Understanding Anti-Semitism: Why Do People Dislike Jews?

[RobL]

(I'm sure TJ will jump in here and again claim that it's public knowledge, without bothering to demonstrate how it possibly can be.)

Not to pick a fight, but I knew what those funky symbols were when I was about five years old.

And I'm not jewish. (nor come from a jewish famliy)

 

[Anubis]

And how did you know?

 

[RobL]

I don't really remember. I just know that sometimes my parents look for that little symbol, especially for stuff like hot dogs and processed meat products, because it generally means that those things are of better quality.

Its just one of those things I knew from an early date - that the funky symbol meant that its ok for jewish people to eat.

 

[The Question]

I don't really remember. I just know that sometimes my parents look for that little symbol, especially for stuff like hot dogs and processed meat products, because it generally means that those things are of better quality.

Actually, they're not of better quality. They're not cleaner. They're not more wholesome. They're just prepared according to Jewish religious doctrine. Essentially, all you're doing by buying Kosher is adhering to Jewish law.

Its just one of those things I knew from an early date - that the funky symbol meant that its ok for jewish people to eat.

You're an exception, Rob. everyone I've asked about it has no idea what the symbols certify.

 

[RobL]

*shrugs* Ok, then.

Its not something that come into everyday talk, to be sure. I hear about it on the news, periodically, but other than that it really doesn't enter into public thought that much, I guess.

 

[The Question]

^^Exactly. Most non-Jewish people (us "anti-Semites" excepted, of course) have no interest in it. It's just another little symbol on a package randomly dotted with little symbols, like the "TM" for trademark, the circled "R" (probably for "Registered" or something) and whatever other little numbers and letters sometimes appear on packaging. (That, by the way, is another reason why the "circled U" and "circled K" are deceptive -- they're made to resemble other symbols on the packaging that have nothing to do with an altered preparation process.

 

[Blindgroping]

Just poking my head in to see what all the furious posting is about.

 

[RobL]

Truth be told, I really don't see it as that big of a deal. A couple extra cents (if that) so that everybody can eat the same food? I can live with that. We don't need to ostrisize people, make them wait in a "special" food line, just because they can't eat the same food as everyone else because of their religion.

Its not some grand conspiracy, its just a marking letting people know its ok to eat it.

 

[Blindgroping]

What if they can't eat the same food because of allergies?
Certain food for certain people.

I like glutten in my wheat flour products and I don't want to have to pay extra because the slight few people that are allergic to glutten have a productuion tax to take out the glutten in all food so they can eat it.

No, doesn't work that way.

 

[RobL]

What if they can't eat the same food because of allergies?
Certain food for certain people.

I like glutten in my wheat flour products and I don't want to have to pay extra because the slight few people that are allergic to glutten have a productuion tax to take out the glutten in all food so they can eat it.

No, doesn't work that way.

Key word in my argument is Religion. Key word in your argument is Allergy. There is a difference.

I'm allergic to fish. Can't eat it - my face gets all flush and my mouth/throat itches like the dickens. So what do I do? I don't eat it. Simple. On fish day at school, I brought a sack lunch.

However, my one genetic abnormality (and I'm the only person I know of who has this problem) shouldn't impact everyone else's enjoyment of "fish day" at school.

But religion is another ball game. For one, there are a lot more people who are Jewish then people who are allergic to fish (at least in my experience). Plus, they already have an established protocol do deal with their issues - having a Rabbi onhand to view the food preparation process. That pretty much solves the problem. Now, if I could take a pill, and it could take away my allergies to fish, would I take it? Absolutely. Likewise, there is a solution to the food problem for Jewish people, and there really isn't a problem with humoring them and just doing it.

 

[Blindgroping]

Key word in my argument is Religion. Key word in your argument is Allergy. There is a difference.

Not from the standpoint of taxation and edible products.

 

[Blindgroping]

And what are the USDA inspectors? That are doing the same type of job as the Rabbi in you example.

AND..... Should I be paying a tax on the fish I buy because you are allergic to it?
Should I be paying a Jewish tax in my food even though the food isn't a "jewish" food? Coke is Kosher, Diet Coke is not.

No!! Only if I am buying a Specifically Kosher food should I, or anyone, be paying that tax.

 

[RobL]

And what are the USDA inspectors? That are doing the same type of job as the Rabbi in you example.

AND..... Should I be paying a tax on the fish I buy because you are allergic to it?
Should I be paying a Jewish tax in my food even though the food isn't a "jewish" food? Coke is Kosher, Diet Coke is not.

