms people. I'm a huge baseball fan and I love my team but I won't get into a fight to defend their honor. Rooting for my team (nationalism) is fun and can create good (socializing and parties) but being a fan doesn't really mean anything. It's what you do with it that counts. The same is true for Judaism. If your Jewish identity puts you in situations where you will do good (volunteer work, give charity, etc.) then great, but if it becomes a reason to break up families (cutting of a child who intermarries) then it should be tossed to the side.
Who cares if others are holding on to their "ism"? You're not Jewish because other people are Muslim. You're Jewish because it is important to you. If you drop your "ism" it should be because it's not important to you.
"The thing is the way democracy works you are probably not going to have people vote away their own rights."
Think again. In America people don't but in certain places democracy is no guarantee against dictatorship succeeding it. If Communists were elected they wouldn't be satified with democracy.
"Why is "survival as a distinct nation" important?"
Why are you such a nihilist?
>So we make up for German xenophobia by adopting Jewish xenophobia? Ad'raba... au contraire! Anyways, I think people just use the Holocaust as an excuse. Judaism's been xenophobic from day one.
Oh come on man. This is about UNDERSTANDING where these feelings of "goy and shiksa" come from. Again, you are trying to basically say: "Right, I know Jews have been basically been kicked around forever, but so what, it shouldn't affect you." You are being unreasonable in your pursuit of an agenda.
>No, I don't see that.
No, you don't want to see it. Which is sort of scary.
>Why can't Judaism today have mutual respect for pagans?
Because its the antithesis of monotheism. I mean, I don't think I can get into more specifics, but you are basically saying let all PC opinions affect eternal truths people hold dear.
>I don't get it... is this a Passover reference?
What don't you get? You say Judaism is a religion of discrimination. I agree with you. But in no way can you say objectively the way Judaism splits differnet roles (=discrimination) is unethical or immoral. Hense, my example of an israelite suing the priests.
>Pure folly, to extend the Shoah to all gentiles! Even among the Germans there were dissenters. Even among the Jews, there were those who looked the other way. And anyways, we live in America, a country that has been so kind to us.
But its still in the memory as well as other memories of pogroms in Russia for example. You think stuff like that can be thrown aside as if it never happened? And yes, America is kind to us, which is why I WOULD like people to think differently, but I am not so blind in my pursuit of a kumbaya world to forget history.
>No, because it is not denying anyone their basic human rights on the basis of race, creed, etc. The right to vote is not a basic human right.
Right to vote is just an example, where America treats AMERICANS differently than other people. But you are more concerned with BASIC human rights. I suppose you are not talking about freedom of speech since you cannot objectively shown that is a human right. You are mostly speaking about your own value system. I don't see Judaism dening NOW anything to anyone. I would like some examples though.
>If your standards say that other groups are wrong, or not equal to those within your group, then the standards are inherently discriminatory
Discriminatory is a proactive. It means you are actively dening people something. For us to be at shul and praying and being with other Jews ONLY, is NOT disciminatory. For your information, there are six other days in the week. Its rather odd that you choose to rid ourselves of our identity and what makes us Jews instead of reaching out to other times when Jews can reach out.
>Wrong. Every law CAN be changed
Really? In our constitution the Bill of Rights can be changed with a majority vote? That is beyond anything I learned in my goverment classes. Sure a communist can be a representative, but in large part, his ideology is counter to that of the American. So no, he really can't do anything that negates the basic values of the US, which at the end, there is no point for him to be a representative, unless ofcourse he is only after socializing medicine
In the end Candyman, what you are talking about two different things. 1) That Jews discriminate (action) which comes from racism. I do not see any Jews discriminating against anyone. 2) Not enough outreach. This I agree with you, but this is NOT discrimination. I can feel my values are superior to others as well as my beliefs, but I can still reach out. Again, I am not discriminting against anyone, I am simply keeping to my own. I DO agree with you that Jews should do MORE to the outside community and hopefully, this is changing.
>Yishar kochacha, good job. You have been zocheh to (come to the same conclusion as) John Lennon.
