[Closed] Religious tolerance

Cougar - Moderator

Drive through Cheetham Hill on a Saturday, place looks like a Darkman convention.

Post of the day.

Cougar - Moderator

I am still not sure why this is the case.

I never really understood why the Jewish were so reviled. They always seemed quite froody to me, and they have the best dress code. Drive through Cheetham Hill on a Saturday, place looks like a Darkman convention.

When I am out with my Jewish colleague walking on the high street I always play the "spot the female Jew" with him. Yes, I do. Orthodox man is easy to spot because they stand out from the crowd. The weird thing is that he either play dumb or he cannot even spot the female Jew as well as I do. [b]Or ya, he started the game first of "spot the [u]North Korean[/u]" by pointing his finger at me because according to him "we" all look the same. [/b] So now I play spot the Jew in the crowd. I can bet you I can spot them in the crowd. 😆

I never really understood why the Jewish were so reviled either. They always seemed quite froody to me, and they have the best dress code. Drive through Cheetham Hill on a Saturday, place looks like a Darkman convention.

So now I play spot the Jew in the crowd.

I assume you're referring to the Ultra Orthodox (Hasidic) communitiy. You are aware that they only represent a small minority of Jews in the UK/worldwide, and that most Jews look 'like anybody else'?

I reccomend watching this. It's utterly fascinating.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Story-Jews-Simon-Schama/dp/B00BEYWW4I?tag=chrome03-21

molgrips - Member
This guy may have been a bit anti-social to our pathetically insecure and uptight British pallette
Being woken up by shouting is never pleasant no matter what country you're from. It's nothing ot do with insecurity and being uptight!

LOL.. you've illustrated the mentality beautifully there Mol 😆

Steven Rose, Prof of biology at the OU (and jewish), claims that it's a nonsense to see judaism as a race as when tested they have their greatest genetic links with their local population, wherever that might be. From a biological point of view, 'race' is a pretty useless concept anyway.
"All humans have 99.8% of their genes in common. Of the remaining 0.2%, 85% can be found in any ethnic group, and ‘racial’ differences account of only 9% of the 0.2%, which is 0.012% difference in genetic material (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Quite a bit of this ‘racial’ variation is unrelated to physical appearance. For example, when in many human groups adults lack the enzyme lactase, which is necessary for digesting milk. Following this criterion, North Europeans must be classified together with Arabs and some West African peoples including the Fulani, while South Europeans must be grouped along with most Africans and East Asians. The classification of humanity into races, based on physical appearance, is arbitrary and scientifically uninteresting. The study of race thus belongs to the anthropology of power and ideology, not to the study of cultural variation."

‘Small Places, Large Issues’ Thomas Hylland Erikson (2001)

That's interesting, BillMc, and also possibly quite contentious with other people who might argue that 'race' cannot be simply expressed in terms of genetics, but must also involve culture and history. I find the wholse subject fascinating. I have many Jewish friends who are atheists, and I just can't get my head around that idea!

stoffel - Member
I reccomend watching this. It's utterly fascinating.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Story-Jews-Simon-Schama/dp/B00BEYWW4I?tag=chrome03-21

Watched the entire episode of it because I was trying to understand Judaism, Jewish people and their way of life but I was trying to find out why they are hated to be honest. Very interesting programme.

But the real debate is the definition of god that started the conflict between the Egypt Pharaohs and the Jewish people, where the latter got expelled. I think the latter was redefining god into one creator god overtaking that of the Pharaohs.

BillMC - Member
The study of race thus belongs to the anthropology of power and ideology, not to the study of cultural variation

Nahh ... I called my Jewish colleague a bacon loving middle eastern person. Yes, he loves bacon.

I assume you're referring to the Ultra Orthodox (Hasidic) communitiy. You are aware that they only represent a small minority of Jews in the UK/worldwide, and that most Jews look 'like anybody else'?

I do, but then the joke doesn't work.

The original (serious) point still stands though; I'm sure there's some sort of history to it, probably centred around some carpenter from a couple of millennia ago rolled in with a spot of land war or something, but I really don't understand why the Jewish are "hated" by some. (EDIT: I'll check out the link, ta.)

Indeed, it's not something I've ever come across as happening. Whether that's just environmental or not I don't know (ie, I don't live in an area with a large Jewish presense as far as I'm aware). Does anti-Semitism actually happen in the UK to any great extent?

Cougar - Moderator
Does anti-Semitism actually happen in the UK to any great extent?

