>> ^newtboy:

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.

Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.

Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.

There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

@newtboy

If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".

Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.

That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

I disagree and here's why, since the Jews have a religious state, and that state supports these fanatics financially and militarily, ALL Jews (or at least all Israelites and Zionists, and sadly all American tax payers since we send them billions of our tax dollars) support these fanatics, and should be lumped in with them until they stop their blind support for dangerous, fanatical religious zealots. Remember, these are the people still settling in the agreed on Palestinian held areas and then getting military support to keep their freshly stolen property, and Israel refuses to stop supporting the 'settlers' (which should rightly be called 'invaders').
Why doesn't the US, as a supporter of Israel and a believer in borders, tell them to stop expanding into their neighbors territories? I just don't understand OUR support of THEIR expansionist agenda at all.
Side note: If your 'god' gives you the right to take from others or hurt others, your 'god' is evil, and so are you. If your 'god' gives you the right to harass and terrorize others, your 'god' and religion are terroristic. I think this holds water for every religion that allows prostelatizing or demands adherence to their 'rules' by non-believers, they are all terroristic to those not part of their group to some degree.

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^newtboy:
...and of course, forcing their religion on others is not considered 'controlling one's environment'. This is typical of religious nutjobs, it's the 'god made these rules, everyone must follow them, regardless of your religion, unless they interfere with what me and my kind want to do, then YOU must continue to follow MY religious rules while I may do what I want' mindset...and they wonder why there's rampant anti semitism in the world, they should maybe try some self examination before passing their skewed judgement on everyone else.
Why are we sending these nutjobs our tax dollars? Can anyone possibly give me a reasonable explanation for this beyond 'they're are friends'? If they can't survive on their own in the land they stole, perhaps they should leave.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Nexxus:
I don't see 'operating a pallet jack' on that list.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
If you're curious what is actually forbidden during Shabbat, here's a list on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat
#9 is sifting so there better not be any new videos next weekend.


This sort of thing would be forbidden as "Transferring between domains". Driving the truck would also be forbidden as it violates "Igniting a fire". Some would also argue that it violates the spirit of the law as it is controlling one's environment, which is what all of these rules are meant to forbid.

well, antisemitism affects all Jews, where as these are some of the more 'hardcore' fanatics. just like you shouldn't equate terrorists to all Christians or Muslims.

>> ^newtboy:

...and of course, forcing their religion on others is not considered 'controlling one's environment'. This is typical of religious nutjobs, it's the 'god made these rules, everyone must follow them, regardless of your religion, unless they interfere with what me and my kind want to do, then YOU must continue to follow MY religious rules while I may do what I want' mindset...and they wonder why there's rampant anti semitism in the world, they should maybe try some self examination before passing their skewed judgement on everyone else.
Why are we sending these nutjobs our tax dollars? Can anyone possibly give me a reasonable explanation for this beyond 'they're are friends'? If they can't survive on their own in the land they stole, perhaps they should leave.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Nexxus:
I don't see 'operating a pallet jack' on that list.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
If you're curious what is actually forbidden during Shabbat, here's a list on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat
#9 is sifting so there better not be any new videos next weekend.


This sort of thing would be forbidden as "Transferring between domains". Driving the truck would also be forbidden as it violates "Igniting a fire". Some would also argue that it violates the spirit of the law as it is controlling one's environment, which is what all of these rules are meant to forbid.

well, antisemitism affects all Jews, where as these are some of the more 'hardcore' fanatics. just like you shouldn't equate terrorists to all Christians or Muslims.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Calling people vermin reminds me of the Nazi talking about the Jewish people. Dehumanizing so that you can forget that they are human beings (fucked up humans, but still not vermin).
Yes, I went there.


I would argue you did not really went there, because we already are there.

Most of the islamophobic ranting we hear is just recycled antisemitism. The "their holy book commands them to kill us", "they speak a double language", "they have secret teaching/goals", etc, are creepily similar (when not outright identical) to the fascist propaganda from the 1930s.

@hpqp

Thanks for the heads-up about the post. And thanks for clearly detailing your position on the matter. If I may, I’d like to explain my opinion on the topic.

