Jews - ethnicity or religion?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Tablo]

Zionism is simply a political ideology. Many orthodox Jews strongly oppose this.

I think there is a small group that identifies as being Jewish ethnically, but I have seen it primarily on a religious basis in my life.

[Robocommie]

I think it comes down to the individual Jew; it's how they identify. I wouldn't really want to define it for them, and exercise power over them.

But to be more helpful, there are people who view it as both.

[Tablo]

I think we need an actual person that identifies as Jewish to answer this question. We are a bit limited from our perspective.

[AK]

Not sure about a leftist perspective, but the Nazi idea was that any Jew (be they an ethnic Jew or a convert) was ethnically a Jew. The Nazis applied both principles; being Jewish meant that you could either be part of the Jewish ethnic group (meaning that even if you weren't a follower yourself but your ancestors were then you were a Jew) or somehow "indoctrinated" into their "hateful and destructive" religion.

I think that it all boils down to the beginnings of the Jewish ethnic group, when they were all followers of the religion of the same name.

[Sasha]

ethnicity or religion?
neither; its an cultural tradition

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity.

[Muzk]

The marxist position on this question is, of course, that judaism is a religion. Seeing it as an ethnicity is not racist in itself, but it sure as hell is a ground for racist thought.

Having one's ethnicity written down on a passport is pretty racist too, and useless.


Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) accepts only the prophets of the Torah, but also relies on the authority of rabbis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi). It is practiced by the Jewish people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_people), an ethnic group currently centered in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) but also scattered throughout the Jewish diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora). Today, Jews are outnumbered by Christians and Muslims.

Now, what is an ethnic group?


An ethnic group is a group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_%28sociology%29) of humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans) whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed- sharing cultural characteristics[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity#cite_note-Smith-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity#cite_note-1) This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity#cite_note-EB-2) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity#cite_note-3)

Every single one of these points is incompatible with marxism. Since we want to crush every historical/cultural/etc ( see list above ) bond one human has to another(they might act like a barrier too), the marxist position has to be the abolishment of ethnicity as part of our common goal. :thumbup1:

[redwog]

I differ here. Sure judaism is a religion, but there is a jewish ethnicity that is recognised by its members and consists of a whole host of cultural artifacts and mentifacts that exist outside of formal religion. Jewish humour is a very concrete example of something many of us have experienced.

In fact there are many non-practicing Jews, who are not fanatical about anything, yet share certain cultural perspectives.

And none of this is very racist, I think. Indeed the category of ethnicity trumps the fake concept of 'race'.

I also worry when one speaks of 'crushing ethnicity'. Whilst I agree that ethinicity is a constructed from a given set of material conditions and, one imagines, would 'wither away' during communism. The past cannot be 'crushed' (year 0 anyone?), a communist future is therfore a refigurement of the present. We will not abolish any form of culture! We will work to change the material conditions - this process will lead to a new culture both as an expression of revolutionary activity and post-revolutionary society.

[Muzk]

That's exactly what I said -_-


Different culture being a barrier keeping humans divided is bad and a ground for wars. Which is why it must be abolished.
Not by violent means, though. We only open the way to free human development.

Take a close look at this list too:
common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance.

all of these have been a reason to go into senseless wars. Even if it was only the ruling class leading, it is easy to fool people based on any of these factors.

[Robocommie]

That's exactly what I said -_-


Different culture being a barrier keeping humans divided is bad and a ground for wars. Which is why it must be abolished.
Not by violent means, though. We only open the way to free human development.

Take a close look at this list too:
common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance.

all of these have been a reason to go into senseless wars. Even if it was only the ruling class leading, it is easy to fool people based on any of these factors.

I think that's a pretty extreme, and with all due respect, a bit absurd of a position.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think that's a pretty extreme, and with all due respect, a bit absurd of a position.
It's also, classically, the Marxist position.



The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.


Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.