In a multicultural society you get plenty of anti-this or anti-that so the answer is yes.

Put it this way, if people don't anti-this I am sure they will find something new to anti. It's the nature of the parasitic oxygen abusers.

The Jewish people are generally hardworking and successful at whatever they choose to do, they are well represented in science, the professions, business and arts. That is where the hatred stems from in my opinion, they are a successful, coherent group and a minority - That makes them an easy target for the jealous, it's that simple. I also know a number of Atheistic Jews (self described) who maintain their jewish heritage but don't believe in god, im not sure being jewish has to include religion.

The Jewish people are generally hardworking and successful at whatever they choose to do

There's nothing quite like racial stereotyping eh ?

Assuming that it's their racial connection and not religious connection which binds them together - like your "Atheistic Jews".

I don't this that this has anything to do with religion.
It's about manners.

I don't this that this has anything to do with religion.
It's about manners.

Exactly.

I guess some would argue that it's ok because his religion is important to him and should be respected. Well balls to that. Playing techno records at crazy levels is important to me but I wouldn't do it on a plane.*

*unless it was a PARTY PLANE!

but that's my point - are we at risk of lording about imposing our nice, polite British manners on people?

****ing grass roots imperialistic minded twuntery innit?

[i]It's about manners.[/i]

Yes, the chap with the camera phone was very polite. I would've told him to do one!

Not stereotyping the figures are available online. Here is an article from a jewish source for you, more nobel winners, billionaires etc than any other group statistically speaking.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3592566,00.html

However if ill justified accusations of racism are your thing Ernie let me know how that works out for you.

The Jewish people are generally hardworking and successful at whatever they choose to do

They're not very nice to Palestinians though are they????

joolsburger - Member

The Jewish people are generally hardworking and successful at whatever they choose to do

Especially killing the son of god, they have a 100% record, no other religion can match that.

Oh G*d, here we go...

The Jewish people are generally hardworking and successful at whatever they choose to do

Especially killing the son of god, they have a 100% record, no other religion can match that.

Exept of course, they didn't....

I'm far from an expert in matters ecumenical, but assuming for the sake of discourse that we're to believe what we're told in Abraham's Fables, wasn't it the Romans who did for old Jeezy? Nailed him to a plank and told him to stop being nice to people?

I believe the traditional antisemitic account is that Pontius Pilate wanted to release Jesus and execute Bawabas the murdered, but the Jewish heidyins wanted the Christ killed. Pilate washed his hands to signal he didn't agwee with the decision and the crowd cried out "25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” See Matthew 27.

Pilate washed his hands to signal he didn't agwee with the decision

But was Woger weleased?

This is a bunch of old cobblers.

Yes that's right, except it isn't.

Well, when you put it like that, I'm convinced!

joolsburger your own link completely contradicts the claim you make :

[i]"While some people think that Jewish success has to do with genetics, and others surmise that it is related to our intense persecution, it is my contention that Jewish success has to do with Judaism itself. Inherent within Jewish religious teachings and Torah stories are ideas that relate directly to behaviors and attitudes that lead directly to successful outcomes" [/i]

So according to your link it has nothing to do with genetics/race and everything to do with Judaism/religion.

I would go along with that, ie, that religion provides Jews with a set of values and certain coherence which is conducive to "success", and that it's nothing to do with the Jewish [i]race.[/i] Which is why I said in my post : [i]"Assuming that it's their racial connection and not religious connection which binds them together"[/i] (in your example of Atheistic Jews)

So how does this fit in with the "Atheistic Jews" that you know ?

You see you made the somewhat dangerous leap of assuming that what is in essence cultural success as in fact racial success.

Of course you won't be the first person to confuse cultural success with a racial characteristic of all Jews. It doesn't make it right though. Or any less pernicious.

I do, but then the joke doesn't work.

There was a joke? Forgive me; I obviously missed it.

Laptop open
Link below
Stand next to praying idiot and get somene to film it
Shout BINGO at the end
Expect to never fly with that airline again
[url= http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf ]Linky[/url]

Cougar - Moderator

I'm far from an expert in matters ecumenical, but assuming for the sake of discourse that we're to believe what we're told in Abraham's Fables, wasn't it the Romans who did for old Jeezy

It is, as they say, gospel.

