• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Challenging Judaism's politics

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
If they are invaders why aren't they fighting the army and trying to take over?? The correct term is refugees, not invaders.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
That depends. Are you relying on the literal and in vacuo text, as is invoked in the original post - in which case, there is no way to distinguish them, or are you considering the various levels of Jewish law (as in "Challenging Judaism's Politics") which would make them very different but would render text in the OP irrelevant?
Well it would obviously be the former, but that doesn't exactly render the OP irrelevant. Nor do I think that you were making the point that a specific interpretation of the verse is required and veering from that interpretation entails veering from an interpretation that conviction is required in order to rightfully kill someone. If that was the case not only was your analogy flawed but your argument was poorly articulated as well.

While there may be some disagreement regarding the interpretation of Ger, there is little disagreement that Judaism does not currently allow for the fulfilment of stoning people and killing gays. Therefore not accepting that ger=proselyte does not mean one cannot accept the Talmudic requirement of conviction before allowing stoning people or killing gays.

I do understand that one of your arguments, that this verse is not include refugee. I am not addressing your interpretation here (though I think you have a hard case).

You also brought up that it is important to note that the actions are being done by Israel and not Judaism.

It is with this point that I agree with regard to the OP. Though there is certainly religious influence with the Israeli government and Epic Beard Man sort of makes clear this is the element to which he is referring, I have seen no evidence that the issue wasn't completely carried by secular concerns and advocates. Nor is it clear that such thoughts were not discussed. It seems as though the government sees these people not as refugees or immigrants but as illegal migrants who are causing harm.

Whether the interpretation is not applicable to refugees, or whether it was a secular decision, or whether these groups through their actions are not refugees makes little difference to your analogy, which I still do not understand why you will not acknowledge is flawed or lay out a defense.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Nor do I think that you were making the point that a specific interpretation of the verse is required and veering from that interpretation entails veering from an interpretation that conviction is required in order to rightfully kill someone.
I don't recall mentioning killing (did you mean religious or legal conviction? Your choice of words leads to ambiguity) as it applies to the OP's quote, just that if one wishes to ask about "Judaism's politics" then one should be aware of Judaism's understanding of the verse in question. If one abides by Judaism's understanding then one can accept Judaism's reluctance to stone people. But if one sticks with the literal text, then one should stick with that reading across the board.

While there may be some disagreement regarding the interpretation of Ger, there is little disagreement that Judaism does not currently allow for the fulfilment of stoning people and killing gays.
But Judaism's laws regarding "ger" are clear. It isn't about illegal migrant workers, unless you'd like to go through the talmudic sources and show me otherwise.
Therefore not accepting that ger=proselyte does not mean one cannot accept the Talmudic requirement of conviction before allowing stoning people or killing gays.
Not accepting the talmudic understanding of "ger" is a rejection of Judaism's legal system, a rejection which would allow one to reinterpret the word. Once one is rejecting the traditional understanding via the talmud, one is left with the black letter text which says nothing of "conviction". I'm not sure how you think one can have it both ways -- abandon the talmudic understanding in one case but demand it in another. Unless this is a selective rejection which seems intellectually dishonest.

I am not addressing your interpretation here (though I think you have a hard case).
Have you any classical sources to back up your interpretation? I have provided some for mine.

To claim that there is a thing called "Judaism's politics" requires accepting the Jewish understanding of its own text. To take a single verse and divorce it from Judaism's stated understanding, but look at others and expect that Judaism's traditional legal view holds sway is illogical.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I don't recall mentioning killing
What are you playing at?
This must explain our constant stoning of those who break the Sabbath
and
then shouldn't it kill all the homosexuals?
These are the analogies to which I objected. You saying well if this how come not this. I said, hey wait are those the same. You said, yep exactly the same. I said second temple the same? You said yep nothing to different.
(did you mean religious or legal conviction? Your choice of words leads to ambiguity) as it applies to the OP's quote, just that if one wishes to ask about "Judaism's politics" then one should be aware of Judaism's understanding of the verse in question. If one abides by Judaism's understanding then one can accept Judaism's reluctance to stone people. But if one sticks with the literal text, then one should stick with that reading across the board.
All of this is contingent on the assumption that ger doesn't mean "stranger" and cannot be applied to refugee.
But Judaism's laws regarding "ger" are clear. It isn't about illegal migrant workers, unless you'd like to go through the talmudic sources and show me otherwise.
did anyone say that it did? What the OP did was assume it included refugees. A point you did not refute. You probably should have started with that. So we are not working with ger as meaning illegal migrant worker, but ger as including refugee.
Not accepting the talmudic understanding of "ger" is a rejection of Judaism's legal system, a rejection which would allow one to reinterpret the word. Once one is rejecting the traditional understanding via the talmud, one is left with the black letter text which says nothing of "conviction". I'm not sure how you think one can have it both ways -- abandon the talmudic understanding in one case but demand it in another. Unless this is a selective rejection which seems intellectually dishonest.
I already explained that if you were trying for this argument in the beginning then not only were your analogies flawed but your argument was poorly articulated.
Have you any classical sources to back up your interpretation? I have provided some for mine.
You want classical sources to show that ger is interpreted as stranger?
To claim that there is a thing called "Judaism's politics" requires accepting the Jewish understanding of its own text.
No, it technically doesn't. I would assume he was talking about Judaism's influence on Israeli politics. But that is neither here nor there. To discuss Judaism at all meaningfully means accepting Jewish understanding of Jewish texts.
To take a single verse and divorce it from Judaism's stated understanding, but look at others and expect that Judaism's traditional legal view holds sway is illogical.
But you really didn't show that he divorced it from Judaism's stated understanding. You certainly pointed out that Israeli law is distinct from Judaism, and that was a good point. You also used some flawed analogies, and are now using a difference in interpretation to justify those flawed analogies instead of acknowledging the differences in commandments.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
So basically its OK to treat African refugees like shxt because the torah doesn't tell you not to, and this is not something wrong with Judaism??
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
You said yep nothing to different.
If you rely only on the text, then nothing different. If you want "Judaism" then very different, so much so that the initial "ger" is irrelevant to the OP's argument.