Therefore it strikes us as very strange when people talk always of only a national culture and when a goal of socialism is considered to be the endowing of the masses with a national culture ... When socialist society provides the masses with an education, it also gives them the ability to speak several languages, the universal languages, and therefore to take part in the entire international civilization and not only in the separate culture of a certain linguistic community. When we have got to the point where the masses in our civilized states can master one or more of the universal languages besides their native language, this will be a basis for the gradual withdrawal and ultimately the complete disappearance of the languages of the smaller nations, and for the union of all civilized humanity into one language and one nationality, just as the peoples in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean were united in Hellenism after Alexander the Great, and the peoples of the western area later merged into the Roman nationality.

[Robocommie]

It's also, classically, the Marxist position.

Well, you'll have to forgive me I'm a bit skeptical about 19th century positions on culture and ethnic identity, Marx & Engels or not. I think I'll take the theory as read from more recent, living sources.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that by "living" I in fact mean more immediately applicable, more based on modern or even post-modern discussions of post-colonialism and identity, I do not mean sources with an actual beating heart.

[Muzk]

Well, you'll have to forgive me I'm a bit skeptical about 19th century positions on culture and ethnic identity, Marx & Engels or not. I think I'll take the theory as read from more recent, living sources.

Marx lives inside of us!

[Tavarisch_Mike]

For a couple of years ago i read about some spanish guy in the 16th century, who made the concept "La limpia de sangre" (the purity of the blood) and explained that moste jews hade some collective guilt in their blood (for crucifing jesus). Before that you could be jewish and then convert to christianity and evrything would be ok, but this guy made it clear that it wasnt enough and that idea got rooted and the in the 19th century when all the sick ideas about race came up it sort of got mixed with this shit.

Sorry for the strange writing, english isnt my first lenguage.

[Robocommie]

Marx lives inside of us!

...Right.

[Lyev]

I think Zionist Jews would like to think of Judaism as an ethnicity as well as a religion. I think there are some Jews that perhaps feel as though should be an ethnicity - or tighter-knit community - after atrocities such as the holocaust. Maybe some Jews feel the need to express their identity, and are proud of their identity so they do so, by calling Judaism an ethnicity. A subsidiary point; my father is Jewish (albeit a not very devout one, he doesn't eat kosher, he was just raising by devoutly Jewish parents really) as I think I've mentioned a couple times before on here, and anyway, we've got a number of relatives living in Israel, and he says Israeli Jews, or western Jews that have moved to Israel* look down upon Jews that don't live in Israel as being less "pure" Jews, if you like, because they don't live in the chosen land. Just my two cents.

*(I think quite a large portion of the Jewish population in Israel are orginally from the west, but the Jewish people have moved around some much over the years; they all came from the middle east anyway)

[Action Johnny]

The Judaic religion (roughly 13 million) is dwarfed by current day Muslims and Christians (both in the billions range). Ethnicity and Religion entangled as a whole just doesn't seem compatible to me. I view Jews from a religious perspective, however there are plenty of people who disagree.

[Mumbles]

I don't know if this really applies to what ya'll are discussing, but I've always considered myself part Jewish ethnically, not because I identify with the history or anything but because there are some diseases which can be a common factor among people with shared blood, such as Tay-Sachs disease being 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews and 1 in 27 for Irish, both of which my ancestors shared blood with.

So I think it is necessary to consider them from a medical standpoint, but as for traditions and history, I agree that those are silly things to identify oneself with.