No!! Only if I am buying a Specifically Kosher food should I, or anyone, be paying that tax.

First, as I understand the process, the Rabbi isn't an "inspector" per se, he just watches the food preperation, and if it meets with jewish law, the food is deemed "Kosher" and they can put that symbol on it. If not, then the symbol can't be used. Its not like a USDA inspection, where if the food fails, it gets dumped out. Nothing is done to food manufacturers for producing "non-kosher" food - they just find it beneficial in doing it, as it opens up their market to people who otherwise wouldn't buy their products.

Second, no, you shouldn't pay a tax to pay for my condition. However, if it were a widespread problem, and there could be a easy, workable solution to the problem, then I really don't see the issue with just making the food that way to begin with, and passing the negligible costs on to everyone. Its sort of like putting fluoride in water - when they started doing that, it caused a dramatic decrease in tooth related problems. The costs were passed on to everybody because, in reality, it would be problematic to charge the people who benifited from the fluoride, and those that didn't. You eat kosher food, you have to pay the price for its being deemed "kosher."

Third, you are paying for "specifically kosher food" - the food with the symbol on it. If you feel this strongly about it, there is nothing keeping you from hunting out those products that aren't kosher. Sorta like be not eating Sara Lee products because they donate to anti-gun causes, or boycotting a Baldwin film because they are all scum sucking liberal maggots. Don't like the cause, don't buy the product. There is no use complaining about the issue, then going right out and buying the same product, and thus, continuing the problem.

 

[The Question]

Truth be told, I really don't see it as that big of a deal. A couple extra cents (if that) so that everybody can eat the same food? I can live with that. We don't need to ostrisize people, make them wait in a "special" food line, just because they can't eat the same food as everyone else because of their religion.

That's like arguing that all food should be sugar-free because a minority chooses not to ingest sugar, and the majority should be the ones to stand in a "special" food line just because a minority has created a system where the majority of food is prepared according to their special needs.

Its not some grand conspiracy, its just a marking letting people know its ok to eat it.

The symbols appearing on the packages isn't a conspiracy -- but if there's no conspiracy at all, the symbols' meaning would be common knowledge -- despite rare exceptions among gentiles, the knowledge is hardly common. Going back to the comparison to 100% organic food (another specialty desired by a minority of consumers) when you look at packages of it, you'll see "100% Organic" practically screaming at you from the packaging. You're able to make an informed choice, then and there, without having to have done any research to find out what it means.

 

[The Question]

First, as I understand the process, the Rabbi isn't an "inspector" per se, he just watches the food preperation, and if it meets with jewish law, the food is deemed "Kosher" and they can put that symbol on it. If not, then the symbol can't be used. Its not like a USDA inspection, where if the food fails, it gets dumped out. Nothing is done to food manufacturers for producing "non-kosher" food - they just find it beneficial in doing it, as it opens up their market to people who otherwise wouldn't buy their products.

Then why not, again, create kosher versions of these products? Why not give people a choice?

Second, no, you shouldn't pay a tax to pay for my condition. However, if it were a widespread problem, and there could be a easy, workable solution to the problem, then I really don't see the issue with just making the food that way to begin with, and passing the negligible costs on to everyone. Its sort of like putting fluoride in water - when they started doing that, it caused a dramatic decrease in tooth related problems. The costs were passed on to everybody because, in reality, it would be problematic to charge the people who benifited from the fluoride, and those that didn't. You eat kosher food, you have to pay the price for its being deemed "kosher."

Except that fluoride imparts an objective, tested benefit to the majority of consumers -- Kosher processing doesn't. Again, it doesn't imbue food products, or any other product, with any material improvement -- it is strictly a process performed for the exclusive purpose of a religious observance. Those who don't subscribe to the religion in question should not have that religion imposed upon them in such a way. I've said before, and I'll probably end up having to point it out again, that were it a Christian process, there would no doubt be a far greater outcry against it, and far less defense of it.

Third, you are paying for "specifically kosher food" - the food with the symbol on it. If you feel this strongly about it, there is nothing keeping you from hunting out those products that aren't kosher.

Except that we shouldn't have to. Kosher processing is only necessary for a minority of people, and it's unethical and unfair for a minority to receive special treatment at the expense of the minority. In this regard, it's equivalent to stores serving whites only -- If minorities felt so strongly about it when this was common practice, there was nothing stopping them from hunting out those businesses that weren't white-only.

 

[RobL]

That's like arguing that all food should be sugar-free because a minority chooses not to ingest sugar, and the majority should be the ones to stand in a "special" food line just because a minority has created a system where the majority of food is prepared according to their special needs.

