Why is there a double standard for Judaism?

[DC]

Have you considered contacting an elected official with your concern?

No. They are somewhat aware of the problem. oh well those outside the SVP atleast

 

[beachnut]

... oh Harold's? sound good, i love hamburgers... oh wait thats in Verbie, they speak frensh there, i hate them.
...

I believe diversity is best, and tolerance is the way. When in Saudi Arabia (1991) I used the, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", up to a point; when the Saudis said the women could not drive, the General told the Saudis, women will drive as their job required; but "off duty" we observed customs. We got kicked out of an outdoor restaurant in SA, we were sitting with fellow soldiers (women), the owner had just got out of jail for letting it happen a few weeks earlier, so he made us leave; the flight nurse was upset!.
Is the French beer that bad?

 

[DC]

I believe diversity is best, and tolerance is the way. When in Saudi Arabia (1991) I used the, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do", up to a point; when the Saudis said the women could not drive, the General told the Saudis, women will drive as their job required; but "off duty" we observed customs. We got kicked out of an outdoor restaurant in SA, we were sitting with fellow soldiers (women), the owner had just got out of jail for letting it happen a few weeks earlier, so he made us leave; the flight nurse was upset!.
Is the French beer that bad?

considering we let woman only vote since the 70's some cantons since the 80's, we are maybe not so different from the Saudis

 

[Darth Rotor]

empty post.

How droll: a prose self-portrait.

 

[bikerdruid]

In France the Jewish vote is 500,000. The Muslim vote is five million. So a noted French intellectual sent a letter to the Socialist Party advising them to ditch the Jewish vote in favour of the Muslim vote.

sounds like democracy. with 10 times the numbers, they deserve more consideration from the government.
isn't that what democracy is all about?

 

[Skeptic]

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.

 

[ddt]

Not really. That's plain ignorance. Making generalizations about religious beliefs/customs/etc. doesn't automatically entitle one to being in the same ranks as Hitler. This would be a great example of Godwin's law, since pretty much all the cases that this law has been employed on this website is incorrect.

Maybe I formulated it sloppy, but I didn't mean all generalizations - obviously, some generalizations are true, like that all Muslims believe in Allah . As an example of what I meant, take the islamophobe interpretation of taqiya: Muslim immigrants feign adherence to liberal democracy, but once there are enough, they strive to establish Sharia. That's a direct equivalent of the "Protocols". And while repeating claims from the "Protocols" will land you in court as a suspect, people like Wilders and his party ideologue Martin Bosma can freely claim such things.

I would dare say that the brunt of protestors, in the Netherlands that is (as my argument isn't restricted to the Netherlands, when yours obviously is), are from the orthodox background.

I'll take your word for it.

A central issue here that's being missed, is the slippery slope the Dutch government, and goverments worldwide, would endure when stepping in on religious freedoms and where to draw the line. Which freedoms would be restricted and who would decide this along with what other freedoms might face restrictions.

You do realize that we're talking here about an existing exception in the law, which is proposed being lifted? Religious tenets should not give you a "get out of jail free" card for not adhering to the rules society sets. Sikhs don't get to carry swords around either.

To me, ritual slaughter and issues of animal cruelty is a no-brainer. As is the blatant generalization by yourself that Jewish organizations "are better organized, better know how to play the political game (or how to play the victim card), or maybe they have more interest in keeping the law as it is."

This is a case and point of those generalizations that you were so worried about.

Those were speculations on reasons why Jewish organizations were more vocal in their protest. Feel free to actually comment on them or to give your idea why their protests were more vocal.

As for 80% halal slaughterhouses claim. Its a claim and I don't see any actual source for it, albeit I don't see how this claim would be false.

Ms. Thieme, the Animal Party leader, mentioned this figure in the parliamentary debate (link in Dutch). Her source was the Dutch organization HalalCorrect which has instituted a Halal certification brand.

Islamic slaughter permits stunning, in Judaism, there's the ongoing discussion that stunning bruises the animal, which would render the meat unkosher. Depending on the form of stunning, both can be unkosher/haram depending if the animal is unconscious or actually dead prior to slaughter. Stunning of chickens prior to slaughter, to my knowledge, is haram/unkosher in both Islam and Judaism.

