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.

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?

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.

I think if you know English history it demonstrates political capture of religion, not religious capture of politics. In other words, you’ve got it backward.

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

I’m of the school of thought that says you don’t understand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a fairy story.

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.

That’s a social, not religious, restriction – if the restriction were religious, you’d have a billion plus people who are not within your kinship group so nae bother.

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 Pakistani 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 Pakistanis are married to first cousins while in Bradford the figure is 75 per cent. Only 3% of all births in Britain are to British Pakistanis 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