According to the nazis Jews are a race (and a religion). Which is why they went after people that had semetic or jewish blood, and not just the practitioners of Judaism. They went after the roma (gypsies) for similar reasons of racial inferiority.

Almost all Jewish people are of semitic ancestry (mixed with many other ancestries), mainly as there have been very few converts to Judaism through out history (it is very difficult to convert for one thing, plus who wants to join an often abused and subjugated minority?). Partly as it is traced by blood, not just belief. Though converts are often ascribed to being members of one of the 10 lost tribes. The nazi's however did not distinguish, and also went after anyone who was Jewish but not of Semitic origins.

So they can be both according to the Nazis.
What would a rabbi say? After all a rabbi would be more credible than a twisted racist regime wouldn't he.

"Almost" isn't all is it.
Though I think what you mean is most Ashkenazis in the male lineage appear to have middle eastern decent apart from those of central asian decent while the maternal line has much more localised variation(which is important if you consider the really orthodox view that only the maternal line counts). I won't bother going into the african Jews lineage as that would digress further and it can easily be dealt with in....
Actually it isn't that difficult to convert , unless of course you are talking the real orthodox approach, but as they don't recognise other Jews as really Jewish anyway that gets a bit sticky.

Are you familiar with the multi oscar winning film about anti-semitism called gentlemans agreement ?
Sam Jaffe does a nice monologue about that particular question as well as the "what is a Jew" question.

We were discussing the holocaust and racism. My assertion is that the Nazi's acted primarily out of racist reasons (concepts of racial purity, and racial inferiority) more then over religious reasons. Me I don't believe race really exists. For Jews though you are considered jewish according to halakha if your mother was born a Jew, or if you fully converted to the Jewish faith. You even technically remain Jewish even if you later convert to another religion, or stop practicing entirely.

What I mean is most of the current ethnic groups of Jewish people have a common Semitic ancestry steaming from before the first diaspora. The obvious exception is of course the rare converted groups such as the Beta Israel you refer to. They however are a very small minority.

It is if you wish to be recognized fully as being a practicing Jew yourself (we are talking full conversion here) by the denomination of your choice, and a member of the Jewish community, its not easy. Particularly if you are trying to join anything other then a reform temple. First big hurdle is you need to learn how to read and speak Hebrew (even in reform you should have at least some understanding of Hebrew). Then there is all the stuff you need to learn, as even reform expects converts to study Jewish history, theology, rituals, culture, customs, etc. That is only the beginning if you are going for conservative or modern orthodox conversion. So it's not a very easy path to take to fully convert.

I don't believe your second statement is really true, at least I have not encountered it, and I have known more then a few orthodox Jews. They may consider the other branches as being misguided, but they are still considered Jews according to halakha. Heck one of my step father's closest friends was a Hasidic Jew (aka ultra orthodox), and my step father was for most of his life a reform Jew (though he was moving back towards conservatism before he died), and often had him and my mother over for holidays such as passover.

I can't say that I am.

Flowery ways of saying "some of them are okay, but..."

If you hate wife beaters, say you hate wife beaters. If you hate child molesters, say you hate child molesters. It is common knowledge that these things are not exclusive to one religion or another. It is also common knowledge that silent acceptance of these things is not exclusive to one religion or another. Linking them with a particular faith, even when you know and admit that many members of that faith do not abuse their wives and children (and the inverse is also true), only serves to create boundaries between people. It serves no other purpose.

Hypocrisy can be found in any set of values. And I don't mean this personally, but your point of view is nothing if not self-superior.

Modern western values are a fad, a fashion, a new religion if you will, and one which tries to spread itself as much as any other. But it has yet to stand the test of time. Indeed, if our birth rates continue to fall then it will not stand the test of time, regardless of what the "Muslim world" does. On the subject of women's rights specifically it would be almost funny if the theories linking them with our low birth rates turn out to have any truth, but I digress.