In fact, with this description you acknowledge that Jews have more interest in keeping the exemption in the law, with your mentioning the discussion that stunning causes bruising. (FYI: the current proposal is only about "big" animals like sheep and cattle, not about chickens).

Lest we forget, the act of stunning here was and continues to be primarily for the safety of those working at the slaughterhouse, not for the humane method of slaughter.

Interesting article: Stunning Animals Before Slaughtering Them

Be that as it may, but animal welfare has become an important aspect too.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

*rubs eyes*

Because they don't need to.


Has nothing to do with integration.

I'm not sure I understand your point...in what way would being regarded as an outsider have NOTHING to do with integration?

 

[DC]

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.

and do you think you are looking at it objectively?

 

[Matt Giwer]

BS

Collective guilt, communities being punished for the actions of individuals I called pagan. What would you choose to call it? I'm always open for better names as our vocabulary on religious matters is very limited.

 

[DC]

Collective guilt, communities being punished for the actions of individuals I called pagan. What would you choose to call it? I'm always open for better names as our vocabulary on religious matters is very limited.

pls spare me your nazi nonsense.
it is just disgusting.

 

[Darat]

I think one of the reasons is familiarity, in the UK we have long established areas that it is fair to describe as Jewish areas, as we do with our various "China towns". We've had these for some time so they are generally just accepted, but if you go back in time you can see that when these were new there was often a lot of disquiet about these areas. I think the same will be true for our newly developing "Muslim areas", once they no longer seem to be something new in our urban landscape they will just become part of British life.

And to support that idea I would say look at what I think is the oldest "Muslim" community in the UK (dating from the late 19th century), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shields#Yemeni_community they are now just part of that community.

 

[DC]

I think one of the reasons is familiarity, in the UK we have long established areas that it is fair to describe as Jewish areas, as we do with our various "China towns". We've had these for some time so they are generally just accepted, but if you go back in time you can see that when these were new there was often a lot of disquiet about these areas. I think the same will be true for our newly developing "Muslim areas", once they no longer seem to be something new in our urban landscape they will just become part of British life.

And to support that idea I would say look at what I think is the oldest "Muslim" community in the UK (dating from the late 19th century), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shields#Yemeni_community they are now just part of that community.

oh thanks, a very good point.

 

[bikerdruid]

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 --

utter nonsense.
the world does not approve of israelis stealing land from their neighbours.
that is just common sense.
why is it that you automatically read 'jews' for 'israelis'?
i always thought that israel was a secular state.

 

[Matt Giwer]

pls spare me your nazi nonsense.
it is just disgusting.

For want of a better name pagan it remains.

Collectively guilt has no place in western culture or in law. That remains a fact regardless of your dislike of the term pagan.

Read my sig. Join the local URL in the sig if you think you can make a case to the contrary.

 

[DC]

For want of a better name pagan it remains.

Collectively guilt has no place in western culture or in law. That remains a fact regardless of your dislike of the term pagan.

Read my sig. Join the local URL in the sig if you think you can make a case to the contrary.

there is no collective guilt. Nobody ever told me that i am guilty for the deeds of the Nazis, not even for the swiss banksters that stole gold and money from Jews back then.
Not even Germans are guilty for what their Nazi parents did.

you are talking BS

 

[marksman]

Denial of the Holocaust is against the laws.

I don't think that's accurate. Switzerland has a law prohibiting defamation of a people.

Wiki translates the law as follows:

Racial discrimination

Whoever publicly, by word, writing, image, gesture, acts of violence or any other manner, demeans or discriminates against an individual or a group of individuals because of their race, their ethnicity or their religion in a way which undermines human dignity, or on those bases, denies, coarsely minimizes or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity [...] shall be punished with up to three years imprisonment or a fine

So Swiss law applies equally to Jews and Muslims (and other ethnicities). It would be just as illegal in Switzerland to deny the Holocaust as it would be to deny a genocide of Muslims, Christians, or Roma.

I agree that your minaret-ban is bigoted, but that doesn't have anything to do with a double-standard vis-a-vis Jews, since Jewish architecture doesn't get preferential treatment compared to other ethnicities (other than Muslims).

