The Jews.

--- EDIT: InfraBlue edited his post above, so my reaction might not seem to make sense anymore. Originally there was something along the lines of 'not engaging in your Holocaust tit-for-tat' again. Something like, 'where did I equate anything with the Holocaust?'. ---

<grrr>

We went through this circle of thought before, InfraBlue.

<paste:>

I did not engage in any "Holocaust tit-for-tat". I pointed out that, when the talk was of the active role of the Catholic Church in promoting, organising and politically tolerating anti-semitic violence through a thousand years of European history, you posed a rhetorical equation about Jewish "anti-Christianity". And that was simply just out there.

Now if you want to make the point that, on an existential level, the individual prejudice that makes this or that Jew "shun Gentiles" in marriage or social communication comes from the same roots of hate as the perpetuated, organised, violent and widely persisting anti-semitism, perhaps you should do that, then, instead, next time.

<done with this question>

Seems like, if you fiercely oppose both anti-semitism and Israel's politics of occupation and repression, you're doomed to get pretty much everyone falling over you (except Cav. Hi Cav <grins>). That's pretty sad.

au's sentence prompted my question. It's as simple as that.

Now, I know that the term 'anti-Semitism' has come to take so many meanings that it is in danger of losing meaning. It is being used to mean anything from The Holocaust to criticism of Judaic religion to criticism of Israeli policies.

By your line of reasoning you are equating The Holocaust with criticism of Judaic religion with criticism of Israeli policies. Hey, it's all anti-Semitism, right? To say that that is silly is an understatement.

I am using the term 'anti-Semitism' in the sense that it was originally coined (poorly, in my opinion) back in 1879 by that anti-Semite, Wilhelm Marrih, "hatred of the Jews." I am using the terms "anti-Christianity" and "anti-Goyism" to mean "hatred of Christians" and "hatred of the Goyim" respectively.

I am equating these religions coming to grips with their hatred.

We know how the Catholic Church has only recently come to grips with its hatred of the Jews. I don't know how Talmudic Judaism has come to grips with its hatred. That is why I ask.

You are inferring equations of violence and holocaust. I neither stated it nor implied it.

About the post I edited, I had posted the definitions:

anti-Semitism, id est, hatred of the Jews
anti-Christian, id est, hatred of Christians
anti-Goyism, id est, hatred of the Goyim

and the conclusion:
given the definitions, equations of violence and holocaust are extra-definitional of the terms

but decided against posting it in favor of my simpler question. Where am I equating levels of violence?

cav,
your point about Maimonides is well taken.

ermm ... if you look up you'll see that I actually got into a spat with other posters on this thread because of what criticism of Israeli policies I was posting (or of the propaganda defending them in any case). And I'm no anti-semite. So you're talking to the wrong guy, it seems - to the guy you're expecting the other to be, perhaps.

"Seems like, if you fiercely oppose both anti-semitism and Israel's politics of occupation and repression, you're doomed to get pretty much everyone falling over you (except Cav. Hi Cav <grins>). That's pretty sad."

Hi Nimh

Nihm, there is even more significance to the Jews in Islam equation. When the Reconquista rolled into Andalusian cities, they found libraries with books unknown in Northern Europe for more than a millenium. Christian monks could read the Latin and Greek, but they needed the local Jews to provide them translations of ancient works which had been preserved in Arabic. Additionally, when Europeans and Muslims traded, as they did to a very large extent, to the considerable benefit of them both, the Jews were the go-betweens, because they could move in either world. After a muslim dynasty founded the city of Fez in north Africa, the local population attacked Jews who had moved in. The ruling dynasty were aware of how critical the Jews were to trade, and to professions such as gold- and silver-smithy, and pharmacy, which were not practiced by muslims. The ruling dynasty created a special section of the city for the Jews, and stationed soldiers to defend them.

After Ferdinand and Isabella had driven out the Muslims in the Reconquista, they decided to "purify" the newly created kingdom of Spain. So, in 1492, they ordered that any Jew who would not convert to Christianity had to get out of Spain, or face execution after a very short deadline (forget the exact terms). The loss was Spain's--for all their suffering, the Jews, of course, survived.

Nimh, here is a great link to the history of Jews in Poland. We all know what happened to Polish Jews during the Holocaust, but this is pretty intresting pre-WWII stuff.

http://www.ljwebdesign.com/home/poljs/history.htm

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=452873#452873Timber brought this on the Big Thread. I thought it bore more attention than it got there. Will add comments soon. Hope to hear opinions.

Why scrap the study?

anti-Semitism and Europe are synonymous, after all it was something dreamed up and fostered by European Christianity. As the report shows it still exists however, being politically incorrect it was suppressed. However, as hard as they try it cannot be hidden under the carpet or blamed on the Muslim population in Europe.
Regarding that population they will soon be strong enough in numbers to give the Europeans a run for their money. I can hardly wait for the clash of the two.

This type of reasoning can be used to justify all kinds of prejudice. Prejudice is a poor weapon against prejudice.

Craven
No weapon intended . Just some hard truth.

It's not a hard truth.

Craven
That is your opinion. Remember, Hitler did not invent the killing of Jews. It was going on for a 1000+ years in Europe. And that was long before anyone could use Israel for an excuse.
Now after the horrors of the Holocaust and with a very small Jewish population it still exists. Yes it is synonymous

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It's a fact that your assertion is incorrect.

What you are doing is a "most are = all are" at best and at worst just blind prejudice.

Again your opinion. There is nothing blind about it. My eyes are wide open. Craven believe it or not your opinion is worth no more than anyone elses.

Au,

It has nothing to do with my opinion. It has nothing to do with my opinion being right or wrong.

You could say that Europe is a hotbed for anti-semitism and there you have a subjective and arguable position. In which you could argue that your opinion is no less valid than others.

What you chose was to call them synonyms. Which is simply false.

Europe refers to a continent, anti-semintism to being prejudiced against Jews (et at.).

You can seek to equate them but to state the equation in absolute terms will always be false.

Apples are fruits, oranges are fruits. Apples do not equal oranges.

If I were to point that out it would again have nothing to do with my opinion.

You did not make a subjective statement. It was an absolute and a false one.

Yes, some opinions ARE more valid than others and it has to do with the opinion, not the person.

Craven
Definition of Synonomous

2 : having the same connotations, implications, or reference <to runners, Boston is synonymous with marathon —Runners World>

Ok, so Europe is also synonymous to pro-Isreal.

And Jews can be called "evil" by those who dislike them.

See definition "causing discomfort".

If you are trying to say that your assertion is a hyperbolic figure of speech that's the point.

You've already established that you hate the French, and like I illustrate above anyone can denigrate a group based on dictionary definitions. In your case you use the rhetorical meaning of the word (which is hyperbolic) to justify your own hyperbole.

au is synonymous with hatred of Muslims and hatred of Hispanics.