Religious Intolerance: Israel and Ireland

by Mike Novack Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:40

"No democracy would admit to being intolerant of minority faiths or opposed to religious liberty...."

Apparently you are unclear about what "democracy" is or isn't.

WHAT do you think a "constitution with bill of rights" is? Why do you think the US has one (and that the founders of US democracy could't agree on their initial system without this "bill of rights"?

A "Bill of Rights" (specifying what the democracy CANNOT do) is a limitation of democracy, an anti-democratic document if you like. One that limits the will of the majority on certain matters. There are clauses in (for example) the US Consitution main body limiting the oaths and tests for office* as well as the section of the Bill of Rights forbidding a national religion (states were at the time still allowed establishment on a state level).

DEMOCRACY is NOT, repeat NOT protection for minority rights. Democracy is about the will of the majority and protections for minority interests are un-democratic (STOP --- that doesn't mean that I don't approve of such limitations). We should not at all be surprised that a place like Israel with its extremely democratic system (proportional representation with very low threshhold, few limits on the power of its parliament) has no formal protection for minority rights.

Please --- stop using "democracy" as a sacred cow or attributing to it virtues that it does not posses.

* At the time the democraticly established oath of office could easily be worded so as to exclude people not of some faith .... for example, could have words like "by my faith as a Protestant Christain".

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jun 16, 2011 18:33

Problem there Mike, to achieve recognition of your membership of the Israeli demos you should first ensure you can prove your Jewish genetic ancestry.

Yes , I know there are Arab Israelis, but the Israeli identity of Arabs/Moslems is being constantly eroded, and the population is being engineered on a sectarian basis that is in denial of the equal humanity of non-Jews.
And Israel is demanding to be recognised as a 'Jewish' state.

Do you consider that politically, psycologically, or intellectually healthy?Or ultimately democratic, other than on a racist/sectarian foundational premise of identity.

I've seen the consequences of southern Irish plutocracies defining this state as 'Catholic', while their northern mirror sectarians retarded the people's development by reciprocal limitations. I'm glad to see that dying out, however slowly.

by Mike Novack Thu Jun 16, 2011 21:58

a) Problem there Mike, to achieve recognition of your membership of the Israeli demos you should first ensure you can prove your Jewish genetic ancestry.

Uh no friend. First of all that would be a matter of "tribal membership" and that isn't strictly speaking a 1:1 match with genetics. Since it's a tribe that follows "matrilienal descent" the children of Jewsih mothers are members of the tribe by birth. Male genes don't count for that. There's no "half", by birth you eiuther are or aren't. And "converts" are as much full Jews as anybody else (part of the ritual is a ceremonial adoption --- and as with any tribe that recognizes "adoption", adopted children are considered legitimate children of their adoptive parents). Try some Anthropolgy.

BUT -- not that it should have mattered for this discussion, I am a member of that tribe by birth.

b) .......... a sectarian basis that is in denial of the equal humanity of non-Jews.......
Where on Earth do you get THAT idea? Jews don't think non-Jews are any less humans (just not members of their tribe). You might compare this with the thinking of any other tribal people. A Dene or a Hopi considers me not a Dene or a Hopi and not entitled to any special "rights" associated with membership in those tribes -- and they would feel the same about each other. It is rather common for tribal peoples to "know" that there are people around them who don't belong to their tribe but fairly unusual for them not to be considered human. Enemy humans perhaps, but still humans.

c) Do you consider that politically, psycologically, or intellectually healthy?
You saw me express an opinion about that?
Or ultimately democratic, other than on a racist/sectarian foundational premise of identity
But here is where we (probably, since you ask) disagree very strongly. Democracy is NOT, repeat NOT about resepcting others, making wise, good, just, etc. decisions. Democracy (when working) is JUST about making the decisions that the majority want to be made. People being people those would frequently be rather bad, cruel, unjust, etc. etc. decsions. As a result, many systems have introduced limitations on democracy, protections for the minority interests, things that may prevent the majority from implementing what it wants without needing to negoitate with the mionority interests giving them some of what they want.

If you meant to ask "are you against DEMOCRACY (pure democracy) the answer is yes.

d)I've seen the consequences of southern Irish plutocracies defining this state as 'Catholic', while their northern mirror sectarians retarded the people's development by reciprocal limitations. I'm glad to see that dying out, however slowly.

