Anything can be viewed Rascist

[CD Lee]

I read the Last Sumurai thread with interest. It reminded me of an old friend, who turned out to be what I would call a white supremascist. I remember, he thought Independence Day was completely rascist. His point was that a black man and a Jewish man were saving the world. He couldn't stand that. He actually believed that the producers/writers were trying to subtlely put that idea into everyones heads. He believed that was the driving factor to produce the movie.

Of course my response, joining in his logical reasonings, was that it was rascist the other way then...what about the fact that a white guy actually ran his ship up into the beam to rescue earth? So the white guy saved the earth. He just grimmaced at me and ignored that one. But he could have said...."well they were actaully trying to show that the white guy helping was a drunk, thus insulting the white race." I would have countered, "No, it was the other way...even a drunk white guy had to step in to actually save the earth..."

And on and on this could go. Since meeting this guy(one rarely actually meets a person like this!), I have seen that a person can take almost any movie, and do this same pointless logic.

I work in business. I am not sure how old everybody here is, but let me offer a short economic fact of life we all learn. In business, as in many aspects of life, MONEY decides what you do. Movie makers are motivated by whatever is in bounds to make money. It is a for-profit business. They don't have the extra funds of investors or even themselves, to spend millions to push personal agenda's. There can always be exceptions, but most of the time, when you have mixed race movies, one can always come up with some diatribe about rasicsm if they want to see it that way.

The way we interpret what we see sometimes, says more about us, than what the details before us actually represent.

[Liokault]

I read an interview in a news paper here the other day by a black actor (who's name I forget). He said its great that political corectness has moved on so far that he can now get work as a bad guy on TV again with out the producers automaticaly being condidered rascist.

[Liokault]

I read an interview in a news paper here the other day by a black actor (who's name I forget). He said its great that political corectness has moved on so far that he can now get work as a bad guy on TV again with out the producers automaticaly being considered rascist.

[YinYangDagger]

You're absolutely correct CD, ANYTHING can be turned around to play the racism card, political card, religious card, etc.

Look at Gene Ching for example. A devout Shaolin practitioner that works here at KFM. Sure, they have articles on Wudang kung fu, but what about the uniforms? You can buy different color SHAOLIN uniforms - they even include a Monk bag - but what about Wudang uniforms? Nope, not one! Wudang folks have to SUFFER!

:D

[jun_erh]

he often calls me very late at night inebriated ranting about the "Wu****s" and how it would be better "for everyone just to keep thins seperate". :rolleyes: I'm like quit livin in the past dude

[IronFist]

Aren't Jewish people white?

[joedoe]

No they are not considered Caucasian - they are considered Semitic.

[CD Lee]

Technically yes. However, my Jewish friends are as white as you can get. So yes, they are white. However, rasicsm does not need color to exist.

I work for a multi national company, and it appears that in most parts of the world, there are major race problems, even when the races are the same color. If not color, then social status, or caste, or country, or religion. Always something, and always has been something all through history.

The issue is almost always one of culture clash, not just color. With African Americans, and Caucasians, it is easy, black and white. Seems so colorfully contrasted. However, there are other subtle cultural divides between the two groups that seperate them more than just color. The products they buy, entertainment, social behaviors, vernacular, etc. There are a lot of components involved. And that is not limited to our country.

[IronFist]

wtf? They look white to me.

Semitic is a race?

If a black person is born albino (it has happened before), do white supremascists still hate them?

[joedoe]

Originally posted by IronFist
wtf? They look white to me.

Semitic is a race?

If a black person is born albino (it has happened before), do white supremascists still hate them?

Semitic is a racial grouping just like Caucasian, Asian, African/Negro etc.

Interesting question :)

[IronFist]

I honestly didn't know that. I thought it just meant "Jewish person." So you can be a semite who's not Jewish? What is the criteria for semite? Be general. Example: caucasian = light skin, blond to dark brown hair, round eyes, etc.

[joedoe]

Wanna get more confused? Arabs are also considered Semitic. ;)

I think these racial groupings are based on more than appearance. There are a whole host of things that identify the racial groups, ranging from the region where the group originally came from (Caucasian = Causasus region etc.) and even down to genetic markers.

