Homophobia and Antisemitism.

[John D. Brey]

In a recent thread, some foundational similarities between homophobia and antisemitism were pointed out. The final analysis in that examination implied that if you could cure one or the other you'd have the solution not only to both, but also, a theological pearl of great value.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In a recent thread, some foundational similarities between homophobia and antisemitism were pointed out. The final analysis in that examination implied that if you could cure one or the other you'd have the solution not only to both, but also, a theological pearl of great value.

As noted in the referenced thread, one source for both homophobia and antisemitism, is the inability of those who aren't gay, or Jewish, to metabolize, or digest, the unique nature of the two peoples (homosexuals and Jews) in the cross hairs of the angst of their detractors. And the primary reason, abstracted perhaps, for the distraction caused by these two unique peoples (in the minds of their detractors) relates to a doctrinal concept indeed very difficult to swallow: the existence of a new kind of person who arrives on the scene as the product of the older kind of persons, with no logical, scientific, or reasonable definition, describing the genesis of the new person from the exodus of the old persons.



John

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

In a recent thread, some foundational similarities between homophobia and antisemitism were pointed out. The final analysis in that examination implied that if you could cure one or the other you'd have the solution not only to both, but also, a theological pearl of great value.



John

to me, they are both examples of evil

only God can cure that

I can give a solution: Hey everyone, be nice to everyone. EVERYONE!

well, who’s going to listen to me?

 

[John D. Brey]

As noted in the referenced thread, one source for both homophobia and antisemitism, is the inability of those who aren't gay, or Jewish, to metabolize, or digest, the unique nature of the two peoples (homosexuals and Jews) in the cross hairs of the angst of their detractors. And the primary reason, abstracted perhaps, for the distraction caused by these two unique peoples (in the minds of their detractors) relates to a doctrinal concept indeed very difficult to swallow: the existence of a new kind of person who arrives on the scene as the product of the older kind of persons, with no logical, scientific, or reasonable definition, describing the genesis of the new person from the exodus of the old persons.

In the Talmud, and throughout Jewish midrashim, the sons of Abraham, through Sarah, are posited as something very near, if not identical, to what Saul of Tarsus spoke of in 2 Corinthians 5:17. In the Talmud, and Jewish thought in general, Jews are fancied something like a new people, race, or, in the words of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (sounding positively Pauline) a "new species."

In the Tanakh, as in the Talmud, Jews are forbidden from intermarrying with non-Jews. Rabbi Hirsch relates the prohibition directly to the law of shatnez, which forbids the mixing of species, telling us, from Rabbi Hirsch's mouth, that in the minds of the compilers of the Talmud and Jewish law, Jews are a different species from Gentiles.

And yet Abram was a Gentile before the birth of Isaac, or at least before he circumcised himself (prior to the miraculous, post-circumcision, conception of Isaac).

How did the Gentile Abram become a new kind of human? How did one person, or people, race, or species, get separated out from the pre-existing ---- Gentile ---- peoples, persons, race, or species?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

to me, they are both examples of evil

only God can cure that

The problem of "evil," leads to theories, theodicy, about the genesis of the problem, and potentially its solution.

To your second statement, Van Morrison (who's a Christian) chimes, in one of his songs, that Jesus can heal such things. And he goes further by saying we can heal them too in Jesus' name.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

How did the Gentile Abram become a new kind of human? How did one person, or people, race, or species, get separated out from the pre-existing ---- Gentile ---- peoples, persons, race, or species?

In the same (or similar) way that Nahor and Haran may have resorted to scratching their head profusely when their brother, from the same mother (and father) was reckoned no longer the same species, race, or kind of person, so too, two heterosexual brothers, with a third brother who, though he came out of the same womb, from the same phallic seed as they, turns out not to be heterosexual, might find that rather queer?

In both cases we have what appears to be some kind of epiphenomenon coming out of a phenomenon that in every other case, in mathmatically stupendous consistency, produced the same thing every time prior to the strange epiphenomon that turns Abraham and Issac into Jews, and the child of heterosexual parents into a homosexual.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In the same (or similar) way that Nahor and Haran may have resorted to scratching their head profusely when their brother, from the same mother (and father) was reckoned no longer the same species, race, or kind of person, so too, two heterosexual brothers, with a third brother who, though he came out of the same womb, from the same phallic seed as they, turns out not to be heterosexual, might find that rather queer?

In both cases we have what appears to be some kind of epiphenomenon coming out of a phenomenon that in every other case, in mathmatically stupendous consistency, produced the same thing every time prior to the strange epiphenomon that turns Abraham and Issac into Jews, and the child of heterosexual parents into a homosexual.