You are wearing ideological blinders. Take them off. This is NOT a "right" vs "left" thing (economic right and left). A "left" majority in a pure democracy (shudder) would make terrible decisions too.

Again, back to the beginning. The charge was that Israeli sectarianism (not racism*) was UNDEMOCRATIC. I was saying nonsense, instead a symptom of "too much democracy", democracy not controlled by a "bill of rights" protecting minorty interests,

* There is far more RACIAL diversity internal to the Jews than there is in any conflict between them and any Arabs or between them and you Europeans. That is not to say that they don't have some internal racism (they do) but that has nothing to do with their conflicts with non-Jews.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:01

My dictionary defines anthropology as ' the study of humankind, esp. of its societies and customs'.
I'd say I'm within those bounds.

Your self-selecting tribalism seems pretty arbitrary, as does your recognition of my 'friendship' seem a wee bit overweening.
In fact, your whole response smacks of a headful of semantic split ends that is more redolent of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty '..words mean what I choose them to mean', given that if we pursue that line of split derivatives we get to the actuality of there being a set of different definitions of each term for every Jew, Israeli and 'European'(an Asian word, originating, correct my anthropology if you disagree, from Phoenicia). And that, as any brief overview of the techniques of Israeli political communications reveals, rotates throught verbal acrobatics from day to day and category to category, depending on the set of facts required on that particular day's shifting ground.

Again presumption, you address me as ' European', as if this were my primary identification(Ithink that's for me to decide).

And where do you break down the tribal and religious and national definitions of Jewish?Seems to me to be a moveable feast of arbitrary mercurial spectra to be summoned to purpose, just as international law and UN resolutions are interpreted by teams of legalistic sophists defending the inhumanity of the state entity erected on the crimes of European anti-semiticism to steal the homelands of Palestinian people long-settled in the region Zion has chosen to colonise because of its resource riches and folk-records culled from their tribal annals.

Example: ' First of all that would be a matter of " tribal membership" and that isn't strictly speaking a 1:1 match with genetics..'

That opens a semantic labyrinth we might enter by realising that ' a 1:1 match with genetics' can only be produced by a process of cloning.

But that penultimate sentence needs a revue

'There is far more RACIAL diversity internal to the Jews than there is in any conflict between them and any Arabs or between them and you Europeans.'

There is only ONE RACE. Its human. The rest are nineteenth century academic rationalisations of tribal loyalties masquerading as scientific and genetic truths, before genetics revealed the spurious foundations of such affilliations. Those racist theories produced Aryan Nazi and Zionist colonial justifications for pre-human, or sub-human, behaviours that reduce those outside your tribe to untermenschen, goyim, or whatever your tribal label designates as non-us.I have in my possession one such book explaining the Aryan origins of the Irish. It conjures images of interesting correspondences. None of which I swallow, sine sal. I suggest you do the same with the manufactured annals of your chosen tribal records.

by Peter Mulholland Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:00

The following is an unofficial translation of a letter sent by 26 Israeli academics to the minister of Welfare and Social Services, Moshe Kahlon, in protest at the recommendations of a recent government sponsored report on ‘the cult phenomenon’.

June 13, 2011
To the minister of Welfare and Social Services, Moshe Kahlon
A response to the recommendations of the team for "examining the cult phenomenon in Israel"