Is it wrong to “criticize Islam?” In a civilized society that values free speech, clearly the answer is no. But free speech is a two-way street. If it is acceptable to criticize Islam, then clearly it is just as acceptable that such criticism be open to criticism in return. In short, just because a person thinks their opinion on a particular matter is correct doesn’t make it so. And if a person can’t handle someone disagreeing with their opinion… well we all know the adage about people who live in glass houses.

My major objection to people like Sam Harris is not that I believe religion or in particular Islam is some off-limit topic of criticism. No. My major objection to Sam Harris is that rather than criticize Islam he instead tries to inspire fear of it—and, by association, Muslims as well (i.e. No one lies awake at night worrying about the Amish—but those Muslims on the other hand…). Many of his arguments seem to be based on fear, misunderstanding, exaggeration, oversimplification, and in of some cases apparent intentional misrepresentation of not only Islam but other religions such as Jainism as well. They often lack any sort of evidence (i.e. Islam is the religion causing the greatest amount of suffering in the world) yet we are expected to swallow their truth without doubt. And when someone raises these criticisms of his supposed criticism? Rather than actually defend his claims and provide solid evidence in support of them he instead insinuates we’re just too “liberal”—too culturally relativistic— to see the danger that he sees.

Sam Harris is free to criticize Islam. In fact, I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when he actually starts doing so (in the dictionary sense of the term). In the meantime, I dismiss his arguments as both unsupported and intended to intentionally stir up both fear and prejudice against Islam and its followers.

Next, I’d like to address the issue of Islamophobia—prejudice against, hatred, or fear of Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia doesn’t exist? I think the 200,000 Muslims killed and 50,000 Muslim women raped during the Bosnian Genocide would disagree with that statement. So would Iranian-American Zohreh Assemik, who was sliced with a boxcutter, kicked, had her hand smashed with a hammer, and had anti-Muslim slurs written on the mirrors of her nail and facial salon. So would pretty much anyone who played Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide in which you get to kill not only terrorists but Muslim civilians as well.

Frankly, @hpqp, I’m surprised. All of our conversations on the Sift have been reasonable, if a bit passionate at times. I think you would be just as shocked if I were to suddenly proclaim there is no such thing as Antisemitism as I was to read your statement in this thread. Islamophobia (as defined above) is quite real. No, claims of Islamophobia should not be used to shut down criticism of Islam (any more than claims of Antisemitism should be used to squelch criticism of Israeli policies). But that’s a far cry from claiming Islamophobia doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

You seem like a reasonable guy. I know you’ve tried your best to explain it to me but I still don’t understand why you believe so strongly that Islam itself—and not particular interpretations of Islam—are such a threat. So let's do something different. I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t reply, so I’ll ask you again—what do you/Harris hope to achieve with all of this vitriol? What’s the goal? What do you hope to see happen? What’s the endgame? I ask these questions because I think the answers will really help me see where you are coming from and to understand your point of view.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?


Nope. BUT tell me one piece of greater civil legislation in the history of the USA that did not have a large popular movement behind it. I misspoke on the matter that one should educate instead of legislate. I was wrong.
One should first educate, then legislate. Attempts to ban it now will be killed in flight, because only a small group is behind it. Plus they will inevitably be called antisemites because male circumcition is undeniably linked to an influential social group. When education reaches a large threshold in society, legislation can go through. Then it will be peachy.

If you have the stomach for it, there are other Soul Khan videos on youtube (a shitload actually) and they are all like this.

His opponents invariably resort to antisemitic vitriol, overt and covert threats. He responds with cleverness and wit. If you pay attention to the cadence and composition of his rhyming, he sounds more like a poet than a rapper. I'll bet he's got a literature degree.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'libmedia, drones, antisemitism, cplo, lueless' to 'libmedia, drones, scaredneocon, cplo, lueless' - edited by thinker247

did you notice all the antisemitic imagery in that clip?
typical gibson

Parodying others for their political views is not remotely close to antisemitic or racial slurs.

