Challenging Judaism's politics

[Epic Beard Man]

OK. But you asked about Judaism and Judaism doesn't agree with you.

In your mind. But in reality the issue is highly charged, complex and political. "right" and "wrong" are never so clear and trying to force religion (or one version of something related to religion) to clarify politics won't work.


That is a statement of your political opinion. If you want to make one, maybe a "Religious Debates" forum is not the best place. And if your goal is to conflate politics with your version of textual exegesis, then I don't think there is anything to discuss.

And I'm sure that you have heard the contrary position. Have you done research into who the woman is and what drives her political views? Do you know if she speaks for Judaism in any formal sense? Is per place within the community one of any authority that your vesting value to her statement is reasonable?

So then asking about why Judaism doesn't enforce something but accepting that her position doesn't reflect normative Judaism answers your own question.


This is another political opinion which you are expressing, and that you hold it informs your position on other points. You mistake your political opinion for a transcendent truth.

Great. You are entitled to believe that. But it then bears no connection to the question in your original post which asks about "Judaism's politics."

Have at it. It just won't be a question of religion. The definition of and iteration of hospitality in the mideast as an expression of religion or culture is more complex than you give it credit for, especially when combined with politics. If you wanted to boil it down to overly simplified strokes then you might as well ask why Arabs attacked Jews who moved into the mandate region if Arabs were so driven by hospitality and acceptance. Maybe this goes beyond reductionist statements.

Well from an outsider looking in, I see Judaism as an influence of the political sphere of the Israeli government. I mean, look at the constant battling and argument that persist concerning Zionism. I'm not trying to conflate anything I'm sure the situation is complex but I highly doubt Judaism is absent from the political sphere of the Israeli government.

 

[rosends]

Well from an outsider looking in, I see Judaism as an influence of the political sphere of the Israeli government. I mean, look at the constant battling and argument that persist concerning Zionism. I'm not trying to conflate anything I'm sure the situation is complex but I highly doubt Judaism is absent from the political sphere of the Israeli government.

It isn't absent but it also isn't theocratically dominant. The coalition in the Israeli government includes people who use religion to drive decisions, and people who avoid religion at all costs. There are also those who rely on religion, but a different understanding of its dictates, relevance and application. So trying to ask based on one idea of what you think the religion should say is not only wrong because your vision may not be the same as theirs, but because any vision of Jewish belief may not be one that drives a particular position.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well from an outsider looking in, I see Judaism as an influence of the political sphere of the Israeli government. I mean, look at the constant battling and argument that persist concerning Zionism. I'm not trying to conflate anything I'm sure the situation is complex but I highly doubt Judaism is absent from the political sphere of the Israeli government.

Now that was funny.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Good for Israel, they seem to have their heads on the right set of shoulders. I only wish the US will do the same. Israel has enough diversity issues and does not need to force diversity into a nation that is suffering with the Filistinis. I only hope Trump becomes more aggressive on these policies in the future and pushes a bit more harder yet carefully which is wishing too much from him but still.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good for Israel, they seem to have their heads on the right set of shoulders. I only wish the US will do the same. Israel has enough diversity issues and does not need to force diversity into a nation that is suffering with the Filistinis. I only hope Trump becomes more aggressive on these policies in the future and pushes a bit more harder yet carefully which is wishing too much from him but still.

Careful what you wish for.
As a majority Xian country, where many believe it is a "Xian country",
we just might get the boot if that standard were adopted.

We might have to rewrite that story/poem which begins.....
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
It might be....
First they came for the atheists, and.....dang it...that's us!

 

[rosends]

Good for Israel, they seem to have their heads on the right set of shoulders. I only wish the US will do the same. Israel has enough diversity issues and does not need to force diversity into a nation that is suffering with the Filistinis. I only hope Trump becomes more aggressive on these policies in the future and pushes a bit more harder yet carefully which is wishing too much from him but still.

You are addressing the issue on the level of politics which is reasonable -- questions of legality and such. It makes sense to question the motives behind the move and the underlying policy, but the second anyone invokes religion, no doubt someone will say "and if the government is driven by the biblical text, then shouldn't it kill all the homosexuals?" It seems that laws of Judaism are conveniently brought up when they mesh with social norms in vogue.

 

[Curious George]

You are addressing the issue on the level of politics which is reasonable -- questions of legality and such. It makes sense to question the motives behind the move and the underlying policy, but the second anyone invokes religion, no doubt someone will say "and if the government is driven by the biblical text, then shouldn't it kill all the homosexuals?" It seems that laws of Judaism are conveniently brought up when they mesh with social norms in vogue.

Isn't this different? Same with stoning anyone. That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences. Being hospitable does not.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You are addressing the issue on the level of politics which is reasonable -- questions of legality and such. It makes sense to question the motives behind the move and the underlying policy, but the second anyone invokes religion, no doubt someone will say "and if the government is driven by the biblical text, then shouldn't it kill all the homosexuals?" It seems that laws of Judaism are conveniently brought up when they mesh with social norms in vogue.

I understand what you mean though as I complain about it for the GOP and its bizarre obsession with Christianity. People like me who as hard conservatives are very accepting of homosexuals always give Republicans a lot of flack for their hatred against them and hypocrisy for it. I shouldn't have to always point out that they keep wearing cotton with their polyester and still eat pork a they somehow become vitriolic against gays.

I do not concern myself that much over Jews though and especially Israel for the simple reason that the nation is divided in such an unnecessary manner and they make themselves hostile to any change for improvement.

 

[rosends]

Isn't this different? Same with stoning anyone. That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences. Being hospitable does not.

Do you see anything in the text which requires that organization and only for certain laws? Lev 18:2 is an address to all the people and 8:4 requires that they all carry out the decrees. The next chapter, 19, which includes the quote in the OP also says that the "entire assembly" (verse 1) should follow the sabbath -- should the political parties demand that uniformly as per the same chapter? What about idolatry? Should the Israeli government outlaw all religions besides Judaism? Chapter 19 also allows slaves (verse 20) but forbids tattoos. Does there need to be an organization to set up slavery and get rid of the many ink parlors in Israel? How can people be allowed not to stand when an older person walks in? (verse 32). Does that require an organization? Do food laws require an organization? If not, how can people allow the serving of anything but kosher food?

Then, of course, I could point out that the Jewish understanding of "ger" in many normative circles is "convert" and not "illegal migrant worker".

Trying to mix politics and religion is a bad idea.

 

[Curious George]

Do you see anything in the text which requires that organization and only for certain laws? Lev 18:2 is an address to all the people and 8:4 requires that they all carry out the decrees. The next chapter, 19, which includes the quote in the OP also says that the "entire assembly" (verse 1) should follow the sabbath -- should the political parties demand that uniformly as per the same chapter? What about idolatry? Should the Israeli government outlaw all religions besides Judaism? Chapter 19 also allows slaves (verse 20) but forbids tattoos. Does there need to be an organization to set up slavery and get rid of the many ink parlors in Israel? How can people be allowed not to stand when an older person walks in? (verse 32). Does that require an organization? Do food laws require an organization? If not, how can people allow the serving of anything but kosher food?

Then, of course, I could point out that the Jewish understanding of "ger" in many normative circles is "convert" and not "illegal migrant worker".

Trying to mix politics and religion is a bad idea.

Hmmm, it seems you are defensive. I don't think you answered my question. You spoke about killing gays and stoning people in comparison to being hospitable. Are you suggesting that Judaism generally holds that destruction of the second temple in no way impacted this treatment of others? Now did that destruction of the second temple impact the commandment to be hospitable in the same manner?

I do not understand why you are bringing up your interpretation argument, that is not the argument that I questioned.

If you used a poor comparison, just be like "yeah, I guess that was a poor comparison." If it was not, then explain how it was not.

 

[rosends]

Hmmm, it seems you are defensive.

Nope -- just pointing out that making statements like yours requires applying them across the board and if that is done, the logic fails.

I don't think you answered my question. You spoke about killing gays and stoning people in comparison to being hospitable.

Actually, I spoke about the attempt to separate individual laws from an entire corpus because it is convenient.

Are you suggesting that Judaism generally holds that destruction of the second temple in no way impacted this treatment of others?

The second temple was destroyed because of the treatment of Jews, by Jews (sin'at chinam). Nothing about being hospitable.

Now did that destruction of the second temple impact the commandment to be hospitable in the same manner?

It is unrelated.