[zubovskyblvd]

I have a Jewish housemate and my girlfriend is also Jewish, neither are particularly religious (my housemate is an atheist) but keep kosher and celebrate the festivals etc. I think that they'd probably consider themselves ethnically Jewish, certainly culturally. But in the case of my housemate, definitely not in a religious sense

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, you'll have to forgive me I'm a bit skeptical about 19th century positions on culture and ethnic identity, Marx & Engels or not. I think I'll take the theory as read from more recent, living sources.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that by "living" I in fact mean more immediately applicable, more based on modern or even post-modern discussions of post-colonialism and identity, I do not mean sources with an actual beating heart.
Well, everybody prefers different sources, and I did not mean to imply that because Person X said something, that means it's true. Then again, just because something is recent doesn't mean it's true either. It is, however, important to be able to identify the traditions one's coming from: if one is coming from a Marxist tradition than the writings of Marxists are going to be important sources. If one is coming from a post-modernist tradition one is going to rely on post-modernist sources.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So can you still be ethnically a Jew even if you don't follow the religion Judaism?

[redwog]

That's exactly what I said -_-


Different culture being a barrier keeping humans divided is bad and a ground for wars. Which is why it must be abolished.
Not by violent means, though. We only open the way to free human development.

Take a close look at this list too:
common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance.

all of these have been a reason to go into senseless wars. Even if it was only the ruling class leading, it is easy to fool people based on any of these factors.

Well no, its not what you said. Crush and abolish have very different tones; although abolish suggests that ethnicity (along with sociological shopping list - which I take a look at all of the time) will be gotten rid of by some higher authority. It is here where we depart.

Rather, I believe it more correct if these things wither, change, evolve or develop due to the 'new' material conditions of a revolutionary period. Culture is made by the activity of people framed by hegemony, or counter-hegemony during working class struggle.

I have been to local factory picket lines which have required ethnicity or race as bourgeois divisions to be shed and replaced by working class solidarity. Workers were no less 'ethnic' in their language or daily ritual, rather the material conditions nessecitated solidarity if victory was to be achieved.

I don't believe this happens without leadership, but the material conditions is the key. (Hence why Communism is only possible because of the material conditions of Capitalism)

Therefore, I do NOT believe that wars have ever been fought on the grounds of culture. That is a bourgeois falsification required to lubricate public sentiment and allow soldiers to go against their human instinct and kill. Material need drives war; cultural reasons are manufactured for the politics.


The Vegan Marxist So can you still be ethnically a Jew even if you don't follow the religion Judaism?

Good question...but what do you mean follow. I know a lot of "catholics" who celebrate easter and christmas and only attend church when someone is married, christened or dies. Do they follow the religion, or are they just cultural practioners of catholicism? Such catholicism is a core part of the Irish diaspora and their descendants. These people would see themselves very much as Irish Catholics and be recognised as such by those in the ethnic group.

The kid of a jew who is non-practicing will still feel jewish and be accepted as a part of that community (to some extent).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well no, its not what you said. Crush and abolish have very different tones; although abolish suggests that ethnicity (along with sociological shopping list - which I take a look at all of the time) will be gotten rid of by some higher authority. It is here where we depart.

Rather, I believe it more correct if these things wither, change, evolve or develop due to the 'new' material conditions of a revolutionary period. Culture is made by the activity of people framed by hegemony, or counter-hegemony during working class struggle.

I have been to local factory picket lines which have required ethnicity or race as bourgeois divisions to be shed and replaced by working class solidarity. Workers were no less 'ethnic' in their language or daily ritual, rather the material conditions nessecitated solidarity if victory was to be achieved.

I don't believe this happens without leadership, but the material conditions is the key. (Hence why Communism is only possible because of the material conditions of Capitalism)

Therefore, I do NOT believe that wars have ever been fought on the grounds of culture. That is a bourgeois falsification required to lubricate public sentiment and allow soldiers to go against their human instinct and kill. Material need drives war; cultural reasons are manufactured for the politics.



Good question...but what do you mean follow. I know a lot of "catholics" who celebrate easter and christmas and only attend church when someone is married, christened or dies. Do they follow the religion, or are they just cultural practioners of catholicism? Such catholicism is a core part of the Irish diaspora and their descendants. These people would see themselves very much as Irish Catholics and be recognised as such by those in the ethnic group.