Eating sugar free is a choice. Its a conscious, rational (or irrational) decision made by someone to not eat it for whatever reason. Likewise, me not eating fish is a decision on my part.

Religion isn't like that. Having and following your faith isn't quite like giving something up because of a decision to loose weight or not die from an allergic reaction.

The symbols appearing on the packages isn't a conspiracy -- but if there's no conspiracy at all, the symbols' meaning would be common knowledge -- despite rare exceptions among gentiles, the knowledge is hardly common. Going back to the comparison to 100% organic food (another specialty desired by a minority of consumers) when you look at packages of it, you'll see "100% Organic" practically screaming at you from the packaging. You're able to make an informed choice, then and there, without having to have done any research to find out what it means.

Well, its not my fault people don't know what that symbol means. I have not seen it proven that there is some sort of grand conspiracy to keep people from knowing what it is. If a five-year-old Rob can find out what it is (and I wasn't into research when I was five), then really, there isn't much reason for anyone else who is mildly curious about what those little things mean from asking and finding out themselves with minimal work.

As for not openly broadcasting that something is for "jewish consumption," history has shown there are a lot of groups that don't like jews for whatever reason. Or, maybe the food manufacturers don't think its that big of a deal? As its been argued here, jews make up a smaller percentage of the population, yet, they generally make more money. As such, they produce kosher food for them, but don't openly broadcast it because it isn't that big of a deal to everyone else?

There are a lot more arguments for the kosher symbol for not being common knowledge then a conspiracy for a tax. I'd just chalk it up to a general ignorance or not caring one way or another what everything on a label means.

 

[RobL]

Then why not, again, create kosher versions of these products? Why not give people a choice?

Because I would imagine that its not cost effective to produce two seperate food lines. It would increase the price of everything. Its easier and cheaper to produce the food kosher to begin with, so they just do it that way.

Except that fluoride imparts an objective, tested benefit to the majority of consumers -- Kosher processing doesn't.

In your opinion. Those who are jewish have a different opinion, or obviously they wouldn't need kosher food to begin with.

Those who don't subscribe to the religion in question should not have that religion imposed upon them in such a way. I've said before, and I'll probably end up having to point it out again, that were it a Christian process, there would no doubt be a far greater outcry against it, and far less defense of it.

Agreed. You should not be forced to observe a religion you don't believe in. I agree with that 100% However, you are not forced to eat kosher food. Neither am I. I don't see a Rabbi sitting next to me when I eat, demanding that I eat only kosher food.

By producing kosher food, manufactuers are not forcing someone to observe the jewish faith, but are just keeping their options open, and not closing their products off to a potentially marketable segment of the population.

Kosher processing is only necessary for a minority of people, and it's unethical and unfair for a minority to receive special treatment at the expense of the minority. In this regard, it's equivalent to stores serving whites only -- If minorities felt so strongly about it when this was common practice, there was nothing stopping them from hunting out those businesses that weren't white-only.

Yeah, well, to date I haven't seen an argument saying that producing kosher food is imposing on my rights in any way, shape, or form. If I felt that strongly about it, I wouldn't buy anything kosher. There is plenty of stuff out there that isn't kosher, all you have to do is look at the label when you buy something. And even if that isn't the case, the cost of producing something kosher is so negligible that it isn't worth worrying about it one way or another.

 

[The Question]

Eating sugar free is a choice. Its a conscious, rational (or irrational) decision made by someone to not eat it for whatever reason. Likewise, me not eating fish is a decision on my part.

Religion isn't like that. Having and following your faith isn't quite like giving something up because of a decision to loose weight or not die from an allergic reaction.

Sure it is -- if it weren't, there wouldn't be atheists -- we'd all be religious, because we would have no choice in it.

Well, its not my fault people don't know what that symbol means. I have not seen it proven that there is some sort of grand conspiracy to keep people from knowing what it is.

Nobody said it's your fault, Rob. :lol: But the deception is proven by the fact that there's nothing on the packaging that says it's kosher in a way that everyone can see at a glance, the way there is with sugar-free, caffeine-free, vegetarian, organic, etc. The symbol's not concealed, but its meaning isn't explicit. It would be like listing the ingredients in little pictograms instead of in words.

Well If a five-year-old Rob can find out what it is (and I wasn't into research when I was five), then really, there isn't much reason for anyone else who is mildly curious about what those little things mean from asking and finding out themselves with minimal work.

And how are people supposed to know there's anything to be curious about? Like I pointed out already, the symbols remotely indicate their meaning.