Yes, again a value. As subject of you to think that is in anyway better than something else.
If there is anything I did not respond to, let me know.
HH,
> Really? In our constitution the Bill of Rights can be changed with a majority vote? That is beyond anything I learned in my goverment classes.
Well, that speaks to the quality of your school. The Bill of Rights themselves were amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The same process that put them into the document can also remove them from it.
>The same process that put them into the document can also remove them from it.
> No, because the initial issue of putting the 'BOR' was not part of that process. It was to stem concerns some states had regarding the Constitution.
Once the BOR are ridden of this ceases to be the United States, which is my exact point. The identity of the US has certain intrinsic values to it.
And I believe you are wrong regarding what ever the will of the people want, they get. Secession has been already shown to be Unconstitional regardless if states want it. Any "democracy" will not be able to sustain itself if it does not have certain things that are foundational.
BTW Candyman
I agree with you regarding basic human rights issues.
I disagree with you regarding how you would implement them, and your overall attitude regarding the value of identity and personal values.
One goal does not need to trump the other as OP mentioned
> Secession has been already shown to be Unconstitional regardless if states want it.
The whole point of a constitutional amendment is that you can change the basic values of the country. The values of this nation have changed over the centuries. At one point prohibiton was codified into the constitution. Not drinking alcohol had the same legality as the right to free speech! If Texas wanted to seceed AND they got a constitutional amendment giving them that right then they could seceed. The Judciary has no say over the 'constitutionality' of amendments. Amendments are up to the Congress and the People.
For more reading see:
www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Ofcourse values have changed, but, again, certain intrinsic values are what define this country. If you change them, it is not the United States. Not drinking alcohol is not a core foundatoinal value of the US. the communist cannot use rights given to him to undermine and get rid of those very laws, because by definition, it would be unconstitutional. And some things, no matter what the majority of the communists want such as depriving the freedom to assemble, they would not be able to get it.
HH,
> And some things, no matter what the majority of the communists want such as depriving the freedom to assemble, they would not be able to get it.
We're not talking about a majority of communists. We're talking about a significant majority of Americans. In this case the communists wouldn't be able to enact sweeping changes because they wouldn't have the support. BUT if they did have the support they could Constitutionally change our rights and government! America is called 'The Great Expeiment' in part because the system can be changed in every which way.
We got onto Communists because you were saying that just as Judaism can't accept pagenism so too American democracy can't accept communists. Your position is fundamentally wrong. The beauty of the US government is that it can be anything. The catch is you need to START from the rules put down by the founders. The system has worked, and people are happy with it so you are unlikly to see major sweeping changes. However, from time to time they do happen (see: civil war, sufferage, prohibition, civil rights). However, if the people decided to turn the US into a facist state, using the founders rules and all amendments to them since, we have the ability to do so. This is what makes the US system fundamentally different from Judaism. There is no mechanism in Judaism to make fundamental changes from within.
Whoa... lots of good debate today. It's nice to see that everyone here really cares enough to think about the issues and talk about them. I can be argumentative sometimes, but that's mainly my ego talking. I try to keep my focus on honesty, openness and peace.
I think personal development is important to bear in mind. I hated that song by John Lennon for years. I thought it was arrogant, offensive, and I didn't even like the tune. Yet somehow it sunk in! Amazing. All of us are in transition, in one way or another. And that's a good thing, that's growth.
I do appreciate the comments and the debate. This ain't gonna be the post that brings world peace. But it's good to figure out where the sticking points are.
I hate to repeat myself but...
If you have a personal beef with me email me personally.
CM,
"AA is designed to help the disadvantaged, but it's been discontinued in California because it borders on racism."
But it's not racism. It is racial discrimination.
"As for an actor, I don't think that's the same situation. But what a statement it would make if a Chinese actor were to play MLK in a leading role! MLK might be proud."
Again, it is racial discrimination. And this type is perfectly alright.
"Nah, I think we're better off without the cultures, IF they're going to cause racism."