The kid of a jew who is non-practicing will still feel jewish and be accepted as a part of that community (to some extent).

To me it's just confusing semantics to where it is perceived that to be a jew, one has to practice Judaism, but then to others you are born Jewish & that, no matter what, whether you believe in Judaism or not, you're still a Jew.

Another question I have really is, what made one a Jew during the times before Jesus supposedly existed?

[RED DAVE]

So can you still be ethnically a Jew even if you don't follow the religion Judaism?Yes. Most Jews do not practice the religion.

RED DAVE

[Robocommie]

Well, everybody prefers different sources, and I did not mean to imply that because Person X said something, that means it's true. Then again, just because something is recent doesn't mean it's true either. It is, however, important to be able to identify the traditions one's coming from: if one is coming from a Marxist tradition than the writings of Marxists are going to be important sources. If one is coming from a post-modernist tradition one is going to rely on post-modernist sources.

The post-modernist tradition arose from the Marxist tradition. In my opinion it does not conflict at all with Marxism and in fact I believe it should even supersede certain archaic elements of classical Marxist doctrine. Specifically in this case I am referring to the contributions of Frantz Fanon and Edward Said in the spheres of anti-colonialist thought.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes. Most Jews do not practice the religion.

RED DAVE

Kay thanks. Because I have a friend who calls himself a Jewish-Atheist. So it kind of confused me for a while.

[scarletghoul]

Its both. There is the Jewish religion, and the various Jewish ethnic communities (not sure if it can really be called a single ethnicity as there are all differant types of ethnic jews like ashkenazi, sephardic, ethiopian jews, etc).
Zionists view it as a race-nation, which is why they claim the right for anyone defined as a Jew (ie member of their race, descended from the ancient israelites) to 'return' to Israel, even if they don't follow the religion. So Zionism is a kind of nationalism and not religious fundamentalism (though that is used by some to back it up).

As the book and article posted by khad in that other thread suggest, much of the ethnically Jewish people are not descended from the original Israelites but from other peoples who were converted to the religion ages ago. However most of them now are not religious but still identify as Jewish due to the cultural and historical heritage they share with other jews aswell as the possible misconception that theyre biologically related.

Anyway yeah the Jewish religion and the Jewish ethnicity(s) are two seperate things now.

[Y-Love]

This question is going to continue to elude people as long as we try to define things in terms of our historical context.

Judaism is neither an "ethnicity" nor a "religion", think of it as the only "cultural group" one can convert into. One can be born and bred atheist and never recognize any Supreme Being their entire lives and be born and die a Jew, a non-Jew can keep every single Jewish Law and memorize the entire Talmud and die in a fire for the sake of the Torah and be born and die a Gentile.

"Jew" as the identity, as opposed to "Judaism" the religion, is based more on the Biblical tribal-state than anything else (I'm also speaking here as a Jew). During ancient times, one was part of the "Nation of X" (Israel, Moab, Midian, Ashur, etc) if one was born into it, or if one became the "stranger who dwells in your gates", i.e., if they converted to your religion (in ancient times, "accepted their god").

If one converted to the religion of X Nation, they would be considered as part of that nation, as would their children (and servants, but that's a whole separate issue).

This type of construct doesn't exist today -- "race"/"ethnicity" are tied to DNA and ancestry (which doesn't necessarily have to be there in this case), "religion" is tied to a belief system (and in this case, even the atheist child of a convert is still considered a "member of X Nation"). To try to define "Jew" in 21st century terms is to set yourself up for paradoxes...

[RED DAVE]

Yes. Most Jews do not practice the religion.
How can one not practice the religion and still belong to that religion? Also how can a religion be an ethnicity?The Jewish people are a nationality: not a nation but a nationality. Closely allied with this nationality is a particular religion. One can be a Jew and not practice the Jewish religion, but one cannot practice the Jewish religion and not be Jewish. As a further complication, a person of Jewish descent who converts to another religion is not considered Jewish any more.