All of this is contingent on the assumption that ger doesn't mean "stranger" and cannot be applied to refugee.
Yes, because "Judaism"

did anyone say that it did? What the OP did was assume it included refugees.
No, the OP assumed it applied to the people being deported by Israel who are illegal migrant workers.
You probably should have started with that. So we are not working with ger as meaning illegal migrant worker, but ger as including refugee.
Well, just to entertain your argument, can you show me any notion within Judaism's sources that refer to "ger" as "refugee"?
You want classical sources to show that ger is interpreted as stranger?
In that verse? Sure. What do you have?

I would assume he was talking about Judaism's influence on Israeli politics.
Then he should have said that.
To discuss Judaism at all meaningfully means accepting Jewish understanding of Jewish texts.
Right, which then invalidates his original contention.

But you really didn't show that he divorced it from Judaism's stated understanding.
Sure I did. If he wants to apply it to a group that is not the group that Judaism understands that it applies to, then he is stepping away from the stated understanding.
acknowledging the differences in commandments.
And you keep missing the point that there are only differences once you buy into the exact Jewish system which would make the application of the initial quote incorrect. You want to acknowledge only the differences which you think would make your argument stronger. But you can't do that and retain a solid intellectual position.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Just to clarify the analogy:
The OP cites a verse and applies it in a way which does not abide by traditional Jewish understanding and instead uses a literal understanding.

I ask then if that same methodology (taking a verse and using a literal understanding) would then apply to other verses.

You asked about the distinction between the OP's "rule" and the others I cited.

I pointed out that any distinction requires applying the Jewish lens to the latter examples. Doing that would then require, for parity's sake, applying that same lens to the former (OP) verse.

Doing this would make the OP's verse inapplicable.

The only way this logic would work is if the OP's verse is taken outside the system while the other examples are considered from within the system. My analogy of "law taken on its face" vs. "law taken on its face" still holds.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
If you rely only on the text, then nothing different. If you want "Judaism" then very different, so much so that the initial "ger" is irrelevant to the OP's argument.


Yes, because "Judaism"


No, the OP assumed it applied to the people being deported by Israel who are illegal migrant workers.

Well, just to entertain your argument, can you show me any notion within Judaism's sources that refer to "ger" as "refugee"?

In that verse? Sure. What do you have?
So Genesis doesn't work?....then I change my argument to suggest that refugees are newcomers/converts to Isreal and should be seen as ger in that respect just as the Jews were gerim in Egypt.
Then he should have said that.
Agreed, but given the topic and content of his post, it is hard to imagine that he was discussing something the religion's inner politics. Which leaves only the assertion that Israel is in no way distinct from Judaism. And I sure hope he didn't mean that.
Right, which then invalidates his original contention.


Sure I did. If he wants to apply it to a group that is not the group that Judaism understands that it applies to, then he is stepping away from the stated understanding.
Judaism doesn't recognize ger as having political context? You realize this implies that the Jews were not Jews in Egypt.
And you keep missing the point that there are only differences once you buy into the exact Jewish system which would make the application of the initial quote incorrect. You want to acknowledge only the differences which you think would make your argument stronger. But you can't do that and retain a solid intellectual position.
No, I see your point. It is a point when I just asked you about, you failed to articulate and only brought up afterwards.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Just to clarify the analogy:
The OP cites a verse and applies it in a way which does not abide by traditional Jewish understanding and instead uses a literal understanding.

I ask then if that same methodology (taking a verse and using a literal understanding) would then apply to other verses.

You asked about the distinction between the OP's "rule" and the others I cited.

I pointed out that any distinction requires applying the Jewish lens to the latter examples. Doing that would then require, for parity's sake, applying that same lens to the former (OP) verse.

Doing this would make the OP's verse inapplicable.

The only way this logic would work is if the OP's verse is taken outside the system while the other examples are considered from within the system. My analogy of "law taken on its face" vs. "law taken on its face" still holds.
Yes, I precisely follow thisigns. However it wasn't present when I asked.

