Anything can be viewed Rascist

[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 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.

[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?

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

[Ben Gash]

Why can't Jews marry Hittites?
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 )