[Sho]

Here's the dictionary definition:


Sem·ite

1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

[Judge Pen]

I think we can all learn a lesson from Clayton Bigsby. The blind, black, white-supremacist who grew up thinking he was white. :D

Seriously, CD, your point is golden. The frustrating thing is that once someone identifies something as racist, then if you have the audacity to disagree you are labeled racist as well.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Racism is a mental attitude, not a definition.. it is intolerance and a belief that one is superior to another.. in a blinding stroke of genius, America's founding fathers (and mothers) saw fit to assert the "all men are created equal" (men being gender neutral, a reference to mankind).. to believe otherwise is racist at some level.. there is no rationalization that validates that anyone is lesser or greater than another in their right to exist and pursue peaceful self-fulfillment..

In-as-much-as we continue to equate the person to their ethnicity or cultural origins, we prejudice their potential to demonstrate otherwise.. "Political correctness" does more to highlight differences than to abolish them, it forces us to consider differences at a level that most folks would not normally even think of..

Be well..

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Sometimes a preference is just that, a preference.. it is when we meet someone that doesn't LOOK as though they fit our preference structure and we ASSUME they will behave contrary to our preferences that prejudice is applicable.. it is the assumption that denies the other person the chance to demonstrate otherwise, the assumption changes our interaction with that person..

Caution born of experience is normal, but when the caution becomes a reason to manipulate the destiny of others it acquires a negative connotation.. evaluate each person on their actions, on their spirit/heart.. not on a preconceived notion that may not apply to any particular individual..

Be well..

[Shaolinlueb]

Originally posted by IronFist
I honestly didn't know that. I thought it just meant "Jewish person." So you can be a semite who's not Jewish? What is the criteria for semite? Be general. Example: caucasian = light skin, blond to dark brown hair, round eyes, etc.


and since when is religion a ethnicity?
also all crimes are hate crimes.

[brothernumber9]

all crimes are not hate crimes, but that's just me being an a@@ and digressing from the point of this thread. Feel free to ignore.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb



and since when is religion a ethnicity?
also all crimes are hate crimes.

The term Jew/Jewish is an ethnic label. The religion is Judaism.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb

and since when is religion a ethnicity?


It can be if a religious group forbids marrying outside their religion:
Examples:
jews are forbidden to marry non-jews, etc.
You end up with a lot of "in-breeding" within a small group.



also all crimes are hate crimes.


Most crimes are commited because people got the "power" to do so, hate might be a motivating factor though.

When do the most heinous "crimes hare or otherwise" happen, when you got full and total control over your victim may it be economical, intellectual or by force.
Example 1:
Soldiers holding guns while another soldier does the deed/crime, seen in nearly ALL wars since time immemorial.

Example 2:
A man abuses his wife knowing full well that she cannot say or do anything as has no income, etc of her own,
or that he is "entitled" to do so either by the society or the legal authorities.

For more info do some research on the following "experiments":
Zombardo's 1971: Stanford Prison Experiment
Ron Jones 1972: The (Third) Wave Experiment
and similar

Both compulsory study materials in many countries (not sure about the US).

[Vash]

My ***** is so big, I'm not entirely certain how I get my pants on in the mornings.

[CD Lee]

Tai Chi Bob said


In-as-much-as we continue to equate the person to their ethnicity or cultural origins, we prejudice their potential to demonstrate otherwise.


Now that sounds real nice Bob, but get real. This is NOT what people want. People are driven to identify with their ethnic origins.

African Americans, are PROUD to be that, and they will buy 'authentic' dress to show that, and have their own vernacular, and proclaim loudly, "Black is Beautiful!". And seriously, how can one not look at a black man or woman, and not know they are of African ethnicity? It just 'aint reality. Just because I identify them as African, does not mean that I expect them to commit crimes.

How many Jewish folks let you know boldly they are Jewish? None you say? You haven't been to New York!

I am Irish, and I love my ethnic origin, and I am proud of it. I would never want to lose that.

There is nothing wrong with identifying someone with their ethnic origin. What is wrong, is when you attribute specific steryotypes to those ethinic groups as a group, and then identify the person to the stereotypes associated to the group. Kind of like object oriented programming.....

[fa_jing]

Jewish people belong to the Afro-Asiatic subgroup, and most other white people belong to the Indo-European subgroup. No one knows where the races came from or if we are all Caucasian AFAIK. You can see a clear difference, however, between Sephardic Jews such as my father's ancestors, who originally lived in Spain (pre-inquistion) and still live in some other countries, and the Jews of Europe known as Ashekenazy and mixed more with other Europeans.

Moses married a Kushi.te princess, that's why my hair is curly.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Now that sounds real nice Bob, but get real. This is NOT what people want. People are driven to identify with their ethnic origins.