You're missing the point. I said that destroying group *identities* would fight bigotry. Obviously it would because then no group is identifiable to be bigoted against. So you can say that it is group identities which cause bigotry, but that's the wrong approach.
You would be equally as justified as saying people cause war therefore if we killed all people then we would have peace.
"But do *something* each week to reach out to those who aren't Jewish... even if it means giving up Ma'ariv (the evening prayer, a Rabbinic institution) one night."
Again, the point was that you're ok with gutting Judaism for the sake of good group relations. That's the same as decimating humanity for the sake of peace.
"If your standards say that other groups are wrong, or not equal to those within your group, then the standards are inherently discriminatory."
Duh. And what exactly is wrong with that? I think many groups are wrong about a great many things. The young-earth creationist who calls himself "doctor" and graduated from some Bible college in Alabama just isn't up to my standards of scholarly snuff. Sorry if that offends you.
The group of men who politically support the legalization of "man-boy love" just isn't up to my moral standards. I do deem them morally inferior. Sorry if that offends you.
Only by effectively destroying the very ideas of morality and objective reality can your standardless, judgeless society exist. No thank you.
"Good question. Of course I don't hate monarchists, any more than I hate Orthodox Jews! But racism isn't defined by hatred. It's the act of discrimination that is wrong."
No it's not! I will actively and purposefully discriminate against a pro-monarch who runs for president. He will not get my vote.
"But denying anyone a human right on the basis of lifestyle is very risky."
This is tangential, but personally I don't believe governmentally recognized marriage is any sort of human right at all. And no US government makes homosexual relationships or acts illegal. It is merely the public recognition of homosexual relationships as normative which is sought - but why should the public be required to so recognize, especially when the majority feels otherwise?
No rights are being denied here.
"I never said it does. But I think standards based on race, creed, and lifestyle choices are inherently racist."
No, only wrongful discrimination based on race is "racist." But I do believe that it is perfectly fine and acceptable, if not simply necessary, to discriminate between people based on their beliefs and actions. Someone who decides to take the lifestyle choice of crime is perfectly justified to be judged to be below acceptable social standards.
And it makes perfect sense that someone who claims belief in the divinity of Jesus should be deemed a substandard applicant to rabbinical college.
"Don't start with Judaism, or Christianity, or any other religion sagging under the weight of racist history and antiquated philosophy."
There's a difference between the public square and your own home. You can recognize that your personal standards have no bearing on public policies. You can judge someone to be crude and offensive while recognizing that their behavior is protected by our Constitution, but that same someone will need to follow your standards if they come into your house.
The same way do these group standards work. It's generally a poor idea to push them politically on the nation, but you are perfectly justified in running your own group as the group sees fit.
>However, if the people decided to turn the US into a facist state, using the founders rules and all amendments to them since, we have the ability to do so. This is what makes the US system fundamentally different from Judaism.
But the founders rules wouldent let a facist state happen. That is my point, which I guess we disagree on. If anything, Judaism and the Constitution have many similarities (I didn't say EXACTLY the same, so lets not bother arguing my comment there). Yes, ammendments (takkanot) can be implemented with sociological changes, but certain things (and the amount vary between different systems) remain concrete.
From wiki:
An entrenched bill of rights exists as a separate legal instrument that falls outside of the normal jurisdiction of a country's legislative body.
Candy Man,
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question. I really appreciate it. Is it correct that fish and milk are not separated? I have heard that they are not.
Thanks,
Homeschool Mom in New York
> An entrenched bill of rights exists as a separate legal instrument that falls outside of the normal jurisdiction of a country's legislative body.
Yes, the U.S. bill of rights "falls outside of the normal jurisdiction of a country's legislative body". They require a Constitutional amendment to change them. But they CAN be changed. The BOR seems to have its own identity but it's simply a list of amendments to the U.S. Constitution and as such are open to change just like any other part of the Constitution. They weren't even part of the original constitution. (They were passed in 1791). The name "Bill of Rights" is basically just a nickname for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. I get that these amendments are fixed in the American psyche as some kind of ten commandments but they are open to repeal just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. No part of U.S. law is absolutely sacred. Everything is on the table and can be changed if you have the extreme amount of support needed.