A strikingly ironic nuance of the question relates to the fact that the homosexual naturally ignores what was previously, originally, considered the natural, evolutionary, purpose of the genitals. Now, for the homosexual, the genitals perform a different primary purpose, resulting in a new man (or woman) no longer part and parcel of the heterosexual originality of the human body.

Likewise, Rabbi Hirsch has been quoted too many times to note stating that circumcision represents a new birth, a rebirth, into the Jewish mission, that's in no way associated with the birth that occurs eight days previous to circumcision. Which is to say that like the homosexual, by Rabbi Hirsch's own words, the Jew isn't a product of the original, natural, purpose of the Gentile genitals he came from eight days prior to his new birth. He's now reborn into, like the homosexual, a new state of affairs that, and Rabbi Hirsch says this, has nothing to do with the original use of the genitalia of his original parentage.

It's this transformation, transmutation, transfiguration, or whatever one wants to call it, which, because it has no easily manifestable genesis, somewhat naturally causes dis-ease where someone born the natural way, from the natural, or at least original, use, purpose, of the genitals, wants to understand the profound differences between the original, and the homosexual, the original, and the Jew?



John

 

[sun rise]

The problem of "evil," leads to theories, theodicy, about the genesis of the problem, and potentially its solution.

To your second statement, Van Morrison (who's a Christian) chimes, in one of his songs, that Jesus can heal such things. And he goes further by saying we can heal them too in Jesus' name.



John

I don't have the learned depth of your theological background, but to my superficial understanding, the Bible is quite clear. Christians are enjoined to love God and to love their fellow humans. Further, they are enjoined not to judge others.

So, for me, that leads to we as human beings can't truly heal another (ignoring the question of how we regard gender identity). We can let our judgements and preferences go to become channels for love.

 

[Kooky]

How do you cope with the fact that there are Jewish homophobes?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

How do you cope with the fact that there are Jewish homophobes?

I don’t think that matters.

It’s the homophobia and the anti semitism.

Doesn’t matter the person who is one of the above, or both.

imo

John can answer much better I’m sure.

 

[Kooky]

I don’t think that matters..

I think it does, if we argue that the two stem from the same root cause.

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't have the learned depth of your theological background, but to my superficial understanding, the Bible is quite clear. Christians are enjoined to love God and to love their fellow humans. Further, they are enjoined not to judge others.

So, for me, that leads to we as human beings can't truly heal another (ignoring the question of how we regard gender identity). We can let our judgements and preferences go to become channels for love.

I don't disagree with you. But the healing I noted that Van Morrison said we could do in Jesus' name was related to what Jeremiah Ames called evil. And what he called evil was, as I read him, homophobia and antisemitism. Those two are what we would no doubt like to heal.

Not dismissing the power of love, nevertheless, in a scientific sense, it helps to understand the malady to help with the development of a vaccination or cure.

And it's important to make it clear that what we're calling a malady isn't homosexuality or semitism but the hatred and persecution directed toward the two.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

How do you cope with the fact that there are Jewish homophobes?

I'm more interested in understanding than coping. I assume the latter will come from the former.



John

 

[Earthtank]

I can give a solution: Hey everyone, be nice to everyone. EVERYONE!

Or, how about we just hate everyone equally? May not be the best route but, I think its easier and still achieves the outcome of equality and solves the problem of hate because if everyone hates everyone then, no one hates anyone. Yeah definitely have a big brain moment here

 

[John D. Brey]

I think it does, if we argue that the two stem from the same root cause.

Understanding the root cause would surely help with a coping mechanism?

So far, the primary cause of homophobia and antisemitism is being said to be related to the difficulty in understanding what science might call an "epiphenomenon," where that word is being used to speak of a secondary phenomena that arises from standard processes but whereby the relationship between the standard processes and the epiphenomenon are difficult or impossible to surmise.

Abraham is a Gentile, a standard member of the human race, until his circumcision, where he becomes, according to the Talmud, and Jewish scripture, a new kind of species.

How does circumcision transform a Gentile into a Jew?

A homosexual is born from heterosexual processes. He can't even exist without heterosexual processes. And yet he's not a heterosexual, such that he must parasite (using that word in a scientific rather than a pejorative sense) the heterosexual body in order to even exist.

Similarly, Rabbi Hirsch is explicitly clear that a "Jew" is born on the eighth day, not the first day of birth. In Rabbi Hirsch's parlance, a Jew, just like a homosexual, must parasite (using that word in a scientific rather than a pejorative sense) the Gentile body since the mechanism that transforms the Gentile body into a Jewish body is circumcision, and not phallic, heterosexual, sex. And since circumcision can only transform a preexisting Gentile body into a Jewish body (it doesn't reproduce another body like phallic sex does) the Jew can't produce another Jewish body but can only, like the homosexual, transform a Gentile body into a Jewish body.

