Seperation of Church & State vs. Judaism -- Another Example

[Anubis]

Explain to me what that has to do with secularism.

But I thought you were a genius?

 

[NeonMercuryASH]

Many non-religious Jews still celebrate the major Jewish holidays

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you some kind of "Jew Yardstick"?

That's what irks me about Christians. They have their days. So be it. But when it's us, they look, in surprise. " But you don't wear a wig!" Who made them one of the Kosher Kops?

 

[twinkiemaker]

Because Arab doesn't mean Muslim, but Jew always means Jew, for lack of a better word.

What about Sammy Davis Jr?

In the past, religion and ethnicity may have gone together, but with today's 'global' society, I don't think that these relationships are as valid.

I agree whole-heartedly with the professor in the article. It should be one way or the other. Either have all the days off, or none of them. With so called seperation of church and state, no religious holiday should be observed in any government office, etc.

 

[The Question]

In the past, religion and ethnicity may have gone together, but with today's 'global' society, I don't think that these relationships are as valid.

So you're saying that a Jewish person who goes atheist is no longer Jewish?

 

[twinkiemaker]

So you're saying that a Jewish person who goes atheist is no longer Jewish?

Im saying that I don't buy into religion having a genetic signature. When someone says "Jew", I take it to mean that the person is currently involved in the practice of Judaism.

There are 'cultural' aspects of any relgion that may be unique, but a practice in and of itself does not define a culture.

That leads to my Sammy Davis Jr. reference. If he turned Athiest, would you still consider him a Jew?

 

[Anubis]

Im saying that I don't buy into religion having a genetic signature.

You don't have to buy into anything. The genetics of modern Ashkenazi Jews show Semitic origins.

That leads to my Sammy Davis Jr. reference. If he turned Athiest, would you still consider him a Jew?

Not an ethnic Jew, either way. Like I wrote earlier, "for lack of a better word." The term Jew can mean an ethnic group, and/or a member of the Jewish religion.

 

[twinkiemaker]

I understand what you're saying, I don't disagree that the word can be used either way. I'm just not fond of it, thats all.

It's just a personnal preference.

 

[Anubis]

Likewise. Now let's think of a word . . .

 

[WordInterrupted]

There are atheist Jews.

Atheist Jews are secular Jews. As I've noted before, "secular" refers to an absence of religious belief. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. "Secular" doesn't indicate a an absence of ethnic affiliation, it indicates an absence of religious belief.

 

[The Question]

Atheist Jews are secular Jews. As I've noted before, "secular" refers to an absence of religious belief. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. "Secular" doesn't indicate a an absence of ethnic affiliation, it indicates an absence of religious belief.

And would you suggest, then, that there are "secular" Christians?

Stupid.

 

[WordInterrupted]

And would you suggest, then, that there are "secular" Christians?

Yes, I would:

http://www.uua.org/

But even if there weren't, what's the difference? You still haven't explained what Jewish ethnicity has to do with secularism.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Universalists aren't Christians, at least not by definition, certainly not in practice. If you'd ever spent any time at a Univeralist church, you'd have known not to use it as an example.

 

[TJHairball]

Universalists aren't Christians, at least not by definition, certainly not in practice. If you'd ever spent any time at a Univeralist church, you'd have known not to use it as an example.

Depends on the individual, and who you ask. Unitarians and Universalists as organizations stopped requiring Christianity of members around the end of the 19th century. Some people continue to insist that all such must be Christian because of where their tradition comes from.

A fine example of a "secular" Christian, IMO, would be someone who doesn't really believe in it but goes through the rites of Christmas, Easter, keeps the language habits, etc etc etc. Unless things have dramatically changed, there are such still in every corner of the country. Others would say that such are no Christians.

It's all a definitional game. Not much point in chasing it down.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Well, no.

I've had the opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time in UU churches, and while they have some trappings of Christianity, the fact that they openly embrace pagan rites and rituals (they don't shrink from where there traditions came from), turn no one away, and have been long-standing supporters of the gay community, denominationally, they bear little resemblance to "Christians", even liberal ones like the Methodists. And lets not forget to mention that the "Christians" want nothing to do with UU's.

And, please, let's not mince words here. "Secular Christian" is an oxymoron. You're talking about agnostics....and Christian denominations don't embrace them, and they're hardly inclined to number themselves in with the rest of the flock. Some guy who goes to church on Easter and Christmas because his family does, or out of obligation can't really be counted in.

 

[TJHairball]

Well, no.

I've had the opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time in UU churches, and while they have some trappings of Christianity, the fact that they openly embrace pagan rites and rituals (they don't shrink from where there traditions came from), turn no one away, and have been long-standing supporters of the gay community, denominationally, they bear little resemblance to "Christians", even liberal ones like the Methodists.

And I'll tell you straight up that some are and some aren't. I've probably known more than you have.

And lets not forget to mention that the "Christians" want nothing to do with UU's.

Tell that to Baptist and UU youth going to the same conferences... etc etc etc. Your favorite Christians may avoid UUs like the plague, but quite a few don't.

And, please, let's not mince words here. "Secular Christian" is an oxymoron.

By your definition. And clearly you're not on the same definitional page as those arguing with you over it.

You're talking about agnostics....and Christian denominations don't embrace them, and they're hardly inclined to number themselves in with the rest of the flock. Some guy who goes to church on Easter and Christmas because his family does, or out of obligation can't really be counted in.

Really? They often would count themselves. "Oh, what? Sure, I'm Christian. Now pass me the beer, the football game's starting."

 

[Peter Octavian]

And I'll tell you straight up that some are and some aren't. I've probably known more than you have.