Dear Sir,
In light of the publication of the recommendations of the team established by the ministry for Welfare and Social Services for "examining the cult phenomenon in Israel" we, academics engaged in studying religions and spiritual movements, would like to voice our professional reservations about the report, as well as our concern about its recommendations. Naturally, we welcome any initiative aimed at supporting and helping the victims of violence, sexual harassment and abuse by those in power and authority (be it institutionalized or spiritual). However, our assessment is that the report relies on sources, literature and definitions academics have long recognized as biased; and even, in part, representing the perspectives of interested parties (1).
Firstly, we object to the use of the term "cult", a term presupposing that any new or unfamiliar religious or spiritual group is involved in negative activities. Contemporary research avoids this term, and it is usually replaced by the more neutral "New Religious Movements."
Secondly, and on the same note, we object to the term "cult victims." We accept that there are spiritual and religious groups where the individual relinquishes independent thought, and that sometimes this is used against them. But, as far as we can tell, it is very difficult to distinguish between obedient membership in a group genuinely attempting to explore spiritual truths; and between forced subservience to a group abusing and "enslaving" (so to speak) its members. Accordingly, we expect the ministry to clearly distinguish between various groups, and between various activities within each group. Therefore, we call for avoiding any governmental interference in the activity of new religious or spiritual groups, unless it has been proven that group members or leaders have broken the law. Even in the case of a crime, we oppose any attempt to blame or persecute a whole group because of the crime of one of its leaders or members. It should also be noted that there is evidence that new religious groups also work to benefit individuals and the general society (2).
Thirdly, we reject the use of the term "mind control." This term lacks scientific validity, and the consensus among researchers is that it should not be used in the context of new religious movements (3). Research indicates that people choose to join new religious movements of their own free will, and also choose to leave them of their own free will. Furthermore, many studies indicate that most of the people that show initial interest in these movements choose, eventually, not to join them – or join, and then leave after a while (4). These data contradict the claim that these movements achieve "complete control of mental processes and behavioral patterns", as the report says (p. 22).
Objections as to the validity of charges of "mind control" in new religious movements have not only been published in prestigious academic forums – they have been presented to many courts around the world. For instance, in 1980 the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the American Sociological Association declared, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, that there is no academic support to the claims of "mind control" in the context of new religious movements; and the American Psychological Association made a similar declaration in front of the Supreme Court of the state of California in 1987 (5).
We also claim that the sweeping attempt to decide for members of new religious movements that they are indentured to their leaders, lack free will and the ability to decide for themselves, seems to be both anti-democratic and a severe violation of their rights. Using the terms "cult" and "mind control" might be used to remove members of religious and spiritual groups from the sphere of free citizens, imbued with free will and innate rights – and put them into the legal category of "minors", in need of appointed guardians (6). We fear the recommendations of the committee might be used to persecute groups just because they hold beliefs or customs not conforming to the norm. The position of several European states towards new religious movements demonstrates a more sober approach: for instance, a Belgian federal agency recommended against passing laws centering on new religious movements (7); and the Italian senate decided not to adopt a law against "mental manipulation" in new religious movements (8).
In conclusion, we claim that passing laws or regulations directed specifically at religious or spiritual leaders and at members of new religious groups is in opposition with contemporary academic knowledge, and also in opposition with the preservation of civil rights and the freedom of belief and religious practice in the state of Israel.
In order to make informed decisions in these matters in the future, we will be happy to assist in the implementation of the committee's recommendations to build a database and a training program for social workers on the subject of new religious movements; assuming both of these are based, among other things, on academic knowledge gathered around the world during the years.

NOTES
(1) Zaidman-Dvir, N. and Sharot S. 1992."The Response of Israeli Society to New Religious Movements; ISKCON and Teshuvah" in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (3): 279-295.
(2) For instance, many studies show that members of new religious movements report rises in feelings of satisfaction, personal fulfillment and a sense of personal control in their lives, and that psychological assessments find them to be of sound mental health. See C.A. Latkin. 1987. "The Self-Concept of Rajneeshpuram Members", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29: 91-98. Also see Buxant, C., et al. 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Characteristics of New Religious Movement Members: New questions and data on the mental health issue". Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 10(3): 219-238.
(3) E.g., Richardson, James T. "A Critique of "Brainwashing" Claims about New Religious Movements" in Dawson, Lorne L. (ed.)Cults in Context: Readings in the Study of New Religious Movements. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, pp. 217-228.
(4) E.g, Galanter, M. 1989. Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 140-43; Also see Barker, E. 1984. The Making of a Moonie. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, p, 147.
(5) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Brief_Amicus_Curiae_of_th...ation and Richardson, James T. 1991."Cult/Brainwashing Cases and Freedom of Religion", Journal of Church and State 33: 55-74, respectively.
(6) And, indeed, see the following recommendation on p. 10 of the report: "Changing the 'legal responsibility and guardianship 1962' law: the team recommends amending this law so that it explicitly states that a person under substantial control by another person in his life, or unfair influence upon him, will be considered incapable of taking care of his own affairs, and so the court is authorized to appoint him a guardian."
(7) http://www.cesnur.org/2006/belgium.pdf
(8) http://www.cesnur.org/2005/brainwash_11.htm

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:59

when uncle gabby ran the Late late show he made great milage from the cult scare, often hosting catholic authorities to criticise these supposed dangers, and lets face it there have been some examples of Waco type nutters leading gullibles by the emotional-poverty chain.

but even then many of us were aware of the long suppressed crimes of the catholic church and the blind eye of the powers that be.We knew as kids in the fifties and sixties who were the dangerous teachers, but were often afraid to speak up because we knew you didn't 'slander' the church or its priests.

