The Jews that it’s okay to bully

The Orthodox, of course.  You’re not supposed to give the New York Times/Hollywood/ACLU bunch so much as a sideways glance, or heaven help you, but you can criminalize those who want to follow Mosaic law, and that’s a perfectly progressive thing to do.  What’s going on?

Another example of the same thing:  When orthodox Christians are accused of antisemitism, they often respond by saying how much they admire Orthodox Jews or how much they support Israel, and this never works.  Nobody ever says “oh, well you’re okay then”.  It just means you’re one of those Fiddler-on-the-Roof-watching-pretend-friends-of-Jews who’s just waiting for the moment to show your true colors and strike.

Actually, I suspect that for our elite the Orthodox are only Jews for body-count purposes.  (If we only counted Hitler’s Western secular Jewish victims, the number wouldn’t be nearly so impressive.)  When they demand that Christians accept and approve the Jews, they mean the secular, liberal, degenerate Jews.  Saying you approve of one of the more pious branches of Judaism doesn’t buy you anything.  Nor does saying you support Israel, no matter how uncritically.  They suspect (and perhaps there is some truth to it) that Gentiles think of the State of Israel as a giant ghetto for the world’s Jews, and what we fear about an Arab victory is having to take those Jews back.

If disapproving and disliking liberal Jews makes one an antisemite, then of course conservatives will always be judged guilty of antisemitism.  On the other hand, let’s look at who is the attacker and who the defender here.  Christians don’t like liberal Jews because the latter are attacking their culture.  It’s self-defense.  On the other hand, with these bans on circumcision and kosher slaughter, it’s clearly the secular Leftists who have thrown the first punch at observant Jews who were just minding their own business.

This shouldn’t surprise us.  The Left is progressive, and progress is always aggressive, although that’s often only clear to those who are being “progressed” into.

14 Responses

  1. Those orthodox jews that you are so concerned about think that non-Jews are here on earth just to serve Jews, as an Isreali rabbi already said. We non-Jews are like cattle to them. It was this view of the gentliles that led to the Jewish communist mass-murder of Russians, German-russians, and ukrainians in the Soviet Union.

    Female genital mutilation is outlawed in the USA. Nobody cared how the muslims in the USA felt about that.

  2. The observant Jews are hardly “minding their own business.” What about Rubashkin and his ruinous impact on Iowa? What about the groups in NY who use public funds for sexually-segregated public transportation? They are merely the modern-day heirs (in medieval dress) of the Sanhedrin, and wouldn’t deign to shake your hand, Bonald, since you’re a Christian (while they would spit on you, as they do to Christians in Jerusalem).

  3. Ethnic sub-groups that achieve great success regard the OTHERS as cattle. Always. Think of the Roman Aristocracy. Or the 19th century English. Or any group that finds themselves on top.
    This is a matter of Human Nature; not any one part of humanity. Every tribe in history has named themselves “The People” – ie the chosen people – even when they are dirt worshipping savages.

  4. Hi Phil,

    Excellent point about genital mutilation. I actually meant to bring that up, but then forgot. I wonder if part of this anti-circumcision crusade is blowback from the FGM hysteria of a few years ago. If “female circumcision” is so awful, why not male circumcision?

  5. Hi Sheila,

    I don’t have a problem with sexually-segregated public transportation. I think you are right that the Orthodox are ferocious anti-Christian bigots, but they actually strike me as more moderate in their hatred of us than the liberal Jews are. The difference is that while the Orthodox hate us, we’re not the center of their attention, while for the liberal Jews hatred of Christianity is the very defining feature of their Jewishness. (It’s the only thing left when you throw away God and the Law.) Not, of course, that I’d want my fate to ever depend on the good will of either group, but these differences are worth noting.

  6. “The difference is that while the Orthodox hate us, we’re not the center of their attention, while for the liberal Jews hatred of Christianity is the very defining feature of their Jewishness.”

    I think you’re right about this, but I do have to say that in my experience, the Orthodox do focus on Christians quite a lot, and certainly more than Christianity focusses on the Jews. This is both in the actual liturgy and in their Jewish education. (I’m judging the latter from the books in several Haredi homes I’ve visited). They have amazing chutzpah to criticise our God Friday prayer given what’s in their liturgy.

  7. If one considers circumcision a form of mutilation, then it should be illegal, no matter now many orthodox Jews, or liberal Jews, or whatever cry about it. In SF it seems like the majority does just that. I’m ambivalent, though I do think circumcision will die out naturally.

