"Holocaust is Jews own religious fault"

[Skeptic]

Oliver's point in his latest post seems to be that since they Jews were always hated, it must be their own fault for "following the Jewish religion" -- that is, for, er, being Jews. Surely billions of antisemites over thousands of years can't ALL be wrong, can they?

Boy, talk about an apology that worse than the original sin: "Nonono, I didn't mean the holocaut is the Jews' fault for not assimilating -- I meant ALL antisemitism is the Jews' fault for not assimilating!"

 

[marksman]

Oliver, please present a thesis before you present evidence. All you did was present a history of antisemitismas committed by Christian Europeans against Jewish Europeans.

Can you please explain what you mean by the phrase "religion lead to antisemitism"?

You can't expect us to evaluate your "evidence" until you clearly explain what that is trying to show. The reason I ask is because "religion lead to antiemitism" is a meaningless phrase. What do you mean by "lead"? Is it simply a causal effect with not moral implications? Do you mean religion as a concept is blameworthy? Do you mean a specific religion is responsible for antisemitism? If so, which one.

DOn't cite evidence until you explain clearly what you think this evidence can demonstrate. You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

[TimCallahan]

Oliver:

I,m still waiting to hear about your friend, i.e. his level of education, his feelings about Jews, etc.

Also, I have a suggestion for you: Assuming you yourselfare not antagonistic toward Jews, it might have been better to phrase the title of this thread as a question: "Was the Holocaust the Jews' own religios fault?" If you try that in the future, it might not give people the impression that your are prejudiced.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver's point in his latest post seems to be that since they Jews were always hated, it must be their own fault for "following the Jewish religion" -- that is, for, er, being Jews. Surely billions of antisemites over thousands of years can't ALL be wrong, can they?

Boy, talk about an apology that worse than the original sin: "Nonono, I didn't mean the holocaut is the Jews' fault for not assimilating -- I meant ALL antisemitism is the Jews' fault for not assimilating!"

Actually, no. As you may remember, I wrote that the argument of my collegue did strike me as a major argument against religion because even if I recieved snippets about anti-semitism throughout the centuries through documentaries, articles and so on, all the teachings about the Shoah rather tend to focus on the Nazi-Regime while in fact, Anti-Semitism didn't start in recent history but centuries ago.

Now since people nowadays rather focus on the holocaust and Nazis, which surely were responsible for what happened to millions of innocent Jewish people [and innocent, non-Jewish people], it shouldn't be forgotten that anti-semitism was a major contributor to the holocaust - while the root of anti-semitism is religion.

However, in no way did I meant to insult anyone or to imply that the Jews are to blame for anti-semitism and the Holocaust, all I say is that religion is the source of all evil that led to anti-semitism and finally, the holocaust.

So my argument is against Religion itself, not against the Jews as a religious community.

Oliver, please present a thesis before you present evidence. All you did was present a history of antisemitismas committed by Christian Europeans against Jewish Europeans.

Can you please explain what you mean by the phrase "religion lead to antisemitism"?

You can't expect us to evaluate your "evidence" until you clearly explain what that is trying to show. The reason I ask is because "religion lead to antiemitism" is a meaningless phrase. What do you mean by "lead"? Is it simply a causal effect with not moral implications? Do you mean religion as a concept is blameworthy? Do you mean a specific religion is responsible for antisemitism? If so, which one.

DOn't cite evidence until you explain clearly what you think this evidence can demonstrate. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Yes, I think that religion as a whole is to blame for anti-semitism because all events regarding the Jewish people always includes the religious point of view at the time. Actually the very term "Jew" early on has be seen as a religious affiliation. Thus other religious groups attacked Judaism and the Jews just because Judaism doesn't believe what they believed.

As to your question which religion is to blame, my assumption is that all religions involved concerning incidents involving the Jewish people, are to blame. Or, which was my intend in here, blame all of Religion.

Why? - Because:

Without Christianity, there probably wouldn't have been Anti-Semitism against non-Christians, including the Jewish people.

Without Judaism, there wouldn't be a term called "Jews" or "Judaism", thus Christians might not attacked them for their different believes.

Without religion as a whole, the terms anti-semitism and anti-judaism wouldn't exist and there never were any passages in scriptures about it.

So all in all, I blame religion as the major contributor for anti-semitism and I blame anti-semitism as a major propaganda tool for the Nazis to make a case [incorrect one] against the Jewish people.

Oliver:

I,m still waiting to hear about your friend, i.e. his level of education, his feelings about Jews, etc.

Also, I have a suggestion for you: Assuming you yourselfare not antagonistic toward Jews, it might have been better to phrase the title of this thread as a question: "Was the Holocaust the Jews' own religios fault?" If you try that in the future, it might not give people the impression that your are prejudiced.

Well, I often use deliberately controverse thread titles to attract attention to the topic at hand. However, I don't see how this one is more controverse than other thread titles I chose in the past.

Concerning my colleague, he's a staff manager. But I don't see a reason why I should personalize the issue by dragging him into a conversation about him on the internet he isn't even aware about yet.

In other words, while I know that my colleague never said anything anti-semitic despite agreeing with me that the Israeli religious right is as much of a problem as the religious Arab side is - concerning the peace process, which isn't an anti-semitic stance at all, the issue at hand isn't about him nor about me: It still is about religion, that's why I started this thread in here, namely: Religion and Philosophy

 

[marksman]

Yes, I think that religion as a whole is to blame for anti-semitism because all events regarding the Jewish people always includes the religious point of view at the time.

Then you are arguing a tautology. Of course "religion" is to blame, because the victims are distinguished from others by their religion. You are -- deliberately in my opinion -- making a rather provocative statement that, when examined is utterly meaningless and unhelpful. In fact, I find this statement no more noteworthy than saying the "Big Bang" leads to antisemitism, a point that you found "far-fetched." Why isn't it just as far-fetched to say that religion caused antisemitism? What is noteworthy about your observation? As far as I can see, it has no substance and is only designd to get a rise out of people by making people think you're saying something antisemitic, when the truth is you're saying nothing noteworthy at all.

Well, I often use deliberately controverse thread titles to attract attention to the topic at hand. However, I don't see how this one is more controverse than other thread titles I chose in the past.

Your inability to be sensitive to how others may perceve your threads says nothing good about who you are or what you think. It is, at best, an indication of an immature and juvenille behavior. At worst, you are ignorant of your own prejudices. However, you may be lying, and actually are a bigot, who often tries to hide behind a veneer of juvenility and ignorance.

Even if making yourself seem like an antisemite with a deliberately misleadingly provocative thread title is not more controversial then other thread titles you have posted, all that means is that you have been systematically trashing your own reputation for the purpose of getting people to post to your threads.

Do you really value the number of replies you get above any credibility you might want people to give what you write? Are you that starved for attention?

 

[Oliver]

Then you are arguing a tautology. Of course "religion" is to blame, because the victims are distinguished from others by their religion. You are -- deliberately in my opinion -- making a rather provocative statement that, when examined is utterly meaningless and unhelpful. In fact, I find this statement no more noteworthy than saying the "Big Bang" leads to antisemitism, a point that you found "far-fetched." Why isn't it just as far-fetched to say that religion caused antisemitism? What is noteworthy about your observation? As far as I can see, it has no substance and is only designd to get a rise out of people by making people think you're saying something antisemitic, when the truth is you're saying nothing noteworthy at all.

Your inability to be sensitive to how others may perceve your threads says nothing good about who you are or what you think. It is, at best, an indication of an immature and juvenille behavior. At worst, you are ignorant of your own prejudices. However, you may be lying, and actually are a bigot, who often tries to hide behind a veneer of juvenility and ignorance.

Even if making yourself seem like an antisemite with a deliberately misleadingly provocative thread title is not more controversial then other thread titles you have posted, all that means is that you have been systematically trashing your own reputation for the purpose of getting people to post to your threads.

Do you really value the number of replies you get above any credibility you might want people to give what you write? Are you that starved for attention?

Well, given the fact that the holocaust usually highlights the Nazi-Endlösung and ideology, when in fact anti-semitism throughout the centuries based on religious beliefs was the main source for distrust towards the Jewish people and finally led to the holocaust, it shouldn't be forgotten, how anti-semitism came about in the first place.

Yet, even in my German history lessons in school, the history of anti-semitism didn't get any deeper attention about the holocaust, the topic of the holocaust in School rather was all about the Nazis, but not about the history of anti-semitism. Which is wrong given all the evidence concerning anti-semitism before the 1900's.