As somebody put it, 'Mine's a legitimate religion, yours is a cult '.

I think that "..put them into the legal category of "minors" in need of appointed guardians" approaches the way to go. Kids should be brought up and educated in comparative religious ideas, and shown how our ethical concepts owe a considerable deal to religious teachings, but should not be indoctrinated the way my generation were into sectarian superiority complexes.Too much superstition makes people manipulable by their fears, the reins of the power seekers, as opposed to the truth-seekers.

If they got an overview, including philosophical foundations(and kids are well able to deal in this territory of 'big ideas', despite what priestcraft preaches)
they can choose which, if any community to affilliate to at their own speed.Chances are they will shed it with the other myths, but retain a respect for the usefulnes of mythologies in human development. And a tolerance of those who need religious explanations of the human condition and predicament.

Its the power pyramids need dismantling so people have the confidence to think for themselves, not something encouraged in my schools. That confidence was, literally beaten out of many. I've never been to Israel, but I've been told the bible is taken(as in many southern USA schools) as literal and historic truth. That, to me, smacks of cultic mind control.And we see the consequences(lets hope we're not gonna get MV Maramara re-runs over the next few weeks).

Thats me tuppence.

by Mike Novack Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:30

You are making assumptions about the nature of ALL religions based upon the characteristics of just some including the one with which you are most familiar.

a) I wasn't "using words the way I wanted". There are SOME tribes that have a "tribal religion" (most? do not) by which I don't mean just that almost all members of this tribe share the religion but that it is restricted to members of the tribe (you can't join the religion without joining the tribe). The only reason this seems odd with the Jews is that they are perhaps the only really large tribe with a tribal religion.

b) One of the characterisitics of tribal peoples is they do NOT expcet other people (not in their tribe) to follow the same rules and if they have a tribal religion the same gods. They expect these others if also a tribal people to be following the rules for their tribe or if not also tribal people, some sort of different rules.

c) Get it? NOT "universalist". By and large tribal people do NOT want/expect others to live as they do, expect others to have their own idea of what good is, etc. They may (as in the case of the Jews) have definitions of what being a "good person" is irrespective of tribe or religion -- but you should perhaps note that these standards of behavior are both fairly low and somewhat relativistic and I haven't seen many Jews express strong negative feelings when seeing "others" violate some of these rules (eg: the one against eating live animals we get to see -- clams or oysters served live on the half shell)

PS -- I rather suspect that I have a much stronger background in "comparative religions" than you do.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:59

do enlighten me.

How exactly do you quantify that suspicion?
What exactly is the unit of measurement of the tensile strength of your suspicion?

And its me making the assumptions?
Read yourself and reflect, if you refuse to read me with any attempt at objectivity.

Am I allowed to suspect that your 'background' is a thorough indoctrination in the religion 'with which you are most familiar'?

At least the one I was indoctrinated into was universalist in claim, if not practise, so it gave some grounding for mutuality and a greater than tribal-supremacist outlook, once its contradictions between doctrine and praxis were addressed.

But fair play to you for at least recognising that Judaism is a tribal sect. Its a start. Follow the logic.
And I do have Jewish friends, and have worked with non-rigid ethnic Jews who had transcended the limitations of that tribalism, so please ease up on them presumptions, before you dump me in ye ol' antisemitic bin.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jun 18, 2011 13:13

My opinion, and thats all i offer, is that religions, even when universalist in their doctrinal origins, tend to degenerate into tribalistic and exclusive sectarianism.

Judaism SEEMS to start from that exclusive stance. But as I wrote, feel free to enlighten me if I misunderstand.

by An Atheist. Sat Jun 18, 2011 15:27

I agree Opus.
Religious people accuse others of being the agents of the devil.
They have murdered the unbelievers with aplomb.

by Mike Novack Sat Jun 18, 2011 19:00

It's the UNIVERSALIST religions , ones claiming that they are the only true path for everybody to follow that are problematical.

