Anti-zionism is anti-semitism?

[Natan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Natan,

Allow me to remind you of this previous post:

quote:
The acceptance of the yoke of halakhah is seen by many as the distinctive essence of Judaism.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that those who reject the Halakha are non-Jews. While "religion" is arguably the best English word to describe Judaism, it has never been our self-description. There isn't even a word for religion in ancient Hebrew, nor is "Judaism" ever reffered to. Even in Yiddish, the term "Yiddishkeit" is the closest you can come to anything like Judaism, and the terms really aren't interchangeable.

According to the Orthodox, halakhah is God-given and must be obeyed. The Progressive movements, while reverencing the halakhah, do not accept its binding obligation in every aspect of life. In so doing, Progressive Jews are perceived by their Orthodox co-religionists as rejecting the point and purpose of the tradition. Hence Reform rabbis are not accepted, and Reform proselytes are not believed to be Jews.

Yes - reform Rabbis are not accepted - they do not conform to the Halakha and therefore are not Rabbis. And their proselytes (converts) are not accepted because their conversions were not performed in accordance with Halakha. But tell me, would they bother to say that the Orthodox don't accept reform converts as Jews if they don't accept any non-Orthodox person as a Jew?

"Orthodox Judaism Traditional Judaism. The term 'Orthodoxy' was first applied in Judaism in 1795 as a distinction between those who accepted the written and oral law as divinely inspired and those who identified with the Reform movement. The Orthodox believe that they are the sole practitioners of the Jewish religious tradition and regard non-Orthodox rabbis as laypeople and non-Orthodox proselytes as gentiles.

Yes - they're non-Orthodox Rabbis are laypeople - Jewish laypeople. Arguing that anyone who doesn't accept the Halakha isn't Jewish is absurd, because the Halakha defines a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or converted in accordance with the Halakha - so by your definition, to be a Jew means to be wrong about what it means to be a Jew, since a Jew who accepts the Halakha believes that Jewish apostates are Jews. In short, you're argument is totally absurd.

Siro:

The Talmud itself says that after the Bible has left God's hands (so to speak) it is the people's to interpert and to have opinions about.

And the Orthodox are saying that no opinions are allowed, and only their conservative view is legitimate.

No, the Orthodox are saying that the opinions of ignorant persons which are based on a faulty understanding of the Torah, both its principals and its details, and motivated solely by irreligious (if not sacrilegious) concerns are not valid interpretations. For example, the opinion of the Conservative and Reform movements that one may drive to the synagogue on Saturday, which is a direct violation of Torah law based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Torah and the obligation to pray.

Imran: This is mostly a semantic point, but there are some ethnic groups which define themselves by religion and can be changed by conversion. In my view, Jews are not an ethnic group, but there are many Jewish ethnic groups such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Bukharans, various Arab Jewish groups. It's mostly a semantic point though, like I said.

[Sirotnikov]

Natan - the Orthodox do not allow any inrepertation different from thier own.

Look at the talmud. You have Rambam and on the other side you have tosafot disagreeing with him.

I assure you that the reformed / conservative / liberal jews are motivated solely by their love to judaism and their wishes to apply it in the modern world as well.

I think that the Orthodox view of the Torah is the real misunderstanding because you take it word for word, when you should really follow the spirit.

The Sabbath law is there to assure that your employer doesn't abuse you and that you rest. It isn't there to give you utter and complete discomfort.

Imran, semantic? NOOOO

[Natan]

Look at the talmud. You have Rambam and on the other side you have tosafot disagreeing with him.

Yes, and you have that today. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has his disagreements with Rabbi Shach; Rabbi Soloveichik (z"l) and Rabbi Schneerson (z"l) had their disagreements as well.

I assure you that the reformed / conservative / liberal jews are motivated solely by their love to judaism and their wishes to apply it in the modern world as well.

Okay, I admit, that was a low blow. But when I hear Conservative Rabbis say things like "we have to bring Judaism in line with modern ethical standards" I just shake my head.
[QUOTE]
I think that the Orthodox view of the Torah is the real misunderstanding because you take it word for word, when you should really follow the spirit.

The Sabbath law is there to assure that your employer doesn't abuse you and that you rest. It isn't there to give you utter and complete discomfort.

Not so - the bible recounts how Moses stoned the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath - no mention of calling in the abusive employer who forced him to do that; he just wanted to gather some sticks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: This is mostly a semantic point, but there are some ethnic groups which define themselves by religion and can be changed by conversion. In my view, Jews are not an ethnic group, but there are many Jewish ethnic groups such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Bukharans, various Arab Jewish groups. It's mostly a semantic point though, like I said.

Ah good .

And this semantic is right, IMO. Declaring a religion to have an ethnicity opens up a HUGE can of worms.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ethelred - ok, I still don't really get what you are saying.

You asked a question about what I meant about butchers. If you have a problem with that take up with the meat industry.

If Iranian Jews want their country they are free to try and organize one or something.

No they aren't free to do that and why the heck the should the rest of Iran tolerate having their country torn up by a minority.

But they did nothing of that sort.

And I talked asbout brittain as an example.

So was I when I mentioned Iranian Jews. They were one of many and only mentioned to remind people that Jews are not a mono-block group.

However, it does not make you an Israeli in nationality. To be an Israeli, you have to live in Israel and to gain acess to Israel via the law of return you have to be of Jewish religion or ethnicity.

I had two points let me make them clear again.

One. I think its bizzare and close minded to call people anti-Semetic for saying Israel never should have been founded. Anti-Zionism DOES NOT EQUAL anti-Semitism.

Two. I think its irrational to say that every ethnic group deserves a state. That clearly relates to number one but it is not dependent on it. There are thousands of ethnic groups. Tolerance is right answer not Balkanization.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan


Not so - the bible recounts how Moses stoned the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath - no mention of calling in the abusive employer who forced him to do that; he just wanted to gather some sticks.

More proof that the Bible is a very poor source for moral guidance. This makes Moses a murderer if he killed a man for doing something that harmed no one. Intolerance like this just plain murder.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Toleration? How the h*ll are you going force bigots to be tolerant? In the U.S. it is possible because we have a constitution and a Supreme Court. Most other countries are not so blessed. Bigotry is the norm.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Judaism is a name of an ethnicity, and a religion and a nationality.

*BZZZZT* Wrong!

Judaism is the name of a religion. Hebrew is a name of an ethnicity and nationality. Judaism DOES NOT EQUAL Hebrew. People that turn to Judaism do NOT change their ethnicity!

Hebrew is not an ethnic grouping. Its a language. One that was pretty much dead for a very long time. When the Romans had their hissy fit with Judea most of the inhabitants spoke Aramaic and Hebrew was mostly a religious language somewhat akin to Latin after the Italians stopped being Romans.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Toleration? How the h*ll are you going force bigots to be tolerant? In the U.S. it is possible because we have a constitution and a Supreme Court. Most other countries are not so blessed. Bigotry is the norm.

Ned

I can't force it. I can only try to help promote tolerance.

I don't see where the world in general has a heck of lot of choice in the long run. The world is a smaller place then it once was and people will be affected greatly by the change. Look at this site for instance. We all communicate in English.

On a side note I think English has a big advantage in this regard. Not just because so many people use it but because we English speakers stole from so many languages. It makes it easier for those with other native languages to be able to express themselves in English as opposed to previous trade languages like French or Greek. Now if only it wasn't so bloody hard to spell in English but that is partly an artifact of the all the languages it has stolen from.

[Sarxis]

I am anti-baryon; somehow I just can't accept their quarky schemes.

I am pro-meson though.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I am anti-baryon; somehow I just can't accept their quarky schemes.

Then you should read Stephen Baxter's Ring

[Ned]

Ethelred, Just to understand your position, should East Timor been made and independent state? Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Just to understand your position, should East Timor been made and independent state? Ned

Why should it? The rebels aren't even all that popular there. Nasty buch all the way around based I what I read. I haven't read anything about in a while though. It might be that East Timor would be the best solution for the situation but from what I remember of the situation there is quite a lot of overlap in the various ethnic lands.

Should Afganistan have remained under Taliban rule just because the Taliban thought they had the right?

Its one thing to have an ethnic group form a state when they allready have a clear geographic seperation that won't make big holes in the present state. Its another thing to say that a some land must be given to an ethnic group that is spread all over the place. Thats the case for what the Jews were in the 1900's and for the Gypsies still. Who gives up the land and what justifies it?

[Ned]

Ethelred, I was testing your point about tolerance. When the Portuguese pulled out in '75, Indonesia invaded. Indonesia is Moslem. East Timor is Catholic.

A rebellion began that culminated in a referendum in 1999. The people chose freedom by an overwhelming majority. Indonesian militias began a massacre. Australia intervened to put a stop to the violence.

Yesterday, E. Timor was declared a state.

Tolerence here was out of the question. Violence continued so long as Indonesia continued its occupation. It seems to me that E. Timor had a right to self-determination.

Ned

[Ramo]

I am anti-baryon; somehow I just can't accept their quarky schemes.

I am pro-meson though.

So you think quarks should be anti-other quarks? Damn dirty xenophobe!

Tolerence here was out of the question. Violence continued so long as Indonesia continued its occupation. It seems to me that E. Timor had a right to self-determination.

There's a fundamental difference between supporting the right of people to be free from a murderous, authoritarian state and supporting the right of states to prevent ethnically/religously "unpure" people from associating with those they control.

Comparing advocacy of East Timorese independence to Zionism (or any similar philosophy) is an absurd strawman.