As for not openly broadcasting that something is for "jewish consumption," history has shown there are a lot of groups that don't like jews for whatever reason.

And they have a right to know what they're buying, as do we all.

Or, maybe the food manufacturers don't think its that big of a deal?

So is that the guiding principle by which we, the consumers, should hold industries accountable? "Yeah, just tell us about the product whatever you think we need to know."?

As its been argued here, jews make up a smaller percentage of the population, yet, they generally make more money. As such, they produce kosher food for them, but don't openly broadcast it because it isn't that big of a deal to everyone else?

Except that everyone else then (basically) has no choice but to follow Jewish law, unless they've come into the knowledge of what those cryptic symbols on their food mean, which is not knowledge that's commonly available unless you're specifically looking for it -- and you'd only be specifically looking for it if you already had at least some idea of what you're looking for.

There are a lot more arguments for the kosher symbol for not being common knowledge then a conspiracy for a tax. I'd just chalk it up to a general ignorance or not caring one way or another what everything on a label means.

That would make sense, except that it's supposedly a big selling point for its market, Jewish people. It makes no sense that a feature that's supposed to bring in more business is denoted by tiny, cryptic symbols, instead of advertised in big, bold plain text as every other specialized food production process is. Face it, Rob, the only logical explanation for the way Kosher production is noted on product packaging is that you have to know what to look for, and if you don't know what to look for, the manufacturers sure as fuck aren't going to tell you. That may not say "conspiracy" to you, but it damned well ought to strike any rational person as being dishonest.

 

[RobL]

BTW, just for the sake of argument, I went to my cupboard and pulled out the first item that was visible to me - a can of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti and Meatballs, (in tomato sauce). I was able to find the mark saying that it was recyclable. I was able to find out that it expires on Nov 21, 2006. I was able to find out that it was made by ConAgra Foods. I was able to find out that it passed USDA inspection. However, nowhere on the label does it say that its kosher.

So, there you go. If there were such a conspiracy, wouldn't a Chef Boyardee product be included, as little kids (and bachelors that can't be bothered to cook) be in a prime group to be shafted by "the man"?

 

[The Question]

Because I would imagine that its not cost effective to produce two seperate food lines. It would increase the price of everything. Its easier and cheaper to produce the food kosher to begin with, so they just do it that way.

Then why don't they just produce food sugar-free to begin with?

In your opinion. Those who are jewish have a different opinion, or obviously they wouldn't need kosher food to begin with.

My opinion, and that of the Rabbi in the article I linked to above. It's strictly a religious observance -- on that basis, yes, it is better for religious Jews. The majority of consumers are not religious Jews, and to us it imparts no benefit, only additional cost and an affront to our ethics at being essentially tricked through nondisclosure of information, or coerced by lack of ready alternatives, into practicing a religion we don't agree with.

Agreed. You should not be forced to observe a religion you don't believe in. I agree with that 100% However, you are not forced to eat kosher food. Neither am I. I don't see a Rabbi sitting next to me when I eat, demanding that I eat only kosher food.

Neither do you see ready brand-name alternatives to the foods which by default have you observing that religious practice, either. And although TJHairball mentioned generics, that's a pretty pale alternative -- basically, either you observe a Jewish religious law or you opt out of being able to purchase most of the foodstuffs on the market, because even the store-brand at my local Safeway (Safeway Select) is kosher. And there really aren't a whole assortment of generic versions of brand name products out there.

By producing kosher food, manufactuers are not forcing someone to observe the jewish faith, but are just keeping their options open, and not closing their products off to a potentially marketable segment of the population.

Not forcing, no, but not leaving much choice -- either follow Jewish law, or go hunting high and low for a store that offers a non-Kosher alternative, of which there are not as many as you seem to think. And again, it would be just as easy for the manufacturers to produce specialized Kosher versions of products as it is for them to produce other specialized versions of their products -- that is, unless the cost of the Kosher process is significantly higher than has been stated by its defenders in this thread so far.

Yeah, well, to date I haven't seen an argument saying that producing kosher food is imposing on my rights in any way, shape, or form. If I felt that strongly about it, I wouldn't buy anything kosher. There is plenty of stuff out there that isn't kosher, all you have to do is look at the label when you buy something. And even if that isn't the case, the cost of producing something kosher is so negligible that it isn't worth worrying about it one way or another.

If it's so negligible, then it wouldn't impose a burden on manufacturers to produce a seperate line of products which are Kosher versions of a primarily non-Kosher product lineup, just as they do with sugar-free products.