A tribal religion like Judaism is particularist. It only claims to be the path for Jews (members of this tribe) -- and other tribal religions tend be similar in this regard. They DON'T think it would be better for "others" to follow their path. In particular, Judaism doesn't think "others" NEED to (wouldn't make them better people, etc.) -- they just need to follow their own paths. Should not be surprising if you remember place of origin where the next hill over people worshiped other god (and they knew that).

I want you to consider something. In that sort of context, what association would you think applied to a term like "god fearing". If you wanted a visiting merchant to swear an oath, would that be by your (local) god or by his, the one he believed in, even though you thought that god not really a god?

With regard to "comparative religion" studies -- no, of course I didn't mean from the perspecitve of my own background. I meant one heck of a lot of courses and personal study back when in uni (really a heck of a lot considering a physics major -- and ever since. Different ways of being human have always interested me.

by Classroom Bully.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Sat Jun 18, 2011 19:21

"Ye will all burn in hell if ye do not believe in me."

Sounds like a clasroom bully to me.

by art Sun Jun 19, 2011 01:36

We need to debunk some of the myths about belief systems,whilst attempting to understand why we believe and behave the way we do.
"Quantumanity.com " is a short read that might help to open our minds.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jun 19, 2011 13:12

But does not Judaism identify your tribe as the 'chosen'. As I wrote, follow that logic and you parallel Aryan racial theories from the nineteenth century.

If yours is the superior tribe, the rest attain automatic inferiority, with the recorded historical consequences of dehumanising the other.

by Mike Novack Sun Jun 19, 2011 13:53

Yes indeed, but chosen for WHAT.

Different cultures value different things. In this case it's "being in a state of ritual purity". Such fundamental concepts often do not make any sense to another culture which group things differently. That leads to silly mistakes and misunderstandings. Just like we have seen argued in Ethics that a culture like the Dene don't have morality because theoir concept of "beauty" includes appearance (and aesthetics isn't morality) -- silly because they simply don't separate "beauty of action" from "beauty of being". Well the Jews have this distinction "pure" vs "impure" without distinguishing between "pure actions" and "ritual purity" (acting "cleanly" and the state of being "clean").

You, in a different culture don't aspire to this state of being. You don't want what the Jews consider themselves "chosen" for.

I know this isn't easy, especially not if you aren't a person from a (different) tribal culture. But tribal peoples usually haven't the least difficulty AT THE SAME TIME feeling that it is great that they are an X, better that THEY be an X than a Y, glad that they were "chosen" to be an X, but that it's perfectly OK for you (some other) who is a Y to be a Y.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jun 19, 2011 15:21

'..doesn't make any sense to another culture which group(sic) things differently..'.

So its all a mystery of religion too esoteric for us goyim. And I cant even aspire to it.Thats handy. But sure I dont want it anyway, do I?
One bunch of religious obscurantists are not all that different from another.

No, your tribal algebra(oops, Arabic term) doesn't compute for those of us who can see the FACTS ON THE GROUND as it results in the demeaning of Palestinians, and any who criticise Jewish collective crimes against them through the agency of Zionist Liebensraum imposed by theft and violence amounting to ongoing ethnic cleansing.
But then you have a higher standard of purity, not accessable to us untermenschen.

That great Jew, Freud, might suggest your 'purity' results in your PROJECTING impurity onto the 'othered';(remember that 'verminisation' of Jewery under Nazism?,check your mirror!)The Nazis were so convinced of their purity they vanished up their own navel-worshiping sphincters like the vermin they were, but only saw in lesser tribes.

Changing the flag does not eradicate our general human capacity for fascistic idiocy(as in the Greek origin of the word, idiot, one who does not see the bigger public picture because he is locked in private concerns). Nor does changing the terminology alter the actions and results stemming from tribal/racist mindsets, whether Anglo/Saxon, Aryan, Afrikans or Hutu. Or, for that matter, the assumed religious 'purity' of Catholic priests torturing and raping children for the crime of 'tempting them to 'impurity'.

My tribe is the human tribe. Not as EXCLUSIVE as yours, but then thats impurity for ya. No, its not easy. I miss the false sense of security I might get from sticking to a smaller self-reinforcing tribe.
Shalom.