Now in the aftermath of chosing the title at hand, I can understand why it is more emotional to some people than my usual controversial thread titles, but since the OP and all my posts do not support the title's accusation, I don't see a reason to apologize for chosing that specific title.

Actually, it merely seems to be your [and some other posters] personal perception that this thread title is more controversial than all my other controversial titles. Think about it.

 

[marksman]

Well, given the fact that the holocaust usually highlights the Nazi-Endlösung and ideology, when in fact anti-semitism throughout the centuries based on religious beliefs was the main source for distrust towards the Jewish people and finally led to the holocaust, it shouldn't be forgotten, how anti-semitism came about in the first place.

Yet, even in my German history lessons in school, the history of anti-semitism didn't get any deeper attention about the holocaust

Then you should have explained that your thread is in fact a complaint about the inadequacies of the German educational system's discussion of the origins of antisemitism. But this is the firt time in this thread that you've mentioned the German education system at all, so I think you merely invented this as a purpose for your thread.

But for the rest of us, you're stating things that are tautological and unremarkable. So you make yourself appear, at best, mindboggling ignorant, or intentionally offensive. Apparently, you've now chosen to blame the German educational system for your mindboggling ignorance.

Now in the aftermath of chosing the title at hand, I can understand why it is more emotional to some people than my usual controversial thread titles, but since the OP and all my posts do not support the title's accusation, I don't see a reason to apologize for chosing that specific title.

I'm nt asking you to apologize. I'm asking you to stop acting like a juvenile ass by not engaging in that sort of behavior in the future. More accurately, I am asking you to care about your credibility on thee boards by acting less like an ass and more like a mature member of a community. I really don't know why you're acting like that is some sort of insurmountable burden for you.

Actually, it merely seems to be your [and some other posters] personal perception that this thread title is more controversial than all my other controversial titles. Think about it.

Except I never said that I perceived this thread as being more controversial than other time you did it. You just started making the accusation for reasons unfathomable. This thread is simply one of the most striking examples of your behavior. I was using it as an opportunity to get you to change your behavior into something that might actually be contributive and productive. But since you don't seem either willing to consider or capable of considering how counterproductive your behavior is, it seems like there remains no point.

At least, Oliver, can you see that your use of a deliberatively productive thread title has, apparently, garnered you nobody who is agreeing that your tautology is something worthy of discussion. All it did is get people talking about either the thread title you say you don't agree with, and how inappropriate your behavior is? I can't imagine that's what you were hoping this thread would result in, is it?

 

[Pardalis]

Any news from your "co-worker", Oliver?

 

[Oliver]

Any news from your "co-worker", Oliver?

Not yet, but you still could give us your humble opinion, for a start.

 

[Pardalis]

Not yet, but you still could give us your humble opinion, for a start.

There are five pages of reading material for you in this thread.

It's not about opinion, but historical facts.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oliver, please present a thesis before you present evidence. All you did was present a history of antisemitismas committed by Christian Europeans against Jewish Europeans.

Can you please explain what you mean by the phrase "religion lead to antisemitism"?

A bit over a year ago, Cleon (or was it you?) made a nice good post pointing out that Jew is not a religious designation alone, the way Christian is. It has for a very long time also connoted blood relationship/connection, and of course as with religious labels cultural connotations. Thus, you can be a Jew and an atheist, and it makes sense. You can't be a Christian and an atheist in the same way, nor a Muslim and an atheist.

The Nazi habit of using the blood link as an excuse to send somebody off ought to help divest any discussion along these lines of the religion argument. It was a blood/ethnicity issue, far more similar to, for example, Hutu Tutsi struggles in Central Africa or Tamil/Sinhalese more recently in Sri Lanka. See also Persians versus Arabs, and so on.

That the discussion keeps returning to religion strikes me as compounding of an error, which is what the OP is: an error.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Not to mention that alot of Jews who were assimilated were whisked to concentration camps anyways.

 

[Skeptic]

They just didn't assimilate ENOUGH, Pardalis. They should have gone back in time and changed their parents into gentiles. Was that too much to ask?

 

[Matthew Cline]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't a number of Jewish people convert during the Spanish Inquisition to avoid being, well, inquisited?

Not quite.

Not quite. Many Jews converted because of persecution by the government and by civilians. Once they converted they were persecuted by the Inquisition, which was run by the Catholic Church. The Inquisition ignored Jews who hadn't converted, because their mission was to make sure that people who claimed to be Christian weren't merely pretending to be Christian.