    When outdated and useless barbaric practices conflict with modern laws and modern needs, they are to be discarded. It’s as simple as that. If a religion fails to adapt to modern realities then that religion simply vanishes. You should know — your version of Christianity exists only in the dewy-eyed “memories” of people like you. Both of y’all. Bending reality to fit the fantasy in one’s head will never work, though it does allow one to retreat from said reality into fantasy land and safely go into a fetal ball in there.

  8. Hi dan. I agree in principle that religious groups have no right to violate the natural law, but circumcision is only a “mutilation” in the same way ear piercings are. It doesn’t affect the organ’s function. (My parents had me circumcised–back then it was being encouraged for supposedly making the penis easier to clean and keep free of infection–and I’ve successfully reproduced.)

  9. “Bending reality to fit the fantasy in one’s head will never work, though it does allow one to retreat from said reality into fantasy land and safely go into a fetal ball in there.”

    LOL, said by a liberal. As if your little fantasies have had any bearing on reality. Your entire ideology is based on feelings and lies not reality. Good stuff.

    “It’s as simple as that. If a religion fails to adapt to modern realities then that religion simply vanishes. You should know — your version of Christianity exists only in the dewy-eyed “memories” of people like you”

    Why of course!! Our version of Christianity, Traditional Christianity i.e. Real Christianity has vanished for about two thousand years.

  10. “but circumcision is only a “mutilation” in the same way ear piercings are. It doesn’t affect the organ’s function.”
    Sure, which is why it’s legal almost everywhere, and does not tend to be a big deal. However, to some degree female genital mutilation is the same, no? After all, those who underwent it can still procreate. Would you then argue that the only standard by which to judge a procedure is whether or not the organ affected still maintains its primary function?

    I would argue that, at best, male circumcision is an elective, cosmetic procedure. As such, the decision whether or not to go through with the procedure should be left only to the person undergoing it. Therefore a male should be able to choose circumcision once he is of legal age to make decisions about his medical care.

    So I ask you: if all that matters is the functioning of the organ, should parents of newborn babies be able to
    a) Lop off children’s ear lobes (per your example), since you can still hear without ear lobes
    b) Tattoo any part of their child’s body, since ink does not affect the performance of any organ
    c) Pierce many places on the baby’s body
    d) Perform any elective surgery on the baby that does not directly fix any obvious defect or rectify a medical condition?

    To a large degree it’s a question of consistency. Why is lopping off a part of a baby’s penis OK, while the rest of these things aren’t?

  11. Wow, Svar. You’re the first person since Jesus to practice “Real Christianity”? Do you need a separate fork lift for that head of yours?

  12. I would say it’s a matter of culture. I don’t see any grounds for objecting to the body piercings practiced by some tribal peoples (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there really are no medical/functional issues), even though it creeps me out. I would object to doing this to kids in the first world, because we’d see them as freaks, but this is as much a matter of our culture’s expectations as anything else. Also, there’s more leeway in what you do to the penis, because it’s not publicly visible. But anyway, you’re making a good point. I’m not sure *exactly* where I’d draw the line.

  13. Bonald,

    I would say it’s a matter of culture. I don’t see any grounds for objecting to the body piercings practiced by some tribal peoples (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there really are no medical/functional issues), even though it creeps me out.

    I understand, however, as you noted, the line is blurry. Extreme pain that does not result in permanent damage to a vital organ seems to me to fit the description of behavior that should be outlawed in a western, scientifically-literate society. Ritual or not, cultural or not, there are certain standards that we, as a society, adopt, and which should cover all the cultures which seek to live in our society. Although it sounds a bit weird, on further reflection I see nothing fundamentally (i.e. morally or legally) wrong with outlawing this practice. After all, is DOES cause pain to a child. That pain is unnecessary, if customary. I do not know the modern approach to circumcision, and I’m sure all sorts of precautions are taken before, after and during. But the fact remains — this is textbook bodily mutilation without the person’s consent. I don’t know if I’m in favor of outlawing it, but I can certainly see that argument.

    Like you, I’m not sure where the line is, but I’m pretty confident it’s somewhere right around this area, meaning falling to either side of it is not unreasonable.

    As for kosher meat — get rid of it. “Kosher” basically means “most humane and safe way to kill animals”. The problem is that it’s the “most humane and safe way to kill animals as of 3,000 years ago”. We have advanced way beyond that. There is no need to torture animals we eat any more than we absolutely must. If there is a less painful and protracted way of slaughtering animals it absolutely must be used.

  14. “You’re the first person since Jesus to practice “Real Christianity”? ”

    Nice, red herring. Reading comprehension, plz.

    “Do you need a separate fork lift for that head of yours?”

    No need to get your panties all wadded up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: