Do We Really Need This Kind of Bigotry?

[Flankerl]

-----

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for Levite's comment it is rather a matter of preference but no less prejudiced.

Prejudiced against what?

 

[metis]

As for Levite's comment it is rather a matter of preference but no less prejudiced. Whether be it to maintain the exclusivity of race and/or religion or any other reason prejudice is prejudice.

But it really is not prejudice (a reminder that the word means to "pre-judge"-- iow, to judge without knowing). It's just one of many divisions that we have in any society. For example, here in the States my wife cannot legally be on the beach topless, but I can. Is that prejudice? One could argue that I suppose, but I'm not going to buy it. Legally, I cannot go into a woman's public bathroom either. Is that prejudice? I don't think so.

All religions have rules, and certain rules in someone else's religion may seem absurd or even wrong to us, but realize that the minute we do that we leave ourselves open for similar judgments of us and our religion or philosophy. Now, I personally have some limitations to this, such as if one's religion requires human sacrifices against the person's will.

Therefore, one may believe that intermarriage is wrong, but as long as a couple is not interfered with in regards to their choice, life goes on.

 

[Draupadi]

Against non-Jews of course. He/she doesn't is opposed to intermarriage, in this case marriage of a Jew with a non-Jew. Anyway, the Jew had converted but somehow Dantas thinks that it is right to be concerned because the convert is a Jew at the roots. And many of them are concerned about not letting other races/followers of other faiths come in.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Against non-Jews of course. He/she doesn't is opposed to intermarriage, in this case marriage of a Jew with a non-Jew.

Your last sentence is incoherent. That aside, would you share with us your definition of 'prejudice?'

 

[Draupadi]

But it really is not prejudice (a reminder that the word means to "pre-judge"-- iow, to judge without knowing). It's just one of many divisions that we have in any society. For example, here in the States my wife cannot legally be on the beach topless, but I can. Is that prejudice? One could argue that I suppose, but I'm not going to buy it. Legally, I cannot go into a woman's public bathroom either. Is that prejudice? I don't think so.

All religions have rules, and certain rules in someone else's religion may seem absurd or even wrong to us, but realize that the minute we do that we leave ourselves open for similar judgments of us and our religion or philosophy. Now, I personally have some limitations to this, such as if one's religion requires human sacrifices against the person's will.

Therefore, one may believe that intermarriage is wrong, but as long as a couple is not interfered with in regards to their choice, life goes on.

And I like you also have my limitations too. Like Saint Frankenstein said marriage should be about love and not background. When I was a Muslim I rejected many stuff that my religion said because they were bad in my eyes. An example akin to this case is marrying a polytheist. Even though certain ideology belonged to a religion doesn't always make that right. Perfect example is human sacrifice to Deities like you have mentioned. Yes Levite is not resorting to violence but that doesn't make any one less prejudiced.

And as for not letting women go topless on the beach some women may call you prejudiced for that .

 

[Tarheeler]

.... the protesters I believe are acting in a terribly disgusting manner.

I agree completely.

 

[Draupadi]

Your last sentence is incoherent. That aside, would you share with us your definition of 'prejudice?'

Why is my last sentence incoherent? My definition of prejudice is here from Oxfor Dictionary- Dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions. In case of Levite it is dislike. And dislike necessary doesn't need to be aggressive.

 

[LuisDantas]

Against non-Jews of course. He/she doesn't is opposed to intermarriage, in this case marriage of a Jew with a non-Jew. Anyway, the Jew had converted but somehow Dantas thinks that it is right to be concerned because the convert is a Jew at the roots.

More like I understand that there will be some disconfort and even confusion about how to deal with the situation, Draupadi.

I expect her family will at least attempt to remain seeing her as a Jewish person. It is of course up to her to decide how much, if at all, to accept that. And it is up to her, her husband and her family to decide what to make of those mixed legacies.

Please allow me to remind you that so far as I remember no one in this thread approves of the hatred shown in the event. Not Levite, not any of the other Jewish People who manifested here, and certainly not me.

Disapproving of mixed marriages (which I understand but do not even have a position that allows me to do personally) is ultimately just another way of saying that people would rather have them marry within the faith. It does not imply forbiddance, much less rejection, to say nothing of racism and hatred.

I do not approve of the racism and hatred (which the newspiece makes clear to exist in the reported situation), in case that is not clear. And far as I can tell neither does anyone else who manifested on the matter here in this thread.

And many of them are concerned about not letting other races/followers of other faiths come in.

Concernment about who a family member will marry is only human.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not letting", since after all the marriage happened despite the obnoxious levels of racism and hatred it had to challenge. If you mean to say that they should not have to face such racism and hatred, then sure, I have no argument with that and I fully agree.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But it really is not prejudice

Then it is bigotry. I still wish someone would explain to me how two Muslims marrying is an intermarriage.

 

[metis]

Then it is bigotry.

What's your reasoning on why it's "bigotry"? Is stopping my wife from going topless at a beach also "bigotry"? Is believing that at least one person must be Catholic in order to get married in a Catholic church "bigotry"? Is your not agreeing with Levite "bigotry"?