 

[HansMustermann]

Indeed. The church technically didn't even have jurisdiction over someone who isn't a christian.

Of course, it's a somewhat technical point, since after 1492 CE you couldn't legally be a non-christian in Spain. Though, as you correctly mention, it would be the secular justice that got you then.

Also, either option was crap, really. It only took one anonymous tip that you still worship your old religion as a Jew or Moor, to be arrested by the inquisition and tortured until you confess or die. There was no possible outcome where you'd be proclaimed innocent. To illustrate how sure they were you're not gonna prove yourself innocent, they'd confiscate your wealth and possessions in advance, though technically that was supposed to be a punishment for those found guilty.

 

[Cainkane1]

Yesterday I had a conversation about the whole Middle East mess with a colleague and we also talked about Israel as a part of it. When the Holocaust came up as an "accelerator" for immigration into Palestine, he argued that "the Holocaust probably never had happened if the Jews wouldn't have sticked to their religion and instead, integrated themselves into European societies so they wouldn't have been the scapegoat for centuries".

Now that striked me as a loaded argument against Religion, Judaism in particular, but I have no Idea how much of that POV is accurate. Sure, from History we know that Jewish People in strong Christian Societies [and other religious communities] were seen as "different" and probably in many cases in a negative meaning, but would integration have avoided the Shoah, I don't know.

Your thoughts?

[And I might add that my collegue isn't an Anti-Semite from what he argued besides that particular POV]

Conversion to xcianity wouldn't have helped them because of thE BIGGOTRY that existed in the world at that time.

 

[davefoc]

Conversion to xcianity wouldn't have helped them because of thE BIGGOTRY that existed in the world at that time.

Conversion to Christianity or Islam or whatever the local religion was because of the human desire to just fit in or for more practical reasons has obviously been widely practiced by Jews and all other peoples on the planet since humans began.

One of the things that seems to be true of the way people think about Jews that is different than almost everybody else is they tend to think of them as some sort of racially pure group that has lasted for thousands of years isolated and non assimilating.

This is of course, crap. As I understand it about 50% of the Ashkenazi genotype is derived from European sources. And it is almost certainly true that there are millions of Arabs walking around today that are more closely related to the people who wrote the Hebrew bible than most of the Ashkenazi Jews that make up a great deal of the Israeli population.

One way of interpreting the opening question was as a question about whether there is something in the Jewish traditions or Christian traditions with regard to Jews that makes assimilation of Jews slower into Christian culture than other minorities.

I don't know the answer to that. The rate of assimilation by a minority population varies greatly depending on many variables including physical differences between the minority and the majority population and the relative size of the minority population to majority population. So it is very difficult to determine what role the cultural leanings of the Jews played with regard to their rate of assimilation. None the less it is far from an anti-semitic idea to suspect that there is something about the Jewish culture that made assimilation slower than it might have been otherwise.

On the other hand one can interpret the opening post as implying that Jews were morally responsible for their own murder because they refused to assimilate. This seems to be what many people have taken the OP to mean and maybe they are right. Assuming they are right then it doesn't seem to me there is much to discuss. The thought is evil to the degree that evil can exist. And this thread could easily be simplified with each poster just coming up with their own spin on how to express maximum moral outrage.

 

[Pardalis]

Any news from your friend Oliver?

 

[Doctor Evil]

Any news from your friend Oliver?

Maybe his mirror is broken

 

[Debaser]

I think something that's overlooked is that godawful phrase 'Chosen People'. If you are an early Christian, a Gentile convert for example, however much your religious leaders may assure you that your faith in Jesus will get you to this paradise called Heaven, that Jews were no longer as favoured as they were, surely there would always be this nagging doubt that they were after all God's Chosen and you, you obviously weren't.

It's there in black and white in the Old Testament. Your God's word.

This doesn't matter if Christianity remains a small cult. That it essentially becomes the state religion of an empire (and succesive Western empires), such that word of its teachings spreads throughout the known world, together with its attendant prejudices, is the Jewish tragedy.

Combine that with the exclusivity of Jewish diaspora communities (i.e not 'marrying out') and you have a combination of jealousy and ignorance that ultimately leads to visceral hatred in individuals and groups.