Danish embassy invaded

[Az]

I mean the UK paper the Independent published a cartoon of Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian babies. Given the history of the blood libel, Id say thats about as offensive a cartoon as one could publish. Now I'll be damned if i ever buy the Independent. But Im not going to boycott everything British - what is the rest of Britain supposed to do, censor the Independent?

QFT

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by laurentius


Okay so now we have two groups of potentially violent people. Thats even worse than I though. What else do I need to learn before you grant me a permission to speak?

The orthodox in the settlements got violent when they were being tossed out of their homes, by a govt they had thought would protect them. Now you can argue all you want that they were wrong, had no right to be there, that they dont care about Pals losing their homes etc. But their violence had nothing to do with blasphemy - it was about land and politics.

You of course dont need my permission to speak. You can speak out of ignorance if you like, but dont blame others when you look like a fool.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Az
Not giving a ****>>condemning ****>>boycotting entire nations demanding to stop freedom of press>>torching embassies

Of course.

For some reason, I thought LotM was asserting that Jews and Jewish organizations would simply ignore a cartoon that was offensive in a similar way to the way the Danish cartoons are offensive... it just didn't compute. I must have misread him, then.

I totally agree re: violence.

-Arrian

[laurentius]

"Back to my point. Condemning is one thing. Laurentius suggested we're all alike. On the issue of violence we're not."

I find it amusing that you are guarantees that the orthodox jews wouldnt react violently.

"The orthodox in the settlements got violent when they were being tossed out of their homes, by a govt they had thought would protect them. Now you can argue all you want that they were wrong, had no right to be there, that they dont care about Pals losing their homes etc. But their violence had nothing to do with blasphemy - it was about land and politics. "

Of course it was about religion! Just as this thing with the muslims is! Politics and religion. For some people they go hand in hand. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox jews believe that they are a) the Gods chosen people and b) the land is promised them by God. So anything that stands in the way of fulfilling this Gods promise is blasphemous and against the will of God. Here we have the connection between religious beliefs, (holy)land and politics.


"You of course dont need my permission to speak. You can speak out of ignorance if you like, but dont blame others when you look like a fool."

Sorry if you feel threatened by my observation.

[Arrian]

Politics and religion. For some people they go hand in hand. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox jews believe that they are a) the Gods chosen people and b) the land is promised them by God. So anything that stands in the way of fulfilling this Gods promise is blasphemous and against the will of God. Here we have the connection between religious beliefs, (holy)land and politics.

Once again you appear to be mixing up the ultra orthodox jews and the settlers - who are not necessarily one and the same.

Second, the violence wasn't about some percieved "insult" to their religion. It was b/c the government had told them to go and settle some land and then, years later, came and took that land back from them. I'm totally against the settlements, but surely you can see how that's not just "they insulted us, so we shall destroy!!"

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Of course.

For some reason, I thought LotM was asserting that Jews and Jewish organizations would simply ignore a cartoon that was offensive in a similar way to the way the Danish cartoons are offensive... it just didn't compute. I must have misread him, then.

I totally agree re: violence.

-Arrian

1. I was responding to Laur, whose comments about violence I disagreed with so strongly that i neglected the issue of condemnation.

2. A cartoon showing G-d as a Nazi would certainly be met with condemnation. Though I not nearly as intense condemnation as one portraying a Jew as a Nazi. That seems to me a world of difference, where Laur saw a similarity. One is about blasphemy. The other is about maligning a human member of a group. We take the latter more seriously, pace Laur.

3. A cartoon simply showing G-d as a jerk would undoubtedly be ignored. Such cartoons are not uncommon in the west. I seem to recall a whole serie by, Tom the Dancing Bug I think it was called?

[Arrian]

There are some Far Side cartoons that I'm sure some freaky freaky fundies got mad about

I have a bunch of Far Sides (from one of the calendars) hung up around my cube here @ work. One of my favorites is one where God is depicted as a chef. In a pan in front of him is the Earth. Behind him on shelves are jars and boxes labeled with things like "Reptiles," "Insects," "Light skinned people," etc. He's shaking a jar labeled "Jerks" over the Earth, with a thought bubble that reads "Just to make it interesting..."

Surely a terrible mockery of God's PLAN for us all! Man, I love that one.

What were we talking about?