 

[metis]

Then it is bigotry.

What's your reasoning on why it's "bigotry"? Is stopping my wife from going topless at a beach also "bigotry"? Is believing that at least one person must be Catholic in order to get married in a Catholic church "bigotry"? Is your not agreeing with Levite "bigotry"? Are all rules of differentiation "bigotry"?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What's your reasoning on why it's "bigotry"? Is stopping my wife from going topless at a beach also "bigotry"? Is believing that at least one person must be Catholic in order to get married in a Catholic church "bigotry"? Is your not agreeing with Levite "bigotry"?

It's bigotry because it is an intolerance of another group of people. That is bigotry. Please go ahead and explain to me how a Muslim couple getting married is a intermarriage. Doesn't look like an intermarriage to me.

 

[metis]

It's bigotry because it is an intolerance of another group of people. That is bigotry. Please go ahead and explain to me how a Muslim couple getting married is a intermarriage. Doesn't look like an intermarriage to me.

It's bigotry for those who tried to stop the marriage and were shouting insults, imo, which I had posted several times already. That's not what I was referring to, which was Levite's right, imo, to oppose intermarriage in general. I don't know what Levite thinks about this particular situation because I saw his comment as being generic in terms of not being willing to personally officiate intermarriage between a Jew to a non-Jew. I don't agree with his opinion, but I certainly feel he has the right to believe as such, and I certainly did not take what he said as being insulting to my wife and I.

 

[ametist]

Saying that you oppose "intermarriage" is racist/tribalist/bigoted (take your pick). As a mixed person, that is offensive to me. I believe that we're all God's children and brothers and sisters. You should marry the one you love, no matter who they are.

I agree with you completely if there were no spiritual or physical intermarriage we humans would be extinct by now. Love conquers not all though. It is fine with bigoted people because it is Love.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know what exactly you people picture "opposition to intermarriage" as being, but Levite, at least, has on past occasions made his feelings well known.

He very much prefers Jewish couples to be both Jewish before marrying, be it by being raised as such or by converting before marriage.

How that can be racism I just fail to see. Is there any racial reason why a person would be forbidden or stopped from converting?

I also fail to see why other people are not entitled to having preferences about what people in their own communities would do or favor, as long as they acknowledge and respect the personal choices of the specific people. Has agreement become a duty when I was looking the other way?

 

[oldbadger]

......................
Wikipedia[/url] defines bigotry as "a state of mind where a person views other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics." [/indent]None of this need apply in the case of opposition to Jews marrying non-Jews, and it is an outrageous slander to insist that it applies in Levite's case.

Unlike Christianity, with its focus on individual grace and salvation, Judaism is communal (or, if you will, tribal). It is a covenantal religion permeated with a sense of Peoplehood and, because of its history, often obsessed with concerns about assimilation. Anything perceived as erosive is resisted. It has absolutely nothing to do with generalizations about the quality of the other and everything to do with the fact of otherness.

I am so relieved that somebody with the diplomatic touch could introduce me to the above, and I cannot wait to try this out.

Please imagine a bloke from Deptford, on the Thames, explaining this to his daughter who wants to marry somebody outside the local tribe. Now there is no fear, mistrust, prejudice of hatred in this parent..... just like it says in Wiki, OK? The fact that he wants his daughter to marry a proper local bloke is purely communal, folks.

Charlene.... you ain't marrying that foreign geezer! He ain't one of us! He ain't a Deptford waterman! We've got 'istory in our veins, Darlin'.... wot's 'e got? How can I get an outsider grandkid a job on the bleedin' docks? What will me mates say? You is dilutatin', I means finnin', b-ggering up the blood line you silly cow! I don't care if he is a bleedin' radiographer at Guys!! He ain't local, he ain't got Deptford folks and he ain't bin borned 'ere!! I don't mind them infiltrators, nor their funny food, or anyfin'.... so long as he marries somebody else! No.... you ain't seein' 'im no more, an' thats that....... 'cos I dissaprob.... I ain't 'avin' it!

Nah...... no prejudice there, then.

But in Britain, that Deptford 'Farver' would a bust a few of our Equality Laws..... and more.....

 

[Alceste]

I think it's kind of funny how many people here are arguing there is no bigotry involved when these idiots were chanting "death to Arabs".

Yeah, folks, this is obviously just a misunderstood case of Jewish communalism and peoplehood. Lol.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think it's kind of funny how many people here are arguing there is no bigotry involved when these idiots were chanting "death to Arabs".

Yeah, folks, this is obviously just a misunderstood case of Jewish communalism and peoplehood. Lol.

Not only do I see ethnic bigotry, I also see sexism. It seems some believe that since it is a tribal or communal issue that the girl involved is somehow communal property belonging only to the tribe. She being regarded as property. And since she is property she has no right to self-determine who she will identify as.

 

[metis]

I think it's kind of funny how many people here are arguing there is no bigotry involved when these idiots were chanting "death to Arabs".

Could you point out who posted as such? Person and post number please.