Consider, as a parallel example, Saudis. Saudis are a nation. Allied with that nation is a particular religion. However, there are Saudis who are not Muslims.

RED DAVE

[Y-Love]

The Jewish people are a nationality: not a nation but a nationality. Closely allied with this nationality is a particular religion.

One can be a Jew and not practice the Jewish religion, but one cannot practice the Jewish religion and not be Jewish. As a further complication, a person of Jewish descent who converts to another religion is not considered Jewish any more.

Consider, as a parallel example, Saudis. Saudis are a nation. Allied with that nation is a particular religion. However, there are Saudis who are not Muslims.

RED DAVE

Nothing in that paragraph is true. See above.

[RED DAVE]

The Jewish people are a nationality: not a nation but a nationality. Closely allied with this nationality is a particular religion.

One can be a Jew and not practice the Jewish religion, but one cannot practice the Jewish religion and not be Jewish. As a further complication, a person of Jewish descent who converts to another religion is not considered Jewish any more.

Consider, as a parallel example, Saudis. Saudis are a nation. Allied with that nation is a particular religion. However, there are Saudis who are not Muslims.
Nothing in that paragraph is true. See aboveAnd what, specifically, do you think is wrong?

(A) Are the Jews a nationality and not a nation.
(B) Being Jewish is closely allied with the practice of a particular religion.
(C) One can be a Jew and not practice the Jewish religion, but one cannot practice the Jewish religion and not be Jewish.
(D) A person of Jewish descent who converts to another religion is not considered Jewish any more.

What, specifically, are your reasons? (Remember your lifelines: you can poll the audience; eliminate two possibilities or call a friend. :D)

RED DAVE

[Y-Love]

It's like I said in my previous post -- "nationality" implies citizenship, or an allegiance to a group or land, or even a shared bond to it: according to Jewish Law, for instance, Jewishness is passed down through one's mother (Orthodox - non-Orthodox Jews largely accept patrilinearity as well). A 5th-generation maternal descendent, someone whose mother's mother's mother etc was Jewish -- who had never seen a Jew in her life, grew up in a church and has no Jewish belief or framework whatsoever is still considered a Jew. One wouldn't say that about someone who was 5th-generation French: could you say that they were still "American"?

It's like I said before, 21st-century constructs don't really apply to Jewishness...

[RED DAVE]

It's like I said in my previous post -- "nationality" implies citizenship, or an allegiance to a group or land, or even a shared bond to it: according to Jewish Law, for instance, Jewishness is passed down through one's mother (Orthodox - non-Orthodox Jews largely accept patrilinearity as well).Nationality may imply citizenship or not. Would you call the Roma (Gypsies) a nationality? They are citizens of many countries. Jews definitely have a certain degree of group allegiance. And yes, Jewishness is descended through ones parents, as is being a Rom (Gypsy), regardless of country.


A 5th-generation maternal descendent, someone whose mother's mother's mother etc was Jewish -- who had never seen a Jew in her life, grew up in a church and has no Jewish belief or framework whatsoever is still considered a Jew. One wouldn't say that about someone who was 5th-generation French: could you say that they were still "American"?The church membership negates being Jewish. And someone of that description, even without the church membership, would be considered a marginal Jew at best without the group identification.


It's like I said before, 21st-century constructs don't really apply to Jewishness...Whose 21st-century constructs, Comrade? Yours?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The Jewish people are a nationality: not a nation but a nationality. Closely allied with this nationality is a particular religion. One can be a Jew and not practice the Jewish religion, but one cannot practice the Jewish religion and not be Jewish. As a further complication, a person of Jewish descent who converts to another religion is not considered Jewish any more.
How is that different from ZionismZionism is a particular belief system, involving the "right" of Jews to return to what is now called Israel as a religious, moral or political duty. It is, as belief system and a movement that system generated, closely allied with western imperialism.