Where these simple truism are acknowledged, the question becomes how the homosexual comes out of the heterosexual original, and likewise how the Jewish person comes out of the Gentile person? Is it magical, mystical, merely an ideological prejudice? Or is there science that can make sense of it?

And I guess before we could answer that last question, we need to determine if homosexuality is a chosen preference, or something as natural to the cosmos as heterosexuality? Same with Jewishness. Is it a chosen preference, or is it a real, scientific, transformation of a Gentile body into something just as natural to the nature of the cosmos? We have to distinguish between chosen preferences, which are mental constructs (perhaps ideological), versus scientific realities that are hardwired into the nature --the physics ---of the world.

This latter point is important to this entire examination since there's a giant difference between mental constructs versus physical realities. Is homosexuality a preference or a physical reality? Is Jewishness a preference, a mental or ideological construct, or a physical reality? The questions are important since heterosexuality is a scientific and physical reality hardwired into the very physics of the cosmos. Gentile biology and personhood is, as the definition of humanity, hardwired into the very physical reality of the cosmos. Are homosexuality and Jewishness like heterosexuality and Gentile-ness or are they mental constructs and ideological prejudices? If someone says the former, then science must be capable of determining how the secondary phenomenon (the epiphenomenon) arises from the primary, original, phenomenon?



John

 

[Kooky]

@John D. Brey
I believe that you are making a categorial error when you equate reproduction with heterosexuality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality deal with physical and mental attraction to people of a particular gender expression or gendered appearance, but while that attraction is related to our human process of reproduction, it is neither a necessary precondition nor a philosophical prior. We know for a fact that throughout history, including the Talmudic and pre-Talmudic eras, couplings were typically pre-arranged without either the control of one or both parties, or in many cases even their consent - it should be self-evident how in such a process, attraction to a particular person and their gendered expression would play a secondary role, if it played any role at all!

Furthermore, the dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality you are opening with your claim here is a false one to begin with - there are plenty of reputable empirical studies suggesting that sexual attraction - or even just the distinction between hetero and homosexuality! - should not be understood as a binary either-or choice, but at the very least a spectrum, if not a continuum of possible attraction that, again, has very little to do with the reproductive reality of our human species.

Put simply, the sexual binaries fed to us as part of our individual formation process has very little basis in physical reality at all! So it behooves me to challenge your notion that "heterosexuality" - a crude social construct enforced on us based on a very limited understanding of the reality and full gamut of human sexuality! - is in any way "hardwired into the very physics of the cosmos".

I would argue that homosexuality is not an epiphenomenon - indeed, I would argue, that the contruction of heterosexuality as a specific form of sexuality can only be understood in opposition to a particular construction of homosexuality that it depends on; heterosexuality, in essence, exists as negation of homosexuality, not as a positive notion in and of itself.

Unfortunately, I lack the deep understanding of Judaism to comment on the metaphysical qualities of Jewishness. My understanding of antisemitism comes from a historical perspective - and in this, I would argue that, while the hatred of Jews has stayed much the same for at least two millenia, its specific forms and iterations, and the spurious argumentation employed in its support, have changed significantly through the ages.

Now, as to your closing question:

Are homosexuality and Jewishness like heterosexuality and Gentile-ness or are they mental constructs and ideological prejudices?

I see myself firmly in the latter camp.

I reject the idea that our languages and modes of thinking are rooted in an intrinsic metaphysical reality. As such, I would argue that there is no intrinsic reality to either our categories of sexuality, nor our categories of ethic hatred, but that their existence is dependent on particular socio-cultural configurations.

 

[sun rise]

And it's important to make it clear that what we're calling a malady isn't homosexuality or semitism but the hatred and persecution directed toward the two.

Thank you for that emphasis.

 

[John D. Brey]

I reject the idea that our languages and modes of thinking are rooted in an intrinsic metaphysical reality. As such, I would argue that there is no intrinsic reality to either our categories of sexuality, nor our categories of eth[n]ic hatred, but that their existence is dependent on particular socio-cultural configurations.

You might enjoy Professor Joseph Henrich's book, The WEIRDest People in the World. It deals with the evolution of the socio-cultural configurations of which you speak.

From my personal perspective your statement places you firmly within the very kind of epiphenomenalism that gives rise to homophobia and antisemitism since all the thinking you do, is surely founded, as with the rest of us, in a socio-cultural configuration that your statement implies you look at from some Archimedian perch not contaminated by your personal socio-cultural foundation.