It is that same drive, that same pride that has led to so much division and conflict in our history and currently.. One should embrace their ethnicity, and respect another's embrace of their's.. but, regarding "get real", the sad fact is that it just does'nt happen.. what happens is that folks seperate themselves from others by clinging to the notion that their's is somehow better than everyone else's.. there is a difference between what people "want" and what civilization needs.. there's a heirarchy of identity.. first on the heirarchy is human-being, if we can put that first the rest will work itself out.. but, too often we put other identities like race, culture, religion, etc... first, and that blinds us to the most important issue, we are ALL brothers and sisters of one human race..

Be well..

[CD Lee]

True Bob. In a sense only. One thing that will never ever change, no matter what one tries, no matter what philosophies one adopts, or religion, is Human Nature. I believe humans naturally being socially ordered beings, seek to identify at some level, first family, then neiborhood, race, country, etc.

What I find amazing, and this goes along with your point, is that what you have in civil rights in our country, are ethnic groups DEMANDING complete equality, YET, these same minorities adamantly identify with their ethnic origins and I think, always will. So what these minority groups say publicaly they are after, is very different than what you are suggesting. You are suggesting a raceless, faceless society free of ethnic pride. A complete utopian melting pot if you will. Just my observation.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I think we pretty much agree.. i suggest that ethnic pride is fine as long as it is second to Human pride..

It is laughable that this country asserts "inalienable rights" (for its citizens), then out-sources labor to third world countries to reap the profits of "sweat-shop" labor and further subjugate the "other" people.

Then, the "other" people struggle to come here (USA) to the "land of milk and honey" to find their dreams.. unfortunately, they bring their nightmares, their cultural pride, and begin to degrade the society they came to enjoy.. they group themselves together for commonallity, for support and to preserve their heritage.. again, the cultural pride prevents the assimilation into the society they wish to join.. AND its not their fault, this country segregates them into demeaning categories, poor neighborhoods, working poor jobs etc.. based on OUR cultural pride.. it's a vicious circle.. We need to think and act globally, not as isolationists or world masters, but as a community of human-beings..

Be well

[CD Lee]

Bob you said

It is laughable that this country asserts "inalienable rights" (for its citizens), then out-sources labor to third world countries to reap the profits of "sweat-shop" labor and further subjugate the "other" people.


Our government does not oursource, our corporations do. The ones that have to stay in business or find a lower paying job. And offerring a job to a low wager earner in another country ADDS revenue to them. That is not subjugating them to us, it is simply lowering our labor rate in this country. If they don't do sweat shop labor for us, what are they going to do? Have no job, further subjugating themselves to all of society.



AND its not their fault, this country segregates them into demeaning categories, poor neighborhoods, working poor jobs etc.. based on OUR cultural pride.. it's a vicious circle


It's not the US Governments fault either. When will people take the responsibility for their situations??? The government does not tell them where they can live, and what they can buy, and what jobs they are allowed to have. They have a choice. They come here with what they have, and are FREE to buy any home they can afford, in any neighborhood they can afford. They are limited by their own economic level they arrive here with.

What is the solution to this? The Governement allows them to get a high paying job? Are they technical? Do they have the skills to have a high paying job? Would WE like a high paying job? And what about neighborhoods? What is that solution? How are they going to afford a 200,000.00 house if they don't have the skills or job to have that kind of income. Are you suggesting the Government subsidize their mortgages? Don't we have homeless already in this country? How many of us citizens already here would like to live in a nice neighborhood? If we subsidize their houseing, then really, we the people have to PAY for it with real money (taxes).

It is economic reality for somone entering a new labor force. Indians from India, come here all the time and enter middle to upper class society because they have IT skills.

Everything is not the evil Governments fault. People have to take responsibility if they want a better life.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

If you don't understand the nuances of Government/business relationships.. the point seem just as you have presented it.. but, it's not that simple.. i've seen the other side from the US Gov't position, there are better choices, just not more profitable ones..

Be well..

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
It is laughable that this country asserts "inalienable rights" (for its citizens), then out-sources labor to third world countries to reap the profits of "sweat-shop" labor and further subjugate the "other" people.

Labor 101: people don't take jobs that are inferior in pay and/or safety to the jobs they already have. If America outsources a job to another country, a laborer will fill it there only if it's superior to his options before America outsourced that job. Following this, it is utterly inconcievable that the outsourcing is anything but beneficial to these extra-American laborers.

