Why is there a double standard for Judaism?

[Mycroft]

if there are muslim patients in swiss hospitals, there is a demand for halal food.
it's that simple.
since there are many more muslims in switzerland than jews, this seems like a 'no brainer' to me.

Except that not every Muslim eats Halal any more than every Jew eats kosher. It's also common that people who do eat Halal or Kosher get by with vegetarian meals, and many Muslims may also eat kosher when Halal is not available.

None of these dietary rules apply to everyone all the time.

 

[Darat]

The "world" says Jewish settlements. They don't say Israeli settlements.

...snip...

Isn't that how the settlers identify themselves?

 

[ddt]

I know the misunderstood concept, by some, of taqiyya exist. How the issue of deception in Islam of whether a strict adherer to Islamic laws/practices would 'feign' to a democracy (ie the will of the people over the will of allah), is seen as an islamophobe, is beyond me. It would seem quite logical that a strict Muslim would not 'feign' to any concept of democracy. Nothing generalized, bigotted, or racist about it...

Interesting article behind taqiyya, for those interested: Islam's doctrines of deception

It is quit illustrative that that article gives Al-Qaeda as the only recent example of use of taqqiya, don't you think?

Wilders' take on taqqiya is: it is a core tenet of Islam. Every Muslim knows it (link to parliamentary debate where he says this, around 6:30 min). He also says not every Muslim practices it. So when any Muslim says he doesn't want sharia introduced, he may well be concealing his true intentions. This is conspiracy thinking, plain and simple. And it's unfalsifiable.

I'll up Wilders on this. Wilders is actually an AQ operative. His frequent visits to and pronounced love of Israel is an elaborate ruse to conceal this. His founding an anti-Islam party is a plot to thus strengthen the cohesion in the Dutch Muslim community so that, when they're big enough, they'll stand as one man behind introduction of Islamic theocracy. Everything he does is taqqiyah!

An exception or a freedom of religion, depends how you look at it.

It is an exception, plain and simple, when you look at the law.

And thanks for the fallacious equating of dietary practices, which primarily deals with the most effective and humane form of putting an animal for consumption down and its adherence to religious practices, to that of an issue of security of people of a certain religious/cultural background being armed with swords around in public.

Want this give this another try?

What's the fundamental difference? Secular concerns should trump religious concerns, IMHO. If there's a way to reconcile them - great! However, Ms. Thieme has presented extensive scientific evidence that unstunned slaughter causes more suffering to the animals in question. Who should I trust more when it comes to this point: reports from veterinary associations and from Wageningen University, or claims by rabbis or imams? I sense intellectual dishonesty when, e.g., Moshe Kantor in the same letter first stresses that Jewish slaughter rules are designed to minimize suffering, but then tries to negate the scientific evidence (see the link below).

Feel free to retract your underhanded generalization (ie 'victim card') and this overall issue you have with Jewish organizations being vocal about dietary practices (based on your speculation of course).

For the "victim card", see my previous post. For the rest, I don't have an issue with it, I just noted the difference in reaction. I don't see what your issue is when I say I perceive the Jewish community as well-connected. Is that something bad?

Thanks for the link. The Halalcorrect number deals with 80% of sheep slaughter that occurs in the Netherlands,

I don't see sheep slaughter specifically mentioned in the parliamentary debate I linked to. Maybe you confused the Dutch words "schapen" (sheep) and "schappen" (shelves) - some of the PMs used the words "the meat on the shelves in the supermarkets"?

When it comes to cows, btw, export seems to be the main driver nowadays. The Dutch Jewish community estimates about 2,500 cows yearly for domestic consumption, while the Agriculture Ministry estimates export of about 25,000 (tenfold!) to Israel and smaller numbers to other countries.

Perhaps more in depth comparative analysis and the amount of different meats consumed by Muslims and Jews should be presented rather than this cherry-picking method, more political than anything else.

There are, unfortunately, no definite numbers on numbers of ritual slaughter, due to rules liberalization in the past decade. The estimates differ by a factor of 2. Slaughterhouses with a permit to slaughter unstunned don't have to report these numbers to the inspection agency.

Again, religious freedom of some strict adherents to dietary law in Judaism. And FYI, I don't speak for all of Jews worldwide sitting on my comfy swivel chair, I merely mentioned one of the issues discussed on forums and such as to why stunning isn't permitted in certain sects of Judaism.