In this sense, your personal epistemological perch is, as best I can tell, just as detached from its foundational socio-cultural birth-place, as Abraham's Jewishness was detached from his Gentile beginnings, or a homosexual's sexual predilections are detached from his sexual beginnings. In all three cases, the newfangled identity ---detached from it's founding ---begs the thoughtful person to beg for a scientific, logical, philosophical, or theological, mechanism for how such a thing could come to be?

How do you detach your epistemology from its socio-cultural foundation? If we learn that, we can probably figure out how homosexuals detach from their sexual foundation, and Jews detach from their Gentile foundation? For me it seems peculiar in the extreme to assume there's some kind of non-socio-culturally contaminated way of thinking since it would have almost surely have had to come from a socio-cultural beginning?

The question reminds me of the peculiar statement of Richard Dawkins when he said that we alone, mankind that is, are able to rebel against our genes, and our memes. The peculiarity of Dawkins' statement is that he claims we are nothing other than our genes and our memes, such that we should all like to know about the "we" he claims isn't subject fully to the memes and the genes.

Homosexuality, Jewishness, and [clearing throat] you, inhabit Dawkins' "we"-ness. It's that place that this thread is trying to get to.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

@John D. Brey
I believe that you are making a categorial error when you equate reproduction with heterosexuality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality deal with physical and mental attraction to people of a particular gender expression or gendered appearance, but while that attraction is related to our human process of reproduction, it is neither a necessary precondition nor a philosophical prior

If we posit a natural world order without a god or sentient creator imposing potentially unknown rhyme and reason for the things we find in nature, then wouldn't we argue that the very pleasures associated with sexual attraction are generated specifically, naturally, by nature, to encourage organism's to procreate, and thus, through natural selection, both survive, thrive, and lead to greater survival mechanisms and designs?

If the answer is yes, then homosexuality is as peculiar as it's being posited to be since it seemingly parasites the very sexual attraction mechanism designed to encourage reproduction without any means of reproducing?

We might even be tempted to suppose that HIV was nature's own protest against this newfangled, five-fingered discounting of nature's design, since in the scientific articles describing HIV, it's stated that HIV occurs when the reproductive mechanisms of the cell are redirected by the HIV virus in a manner unnatural to the cell.

In one sense, HIV seems like the margarine commercial with the punchline: It's not nice to fool mother-nature! Mother nature seems to be saying: You wanna mess with my designs on reproduction, then take this, your cells will show you what you represent in the corporate body you inhabit by my, not your, design. If this be the case, then HIV could be read like a message-in-a-bottle warning the corporate body of humanity about an approaching apocalypse. . . Has anyone read the memo?



John

 

[Kooky]

If we posit a natural world order without a god or sentient creator imposing potentially unknown rhyme and reason for the things we find in nature, then wouldn't we argue that the very pleasures associated with sexual attraction are generated specifically, naturally, by nature, to encourage organism's to procreate, and thus, through natural selection, both survive, thrive, and lead to greater survival mechanisms and designs?

Why would we? "Nature" is not a cosmic entity, it is merely a generalized, abstract notion we created to be able to talk about the multitude of phenomena present in the physical world that surrounds us. Who, pray tell, would have "generated" sexual attraction?

If the answer is yes, then homosexuality is as peculiar as it's being posited to be since it seemingly parasites the very sexual attraction mechanism designed to encourage reproduction without any means of reproducing?

We might even be tempted to suppose that HIV was nature's own protest against this newfangled, five-fingered discounting of nature's design, since in the scientific articles describing HIV, it's stated that HIV occurs when the reproductive mechanisms of the cell are redirected by the HIV virus in a manner unnatural to the cell.

This seems to me like a rehash of the old homophobic argument fielded by theists of the classic "God hates ****" variety, only dressed in pseudoscientific clothing.

"Nature" cannot protest anything because, again, what we call nature is not a distinct entity, but an abstract notion referring to a multitude of processes and phenomena that act multidirectionally and based on a multitude of different factors. A virus, for example, is little more than an organic machine primed for reproduction at any cost - there is no direction in its actions except the drive for reproduction and the blind process of mutation and survival.

What made HIV so devastating to the homosexual community in the US was not a punishment directed by an angry homophobic nature god, but rather a deliberate hands off, laissez faire policy on part of the also quite homophobic Reagan administration, who were quite delighted by the fact that the virus was killing homosexual men and saw no reason to direct the considerable resources of the American healthcare system to combat that disease in any form, least of all by seeking to prevent further victims. The administration only became concerned of the virus when heterosexual couples started to die from it as well.