No, you haven't. Bet on it. Most are not Christians by the accepted definition of the word. If you don't buy the dogma, you aren't in the fold. If you are trying to slide that, "Well, they lead lives much closer to the example of Christ than most Christians" by, fine. But they aren't Christians so far as "Christians" are concerned

Tell that to Baptist and UU youth going to the same conferences... etc etc etc.

Again, spoken like someone who has limited experience with religion. If you're talking American Baptists, perhaps they go to the same conferences. But the UU's that are in attendance are statistically insignificant there, and you know it. If you are talking about GARB, you can just forget it altogether. So far as they're concerned, UU's are spat up from Hell.

Your favorite Christians may avoid UUs like the plague, but quite a few don't.By your definition. And clearly you're not on the same definitional page as those arguing with you over it.

Most do. Plain and simple. They may put on the good sunday face and appear to live by the words of the master, but at the end of the day, when the ranks have closed, they're still talking about how those UU's are going to hell....even the American Baptists.

Really? They often would count themselves. "Oh, what? Sure, I'm Christian. Now pass me the beer, the football game's starting."

What the hell's wrong with drinking and watching football? What does that have to do with counting onesself a member of a particular faith or denomination? There are a number of well regarded religious thinkers, even ones who have been accepted by the conservatives in the Christian churches, who had no problem whatsoever with having a drink and a cigar. Church attendance, and drinkin and smokin have nothing at all to do with a profession of faith or affiliation.

To cast aspersions on the faith and/or devotion of someone who says, "Oh, what? Sure, I'm Christian. Now pass me the beer, the football game's starting", makes you easily as judgemental as the worst religious bigot.

 

[NeonMercuryASH]

And would you suggest, then, that there are "secular" Christians?

Stupid.

Not really. There were many a Catholic dragged to Auschwitz, screaming his rosary. It didn't matter because Mama was a yenta. They were gassed, just the same. In effect Nazi Germany, to a large extent, defined who is Jewish. Whether secular, religious, or converted Christian, KlystronB and Tay Sachs turned out to be the Great Equalizers.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Universalists aren't Christians,

How are you defining Christianity? If you look at Universalist ethical teachings, they're essentially a humanist reading of the New Testament. Their cultural and ethical heritage comes directly from the liberal Christian theology of the 19th Century. If people who retain a set of specifically Jewish cultural and ethical practices are still "Jewish" even though they don't believe in God, why aren't people who retain specifically Christian cultural and ethical practices still Christian even though they don't believe in God?

At any rate, this tangent has absolutely nothing to do with the original argument.

 

[TJHairball]

No, you haven't. Bet on it.

Thousands, then? I get around. Used to run youth conferences.

Most are not Christians by the accepted definition of the word.

Per the whole "Jesus Christ is divine" thing, most aren't. Probably less than half even consider themselves Christian.

But then, that was the original schism between the Unitarians and the mother church several hundred years ago.

If you don't buy the dogma, you aren't in the fold. If you are trying to slide that, "Well, they lead lives much closer to the example of Christ than most Christians" by, fine. But they aren't Christians so far as "Christians" are concerned.

Again, depends who you ask. Everybody seems to define Christian differently.

Again, spoken like someone who has limited experience with religion. If you're talking American Baptists, perhaps they go to the same conferences. But the UU's that are in attendance are statistically insignificant there, and you know it.

UUs are a "statistically insignificant" presence regardless. There are pretty damn few UUs out there, period. For all that, most UUs tend to socialize well with other religions. Including some of the more liberal flavors of Southern Baptist. If you go to almost any event that's predominantly UU, you'll see other denominations represented as well.

Which reminds me. Although the UU church is the one of the only ones that consistently welcomes GLBT, individual churches vary within other denominations. Baptist churches are famously divided about that.

Most do. Plain and simple. They may put on the good sunday face and appear to live by the words of the master, but at the end of the day, when the ranks have closed, they're still talking about how those UU's are going to hell....even the American Baptists.

Somehow I'm not buying that.

What the hell's wrong with drinking and watching football? What does that have to do with counting onesself a member of a particular faith or denomination? There are a number of well regarded religious thinkers, even ones who have been accepted by the conservatives in the Christian churches, who had no problem whatsoever with having a drink and a cigar. Church attendance, and drinkin and smokin have nothing at all to do with a profession of faith or affiliation.

I am, of course, talking about that being the only thing some do on Sundays. For many, being Christian means very little.

To cast aspersions on the faith and/or devotion of someone who says, "Oh, what? Sure, I'm Christian. Now pass me the beer, the football game's starting", makes you easily as judgemental as the worst religious bigot.

And of course, my real point about the fellas who may show up on holidays with family to church and otherwise stay home, not particularly concern themselves with Christian dogma, etc, is that many consider themselves Christian.

Which some people consider the basic defining mark of Christians.

V: "So are you Christian?"
M: "Technically, yes."
V: "What do you mean by technically?"
...
V: "So you do consider yourself Christian, then?"
M: "Yes." (He's just not picky, generally isn't concerned with church dogma, and usually only shows up on special occasions with family. Is an official member, of course, and was baptized, etc.)

 

[jack]

My wife is Episcopalian, and let me tell you, when the Reverend Spong comes up in the discussion, there surely are two divided camps within. And just call an Episcopalian "Catholic", when discussing Christians, and watch what happens.

TJ, and Wordin, these folks are actually correct by their definition, at least as it relates to jewishness. Because if you are born into a Jewish family, whether you accept the religion, practice it or not, you are still "Jewish", by heritage and by religion.

Arabs are like that too, especially the mixed race Palestinians