It goes without saying that this is about those Jews and Muslims that care at all about kosher resp. halal meat. Let's quote Moshe Kantor, chairman of the EJC, on this:

This ban will almost solely affect the Jewish community. Under Jewish law, which has been practiced for millennia, stunning before slaughter is completely forbidden whereas under Islamic law, there are many interpretations which allow prior stunning.

Animal welfare is secondary to slaughterhouses, especially when it comes to stunning a large animal. Its an issue of being cost-effective rather than being more humane. Plenty of videos depicting the different methods of slaughter out there and I sincerely doubt that the slaughter of sheep during Eid ul Adha will change one bit. It certainly won't in Beligum.

It's not just an issue of cost-effectiveness. The compulsion to stun an animal before slaughter is in the "Animals Health and Welfare Act". The name of the law should give a hint. And with the last sentence, do you hint to people slaughtering sheep in their backyard? I see no need to drag something that's simply illegal into the discussion. And no need to drag a country without a government into the discussion.

 

[ddt]

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. I think it's perfectly natural to think that a law that targets a Jewish practice is anti-Semitic. And let's be honest, isn't that law promoted by the PVV Freedom Party? A lot of people consider them racist.

The law is proposed by the Animal Rights Party. After the parliamentary debate, all parties except the three Christian parties sided in favour of it. During the debate I linked to, indeed, the PVV spokesman, Dion Graus, was most blunt in his remarks, but calling the PVV anti-semitic would be ludicrous: time and again, Wilders expresses his love and admiration for Israel. The PVV's is anti-Islam - yes.

And calling a law anti-semitic because it stops a previously existing exception for Jewish (and Muslim) slaughter practices, on basis of scientific evidence that it causes undue animal suffering, is laughable.

Just like the Minaret law in Switzerland. You can claim it's not anti-Muslim, after all it targets an architectural feature, not Muslims, but we all know that's just a fiction.

That's quite a different matter. It targets not an architectural feature, but the intent for the feature. You may build a church with a tower, or a synagogue with a tower, or an opera with a tower, or a villa with a tower, but not a mosque with a tower.

And there's another fundamental difference between the two: one is the end of a "positive discrimination" measure, the other is the introduction of a "negative discrimination" measure.

 

[bigjelmapro]

if there are muslim patients in swiss hospitals, there is a demand for halal food.
it's that simple.
since there are many more muslims in switzerland than jews, this seems like a 'no brainer' to me.

Except that kosher foods are halal to begin with. A Muslim would be permitted to eat kosher foods in hospitals since kosher foods adhere to a stricter set of religious dietary law than Islam does. One of the few foods that would not be available as such, would be shrimp, which Muslims are permitted to eat. But I doubt shrimp is served in hospitals unless you go to a lush Beverley hills hospital where all the celebs go.

 

[marksman]

ok i see how it was a bad example. but the other examle, of public hospitals does show that the smaller group of jews gets favored over the larger group of moslems.

Except that most kosher food is halal. That's why many places that cater to Jews and Muslims will stock kosher food that is also halal, because kosher laws tend to be more strict than halal laws. That way they can serve both populations without having to get two separate menus. So Muslims may not be getting second-rate treatment at all. I'd need more information to be sure.

Secondly, I assume Swiss hospitals will offer vegetarian dishes to vegetarians. Why did you not point out that Muslims are favored over vegetarians? Why did you choose to paint a double-standard between Muslims and Jews, specifically?

So, no, I doubt that Jews are being favored over Muslims in the scenario you provide. At any rate, the double-standard is still not between Muslims and Jews, but, at best, between Muslims and everyone else (which includes Jews, vegetarians, diabetics and anybody else with a special diet that is being accommodated).

So, again, I ask you to consider that your predilection for comparing the treatment of Muslims to the treatment for Jews is unsavory, at least.

 

[Skeptic]

Animal protection groups demand an even ban of imported Halal and Josher food.
But additionaly to that, there are huge groups of right wingers that are against import of Halal meat but with no word they mention Kosher meat.

Also Coop (a big chain of stores) for example has stores also selling Kosher products.
when they anounced they will now also have stores that also sell Halal, there was huge outcries from the right. From spamm mails, facebook groups, online petitions and even politicians speaking out against it.

and no word about Coop Kosher stores

I think Coop will probably ignore them, as it should. This shows the large chain store in the country will offer Halal products, with the usual gang screaming and hollering... until they get used to it. It's evidence of bias, yes, but of there being *less*, not more, bias.