-Arrian

[laurentius]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


2. A cartoon showing G-d as a Nazi would certainly be met with condemnation. Though I not nearly as intense condemnation as one portraying a Jew as a Nazi. That seems to me a world of difference, where Laur saw a similarity. One is about blasphemy. The other is about maligning a human member of a group. We take the latter more seriously, pace Laur.

Okay I see. If this is true then that changes everything. Since you are not allowed to even write the name of your God I though you would react more like the muslims living in the same area.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by laurentius

"Back to my point. Condemning is one thing. Laurentius suggested we're all alike. On the issue of violence we're not."

I find it amusing that you are guarantees that the orthodox jews wouldnt react violently.

"The orthodox in the settlements got violent when they were being tossed out of their homes, by a govt they had thought would protect them. Now you can argue all you want that they were wrong, had no right to be there, that they dont care about Pals losing their homes etc. But their violence had nothing to do with blasphemy - it was about land and politics. "

Of course it was about religion! Just as this thing with the muslims is! Politics and religion. For some people they go hand in hand. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the orthodox jews believe that they are

a) the Gods chosen people and

Nope, they believe all Jews are Gods chosen people, even atheists like Az. Of course Reform and Conservative Jews believe that as well, even ones who no interest in the West Bank.

b) the land is promised them by God.

Yeah. So do ultraorthodox Jews, who are waiting for G-d to do the heavy lifting, and dont have anything to do with settlements.

So anything that stands in the way of fulfilling this Gods promise is blasphemous and against the will of God.

They think its wrong, but not blasphemous. Not all sins are blasphemy.

Here we have the connection between religious beliefs, (holy)land and politics.

No, cause most of them dont commit acts of violence against anyone who stands in the way of fulfilling Gods promise. The violence was about their being ejected. And, BTW, even many of them used civil disobedience tactics, rather than violence.

Sorry if you feel threatened by my observation.

I get rather annoyed when someone says something absurd about a city ive lived in - says that you can get assaulted driving through Orthodox neighborhoods of Baltimore on shabbos. When ive driven through such neighborhoods on Shabbos.

What if i were to tell you that in certain areas of Helsinki they throw stones at you if you drive on Thursday and used that to make a political point. You wouldnt find that annoying? Foolish?

[Bill3000]

...why is it that people censor the word God when that isn't even his real name?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by laurentius


Okay I see. If this is true then that changes everything. Since you are not allowed to even write the name of your God I though you would react more like the muslims living in the same area.

Observant Jews are not allowed to write the name of G-d. (Actually I find the application to the English name a bit of a stretch, but follow it for the sake of tradition) They are also not allowed to eat certain foods. We dont go getting upset that non-Jews eat those foods, or boycott the companies that sell them. Jewish law applies to Jews, it doesnt apply to non-Jews.

[laurentius]

I only referred to my uncle's experiences as a christian living in an orthodox jewish neighbourhood in Baltimore. If you havent got such experience dont mean it doesnt happen.

[Az]

Observant Jews are not allowed to write the name of G-d. (Actually I find the application to the English name a bit of a stretch, but follow it for the sake of tradition) They are also not allowed to eat certain foods. We dont go getting upset that non-Jews eat those foods, or boycott the companies that sell them. Jewish law applies to Jews, it doesnt apply to non-Jews.

What are you doing? don't let them off easy!




All of you mother****ers, ALL of you eating pork! Yes, you! All of you sons of *****es are going to die! That's because you're all antisemite mother****ers. Like hitler. In fact, even worse, because hitler is dead.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Bill3000
...why is it that people censor the word God when that isn't even his real name?

First I dont write the name, but I certainly dont censor it. I would indeed oppose any attempt to censor it.

A quibble perhaps, but in THIS thread, it seems ironic that youd miss the distinction.

Why? well in Hebrew, the original name Yaweh was taboo to speak, resulting in various euphemisms, like Adonai. Over time the euphemisms gained a sense of holiness, from their use in prayer, and it became customary not to use them except in prayer or similar contexts. This has been extended by traditional Jews to the written form (God) in other languages.

I can of course use all of these here lman chinuch - for the sake of education - a use that is arguably like prayer.

Are you interested in learning more about Jewish customs?

[Az]

like Adonai.

You know he's going to smite you for that.

Or, if one knows hebrew, it's "they are going to smite you."