It's an ironic tragedy - white, middle-class Americas are depriving these people of jobs they desperately want because the employment offends their sensibilities. I think: too bad - white, middle-class Americas sensibilites take backseat to the economic requirements of the third world.

Trade 101: The opposite to free trade (in labor or products) is protectionist trade, whereby a country artificially subsidizes their native laborers and products to out-compete extra-national labor and products. Using protectionist policies, the richest countries can hold the rest of the world ransom by closing down the borders that suit them best. This (the very opposite of free trade, and so-called 'sweat shops') is what is keeping the world poor. When all the jobs and all the money stay in America - surprise, surprise, America stays rich. As surprisingly - the secret to distributing global wealth is letting money and jobs move (out of America), this is called free trade (or products AND labor).

This is why the G20, who represent the majority of the world's population and farmers, have been desperately asking for free trade. Thanks to the tag team of protectionist Democrats and Republicans and those same middle-class protesters, they haven't gotten it.

Oh yes. There is injustice here.

[The Willow Sword]

I was recently with a friend of mine and we were in a chinese resteraunt here in town and we were discussing religions and such and the subject of "jews" came up. well we were talking about all the different people out there that are "jewish". i think we went over just about every country where the jewish influence was in,,,,However we were both stumped because we didnt know if there was any "Chinese Jews" in the world.
Well,,hehe we were eating in a chinese resteraunt so we got bold and asked the chinese waiter to come over to our table and we asked him " sir are there any chinese jews?" well the waiter thought a moment and he replied " no we dont have any chinese jews,,we have Orange juice,,apple juice grape juice and pineapple juice";) :p :p (enter the welcome back kotter theme song).

PEACE,,,,TWS

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

If we kept the labor and products in this country.. no one could afford the products, the labor would be too expensive as would the products..

Truly free trade would balance the world's wealth.. (great idea)..

Yes, it is beneficial to the out-sourced laborers.. but, due to the protectionist policies, counter-productive to a functioning global economy..

But, the point is that the US holds double standards.. one for its citizens (and favored partners) and another for others..

Be well..

[GeneChing]

Look at Gene Ching for example. A devout Shaolin practitioner that works here at KFM. Sure, they have articles on Wudang kung fu, but what about the uniforms? You can buy different color SHAOLIN uniforms - they even include a Monk bag - but what about Wudang uniforms? Nope, not one! Wudang folks have to SUFFER! wow, that's wacky. FWIW, we're working on some other robes more akin to what a wudang practictioner might wear but wudang doesn't really have a distinct general style of robe, so it's harder to characterize.

Not that this has anthing to do with this now, it's just that Yin Yang Dagger mentioned in on a shaolin thread (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=30019). Carry on. :cool:

[CD Lee]

Thanks Willow Sword. I was buying into your Jewish Chinese post and you caught me off guard. I laughed out-loud at work, and looked like an idiot! Very good story. Is that really true?

Chris M, and TaiChi Bob -

Regarding protectionist policies - Reality dictates that even though in the purness of economics, pure free trade is the goal, the rest of the global economy and governments must play be the same rules. If the USA were to suddenly release all protectionist policy and subsidy, our farmers would go broke, and America's manufacturing and everything else would be bled dry by those countries who do subsidise and keep big tarrifs.

Bob - regarding whether or not the government holds immigrants down economically. You know I hear what you are implying, which I believe is a 'systemic' attemt to hold them down via governmental policies. I don't buy the whole farm there. The reality of the situation is that there LAWS, that prohibit discrimination against people for buying homes.

That means, that any immigrant that has the means, can buy into into any home or neighborhood that they so choose. Like I said, not every immigrant that comes here is poor. I work with a lot of immigrants that have a lot of money. Germans, Indians, British, Mexican, Chinese, Korean, Croatian, Russian, and more. And yes, I work with someone from each of those nationalities that makes more than average for an American household. You know what these folks have? Education and skills. They sell on the open market like any other product. I think you are focusing only on unskilled immigrant laborors. That is not the whole picture. We have white folks all accross our country that are unskilled, and poor. Same problem, no education, no skills, no money.

I think that discrimination is magnified when looking at the lowest paid unskilled labor in our nation. It is not absent, just magnified.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
But, the point is that the US holds double standards

Indeed they do. But their double standard concerns protectionist policy, which is the opposite of what you seemed to critique.

[CD Lee]

Speaking of Rascism..................

Did anyone see the Chris Rock special on HBO?!? You know, with that kind of stuff, I don't know how we are ever going to rid ourselves of rascism and discrimination. He used the N word mercilessly. In fact, the only time I heard that word, is on these kinds of specials. Unreal.