There is no necessary connection between being a Zionist and being a Jew. One may be a Jew and not a Zionist, a Jew and a Zionist, a non-Jew and a Zionist and a non-Jew and not a Zionist.

RED DAVE

[Y-Love]

Nationality may imply citizenship or not. Would you call the Roma (Gypsies) a nationality? They are citizens of many countries. Jews definitely have a certain degree of group allegiance. And yes, Jewishness is descended through ones parents, as is being a Rom (Gypsy), regardless of country.

The church membership negates being Jewish. And someone of that description, even without the church membership, would be considered a marginal Jew at best without the group identification.

Whose 21st-century constructs, Comrade? Yours?

RED DAVE

I hear what you're saying about Roma ppl. But it's not quite the same thing here.

The church membership doesn't negate being Jewish, on the contrary, both anti-Semites (Hitler, e.g., killed converso Christian Jews, defining "Jewishness" by having one Jewish grandparent) and Jewish Law include even the most vocal Christian Jew (like Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, who was in the running for Pope until Pope Benedict got elected) as a Jew. A "marginal Jew", perhaps, but in Jewish Law no distinction exists.

The ancient world didn't have constructs like "race", "nationality", "ethnicity". The ancient world was broken up into "nations" and "tribes". That's the framework in which the definition of "Jewishness" exists, to try and apply our modern day definitions leads to difficulty..

[RED DAVE]

I hear what you're saying about Roma ppl. But it's not quite the same thing here.Not quite but almost.


The church membership doesn't negate being Jewish, on the contrary,That depends on who you ask. Let's see.


both anti-Semites (Hitler, e.g., killed converso Christian Jews, defining "Jewishness" by having one Jewish grandparent) and Jewish Law include even the most vocal Christian Jew (like Cardinal Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, who was in the running for Pope until Pope Benedict got elected) as a Jew.Sorry dude, but a convert away from Judaism is no longer considered a Jew by other Jews. Marx, whose father was a convert, is referred to as a Jew, and culturally and psychologically he was one, but according to Jewish law he wasn't. The nazis could believe anything they wanted. They considered the Japanese to be Aryans.


A "marginal Jew", perhaps, but in Jewish Law no distinction exists.You are wrong. So-called Messianic Jews, Jewish converts to Xtianity who practice the Jewish religion but believe Jesus to be the Messiah, are not considered Jews by anyone but themselves.


The ancient world didn't have constructs like "race", "nationality", "ethnicity". The ancient world was broken up into "nations" and "tribes". That's the framework in which the definition of "Jewishness" exists, to try and apply our modern day definitions leads to difficulty..Admittedly, the issue of Jewish identity is tricky. I find that "nationality" works well.

RED DAVE

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Generally Jews, refers to those who practice the Jewish religion, Semite refers to te ethnicty (there are other terms too but they all mean roughly the same thing, eg. Hebrew, etc. ) and Zionist is someone who advocates a Jewish state.
You can be a Semetic Zionist but not a Jew, you can be Jewish without being Semetic or a Zionist. There are Christian Semites for example.
They are all seperate and have different meanings, they have just become corupt over time.

[Y-Love]

Anyone who was born of a Jewish mother or who had a conversion in accordance w/Jewish Law is Jewish according to Orthodox Jews. Conservative and Reform Jews would agree but add on perhaps people born of a Jewish father, adopted children into Jewish families, etc.

But you can't "negate" that -- Messianic Jews who were born Jewish are still considered Jewish, there are many Jewish outreach organizations who go into churches, mosques etc to try and "bring people back to Judaism".

Now, however, when it comes to conversion, it's a bit different, because according to Jewish Law if it can be proven that at the time of conversion, the person never at any point intended to observe or practice Judaism, then the conversion can be annulled retroactively. This is very hard to prove, because even if the person practiced for even an "hour" after converting, they are a "Jew in all respects".