You have your values, other people (including Muslims) have theirs, and while many people might subscribe to a particular set of values there will always be individuals who disagree on different things. From where I'm standing I see extremists on both sides who would have the whole world convert to THEIR religion, while the rest of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are mostly just trying to get along.

Certainly we should protect our laws and our rights, at least those we individually agree with. And we (all of us, including Muslims) should campaign to change the laws and rights we disagree with. Isn't that democracy?

It's the same attitude as yours. You don't want Islam to spread? Then what are the alternatives? Ruling out perfect equilibrium, which is only possible on paper, the only alternative would be the decline of Islam. To be replaced by what?

No it isn't. It's much more serious than that. I trust you did not mean to imply that I see this thread as some sort of pissing contest. :)

We are not talking about silent acceptance here but about a lifestyle and culture that even supports that. Is there anything wrong with saying that women have next to zero rights in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria....etc? Is that a coincidence? No, it's part of the culture. If the culture spreads so does this behaviour, or am I wrong here?

That's what I'm trying to do here, isn't it?;)
The problem is that we as the people don't get asked like the Swiss people did. Our politicians decide what to do and they usually fear to "offend" Muslims and try to avoid any conflict at all costs.

How about atheism?;) It doesn't demand you to conquer the world ans subjugate everyone who doesn't agree with you (this is not exclusively directed at Islam but they are the most aggressive right now).


Uh, I never thought it could be interpreted like that.:o:oops:

We should never trust our government, but instead hold them accountable.

Contrary to what was posted, the reality is that your memory is correct. The government DID lie - but the timeframe of the bombing and the election meant that at the time of the election - the lies and blame being made by the government in power were just being called into question. Yet the people moved to remove the hawks from government. Seems rather cut and dry.

Turkey's wannabe-conqueror of europe, Erdogan, once again has shown his real face. He accused Switzerland of being a truly fascist country, he said the Swiss have committed a crime against humanity, and he called all Muhammeddan countries to move financial traffic from Switzerland to Turkey.

Facism. Crime against humanity. This damn country would be a real contribution to the cultural diversity and wealth of the European Union, wouldn't it. This propagandistic, hate-filled venom from somebody in whose countries just a few years ago Christian priests were stabbed to death on open street for being christian priests, and - like in other Muhammeddan countries as well - where the building of churches ansd synagogues is forbidden and the christian communities saw a rise in discrimination, seeing more of their followers fleeing Turkey in the past two years than in the years before. This from somebody who officially visited Germany and has called Turks in Gemany to actively resist integration and to stick to their turkish nationalism.

This opportunistic, self-rightous split-tongued lying in the name of Islam, may be highly effective in making the West a bad conscience and make it fall back another small step and turning our starry-eyed idealists into useful idiots assisting in the spread of Islam, nevertheless it gives me a physical feeling of a need to vomit.

What the Turks are calling for is rightout blackmailing of a Western nation. "If you do not allow us to spread in your country, then..." translates into "If you do oppose Islam, then..." And others Muslim nations did and do like that as well. If you would demand them to behave in their own countries according to the standards they demand from us, they would turn it around again and accuse us of hate crimes and crimes against humanity for our arrogance to demand them to allow others the same freedoms they demand for themselves.

The swiss foreign minister sets new western standards in obedient dhimmitude in these days, on several occasions her statements that she made could not be submissive and weak enough. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Not even a dog strolls around my feet that slimy.

Like over the Danish cartoons, and several other occasions, the Western nations try to demonstratively overtrump each other in condemning of the Swiss vote (which in no way is banning islam, or practcing of it, and does not limit freedom of religion in general). that'S how weaklings behave that are in vital dependance of their masters. Not to imagine that Muslim nations do not deliver oil anymore, and would reallocate thei financial investements away from Europe. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabaia claims the West must pay it compensations when it runs out of oil, and dubai claims it must not pay for the losses and potential bancrupt of it'S state-held investement fonds that are close to collapsing (they claim it is private, but it is controlled by several high ranling state-authorities) - with many Western banks having been greedy and stupid eniugh to invest money in there.