Isn't this different? Same with stoning anyone. That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences. Being hospitable does not.
Instead you offered, in what I only can read as a defensive tone, alternative analogies that did not suffer from the same problem. By parading a series of rhetorical questions:
Do you see anything in the text which requires that organization and only for certain laws? Lev 18:2 is an address to all the people and 8:4 requires that they all carry out the decrees. The next chapter, 19, which includes the quote in the OP also says that the "entire assembly" (verse 1) should follow the sabbath -- should the political parties demand that uniformly as per the same chapter? What about idolatry? Should the Israeli government outlaw all religions besides Judaism? Chapter 19 also allows slaves (verse 20) but forbids tattoos. Does there need to be an organization to set up slavery and get rid of the many ink parlors in Israel? How can people be allowed not to stand when an older person walks in? (verse 32). Does that require an organization? Do food laws require an organization? If not, how can people allow the serving of anything but kosher food?

Then, of course, I could point out that the Jewish understanding of "ger" in many normative circles is "convert" and not "illegal migrant worker".

Trying to mix politics and religion is a bad idea.

So forgive me if I have a little trouble swallowing that this is your argument when it wasn't really that apparent or present from the beginning of this thread, let alone when I asked for clarification.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So Genesis doesn't work?
Huh? So far there hasn't been any mention of Genesis (or of anything "working")
....then I change my argument to suggest that refugees are newcomers/converts to Isreal and should be seen as ger in that respect just as the Jews were gerim in Egypt.
OK, you can suggest that. It isn't the view that Judaism has of the word "ger" in the context of that verse.

Judaism doesn't recognize ger as having political context?
Judaism as a religion really doesn't have much to say about politics.
You realize this implies that the Jews were not Jews in Egypt.
That's possibly just a semantic argument about the development of the word "Jew". You will have to clarify your point
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Instead you offered, in what I only can read as a defensive tone, alternative analogies that did not suffer from the same problem. By parading a series of rhetorical questions:
How you read it is your issue -- the series of alternatives were all presented within the context of the interpretation you demanded (that "That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences.") Then I provided other text which exists without any demand for an authority or organization, and laws which would then have to be taken at face value and applied in the same way as the original verse.

So forgive me if I have a little trouble swallowing that this is your argument when it wasn't really that apparent or present from the beginning of this thread, let alone when I asked for clarification.
Consider yourself forgiven. It isn't easy for everyone to follow complex logical arguments.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Huh? So far there hasn't been any mention of Genesis (or of anything "working")

OK, you can suggest that. It isn't the view that Judaism has of the word "ger" in the context of that verse.


Judaism as a religion really doesn't have much to say about politics.

That's possibly just a semantic argument about the development of the word "Jew". You will have to clarify your point
My point is that these people no longer believed in G-d according to this view.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
How you read it is your issue -- the series of alternatives were all presented within the context of the interpretation you demanded (that "That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences.") Then I provided other text which exists without any demand for an authority or organization, and laws which would then have to be taken at face value and applied in the same way as the original verse.


Consider yourself forgiven. It isn't easy for everyone to follow complex logical arguments.
Don't be upset. It is unbecoming.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
What people? How does Genesis fit in? What does believing in God have to do with anything?
The Hebrew people. Genesis fits in only if I can use Genesis to define ger as stranger, but you said I needed to have traditional Rabbinic acceptance of Ger in the particular verse so I went a different route.

Well if they were not political converts/newcomers in Egypt they must have been religious converts/newcomers in Egypt. Which is contradicted by the text what with all the crying out to God and whatnot. So this forces us to accept that they were political converts, as in held to the political laws of Egypt not the religious beliefs of Egypt.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The Hebrew people. Genesis fits in only if I can use Genesis to define ger as stranger, but you said I needed to have traditional Rabbinic acceptance of Ger in the particular verse so I went a different route.
You have clearly jumped to something completely unrelated without defining terms or scope. Genesis fits in to what? Why would you use Genesis to define "ger"? The word appears twice in Genesis. Which verse are you citing to derive meaning? Note that I didn't say that anyone "needed" to have any "acceptance" of anything. Only that in order to understand Judaism's view, one would have to look at the traditional explanations of the word.
Well if they were not political converts/newcomers in Egypt they must have been religious converts/newcomers in Egypt.
I'm not sure what a "political convert" is or why you create this particular binary, imposing your sensibility on the text.
So this forces us to accept that they were political converts,
Strangely, I don't feel forced by anything you have tried to interject.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You have clearly jumped to something completely unrelated without defining terms or scope. Genesis fits in to what? Why would you use Genesis to define "ger"? The word appears twice in Genesis. Which verse are you citing to derive meaning? Note that I didn't say that anyone "needed" to have any "acceptance" of anything. Only that in order to understand Judaism's view, one would have to look at the traditional explanations of the word.
Classical sources are not Rabbinical?

I'm not sure what a "political convert" is or why you create this particular binary, imposing your sensibility on the text.
Well a political convert would be someone who lived in a land by that lands laws. Think resident alien.

Strangely, I don't feel forced by anything you have tried to interject.
You feel like the Hebrew people accepted the Egyptian gods and forgot about their God?
 
Top