 

[Mycroft]

The law is proposed by the Animal Rights Party. After the parliamentary debate, all parties except the three Christian parties sided in favour of it. During the debate I linked to, indeed, the PVV spokesman, Dion Graus, was most blunt in his remarks, but calling the PVV anti-semitic would be ludicrous: time and again, Wilders expresses his love and admiration for Israel. The PVV's is anti-Islam - yes.

So being anti-Israel isn’t evidence of anti-Semitism, but being pro-Israel is proof that you’re not? That makes no sense.

I’m skeptical of Wilders. It’s not unheard of for a racist to tell a few fibs to cloak their racism, nor for a fascist to make a “friendship” of convenience only to turn on that “friend” later.

And calling a law anti-semitic because it stops a previously existing exception for Jewish (and Muslim) slaughter practices, on basis of scientific evidence that it causes undue animal suffering, is laughable.

I didn’t call it anti-Semitic because it ”stops a previously existing exception, blah, blah, blah…”, I said, ” it's perfectly natural to think that a law that targets a Jewish practice is anti-Semitic.”

That's quite a different matter. It targets not an architectural feature, but the intent for the feature. You may build a church with a tower, or a synagogue with a tower, or an opera with a tower, or a villa with a tower, but not a mosque with a tower.

It targets the religious, just like the slaughter bill.

And there's another fundamental difference between the two: one is the end of a "positive discrimination" measure, the other is the introduction of a "negative discrimination" measure.

Both are designed to make religious communities feel unwelcome.

 

[funk de fino]

There is, alas, a triple standard. One for Jews: they are not allowed to defend themselves or live anywhere non-Jews don't want them too -- that's "occupation", etc. One for most of the rest of the world: they are allowed to defend themselves and live where they want (e.g., it's not considered OK to tell a Black man to move out because his White neighbors don't want him in the neighborhood), but are expected to show basic morality (e.g., not to kill people because they were insulted about some artwork). Then there is the standard for Muslims: they are expected to engage in any sort of random killing whenever they feel offended about something.

This triple standard is dangerous for Jews and insulting and racist to Muslims.

This is up there with the worst post you have ever posted. Utter fantasy and demonstrates the victim mentality perfectly. It's nonsense quotient is breathtaking.

 

[ddt]

So being anti-Israel isn’t evidence of anti-Semitism, but being pro-Israel is proof that you’re not? That makes no sense.

Depends what you mean by "being anti-Israel". I see a shifting of goal posts coming up.

I’m skeptical of Wilders. It’s not unheard of for a racist to tell a few fibs to cloak their racism, nor for a fascist to make a “friendship” of convenience only to turn on that “friend” later.

His love for Israel dates back to his being 20 or so, far earlier than his turning anti-Islam, racist, fascist or how you'd want to call it.

I didn’t call it anti-Semitic because it ”stops a previously existing exception, blah, blah, blah…”, I said, ” it's perfectly natural to think that a law that targets a Jewish practice is anti-Semitic.”

The fact it stops a previously existing exception was mentioned before in the thread. And it doesn't target exclusively a Jewish practice.

It targets the religious, just like the slaughter bill.

I explained the difference. Why should religious people get a pass on rules the rest of society has to abide by?

Or more concretely: the current Dutch slaughter laws mentions the exception on stunning explicitly for Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. Say, I invented a new religion today and promoted it, and it also preaches unstunned slaughter. Should it also get a pass?

Both are designed to make religious communities feel unwelcome.

The Utahn abolishment of polygamy was also designed to make Mormons feel unwelcome.

 

[epepke]

Isn't that how the settlers identify themselves?

Jewish settler.
Jewish settlement.

See the difference?

 

[Aepervius]

we have roughly 0.2% of the population that is Jewish.

We ve almost 6% moslems.


why?

It is a combination of historical stuff (WW2 guilt, longer integration of Jewish community in europe etc...) and of the number 0.2% vs 6%.

People protest (rightfully or wrongfully) against what they SEE and come into contact and disturb them.
From your number alone , people are 30 time likely to meet a moslem than a Jewish person.
Somebody can probably do probability , but I betcha the 0.2% agaisnt 6% is enough to explain why the accent on mosleim population. That and the accusation of being anti semite would be pretty much a killer in germany for a political carrier too, since WW2.

 

[DC]

I think Coop will probably ignore them, as it should. This shows the large chain store in the country will offer Halal products, with the usual gang screaming and hollering... until they get used to it. It's evidence of bias, yes, but of there being *less*, not more, bias.

yes i think you are right.