These funds once have been amongst the five strongest in the world. Tighten your seatbelts, the next financial collapse already is ahead. It is like with warning mini-earthquakes happenign ahead of the major event: the interval between them becomes smaller and smaller. Seing that the Western banks have learned nothing and already are acting as irresponsible and greedy again as before this years crisis, there is little hope to avoid the coming ones.

Don't talk rubbish.
The story Anzar was spinning had begun to fall apart nearly instantly and was reported then and was far more heavily reported worldwide the next day. The demonstrations began to change that evening and became heavily focused on the government the following day.
The election took place the day after the wider focus switched to the government lies.
If in doubt about the timeframe check the media coverage, especially the coverage from the day before the election and the day before that.

Blimey more rubbish from Skybird.
OK skybird if what you have written is true can you explain the planning permission granted for the rezoning to allow two Jehovah witness kingdom halls this year and the pending hearings for two other applications for kingdom halls.
Can you explain the protetant church in Izmar this year and the pending application by the protestant alliance of Turkey?
Could you also explain why the Yeni dogus church is not closed even though it was found to be operating without planninng permission.

You might have a point about someone who claimed to be of Baha'i faith as Turkey doesn't recognise that but it does recognise 161 other faiths.

When you have dealt with that then perhaps you can explain how if the religious minority populations are going down then some of them are increasing?

You should have stuck to just calling Erdogan a dumb nationalist ***** instead of making stuff up.

As I said before, that depends on the rate of Muslim immigration, where the immigrants come from (I would say a Muslim from India is less likely to be a problem than one from Iran) and the rate of secularisation (or perhaps "westernisation" would be a better word).

No, it isn't. I see no evidence of you attempting to reduce the abuse of women and children, which was a problem here in Europe since, oh, forever. I do not see someone saying "sign this petition against the Blasphemy Law" or "join this human rights group". I see someone inciting hatred of a specific religion.

And the solution to that problem is to hate Islam?

Neither does Islam, according to the Islamic websites I've already linked to. Of course there are other interpretations, but I think they say much more about the people doing the interpreting than they do about the religion itself.

True, but westernisation is rejected by a lot and actively discouraged by high Muslim and political authorities.

What would be evidence to you? I'm already in contact with a group of people that sponsors children in poor countries (here is their international Page: http://plan-international.org/). So far I'm not sponsoring any children yet because I'm still a student with no regular income but I'm planning to do so when I have a job. I know, no evidence but that is all I can show right now. If that isn't enough I'm sorry.

Besides do you think the abuse of women and children is still accepted in Europe? Over here the acceptance is very low and such behaviour gets punished if it is discovered. You make it sound as if we were treating our women and children just the same way as it is done in some of Islamic countries.

True. Maybe it's time for me to get more active.

And that is completely random of course. I picked them because I felt like doing so, because I was bored.... Again why didn't I choose Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc?
Care to elaborate where I said that the lack of democracy can be countered with hating Islam?

Well even if Islam itself does not (as I said I didn't read the Quran), it is often used to justify just that now, isn't it?

I think the discussion won't lead anywhere. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Oh yes please!!

From 250.000 Syrian-orthodox Christians at the time of Ataturk, just around 2.000 are left in their old homes in the south-East, 12.000 moved to Istanbul. All others left turkey for scandinavia, and europe.

From urgent calls for permission to renovate dangerously damages christian church buildings in Turkey, none has been allowed.

Christian religion in case of most sects/churches is not accepted by turkish law as a legal party, thus it is prevented from handing over, buying or selling church properties, or accepting property given as a gift (in legal understanding), and cannot go to the courts no matter over what cause. It is legal discrimination and preventing access to legal standards and laws.

the exodus of Christians of all confessions from turkey has conrinued, having accelerated after the assassination of several priests oin turkish streets over "hate for Chrstinas being in turkey", as it was cinfessed by the perpetrators.

three old christzian monasteries in turkey are beign questioned in their legality this year, surrounding Islamic village communities claim their boundary lines were set illegal and they claim of up to one half of the properties being taken away fro the churches (one orthodox, two Catholic).