The inability to negate one's "Jewishness" is what IMO makes it more like an ethnicity, and the ability to "immigrate in" (convert) is what makes it like a nationality, I guess...

(This is Jewish Law, btw. Israeli Law, on the other hand, has definitions of "who is a Jew" that are a whole different ball of wax...)

[RED DAVE]

Generally Jews, refers to those who practice the Jewish religionWrong. The term is used for people who are members of the Jewish nationality.


Semite refers to te ethnicty (there are other terms too but they all mean roughly the same thing, eg. Hebrew, etc. )Wrong. This word is never used with regard to Jews specificially, except in the term "antisemitism."


and Zionist is someone who advocates a Jewish state.More or less correct.



You can be a Semetic Zionist but not a JewThat would be an Arab Zionist. Kind of rare.



you can be Jewish without being Semetic or a Zionist.Again, "semitic" is not generally used. If it has any meaning, it refers to people whose origin is in the Middle East, including Jews and Arabs.



There are Christian Semites for example.I assume you mean such as Christian Arabs. Sure.



They are all seperate and have different meanings, they have just become corupt over time.All these terms need to be refined as much as possible.

RED DAVE

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Wrong. The term is used for people who are members of the Jewish nationality.

I disagree, I do not believe there is a Jewish nationality. There is only the Jewish religion and 'Jew' can only refer to it's members. You can be of any race, ethnicity or culture can be Jewish.


Wrong. This word is never used with regard to Jews specificially, except in the term "antisemitism."

Since when are religions ethnic specific?


More or less correct.
More or less?


That would be an Arab Zionist. Kind of rare.
But not impossible. Arab tends to refer more to those a little further south than that area but they're pretty much the same ethnicly.


Again, "semitic" is not generally used. If it has any meaning, it refers to people whose origin is in the Middle East, including Jews and Arabs.

That's what I'm trying to say. :blink:


All these terms need to be refined as much as possible.
I agree, there needs to be more clarity to these terms, but I don't think we'll agree on them.

Please forgive me if Ive said something drasticly wrong - I blame it on my education(=the governmet).

[Elfcat]

Having the relevant ancestry, I would say that Judaism is the indigenous religion of the Hebrew ethnic group. Subsequently some non-Hebrews have become Jewish, and also many Hebrews either became Christian or Moslem in ancient history, and some have become Buddhist or Pantheist or Atheist in more recent history.

[Ironwill]

That's exactly what I said -_-


Different culture being a barrier keeping humans divided is bad and a ground for wars. Which is why it must be abolished.
Not by violent means, though. We only open the way to free human development.

Take a close look at this list too:
common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance.

all of these have been a reason to go into senseless wars. Even if it was only the ruling class leading, it is easy to fool people based on any of these factors.

This is why I am a leftist but not a communist. First off it just seems as if you are taking the easy way out by getting rid of "cultures". If a culture has a violent and destructive position then that part of it needs to be abolished but not the culture itself. (The exception to this being bourgeoise culture)

Think about how dull things would be with only one language and "one look". Humans as a whole need to learn to be logical and we can avoid most of the problems we have today. Emotions are as much to blame as different views/feelings. The logical individuals of any society have more in common than they often do with those that are their "own". So we don't have to get rid of the cultures but just make sure those that are "in charge" of them are logical.

[RED DAVE]

Having the relevant ancestry, I would say that Judaism is the indigenous religion of the Hebrew ethnic group. Subsequently some non-Hebrews have become Jewish, and also many Hebrews either became Christian or Moslem in ancient history, and some have become Buddhist or Pantheist or Atheist in more recent history.You are missing the central paradoxes:

(1) Most Jews are Jewish through having a Jewish mother (or, more rarely, a Jewish father).

(2) One can be Jewish and not practice the religion (even be an atheist.

(3) You can become Jewish through a religious ritual.

(4) But as soon as you convert to another religion, you are no longer Jewish!

RED DAVE