@Krupo: I think you might be insane.

regarding Poland and Jews, please to refer to History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland

Quote: "From the founding of the Kingdom of Poland in 1025 through to the early years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth created in 1569, Poland was (...) (k)nown as paradisus Iudaeorum (Latin for Jewish paradise) it became a unique shelter for persecuted and expelled European Jewish communities and a home to one of the world's largest and most vibrant Jewish communities.(...)
Poland’s traditional tolerance[6] began to wane from the 17th century onward.(...)"

regarding Christian antisemitism, please refer to Christianity_and_antisemitism

Quote: "Although the first Christians were Jewish, anti-Judaic attitudes started to develop even before the end of the first century (...)
These attitudes persisted in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching of contempt for Jews over the centuries. In many Christian countries it led to civil and political discrimination against Jews, legal disabilities, and in some instances to physical attacks on Jews which in some cases ended in emigration, expulsion, and even death."

regarding the Chruches stance on Stephen Fry (as a homosexual) please refer to THE BIBLE
Please take special note of "Corinthians 6:9; 10", "Leviticus 18:22", "Leviticus 20:13" and how homosexuality is regarded in "Genesis 19:4-8".


For the rest of your first post in this thread, my first comment in this post stands.

I don't know what to say about your first post Krupo except maybe "pick up a history book and start reading".

Firstly, your comment that, "accusing Catholics anti-Semitic is beyond ridiculous" is among the least intelligent responses I have seen on VideoSift.

Archbishop Robert Runcie asserts that: "Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitlers passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed...because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. On Good Friday Jews, have in times past, cowered behind locked doors with fear of a Christian mob seeking 'revenge' for deicide. Without the poisoning of Christian minds through the centuries, the holocaust is unthinkable." Christian antisemitism is well documented. In fact, the main purpose of the Inquisitions (particularly the Spanish Inquisition) was to forcefully convert or kill Jews.

Then you ask, "And what's this about "torturing" Galileo?" Galileo was put on trial and threatened with torture and death by the inquisition for asserting that the Earth went around the Sun. His partner was burned at the stake for the same assertion. He was shown the implements of torture that would be used on him if he did not recant. So he did. And he spent the rest of his life under house-arrest. The Church tortured and killed to stop the furthering of scientific knowledge.

With regards to Fry, as a homosexual he is considered sinful. His homosexual temptation is considered "disordered", thus not sinful, but his acting on those temptations are considered sinful. This makes him, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, in a state of mortal sin (in direct contradiction to what you said).

Those against Catholicism in this debate won it easily. They didn't use lies or falsehoods, just showed how reprehensible the Catholic Church really is.

Gay Marriage: There are people out there who just don't want to shake things up; people who like the status quo and want to see marriage remain M/F only. Exactly what's going on in their heads, I can't say. I'd be interested to find out and I know that won't happen if I scream obscenities at them before they have the chance to explain it.

Illegal Immigration: First, the omission of "illegal" in my first post was just an oversight on my part. I really don't see why anyone would support illegal immigration, honestly. I think the claim that some people do is more likely a distortion. People, generally liberals, argue for better treatment of illegals and against the assload of money we spend trying, and failing, to stop them at the border. Wingnuts then point at those people and claim that they're in favor of illegal immigration. That one feels like runaway douchebaggery to me.

The Holocaust: This guy is labeled an antisemite for his beliefs about the Holocaust. If you're looking for "the point" to denying the Holocaust, then you're way off the mark. It's not as if there is a "point" to believing in the Holocaust, either. That's what you and I, presumably, believe because that is what the evidence presented to us suggests. Some people have interpreted the evidence differently or have been exposed to different evidence. I think most of those people are probably nuts but it's a complete logical fallacy to jump to antisemitism from there.

War on Terror: You've made my point for me here. Everyone I know who is against the war fully supports the troops. We want them home and safe rather than risking their lives to protect us from absolutely nothing. However, anyone who was against the war during the Bush administration was labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, an appeaser or accused of hating the troops. It's a bullshit accusation intended to shut you up or drown you out and that's it.
---
It seems like you may have mistaken my list of examples for my personal positions and that's not the case, so I can't really make any arguments for these things. The only argument I'm making is that you shouldn't assume your preconceived notions are true and shut out those opposing viewpoints as a result. Have your preconceptions if you must, but give the person the chance to prove you wrong.

>> ^Shepppard:
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?
I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it.
Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.
Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"
You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.
Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.
Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.