I thought it was funny, but it is just so divisive. It just keeps the embers burning.

[The Willow Sword]

Originally Quoted by CDLEE

Thanks Willow Sword. I was buying into your Jewish Chinese post and you caught me off guard. I laughed out-loud at work, and looked like an idiot! Very good story. Is that really true?

No actually it is a variation of an old joke that Gabe kaplan(of welcome back Kotter) told on his show. he would always open with some corny joke like that. hehehe glad it made your day.
my mission is accomplished,,,hope it does for others here.

PEACE,,,TWS

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

i suppose that my point is that governments seldom act globally, they (like the US) are expected to protect "their" citizens.. however, in most cases, the governments protect the governments interests.. the original intent, was to illustrate that national or cultural pride is just one more devisive mechanism used by government whose function is enhanced by maintaining separatist policies.. When governments begin to actually function in an inter-related global concept, free trade would flow naturally from it..

Be well..

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
When governments begin to actually function in an inter-related global concept, free trade would flow naturally from it.

My concern is that this may not be the case. Particularly if the state can control the popular opinion, it seems they can prevent what, I agree, would otherwise be a naturally-produced system. Certainly, we seem to be in an era of increased globalization now - yet the free trade cause is worse off now, not better off. And it's being done precisely in this manner: both culture (states) and counter-culture (activism) oppose free trade (with merely a false discourse erected to create the semblance of counter-culture opposing culture). This can be seen clearly at the latest WTO conference: the developing countries went in asking for free trade, America went in opposing it, and the protesters went in opposing it. The conference collapsed, the protesters felt victorious, America put in a new round of tariffs and subsidies, and the Doha Agreement (perhaps the most important single step towards global wealth in the entire trade movement) fell to pieces.

Something has to be done here. Unfortunately, we can't change the state: because both Republicans and Democrats oppose free trade. This means we're going to have to change the minds of the people.

[omarthefish]

In asnwer to the questoin, "Since when is a religion a race:


Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey


It can be if a religious group forbids marrying outside their religion:
Examples:
jews are forbidden to marry non-jews, etc.

Is wrong. I challenge you to come up with a commandment against intemarriage. Not only is it not contained within any of the 613 commandments fo Jewish law, there are numerous examples of it in the Torah, (the Hebrew part of the Bible for those of you not up on religious terminology) The old custom displayed in our very own scriptures is simply that the wife adopt the customs of the husband ie convert. The prohibition against intermarriage is a modern one no stronger than the prohibition most Catholic parents would have given their children against marrying Lutherans, Protestants or even non Italians if they were Italian in America more than 50 years ago.

Jew = Race is not truly accurate any more. There is a blood line and that has actually been documented from time to time through genetic studies. But it is very thin. Black Ethiopian Jews have been linked to white Jews in New York but only the ones of the "Cohenic" line.

There is an ancient caste system in Judaism that divides all Jews into 3 groups. The Cohen, the Levites and the Israelite. Basically, the high priests, the caretakers of the temple and the common people respectively. The religion is inherited matraliniarly and so is Cohenic status. So a genetic link can be made.....but it's really small.

The idea of "Jew" as a race partly stems from 2 facts. The first is that it is an ancient religion with it's roots in the tribalism of the middle east. It was the religion of a certain particular tribe or cluster of tribes of people. The second is that there is no doctrine of evangalism. There has never been any encouragement to convert people. This is possibly why so many people think intermarriage is forbidden.

ok back to your discussion on racism.

oh btw,
There have been as far back as the Song dynasty large Chinese Jewish populations but they seem to have been thouroughly assimilated. There used to be synagogues in Kaifeng dating back that far and there are some interesting artifacts here and there with Hebrew writing on them. These would have been Persian Jews most likely who traveled along the silk road which passed through their way on it's western end.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

omarthefish.

All I can talk is from PERSONAL experience.

1.) My Father Roman Catholic and my Mother Lutherian Protestant never got a church wedding as one would have had to convert to the other faith, not a real problem as my country does not accept religious weddings as legal anyway.

2.) My Aunt(Ex-Jewish) had to denounce her faith before she could marry my Uncle who was catholic.

I have many friends of many denominations and there are MANY Faiths that require the spouse to change their faith so that they can be married by their priests.

