I'm a non-believing Jew, but my son wants a barmitzvah.

Flamed Diving

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then what was your claim ?

I made it quite clear, in my post.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

P.S You may use your picture function as you please but I may allso use my ignore function.

Iwasfrozen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I made it quite clear, in my post.

No you didn't, you said that Scientists are inherintaly biased towards christian beliefs when researching the origin of the bible yet you have so far refused to provide any evidence for this.

dlofnep

Zillah wrote: »

Right.

Wrong.

He stated that "Jews only recognize you as Jewish if your mother was Jewish."

This is incorrect, because you can convert to Judaism without having a Jewish mother.

Flamed Diving

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No you didn't, you said that Scientists are inherintaly biased towards christian beliefs when researching the origin of the bible yet you have so far refused to provide any evidence for this.

Ah, so you did understand my initial assertion, but decided to completely misrepresent it. Deuteronomy 5:20 indeed...

Anyway, how could I possibly produce evidence of people thoughts? Is there a means of doing this? But no true Christian would be able to take part in such a study, without bias. They are inherently biased towards the Bibles truthfullness, from the outset. Hence, the bias is destined through faith.

It's so blindingly obvious.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong.

He stated that "Jews only recognize you as Jewish if your mother was Jewish."

This is incorrect, because you can convert to Judaism without having a Jewish mother.

Did you read my quoted piece ?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did you read my quoted piece ?

Yes, but since there is no such thing as the Jewish race - it was nonsensical.

Flamed Diving

There is no such thing as race, at all...

Iwasfrozen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Anyway, how could I possibly produce evidence of people thoughts? Is there a means of doing this? But no true Christian would be able to take part in such a study, without bias. They are inherently biased towards the Bibles truthfullness, from the outset. Hence, the bias is destined through faith.

Don't you find it ironic that a person is using "believe me" as an arguement when attacking religion ?
Either way you shouldn't attack anyones established faith unless you can provide evidence to back up your assertions.

Iwasfrozen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is no such thing as race, at all...

Yes because those of the Negro race look exactly like those of the Caucasian race. :rolleyes:
I can see Political Correctness has gone wild here.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Come on, is your ignorance wilful, in this case? If a thirteen year old is deemed not emotionally developed enough to have sex, and not intellectually developed enough to vote, then how can the child choose a system of belief?

religion is nothing to do with emotions, and sex education as far as I know, is taught before the age of 13.

What has that got to do with education? It's about natural development. Try thinking a bit more, before responding.

What, religious education of 13 year olds has stoppe since I moved away? Wow - big change.

Zillah wrote: »

They are perfectly capable of discussing these things yes, which I will do, gladly. I am simply going to forbid them joining any organisations. Especially ones that require them to cut off pieces of their genitals.

I don't think the that actually happens. It's the foreskin, not the entire penis. And what is the point of discussion with someone you earleir deemed "too stupid"?

And as Dades has said, for a child in a non-religious family to turn around and declare their interest in a new faith, you have to be extremely suspicious as to who they've been talking to.

Obviously. This wasn't debated.

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? If my child really wants to go and shoot up heroin I can't really stop them short of locking them in the house. What's your point?

Exactly my point. You want to discuss their reasons for doing so and investigate their level of knowledge, which I said in my first post, ages ago. But if you refuse to discuss it (as I mistakenly thought you advocated from your first post), - or at least accept their reasons for doing so (regardless of whether you grant permission or not) - they're more likely to rebel against you.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, but since there is no such thing as the Jewish race - it was nonsensical.

The very esistance of the Jewish race is what we are arguing about.
Your use of the subject as evidence is non-sensical.

Flamed Diving

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't you find it ironic that a person is using "believe me" as an arguement when attacking religion ?
Either way you shouldn't attack anyones established faith unless you can provide evidence to back up your assertions.

I'm not using the 'believe me' approach.

Try harder.

Flamed Diving

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes because those of the Negro race look exactly like those of the Caucasian race. :rolleyes:
I can see Political Correctness has gone wild here.

How about ginger people? They look different to me...

I have a 'Roman style nose', as my ex once said. Are big, flat nosed people a different race to me?

Are short people a different race?

Are people born with abnormalities a different race?

Are people with myopic, bigoted reasoning a different race?

Flamed Diving

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

religion is nothing to do with emotions, and sex education as far as I know, is taught before the age of 13.

Are you 13?

leincar

Jakkass wrote: »

I was flicking through the religion section of the Guardian, and I came across this article. It raised the question for me, if your child accepted faith, or wanted to learn about a religious tradition would you be supportive of them in doing so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/01/non-believing-jew-barmitzvah

I just came across this thread and felt I should reply. I am an atheist married to a Jewish lady and I have five Ms leincars at home. My eldest two have already had their Bat-Mitzvah and it was totally their choice. My next girl has said she does not want to participate and thats fine by both myself and my wife. My wife is progressive and a lot of things done around the house are more to do with tradition then dogma.

At the end of the day myself and my wife will go along with whatever my girls choose.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Are you 13?

Are you dodging the issue? Or has religion gotten a hell of a lot more interesting in the last few years?

It's about control. And faith. Not emotions.

Zillah

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Exactly my point. You want to discuss their reasons for doing so and investigate their level of knowledge, which I said in my first post, ages ago. But if you refuse to discuss it (as I mistakenly thought you advocated from your first post), - or at least accept their reasons for doing so (regardless of whether you grant permission or not) - they're more likely to rebel against you.

I didn't go into the exact details of how I would deal with conflict and discipline for my hypothetical children. I addressed the main issue, which is that I would not allow them to join any religious organisations. I'm dealing with it as a hypothetical, but I do not for a second consider it anyway likely that a child of mine would actively want to join a religion. Of course I would discuss their reasons with them, I'm not one for arbitrary authority. I would have infact had these sorts of discussions with them all along, hence why I consider it so unlikely.

Of course it depends on their age. If they're five years old and want to join Islam I'm going to tell them no. I'll explain why I'm saying no, I'll try to convince them before I forbid them, but if it came to it, no, I will not allow it.

Flamed Diving

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Are you dodging the issue? Or has religion gotten a hell of a lot more interesting in the last few years?

It's about control. And faith. Not emotions.

*sigh* It really bothers me when I have to hold people's hands through debates. But here we go.

The point about sex, is not about sex education. It is about the child being deemed advanced enough to make big decisions, for themselves. Choosing to join a religious cult is a big decision.

If a 13-year old is not old enough to have sex or vote, then they cannot make such a huge decision about joining a cult.

Very simple, and if you think that devotional belief of a invisible deity, who holds the key to your destiny, does not involve emotion...

I really don't know what to say.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The very esistance of the Jewish race is what we are arguing about.
Your use of the subject as evidence is non-sensical.

There is no debate, as there is no such thing as the Jewish race. Anthropologists agree.

Iwasfrozen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

How about ginger people? They look different to me...

I have a 'Roman style nose', as my ex once said. Are big, flat nosed people a different race to me?

Are short people a different race?

Are people born with abnormalities a different race?

Are people with myopic, bigoted reasoning a different race?

Ginger people are not a race, they are however a racial trait of the Caucasian Race.

Nope still white.

And no again.

And this has nothing to do with your calim, which I will quote in case you have forgotten:

Flamed Diving wrote:

There is no such thing as race, at all...

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no debate, as there is no such thing as the Jewish race. Anthropologists agree.

I provided you with a quote to a Rabbi proving the existance of a Jewish race, the least you could do is provide a quote/link to your Anthropologist.

Oh and your use of the subject as evidence is again proving non-sensical.

Iwasfrozen

@dlofnep: you still haven't answered my question.
Shall I quote it for you lest you forget again ?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

They share genetics and racial traits, how would you define race ?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@dlofnep: you still haven't answered my question.
Shall I quote it for you lest you forget again ?

They share genetics and racial traits, how would you define race ?

So does Scottish and Irish people - Are we a race?

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

So does Scottish and Irish people - Are we a race?

Not quite there yet.
shall I spell it out ?

H-O-W
W-O-U-L-D
Y-O-U
D-E-F-I-N-E
R-A-C-E ?

Surely that can't be hard ?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I provided you with a quote to a Rabbi proving the existance of a Jewish race, the least you could do is provide a quote/link to your Anthropologist.

No it didn't prove the existence of the Jewish Race. It showed a minor commonality between a portion of Jewish people, due to the fact that they only marry each other. It does not define them as a race.

I asked you - Are Irish & Scottish a race, since they share similar traits?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not quite there yet.
shall I spell it out ?

H-O-W
W-O-U-L-D
Y-O-U
D-E-F-I-N-E
R-A-C-E ?

Surely that can't be hard ?

Something with physical characteristics that is a visible difference in comparison to another race. But Jewish? No. Judaism is a faith, not a race.

Black & White people are obviously two different races, as are Asian people. The differences are quite apparent.

Flamed Diving

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ginger people are not a race, they are however a racial trait of the Caucasian Race.

Nope still white.

And no again.

And this has nothing to do with your calim, which I will quote in case you have forgotten:

*sigh* what is it with tonight?

Riiiiggght, here we go. All of the traits which you think seperate races, are entirely ambiguous.

Pygmies are more likely to be smaller than Zulus are. Maori are more likely to walk early than Japanese people are. Irish people are more likely to have haemochromatosis than Polish people are. Chinese people are more likely to have brown eyes than German people are. Skeletons from Alabama with a particular skull shape are more likely to be black than to be white.