Politicans (especially SVP) are making the most unbelievable claims about Islam and moslems. it seems acceptable to openly express your Islamaphobia and blatant lies about them.

Groups that say similar stuff about jews are under observation by the police, we keep an eye on them. Not so when you concentrate on Moslems.

why?

I imagine if people said similar things about Christians, the police should monitor them too. I think you are slanting this to make it look like a Jew vs. Moslem conflict when, in reality, it appears simply to be that the Swiss don't like Muslims and it has nothing to do with Jews.

Which of course makes me wonder why you are trying to bring Jewishness into the debate at all.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Maybe I formulated it sloppy, but I didn't mean all generalizations - obviously, some generalizations are true,...

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

You do realize that we're talking here about an existing exception in the law, which is proposed being lifted? Religious tenets should not give you a "get out of jail free" card for not adhering to the rules society sets. Sikhs don't get to carry swords around either.

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

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?

Those were speculations on reasons why Jewish organizations were more vocal in their protest. Feel free to actually comment on them or to give your idea why their protests were more vocal.

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).

Ms. Thieme, the Animal Party leader, mentioned this figure in the parliamentary debate (link in Dutch). Her source was the Dutch organization HalalCorrect which has instituted a Halal certification brand.

Thanks for the link. The Halalcorrect number deals with 80% of sheep slaughter that occurs in the Netherlands, which to my knowledge, isn't much of a market since the Netherlands imports quite a sizeable amount from overseas, from Turkey and the US for instance, that's slaughtered according to halal practices.

Is this 80 percentile used for anything more than political purposes that the Dutch halal meat industry, more specifically, sheep/mutton, is more accepting of this already used method of butchering than in Judaism?

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.

In fact, with this description you acknowledge that Jews have more interest in keeping the exemption in the law, with your mentioning the discussion that stunning causes bruising. (FYI: the current proposal is only about "big" animals like sheep and cattle, not about chickens).

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.

Be that as it may, but animal welfare has become an important aspect too.

An important aspect, sure. But then again, are we not here discussing the different methods of electrocution and its effectiveness in a slaughter-house as well? I doubt the slaughter-house setting is as effective as say, the checking and re-checking of whether the animal is dead prior to slaughter, as compared to the checking if an inmate is deceased in the electric chair before being put into a body bag.

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.

 

[DC]

I don't think that's accurate. Switzerland has a law prohibiting defamation of a people.

Wiki translates the law as follows:


So Swiss law applies equally to Jews and Muslims (and other ethnicities). It would be just as illegal in Switzerland to deny the Holocaust as it would be to deny a genocide of Muslims, Christians, or Roma.

I agree that your minaret-ban is bigoted, but that doesn't have anything to do with a double-standard vis-a-vis Jews, since Jewish architecture doesn't get preferential treatment compared to other ethnicities (other than Muslims).


I imagine if people said similar things about Christians, the police should monitor them too. I think you are slanting this to make it look like a Jew vs. Moslem conflict when, in reality, it appears simply to be that the Swiss don't like Muslims and it has nothing to do with Jews.

Which of course makes me wonder why you are trying to bring Jewishness into the debate at all.

wer öffentlich Ideologien verbreitet, die auf die systematische Herabsetzung oder Verleumdung der Angehörigen einer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion gerichtet sind,

this part is used against holocasut deniers. but it never was applied to SVP politicans that publicy claim that Islam demands tmoslems to kill all non muslims, it is ok for them to say Islam is a political ideology and not a religion and they all come here to conquer us from within, this stuff doesn't get punished, but when you say the holhocaust did never happen, that can lead to punishment.

the laws dont get applied evenly. they are getting applied in favor of jews.
this is surely not the fault of any jew, it is our own fault. so i dont blame Jews or Moslems, i blame swissians.

also the outcry about halal and kosher is very different while we have far more kosher butchers than halal butchers.

 

[ddt]

I think all groups have the right to advocate for their own self-interests, and that there is something seriously wrong with portraying that as "playing the victim card."

Sure everyone has the right to advocate for their own interests, I never denied that. As to playing the victim card, I alluded to this kind of statements:

While the legislation was drafted ostensibly because of animal rights concerns, it is a slippery slope to populism, extremism and anti-Semitism.