Non-Jews I think got a 2-year study requirement of the faith, will need to check for details with a friend who is an orthodox rabbi.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Judaism’s opposition to Jews marrying non-Jews is based on the explicit prohibition in the Torah (Deuteronomy 7:3): “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son and do not take his daughter for your son.” The Torah continues with the reason (Verse 4): “[If you do], they will lead your son away from Me, causing him to worship other gods…”




According to the Talmud (Yevamot 23a), this verse also teaches that a Jew is one who is born from a Jewish mother. The basis for this inference is the terminology “…they [i.e., the non-Jewish husband and his family] will lead your SON away from Me.” Why doesn’t it say, “…they will lead your DAUGHTER away from Me”? Because it’s referring to your grandson. In other words, the son of your daughter is considered to be “your son” [i.e. Jewish], whereas the son of your son is not considered to be “your son,” but “her son”: not Jewish.




Our concern about mixed marriages is twofold: If a Jewish guy marries a non-Jewish woman, the children she bears will not be Jews, and if a Jewish woman marries a non-Jew man, the children she bears are likely to not have a Jewish upbringing, and end up abandoning Judaism altogether.


http://www.askmoses.com/qa_list.html?h=539

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/191/Q1/

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
My Father Roman Catholic and my Mother Lutherian Protestant never got a church wedding as one would have had to convert to the other faith

Well, of course... Lutherans are a bunch of dirty heathens. :p

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
omarthefish.

All I can talk is from PERSONAL experience.

1.) My Father Roman Catholic and my Mother Lutherian Protestant never got a church wedding as one would have had to convert to the other faith, not a real problem as my country does not accept religious weddings as legal anyway.

.

What country would that be?

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey


2.) My Aunt(Ex-Jewish) had to denounce her faith before she could marry my Uncle who was catholic.

.

That's odd. My brother (Catholic) married a Jewish woman and nobody denounced anything.


Well, they both denounced me when I got stinking drunk at their wedding, but that's another story.

[rubthebuddha]

i'm marrying a catholic next april and the church at which we'll be wed is fine with it -- they just need to know i'm not some drug-dealing, black-market-baby-selling, giraffe-molesting pimp.

i gave that lifestyle up when i proposed to my fiancée, so i'm safe. :D

regardless, all that diocese needs from me is really an affidavit that says i'm not already married, and to know that i've been baptised in some sort of christian faith.

[omarthefish]

Taijmonkey,

I'll be ****ed.

I was all ready to bring out a bunch of examples of Biblical intermarriages but I guess those were just transgressions?

Ah. . . I know. Since there obviously IS conversion in the Jewish faith, those "intermarriages" involved either conversion or renounciation. But this sort of thing
1.) My Father Roman Catholic and my Mother Lutherian Protestant never got a church wedding as one would have had to convert to the other faith, not a real problem as my country does not accept religious weddings as legal anyway.

...was what I was thinking of when I posted. Just old fasioned cultural insularism.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by omarthefish
I was all ready to bring out a bunch of examples of Biblical intermarriages but I guess those were just transgressions?


Sorry, for late reply.
Yes, they are seen as transgessions, especially from an orthodox point of view.



Ah. . . I know. Since there obviously IS conversion in the Jewish faith, those "intermarriages" involved either conversion or renounciation.


To an orthodox jew even conversions are not acceptable, you are either a jew(born to a jewish mother , father not important) or not. One reasons why judaism is not trying to spread itself by converting people.

Judaism has many rules for their own believers(as they are the choosen people), but the majority of those rules do not apply to non-jews like christian or muslims.



But this sort of thing
...was what I was thinking of when I posted. Just old fasioned cultural insularism.

Unfortunately it is still too common, especially in the orthodox sects and religions, add to that cultural constraints like a caste system.

The idea of having to marry within your faith is still strong in some religious sects, with the same reason/s as given by judaism:
1.) Not a true believer.
2.) Kids will be brought up in a faith other than the true one.
3.) Conflicts of faith will result in fighting, reduce lifestyle quality and possible divorce.
4.) etc.

I have a few friends that inter-married between faiths and a few came under pressure to convert after the marriage.

As an interesting side-note, the korans allows muslims to marry fellow muslims(of course), christians and jews but NO other faith.

P.S.: FWIW, BOTH my parents officially left their chruches shortly before their marriage, they are still believers though.

[fa_jing]

"Following this, it is utterly inconcievable that the outsourcing is anything but beneficial to these extra-American laborers."