I don't think jews are a race, I think I referred to them as a people albeit a very coherent group of people, hard to define a race though so I'll concede that. In my mind being part of a race is something a person has no control over and therefore it's not to be argued against or indeed for, it's just something that "is" we should be blind to it, it shouldn't mean anything - Not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character, as the man said. That's why racism is intolerable, same as homophobia or any other prejudice.
Religion is a political and scientific standpoint as it is a conscious choice that informs a persons view of what the world is and their conduct within it, therefore it's fair game for criticism or critique.

The atheistic jews I know are similar to my atheistic christianity I suppose. We were brought up with certain values, stories culture etc but don't believe in a deity which is all atheism means after all.

Well that's a first for me - I've never heard of Atheistic Christians before 🙂

Or even non-religious Christians, when I think about it.

There was a joke? Forgive me; I obviously missed it.

I get that a lot. Don't worry, there will be another one along presently; I favour quantity over quality. Something for everyone.

Or even non-religious Christians.

Isn't that essentially "most of them," in the UK at any rate?

We were brought up with certain values, stories culture etc but don't believe in a deity which is all atheism means after all.

The fallacy there is that these are "Christian values"; they're simply "values," a given religion doesn't have the monopoly on that (much as they'd like to).

It's a thing Ernie, there's millions of them. You know love thy neighbour, the good samaritan etc etc just not the whole 6 days creation, son of god thing.

Or even non-religious Christians.

Isn't that essentially "most of them," in the UK at any rate?

Have you heard of the term non-religious Christians ? I haven't. I've heard of non-religious Jews though, and Jewish secularism. And even non practicing Christians. What's non-religious Christians then, how do they differ from other people ?

The fallacy there is that these are "Christian values"; they're simply "values,"

The set of values which are predominate in our society originate, predominately, from Christianity. They aren't unique to Christianity but they do differ from some other sets of values. Not completely obviously.

Historically, in every country I've lived in religion did have have a monopoly on values at some point in history. If you look at the British legal system you'll find the head of state who signs off laws is also the head of the Church. A law is not a law till the Queen signs and she can still veto anything she feels like - but doesn't, probably because she realises that would be the beginning of the end of the constitutional monarchy.

[url= http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx ]The Queen and the church.[/url]

Religion/Christianity has no more influence over the set of values that people in the UK live under than say France which is a republic.

But religion has certainly very much influenced our values in terms of reciprocal justice, monogamy, racism, murder, war, equality, etc.

We might not live by our own set of values but they are shaped by religion, ie, people's attitude towards reciprocal justice, monogamy, racism, murder, war, equality, etc. vary dependent on the prevailing religious perspective. And which of course varies historically.

Have you heard of the term non-religious Christians

You've not heard of the [i]term?[/i] C'mon Ernie, you're better than that. I can't have this argument, I'm anti-semantic.

Plenty of people would call themselves Christians when asked, how many of them [i]actually[/i] believe in a god do you reckon? If the answer isn't 100% then what you've got there is non-religious Christians.

The set of values which are predominate in our society originate, predominately, from Christianity.

Perhaps. But we've thrown away as many as we've kept, and there's plenty of other factions that've marauded through this damp isle over the years. Moreover, we're (largely) enlightened enough these days to know right from wrong and revise those values as we go. Same-sex marriage is a handy recent example.

Christianity might well have dragged us out of the moral dark ages, but it seems somewhat presumptuous to be still claiming the credit for it a couple of thousand years later. I can't even remember the last time I went to a decent stoning.

France fulfills the conditions of a secular, humanist state, the UK does not. That influences values enormously in my experience. School is one place where values are transmitted. Attend a state school in France and religion will only be an academic subject which covers all religions. In the UK you may be subjected to whatever religious propaganda the school the decides. There is compulsory worship in many state funded UK schools. There is no compulsory worship even in private catholic schools in France.

[url= http://www.secularism.org.uk/religion-in-schools.html ]Compulsory reading[/url] 😉

If the answer isn't 100% then what you've got there is non-religious Christians.

No what you've got there is people claiming to be something which they are not. If I said I wasn't a racist but "didn't like darkies" I would definitely be a racist whatever I claimed to be.

As I say, I've heard of non-practicing Christians but not non-religious Christians.

The reason you can have non-religious Jews is that someone can we classed as a Jew from their genetics/race. There's no such thing as a Christian race. Whatever some people might want to claim.

What you're really talking about is blood line, Ernie. The concept exists in both the Anglican Christian church and the Jewish faith but in neither is it exclusive. Non-Jews can adopt the Jewish faith and non-Christians can adopt the Christian faith.

