--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish? > > > > > > > > > There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert. > > > People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in > condemming > > > those who are still X. I don't think this is just a Christian > phenomenon. > > > So, I'd postulate that folks who agree with the premise that its Jewish > > > culture that's the problem, not Jewish biology, and that any Jew that > > > renounced his/her traditon and accept another way of living (e.g. > > > Christianity) are anti-Semetic, even though they will accept people who > > > have Jewish ancestory as good folks and their equals. > > > > Not sure what this means. > > I think you addressed it above. I was rephrasing the question to try to > make sure one of the way I phrased it made sense. The above statement > basically means that I think that folks who would persecute Jews who stayed > Jews but accept converts to Christianity would still be anti- Semitic; > agreeing with what you've written in your reply. > > So, given the answer to your question, why would one refute the concept > that Marx was anti-Semitic by referring to his Jewish family? I'll agree > that this thesis still has to be proven from text, and that many writings > of Marx can be used in such a discussion; I just don't think that having > Jewish grandparents means that he could not be anti-Semitic.
Then there is the question of what it means to be anti-semetic. There is a teacher here localy who stated: "And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them.... It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews." Thsi guy is being investigated for anti-semtic remarks and will most likely lose his job. However, how exactly can this remark be called anti-semetic. Just becouse one group has been a victem in the past does not make everything they do afterwards acceptable. Simply disagreeing with, being appaled by, or having beliefeds contradictory to a persecuted group, does not mean that one is racist, or "religionist" or both. It is in fact a Jewish comunity and Jewish leaders who are calling for this investigation. This sounds like these leaders are saying that all non-jews must condone everything they do, or they are ant- semetic. How is this not in it'self raceist. So on the topic of anti-semitism, is it not debatable what is and what is not? What about all the other persecuted groups? Native Americans (especialy those who endured the trail of tears, or worse those who were eradicated compleatly) What about that holicost? Does that mean that anyone who is uncomfortable with the Native American Army is anti-Native American? What about someone who talks bad about casinos? or smokeshops? If one is disatisfied with the actions of the IRA does that make then anti-Irish? What of the Slaughtered chinese in WWII or the Japanese put in concentration camps who died of poor living conditions or returned to find their homes and belonging gone. Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical context. In the 17 & 1800s there was much disdane for Jewish comunities becouse they did something specific that was considered at the time to be immoral. They lent or barrowed money for intrest. Now we do not think anything of such a practice becouse it is no-longer considered by our culture to be vial. But you must take anti-semitism at the time in context. The very ability to borrow or lend money for intrest introduces time value of money. It means that if anyone is borrowing or lending for intrest then everyone has to lend for intrest, or face a devaluation of the money they do have. Most of the issues which we not look on as anti-semitic had to do with the fact that none but Jews were religiously allowed to engaged in this practice. The resentment then came from the fact that one group was, by doing something akin to being illegal, taking money away from everyone else. Never mind that this all now seems silly. For those christians and others of the time, it seemed as if one group was not playing fair. So much of the retoric we now read had little to do with a race or a religion, but specificaly with the practice of lending and borrowing money for intrest. So were these statements what we would now regurd as racesist? It is undeniable that it grew to become raceism, and we can all agree that this was teribly teribly wrong. But unless you look at history from the perspective of the time, you may misjudge a statment through modern eyes as being racist, when in fact it was people worring and arguing over the introduction of time value of money. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