Not true at all. Foreign governments have the power to coerce their citizens into these types of labor. For instance, by removing all other opportunities. Maybe diverting water needed for farming, to industry- instituting regulations preventing people from accessing natural resources - just a few ways, not to mention more direct coercion. These governments, along with a few select businessmen, may also be the only ones reaping a reward from the business. You may then say, well, why don't the citizens replace their governments, go on strike, etc? It isn't always easy - lack of options, lack of munitions, lack of organization.

A similar thing has happened in Latin America, all over the third world, during this century -- 3rd world government/business leaders take out loan from US/Europe to build factory to increase productivity, economic gain realized, economic gain blown on luxury cars, wars, trips to La Cote Azur, money funnelled out of the country - foreign debt not paid off, economy collapses, poor people stay poor or get poorer. You just can't treat the whole country as a unit and say that they wouldn't have entered into the contract if it wasn't beneficial for them. The fact that the US/Europe/Whoever deals with these econo-political regimes and props them up is greatly resented by many 3rd worlders and rightfully so.

I have no idea if this co-incides with the point of view taken by the granola fut-nukkers protesting the Gap and G8 and all that, but that's the point of view I've seen in Latin America.

[fa_jing]

OMTF - the Torah is the first five books of the Bible only.

TJMK - Deut 7:3 - Classic example of taking a passage in the Bible out of context. Read the chapter starting with the first verse (7:1), and it is clear that the proscription against intermarriage applies only to the people of the nations that the Israelites were driving out beforehand in order to take control of the land they were allegedly promised by God. The text also mentions destroying these peoples completely, now are the Jews supposed to destroy everyone in the world, other than themselves? No, then they would be Al-Qaeda-style Muslims. So why apply this proscription against intermarraige to all people? Doesn't make sense.

OMTF - There are admonishments against intermarriage, but these exist in some of the later books of the old testament. Marrying aliens was considered a bad thing, but I think there were specific orders covering certain points in time that were expected to be obeyed.

As I brought up earlier in this thread, Moses married a Kushiite princess (King James mis-translates as "Ethiopean"). Miriam, his sister, complained about it, and was allegedly struck by leprosy for seven days for her complaint.

TJMK - Even in the orthodox Jewish religion, you can convert to it. However, it is extremely difficult, you are supposed to be discouraged and turned away several times first.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
Foreign governments have the power to coerce their citizens into these types of labor. For instance, by removing all other opportunities.

This isn't a problem with free trade, it's a problem with oppressive governments. In analogy: humanitarian aid is often seized by local power for personal use and/or profit, but it doesn't follow that humanitarian aid is an oppressive and offensive act against the poor.

[fa_jing]

OK, you are correct in that point. Thusly, the neuvo-gnarly hippy folk are misguided in their protest, which I think is self-evident from the way they dress and talk :D But, looking at the larger picture, at the interaction of our business elite with those in other countries, they have enabled some pretty oppressive regimes and violence, as well as enabled alot of progress and peace-making. The picture is not all rosy, is what I am saying. And elevating the goals of capitalism over the goals of human rights is not a good policy, be it official or not. We need more checks in the system. For instance, our (USA multinational) businesses should require foreign entities to ensure that a certain percentage of their profits realized through the introduction of factory labor in third world countries be directed towards education, healthcare etc. To some extent, this is becoming the trend, but the trend is recent. I do believe that if we turn a completely blind eye towards multi-national business practices in the 3rd world, predatory capatilism will run rampant, both from this end and from within the 3rd world country.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
But, looking at the larger picture, at the interaction of our business elite with those in other countries, they have enabled some pretty oppressive regimes and violence... The picture is not all rosy, is what I am saying. And elevating the goals of capitalism over the goals of human rights is not a good policy

But this is the same mistake the neuvo-hippies are making: the business elite are not the same as capitalists - and they don't want free trade. The american elite and the neuvo-hippies both opposed the Doha Agreement (for free trade), and it got shut down. The two merely imagine that they're at odds.

Why are poor countries poor? The idea that they can't compete with rich countries is a falsehood - they can dramatically out-compete rich countries in certain industries (eg. agriculture). And these industries are vital, so why are they poor? In a true free trade environment, an unindustrialized country can nonetheless contribute equally with industrialized countries by focussing on these industries for which they are competitive - in this case, unindustrialized ceases becoming associated with poor. In this case, not only can the entire world become wealthy, it can become so while maintaining its diversity.