LNM,
"I get that these amendments are fixed in the American psyche as some kind of ten commandments but they are open to repeal just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th."
Theoretically, sure. But it is the psyche of the American people which demanded that these rights be so numbered and who would rightfully rebel openly against a government that messed with them.
The belief is simply that these rights do not stem from government authority but are merely enumerated there. They are sacred in that sense.
> ...the American people which demanded that these rights be so numbered and who would rightfully rebel openly against a government that messed with them.
Absolutely. Of course it wouldn't come to that. Any Congressman who introduced a bill to repeal the first amendment would find himself unemployed come the next election cycle.
> The belief is simply that these rights do not stem from government authority but are merely enumerated there. They are sacred in that sense.
Some people may believe these rights are sacred but nevertheless we have the authority to change these laws (even if we will never exercise it).
LNM,
"Some people may believe these rights are sacred but nevertheless we have the authority to change these laws (even if we will never exercise it)."
No, that's the point. You can change what a document says but the belief is that these rights transcend government authority.
Where they come from is contested, be it Reason, Natural Law, God - whatever. But since the US government did not bestow them, then it cannot rightfully rescind them.
> You can change what a document says but the belief is that these rights transcend government authority... But since the US government did not bestow them, then it cannot rightfully rescind them.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But what we were discussing was Judaism, the US democracy and their respective openness to change. As you stated before, the US democracy can theoretically be legally changed to incorporate any currently unconstitutional idea. Judaism on the other hand does not have that same flexibility.
>Judaism on the other hand does not have that same flexibility.
Well, Judaism is ABOUT certain central ethos. Would it make ANY sense to have THAT level of flexiblity to have an authoritative body dismissing its most basic concrete ideas?
LNM,
"That's your opinion and you're welcome to it."
It's actually not just my opinion, but the basic theory this nation was founded on. How else could they rebel against the crown if not for the inherent rights of man that England was persecuting?
This is basic Locke, Paine and Jefferson stuff.
Our Constitution has means of being ammended, but in theory these inalienable rights do not.
I love the point this article is trying to make! I always get irritated when my classmates would say that Jews are higher then other human beings. That blacks are 'animals' (srry).
Anyone who talks like that has a few things to learn about what they believe in...
Orthoprax,
> It's... the basic theory this nation was founded on. How else could they rebel against the crown if not for the inherent rights of man that England was persecuting? ...Our Constitution has means of being ammended, but in theory these inalienable rights do not.
Actually, the Revolution was supported by the desire to not pay unreasonable taxes. Once the door was open our enlightened founders took the opportunity to build the nation of their dreams. But that's beside the point. I'm not debating whether these rights are "inalienable" or not. I'm making the point that from a legal standpoint Americans can change them. I don't know why that is so hard to accept.
LNM,
"Actually, the Revolution was supported by the desire to not pay unreasonable taxes."
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Of course there were other causes going on at the time, but the moral basis for revolt is founded in Locke.
"I'm not debating whether these rights are "inalienable" or not. I'm making the point that from a legal standpoint Americans can change them. I don't know why that is so hard to accept."
Because the very point is whether these rights are granted by the governing body or not. If they are not then no government can rightfully take them away. Legally yes, rightfully no. This is a basic principle of the American nation, thought perhaps not of any given American administration.
Orthoprax,
> Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Of course there were other causes going on at the time, but the moral basis for revolt is founded in Locke.
Moral basis? I'm very familiar with the Declaration however you seem happy to gloss over the history leading up to its signing. Like I said before, if not for the colonial unrest in response to unfair British taxes this nation wouldn't exist. Our revolution was not fought because George Washington woke up one day and thought, "Gee, I sure would like the right to free press." The people were mobilized by the tax issue. They were also bothered by other things the British were doing (for example "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"). But it wasn't until the people were motivated to revolution that the founders had a chance to create a government of their choosing. We might all be British citizens today had King George III been able to financially handle his military in Europe and not gotten greedy with the American colonies.