While I'm using the word adoption. A person who adopts the Christian faith can never rise to the highest rank in the Anglican church as that is restricted to the royal family blood line, even if adopted by the royal family as a child. However a child baptised a Christian then adopted by a Jewish couple can be adopted by the Jewish faith and become a Jew.

joolsburger - Member

It's a thing Ernie, there's millions of them. You know love thy neighbour, the good samaritan etc etc just not the whole 6 days creation, son of god thing.

You know the fun thing about the good samaritan? He was a samaritan. So as an example of christian values, a bit lacking.

You know the fun thing about the good samaritan? He was a samaritan. So as an example of christian values, a bit lacking.

You know the fun thing about Jesus? He was a Jew. So as an example of christian values, a bit lacking. Especially when you consider all the Moses stuff in Leviticus that Jesus was quite happy with that went forward as all the sexist, homophobic, misogynous stuff that was/is very much a part of some Christians' values, but not all thankfully.

I don't think jews are a race

Agin, an interesting view. And again, one which will be challenged by others. Not, least, by many Jews themselves. As for 'genetics'; women who are Jewish/have Jewish ancestry of Ashkenazy heritage, are encouraged to be screened for the BRCA gene, which can cause cancer.

With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations. Specialists in breast cancer gene testing know where these mutations are in the gene. So it is much easier to check to see if you carry one of them. If you are Ashkenazi Jewish, you can have tests for these mutations.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/breast-cancer/about/risks/breast-cancer-genes

Of couse, religion is a human construct, and does not affect anyone's genetics, so it's more to do with the fact thatparticular groups traditionally followed particular religions, rather than anyone being 'genetically ' reigious.

As for racism:

The United Kingdom Supreme Court held by a majority of five to four that the school had discriminated against pupils, including the claimant, "E", on the basis of race under the Race Relations Act 1976. Five of their Lordships held that the school had directly discriminated against applicant pupils and two of their Lordships held that the school was indirectly discriminating on grounds of race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R(E)_v_Governing_Body_of_JFS

'Race', in a political sense, is more than simple genetics.

I thought this thread was about religion - specifically Islam? how did we get on to talking about whether the Jews are a race....oh wait, it's the internet. forgot that bit.

My £0.02 - This guy's obviously trying to annoy people. If he was praying to an omniscient god such as Allah, he would be able to hear him pray even if he just thought about it, shirley?

Religion - what a crock of shh...eep

how did we get on to talking about whether the Jews are a race

Because it's probably a bit more interesting than the usual crap that threads like this tend to contain.

Religion - what a crock of shh...eep

Funny how people flock to knock religion.

Funny how people flock to knock religion.

Because it needs knocking. It's not above being ridiculed just because it's religion.

I thought this thread was about religion - specifically Islam?

It's about "religious tolerance". Judaism is definitely a religion. You don't think it's apt to talk about more than one religion on a thread about religious tolerance ?

I find many people intolerant of "spirituality" in an Agnostic sense. So often batted away with "hippie" or "nonsense". I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.

I have A faith, my faith, but it isn't everyones and we should just accept that.

Because it needs knocking.

At least once a week. Here on STW. Where it really matters.

It's not above being ridiculed just because it's religion.

I prefer to focus on the interesting aspects or all religions, rather than just focus on the negative/stuff I don't agree with. I find this approach more rewarding and enjoyable.

I also find those who stick too rigidly to one particular philosphy/doctrine to be narrow-minded. As are fundamentalists of any persuasion.

I prefer to focus on the interesting aspects or all religions, rather than just focus on the negative/stuff I don't agree with. I find this approach more rewarding and enjoyable.

You can't have religious tolerance when religions aren't tolerant of each other.

I prefer to focus on the interesting aspects or all religions, rather than just focus on the negative/stuff I don't agree with. I find this approach more rewarding and enjoyable.

Which interesting parts are you referring to, the bits where the bible says it's ok beat your wife or the bits where people kill each other in the name of their religion?

I believe in the philosophy of science and have no time to worry about eternal damnation due to my lacksidasical approach to muttering to a supernatural sky-god. Am I (and many other scientists,humanists,secularists and atheists) narrow-minded for allowing science and rationality to determine our place in the universe?

I think you might have misunderstood stoffel highclimber. When he said that he prefers to focus on the interesting aspects of all religions, rather than just focus on the negative stuff that he doesn't agree with, he was talking about himself - not you. I mean you obviously don't.

Or do you have some sort of problem with him being interested in all aspects of religions and finding that approach more rewarding and enjoyable ?

Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be interested ?

Which interesting parts are you referring to, the bits where the bible says it's ok beat your wife or the bits where people kill each other in the name of their religion?

The bible alone is a very long book. Plenty of interesting stuff in there. Ditto the Torah, Koran, Bahgavad Gita, I Ching and many others. Fortunately, not being 'religious', I can pick and choose the bits I liek, and ignoe the stuff I don't.

Am I (and many other scientists,humanists,secularists and atheists) narrow-minded for allowing science and rationality to determine our place in the universe?

I don't know. Are you? Do you rigidly stick to just one doctrine/philosophy, or entertain the notion that other perspectives might also have resonance, and be of value? Do you see science as being able to explain everything within out universe and lives? Or do you find limitations within scientific rationality?

Do you see science as being able to explain everything within out universe and lives? Or do you find limitations within scientific rationality?

Science would be indistinct to religious belief if it could explain everything. Just because science can't explain something yet doesn't mean it won't be able to in the future. So no, I don't see science as being able to explain everything - no real scientist would but do I give credence to supernatural beliefs to help fill in the gaps? nope.

I think you might have misunderstood stoffel highclimber. When he said that he prefers to focus on the interesting aspects of all religions

nah, I don't think I did. There are no positive aspects to religion. it's all just make-believe. Like santa only he's real

I find many people intolerant of "spirituality" in an Agnostic sense. So often batted away with "hippie" or "nonsense". I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.

I have A faith, my faith, but it isn't everyones and we should just accept that.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'faith'.

There are no positive aspects to religion

Actually I take that back - there's some lovely architecture out there, but that's about it.

There are no positive aspects to religion

It's really too late at night to get into this nonsense. And he football's suddentl y got very intsresting. Night.

Poor guy was just after a singing competition, personally I would have obliged him. Few celtic songs and he'd soon shut up, definitely be clamped after we started on the hymns. 😆

Historically, in every country I've lived in religion did have have a monopoly on values at some point in history. If you look at the British legal system you'll find the head of state who signs off laws is also the head of the Church.

Am I the only one thinking that the pilots must be looking at each other thinking 'did we lock the door?'.

I haven't got it backwards, Konabunny, you've added the concept of "capture" that I've never used. If you are referring to Henry VIII then he went from being under the control of Rome to running his own church. both religions being based on slightly different interpretations of the Bible. In the first part of Henry VIII's reign his values were imposed by Rome, in the second half his values were negotiated with protestant clergy.

Throughout his life his choices were heavily influenced by religion. He went to the trouble of getting papal consent for his first marriage and annulation. It was when Rome would no longer agree to his whims that he was presented with protestant clergy more accommodating of his wishes by his advisors, collaborated to form the Anglican church and went around robbing and destroying catholic monasteries. The religious civil war he started is still running.

I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.

It depends what you deem to be "absolute" proof. Evolution is as close to proven as makes no odds; look at bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics, for example. And it'll happen irrespective of whether you have faith in it or not.

I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.

It's entirely different. ENTIRELY.

The big difference is that when conflicting experimental results arise, scientists update or even throw out their current model.

Religions burn the experimentalist for being a heretic.

Another tragedy arising from patterns of endogamous marriage in religious groups (alongside the isolationism and loss of choice) is the health issues it throws up. The tradition of marrying first cousins (quite common in Birmingham), over several generations, has produced damaging genetic consequences for some of its offspring.

stoffel - Member

Fortunately, not being 'religious', I can pick and choose the bits I liek, and ignoe the stuff I don't.

Most religious people seem to do the same tbh.

I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof.

Hahahaha.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

You know we've actually viewed evoloution in real time, yes?

I'm of the school of thought that deems science-quantum physics, evolution etc- a faith. There is no absolute proof

Another tragedy arising from patterns of endogamous marriage in religious groups (alongside the isolationism and loss of choice) is the health issues it throws up. The tradition of marrying first cousins (quite common in Birmingham), over several generations, has produced damaging genetic consequences for some of its offspring.

I question in any case whether that is in fact the tradition and how common it is.

I question in any case whether that is in fact the tradition and how common it is.

"in Britain's ****stani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7957808/700-children-born-with-genetic-disabilities-due-to-cousin-marriages-every-year.html

"55% of British ****stanis are married to first cousins while in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. Only 3% of all births in Britain are to British ****stanis parents but they make up one third of children with genetic disorders."

http://www.medicinechest.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452