Why doesn't this happen? Because the powerful countries control a non-free trade environment - they institute protectionist measures over those industries in which they could not normally compete, to create an artifical environment where they can. Following the agriculture example, the American government gives money to American agriculture (subsidies) and increases the cost of non-American agriculture (tariffs) - in this way, even if an American banana costs a dollar to produce, and an African banana costs a penny to produce, people will buy the American banana (because subsidies seem to lower its cost, while tariffs seem to increase the cost of the African banana). This keeps jobs and wealth among Americans at the cost of African jobs and wealth, and increases the size and power of the American government (as it institutes the tariffs and subsidies).

It also makes the entire world poorer: because a banana which could have been sold for a penny is being sold for a dollar - money is but a signifier for people's labor, so this means people have to work more to get the same thing. Then, the converse model doesn't only distribute wealth and maintain diversity, it would actually increase the world's wealth.

The business elite support protectionism, the neuvo-hippies support protectionism. A capitalist supports free trade.

[omarthefish]

fa_jing,

You just HAD to got there . . .

It was totally on my agenda to go back and review deuturonomy in light if the passage just sighted. I was avoiding coming back with couterpoints because it would be WAY to easy to just completely take over the thread if I was to get into a debate over Jewish law. I'm one of those rare people whose read the whole thing from start to finish several times. :(


As I brought up earlier in this thread, Moses married a Kushiite princess (King James mis-translates as "Ethiopean").

That's what I was referring to as well. There's examples of intermarriage scattered throughout.

[quote]To an orthodox jew even conversions are not acceptable, you are either a jew(born to a jewish mother , father not important) or not. One reasons why judaism is not trying to spread itself by converting people.
[quote]

No. Only to certain specific ulta-orthodox sects. A large portion of my post bad mitzvah religious studies came from spending the sabbath at a Habad house around the corner. Those guys are as orthodox as orthodox gets and the only reaction they had to hearing I was dating a goy was to offer help teaching her so she could convert if we got married.

fa_jing,

Yes, I know about the "admonishments" but that's a far cry from a commandment. I forget where I got it but I remember I once downloaded a list of ALL the commandments divided into prescriptive and proscriptive. 613 total. I don't rememebr anything about intermarriage so I was dumbfounded by the Deuteronomy quote. Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look at the preceding passages right after this post. :cool:

[omarthefish]

HAhahahah AHAHAHA .. .

Ok. So Jewish Law forbids me from marrying a Hitite. No Problem.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by omarthefish


No. Only to certain specific ulta-orthodox sects. A large portion of my post bad mitzvah religious studies came from spending the sabbath at a Habad house around the corner. Those guys are as orthodox as orthodox gets and the only reaction they had to hearing I was dating a goy was to offer help teaching her so she could convert if we got married.

:

Yes, goy marriage is a big issue these days.

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by omarthefish
HAhahahah AHAHAHA .. .

Ok. So Jewish Law forbids me from marrying a Hitite. No Problem.

Would that include modern Turks?

[omarthefish]

That was my bext question. Who the heck are the Hitites? :D

I think I'm safe though, as my current love is Han Chinese.;)

[Ben Gash]

Why can't Jews marry Hittites?:confused:
Surely during David's time Hittites had achieved valued roles within Isreali society, and if David married Uriah's widow, then either she was a Hittite, or alternatively, was a Jew married to a Hittite. (BTW, what do Jews call the book we call Kings?).
Also, surely Jews are a race if the are "God's chosen people"?
Point of information: Islam allows men to marry Jews and Christians, but not women. (don't make the obvious joke there).

[fa_jing]

We were discussing Deutoronomy chapter 7. have a look for yourself. Again, you could interpret the passage in a variety of ways. Now as for Uriah, my "New International Version" bible says the following regarding 2 Samuel 11:3 "The man said 'isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?'" NIV: Eliam - perhaps the same Eliam who was a member of David's personal bodyguard and a son of his counselor Ahithophet. Uriah - Also listed among those comprising David's royal guard. His name suggests that even though he was a Hittite, he had adopted the Israelite faith - Uriah means "my light in is the LORD"

Also to be noted is that David went on to have Uriah killed by the Ammonites. He committed a great sin in all of this, for which God made his son die among other things from my understanding of the text.

Bathsheba, though, was likely a Jew by birth and was the mother of Solomon.

Some of the great kings in the Bible are also great sinners. In my opinion this is reflective of the reality observed by the bible authors.

FWIW, JMO and all that.

[Ben Gash]

True, a lot of the examples of old testament rulers seem to be "how to have it all and blow it". Jewish faith or not, Uriah would still be a Hittite (and I'm at work, so it's a bit hard for me to check on my bible :( )