Catholic and Protestant churches complains about massive intimidation campaigns and systemtic discrimination by the state's offices continuing in 2009.

Formally, the Turkish constitution (heavily under attack by the fundamentalists around Erdogan'S AKP) alows free relgion for the indiovodual,l but when individuals rally in groups and want to found a relgious community that is not Muslim, since 80 years this does not work that easily anymore. Also, treaties of the turkish state with christian minorities over protection of monasteries and churches, were signed only with Greek and Armenian orthodox christians, not with the protestants or catholic or Syrian orthodox. they do not benefit from legal protecton whatever, and enjoy no legal permission to open schools or churches.

International media just some months ago took note of a representative reaserach being done in Turkey by a Turkish university, finding an ammount of suspicion and discriminatory basic attitude aganst Christians and Jews that it mocks any claim for the turkish wide public being in general open to the world, being tolerant, and multi-cultural. Prominent majority said they do not even want to live door to door with Jews or Chrisziansd, not to mention their rejecting of letting them marry into their dfamilies. similiar findings have been found in a comparable project in 2005. I happen to have stumbled over a link just bdays ago. It took them several months to refer to the study in their own media. BBC had it two or three (or more?) months ago. :
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...217-2009-11-17

Hurriyet is the biggest print media in Turkey.

I was in Turkey several months long. There is a huge difference between the big metropoles and Istanbul, were more Wetsern influence is to be felt, and the rural places. In the latter, the law of hospitality stil was obeyed, it has a much stricter meaning still in many oriental countries than in modern central europe, but nevertheless I faced very intense almost unhidden hostility and nationalism and extreme relgious orthodoxy. the metropoles hold around 15-20% of the turkish population. The rural places around 80%. Go figure.

And beyond Turkey:

Germany-based OpenDoors is one of the few major international organisations monitoring christian persecution worldwide. the most persecuated minority wordwide are neither Jews, nor Muslims, but - christians. In their 2009 index of countries prosecuting christians systemtically, 6 of the top 10 and 37 of the top 50 are islamic.

Literature since longer time describes a "rennaissance of antisemitism" in islam. As if it ever had gone away! Islam is antisemitic by nature, since Muhammad hated the Jews and persecuted them vigorously. exceptions of when Jews were welcomed refer to Islamic countries or rulers benefitting from something they had to offer, whether it be high developed medical knowledge, or knoweldge on the superuor military technology of Europe during the Osmanic empire. The osmans, whose armies back then already were superior in fighting morale and fighting spirit due to their tradition of embracing martyrdom, welcomed the Jews fleeing from French persecution, because they brought with them this knowledge about superior military tactics and technology in europe. The historic consequences are known.

I could set up many more examples and bits of info from 2009 about Chrisian and jewish persecution in Turkey as well as throughout the Islamic world, but I will not spend all day long with that, even more so since Tribesman will ignore or distort everything he does not like anyhow.

You could use Google yourself, if you want. I only had a brief look at the first page and see that an according search produces a flood of results that already deliver in their headline the message.

Just in, regarding christians in turkey:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...664761,00.html

Google:rotfl2:
Why waste time trawling through piles of crap when you can go straight to a reliable source that is comprehensive, updates regularly and keeps its archives open...it also has the advantage of doing the study on all countries apart from itself(including disputed or unrecognised ones) plus as well as doing the religious freedom/persecution study does seperate studies on human rights, the judicairy, political accountabilty....

The problem Skybird is that you are distorting things, the proof of that is that instead of dealing with the specific instances I cite that absolutely contradict your claims, you just repeat your claims.