If it was not, then explain how it was not.

There are many laws listed in the biblical text. To isolate one from chapter 19 and wonder why the government is not abiding by it, while ignoring all the others in the same text is intellectually dishonest. To try and justify the distinction requires testing the hypothesis, but that attempt fails when one looks at all the various laws.

 

[Curious George]

Nope -- just pointing out that making statements like yours requires applying them across the board and if that is done, the logic fails.

What statement of mine?

Actually, I spoke about the attempt to separate individual laws from an entire corpus because it is convenient.

The second temple was destroyed because of the treatment of Jews, by Jews (sin'at chinam). Nothing about being hospitable.

It is unrelated.

How is it unrelated? Did the destruction of the temple impact capital punishment in the Jewish religion? Did it impact being hospitable in the same way?

There are many laws listed in the biblical text. To isolate one from chapter 19 and wonder why the government is not abiding by it, while ignoring all the others in the same text is intellectually dishonest. To try and justify the distinction requires testing the hypothesis, but that attempt fails when one looks at all the various laws.

Which is very different than using a flawed analogy to illustrate this point. I simply questioned your analogy.

 

[rosends]

What statement of mine?

The one which tries to distinguish between two laws that are textually not distinguished. So we test the theory by seeing if other laws similarly positioned can be similarly separated. They can't.

How is it unrelated? Did the destruction of the temple impact capital punishment in the Jewish religion? Did it impact being hospitable in the same way?

You asked a question about the second temple and hospitality. (" did that destruction of the second temple impact the commandment to be hospitable in the same manner?") I pointed out that the destruction had to do with something else entirely and had (and has) no relationship to hospitality. I can show you my sources. Here The Dafyomi Advancement Forum go to Yoma 9b. Find me anything with being hospitable in general or treatment to the "stranger". Are you claiming that your position is accurate within Jewish understanding? Do you have a source for that contention?

 

[Curious George]

The one which tries to distinguish between two laws that are textually not distinguished. So we test the theory by seeing if other laws similarly positioned can be similarly separated. They can't.

You asked a question about the second temple and hospitality. (" did that )kfeld opdestruction of the second temple impact the commandment to be hospitable in the same manner?") I pointed out that the destruction had to do with something else entirely and had (and has) no relationship to hospitality. I can show you my sources. Here The Dafyomi Advancement Forum go to Yoma 9b. Find me anything with being hospitable in general or treatment to the "stranger". Are you claiming that your position is accurate within Jewish understanding? Do you have a source for that contention?

So let me get this straight it is your contention that the commandment in Leviticus 19:34 is indistinguishable from commandments to kill homosexuals?

 

[rosends]

So let me get this straight it is your contention that the commandment in Leviticus 19:34 is indistinguishable from commandments to kill homosexuals?

That depends. Are you relying on the literal and in vacuo text, as is invoked in the original post - in which case, there is no way to distinguish them, or are you considering the various levels of Jewish law (as in "Challenging Judaism's Politics") which would make them very different but would render text in the OP irrelevant?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then, of course, I could point out that the Jewish understanding of "ger" in many normative circles is "convert" and not "illegal migrant worker".

Which is, in itself, pathetic.

 

[Shaul]

How do we know they're invaders? Did you look at the videos?

Those people stole into the country illegally. By definition they are invaders. Did YOU watch the video? “I set my foot here so I have a right to stay here”. Really? So if I set foot in Epic Beard Man’s House I have right to stay there as long as I want to?

So why don’t you yourself take in one of these people? Or do you only give away the homes of other people?

 

[rosends]

Which is, in itself, pathetic.

Feel free to go back to Bava Metzia 58 and 59, Megila 17b and Yevamot 46b and understand it with the phrase "illegal migrant worker."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Feel free to go back to Bava Metzia 58 and 59, Megila 17b and Yevamot 46b and understand it with the phrase "illegal migrant worker."

Naw - I'd rather spend my time as I did this morning, at a pro-DACA rally, because, as it is said, we were converts in the land of Egypt.

 

[rosends]

Naw - I'd rather spend my time as I did this morning, at a pro-DACA rally, because, as it is said, we were converts in the land of Egypt.

Exactly, it is great that you cited the Haamek Davar, the Chizkuni, the Bechor Shor and Or Hachayim all at once.