But the tallest pygmies are taller than the shortest Zulus. Some Japanese children undoubtedly walk before some Maori children. There are Poles with haemochromatosis. There are Germans with brown eyes. Some African-American skeletons don't have distinctive skulls.

For every definition of 'race' you can come up with you will have to list a raft of qualifications and exceptions. People with black skin are likely to be of (recent) African descent unless they're Melanesian, Indian, Australian or so on. People with epicanthic folds are likely to be Chinese unless they're Japanese, Samoan, South African or Cherokee. People with high cheekbones are likely to be Slavic unless they're from anywhere else in the world and happen to have high cheekbones. People with sickle-cell anaemia (here we go again) are likely to be black unless they're not.

Some Papuan men, for instance, prize tiny, far-set eyes, large, flat noses and gigantic asses in their women. To us, not so hot but to that population, desirable traits that will ensure plentiful opportunities to mate and produce more pig-eyed, thump-nosed, steatopygous smallies for women who display those relatively recent, inherited family traits. But a boy from that tribe adopted into, for argument's sake, an American family would likely grow up to prefer a more westernized ideal of beauty. He might get with a chick of European descent. If he has two kids with her, one might marry another European. Another might marry an African. Which 'races' could claim those kids? Why?

And, for that matter, how wide do we cast our arbitrary race net? If a village in Wicklow (I'm looking at you, Blessington) has, through interbreeding, an unusually high prominence of, say, coeliac disease, are they a race unto themselves because of this one pathological quirk? Why not? Are we Irish a race because we live on the same island, look broadly similar (for another generation or so, at any rate) and share a number of cultural mores in common? What about the Irish descended in part from Spaniards? Or French? Or English? Or Vikings? Or Basques? Or Welsh? Where do we fit into the equation? Should we apportion race on a percentage basis? Should I identify myself as an Irish-Welsh-English-Norman-Basque-African man? Or am I Corkonian? Munsterish? Irish? British? European? Northernhemispherian? I have relatively fair skin, brown hair, slightly green-coloured eyes, a nose with a narrow bridge and unusual dentition which runs in the family. Do my teeth qualify me as Cape Clear islander or should I concentrate more on my eyes and start looking to the south of France? My blood type is pure Basque yet I can only speak a few words of my native language. How will I ever prove to my people that I'm one of them?

You cannot define race. Any definition is doomed to be arbitrary and so packed with exceptions that it will be meaningless. We are one species, known conventionally as "the human race". Nevermind that countless communities through history have names for themselves that mean simply "real people" or "humans" - thus categorizing everyone else on the planet as somehow other or different: "Maori" for instance means "normal person". Whose attempted definition should we follow? From which perspective? Why?

Answers.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

No it didn't prove the existence of the Jewish Race. It showed a minor commonality between a portion of Jewish people, due to the fact that they only marry each other. It does not define them as a race.

Jewish people share genetics with people of middle eastern origin.
Yet their genetics are clearly different from both Europeans and Arabians. Do you not consider genetic variations as evidence of Race ?

dlofnep wrote: »

I asked you - Are Irish & Scottish a race, since they share similar traits?

Nope they are both members of the Caucasian Race their Genes are similar and as such they belong to the same race.

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

Something with physical characteristics that is a visible difference in comparison to another race. But Jewish? No. Judaism is a faith, not a race.

Black & White people are obviously two different races, as are Asian people. The differences are quite apparent.

dfolnep: How can you be atheist and Jewish then? Unless it is an ethnicity like British and Irish are. Or an ethno-religious group which includes people of a certain ethnicity and a certain religion?

philologos

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If they really want too, and have done the research, they will. Behind your back if nessecary. You won't have a say in the matter.

If religion is important enough to them they certainly will. It isn't like finding religious texts is impossible. Also one cannot keep ones child from being in contact with friends, some of whom may have religious beliefs.

pickarooney wrote:

That's really a case of looking hard enough for something and convincing yourself you've found it, IMO. The Beta Israel have little to nothing in common with the Sephardic/Ashkenazi from the middle east, genetically.

And the Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam back in the day - their descendants would be racially Jewish and religiously Muslim/Christian?

Of course it isn't. There is a lot of documentation that backs up that Jewish communities that exist today excepting converts have genetic affinity with other Jews. I personally think ethnicity is a better term than race to describe the Jewish people.

As for Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam back in the day. Yes they are still Jewish. Infact in Israel today there are thousands of Jews who keep Jewish tradition and follow Christianity regarding Jesus (Y'shua ben Nazerat) as their Messiah. As for Muslims, it isn't as easy to distinguish because people of Palestinian and Arab ethnicity are from the Semitic grouping anyway, but I think genetically Jews can still be distinguished from Gentiles.