If you want to discuss the rights this nation was founded on then it would also be worthwhile to point out that these rights originally were only seen as applicable to white men. It was not "self-evident", that women and minorities (read: slaves) were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". You're trying to argue that the rights the nation was founded on exist outside of the Constitution but the founders intentionally left them open to interpretation. Take the line "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". While it is pretty clear what "Life" means, it is not as clear what "Liberty" specifically refers to. "Pursuit of Happiness" leaves itself wide open to interpretation (and is a blatant detour from Locke's work). The rights and laws that this nation was founded on were a good start. But we require the ability to update them with the times (or rewrite them entirely). If they were "sacred" then we would have no such authority and it would be immoral to change them. It's clear that leaving these rights to their original meaning would be a real act of immorality.
First, this was a very courageous post. I agree that religious wars is the basis of the hatred seething and threatening to destroy the world. Second, I was raised Orthodox but am a nonpracticing Jew now, even alienated from Reform. That said, I would not hesitate to criticize or praise aspects of Judaism like any other religion. But I think you are being unfair to single out Judaism. I believe that ALL fundamentalist religions are intrinsically racist, sexist, gay-bashing, intolerant, close-minded. That is the nature of Fundamentalism. There is only One Way: Ours. And that makes us superior. So everything you said is true about a certain flavor of fundamentalist Orthodox Judaism, though I have to say that my children attended a "liberal" Reform Jewish day school and there were "slips of the tongue" there too. Turned me totally off. Buddhism is the most tolerant religion in my opinion, though I am not a Buddhist. I think we all have much to learn from Buddhism, as did the group of rabbis who visited the Dalai Llama several years ago (The Jew in the Lotus). Anyway, I recently posted John Lennon's Imagine YouTube as well. My post was called Imagine: World Peace on a Sunday Afternoon and it was a short-short story about all religions co-existing. Wishing us all World Peace for the New Year. Glad you're still blogging. I have four blogs now, believe it or not. Four!
Why doesn't someone just ask a lawyer if an the constitution can be ammended to get rid of one of the bill of rights.
>If they were "sacred" then we would have no such authority and it would be immoral to change them. It's clear that leaving these rights to their original meaning would be a real act of immorality.
Who is changing the Bill of rights? When new situation arise, we see if it falls under one of them. We listen to new arguments such as a womans rights and see if it indeed is a constitutional right.
LNM,
"Our revolution was not fought because George Washington woke up one day and thought, "Gee, I sure would like the right to free press." The people were mobilized by the tax issue. They were also bothered by other things the British were doing..."
Yes, I agree. But the point I'm making is about the right of rebellion. Theoretically if the King is the final authority on matters of law then he has the right to tax you however he wants. The point was that the rebellion sought moral justification by rights that are not merely granted from being written on paper.
"You're trying to argue that the rights the nation was founded on exist outside of the Constitution but the founders intentionally left them open to interpretation."
Correct - and all the founding fathers thought likewise. They are open to interpretation for their particular sequelae in real world situations, but they were not believed open to renegation. They were also not intended to be exhaustive as the ninth amendment makes clear.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
- Alexander Hamilton, 1775
In the eyes of all those Americans, the Bill of Rights did not _grant_ rights, but merely enumerated them to protect them. Indeed, many Federalists thought listing rights to be completely unnecessary as protected liberty was implied by a government run by the people themselves.
HH,
"Why doesn't someone just ask a lawyer if an the constitution can be ammended to get rid of one of the bill of rights."
Because it isn't about that. I fully agree that legally the Bill of Rights could be amended away, but my point is that the theory of America is that these rights are not granted by the Constitution in the first place.
>They are open to interpretation for their particular sequelae in real world situations
Orthoprax, are you in medicine?
E,
"Orthoprax, are you in medicine?"
Med student actually. ;-)
excellent post
Post a Comment