 

[DC]

Except that most kosher food is halal. That's why many places that cater to Jews and Muslims will stock kosher food that is also halal, because kosher laws tend to be more strict than halal laws. That way they can serve both populations without having to get two separate menus. So Muslims may not be getting second-rate treatment at all. I'd need more information to be sure.

Secondly, I assume Swiss hospitals will offer vegetarian dishes to vegetarians. Why did you not point out that Muslims are favored over vegetarians? Why did you choose to paint a double-standard between Muslims and Jews, specifically?

So, no, I doubt that Jews are being favored over Muslims in the scenario you provide. At any rate, the double-standard is still not between Muslims and Jews, but, at best, between Muslims and everyone else (which includes Jews, vegetarians, diabetics and anybody else with a special diet that is being accommodated).

So, again, I ask you to consider that your predilection for comparing the treatment of Muslims to the treatment for Jews is unsavory, at least.

yes you are right, its no a double standard like i wanted to show it, its indeed a double standard for moslems compared to all others.
And it was stupid to pick jews to make my point that wasnt a point to begin with.

But no, i really dont think i am somewhat anti semitic and this would be the reason i choosed them.

 

[marksman]

i really dont think i am somewhat anti semitic and this would be the reason i choosed them.

So singling out Jews by making false claims that they are being favorably treated shows that you are not anti-semitic? DC, you didn't even mention Muslims in the thread title. The thread title indicate a double standard for Judaism, when the subject was (or should have been) a double standard for Islam.

If you don't think you're antisemitic, and I believe that you really believe it, you should at least engage in a little self-evaluation to figure out why you named the thread the way you did and why you so uncritically assumed that Jews were getting favorable treatment.

 

[DC]

So singling out Jews by making false claims that they are being favorably treated shows that you are not anti-semitic? DC, you didn't even mention Muslims in the thread title. The thread title indicate a double standard for Judaism, when the subject was (or should have been) a double standard for Islam.

If you don't think you're antisemitic, and I believe that you really believe it, you should at least engage in a little self-evaluation to figure out why you named the thread the way you did and why you so uncritically assumed that Jews were getting favorable treatment.

the thread title was choosen because of another thread with a similar title.
i picked jews because they, the orthodox jews are somewhat visible in the city i am living in, because they also have their sinagogues and often stick more together.
those two are the only significant groups with different religions than the majority or our religions people.

i dont have a problem with either group. i dont caer if they want to wear their traditional clothes, when they prefer to be among eachother, if they want special food.
so i picked jews and moslems because they are two groups that are good comparable.

and i didnt make the claim that it somehow shows i am not anti semitic, how do you come up with that idea?

and the reason i didnt respind here, while i did respond to other topics in the same time, is because i actually was thinking about my points and the points given to me here, and also your question if i am anti semitic, and i think, no i am not. But pls keep trying to make that point.

 

[Skeptic]

yes i think you are right.

By the way -- an often-overlooked advantage of the capitalist system is that, "money talks, BS walks" has a significant moral upside. That is, people tend to put money over principles... but also over prejudices. If Coop sees it can make money marketing to Muslims, it would, even if Coop's executives hate Muslims. This in turn tends to then reduce prejudice in time.

 

[DC]

By the way -- an often-overlooked advantage of the capitalist system is that, "money talks, BS walks" has a significant moral upside. That is, people tend to put money over principles... but also over prejudices. If Coop sees it can make money marketing to Muslims, it would, even if Coop's executives hate Muslims. This in turn tends to then reduce prejudice in time.

mmmh for once a possitive side of put money over principles.

 

[Skeptic]

So singling out Jews by making false claims that they are being favorably treated shows that you are not anti-semitic?

Er, DC doesn't think it's wrong to offer kosher food to Jews. He just thinks Muslims are discriminated against by not being offered the same as Jews. I fail to see why this is antisemitic. Surely he isn't suggesting any sort of pro-Jewish conspiracy that gives Jews an unfair benefit.

 

[Skeptic]

mmmh for once a possitive side of put money over principles.

If there is ever a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it would be based on such economic cooperation. Right now, for instance, Israel is spending a lot of money to open a high-tech "complex" in the Arab city of Nazarath, for instance. The hope is that the Arabs and Jews who live there will be lured to betray sacred principles of never-mix-with-the-other-fellow for money. Whether it will work or not I have no idea, but I hope it will.