Can you please respond to my main argument that was: what does Jus sanguinis have to do with the jewish belief that only your mother can give you jewish powers?
What I was saying with the part that you quoted was that Israel can grant citizenship or not based on their assessment of whether you are jewish or not… presumably the whole mother thing comes into play there?
Jus sanguinis is the general framework for citizenship by blood, our version of it is one implementation. As I stated earlier, our interpretation is matrilineal linage or a formal naturalization (“conversion”) process. Nothing difficult here.
As for the Stat of Israel, the Law of Return allows anyone with even 1/4th Jewish heritage to gain citizenship but that is separate from the rabbinic authority recognizing religious status as a Jew. There are other paths towards naturalization besides the Law of Return. As for recognition by the rabbinic authorities that sometimes involves providing birth certificates, marriage contracts or other documentary proof going back several generations. The rabbinic authority is under Ultra Orthodox control so they are very strict on this.
Anyway, its a few hours till shabbos here in Tokyo so I’m going off line now to prepare for things. Be happy to answer other questions when I get back.
An implementation that ignores the science of genetics and is based on nothing but someone’s fantasy that a woman is the bearer of jewishness. As I said, I think it’s fucking stupid. Citizenship by blood should be just that: not citizenship by sex.
Enjoy dinner, man.
Creation-evolution debates are getting old…even as a source of amusement for us non Americans. I mean, it’s so easy to smack down a creationist, it’s like tripping up the retarded kid in class (if you’ll pardon the politically incorrect comparison).
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and now Bill Nye are wasting their time debating such people.
I love asking creationists this question - why is the Bibilical creation story any more valid than that of the Egyptians, Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, ancient Hindus, Persians, Inuit, Maori, Australian Aborigines, Native American tribes or any of the thousands of cultures that exist/have existed since the dawn of human civilization?
Are you doing this for effect, or are you actually unaware of the fact that focusing on matrilineal descent started thousands of years before the arrival of DNA testing?
NOW we can know for certain who the father is. Then, not so much.
But not Jesus’ dad. That was definitely God. Abso-poso-lutely. God. Yes.
“So has someone ever pointed out to Ken Ham that his argument against an old earth is “you weren’t there, so you can’t be sure of what happened” also applies to the jotting down of Genesis?”
Many times. And like the thoughtful, intellectual person of integrity he is, he ignores it and goes right on blathering his stupid, irrational “theories”.
As for those who are advising a more mild-mannered approach to the schism between creationists, real science and religion itself - You have to factor in this cold, hard fact: MOST religions, no matter the denomination or dogma or “diversity”, have this in common: They nurse and reinforce a paranoid, self-pitying persecution complex in their followers, a knee-jerk “I’M BEING ATTACKED FOR MY HOLY WONDERFULNESS !!!” reaction to ANY opposing idea or theory; It’s only a matter of degree, not of whether or not the “attack” is real.
Speaking as someone who grew up around fundaloonies, I’ve seen it in all it’s varying splendor; There are those who are virtual cartoons, the kind who scream “WHY DO YOU HATE JESUS ?!” when you prove that they were wrong about what time “Honey Boo-Boo” starts - And, generally speaking, it is probably best for everyone to wall those morons off in a compound somewhere and make sure they can never vote in a general election.
But then there are the ones who seem reasonable and well-balanced, and truly and sincerely believe that they are engaging in an honest, rational discussion of very real scientific matters that address the open-to-debate reality of ghosts, unicorns, alchemical transmutation, talking snakes and immaculate conception. They still tread water in an undercurrent of defensiveness and persecution paranoia, but believe that because they don’t indulge it in a vulgar display of hysterics, then they are not actually still guilty of it. They prefer to manifest it through the tactics of smarm and condescension, to ridicule and dismiss an inarguable fact by impugning the character, the motive or the intelligence of a fair and rational person whom they are conditioned to see through a filter of self-defensiveness and, yes, “I’m-being-oppressed.”
NOBODY can win an argument with someone who is already convinced that they will either go to heaven or be tortured for eternity if they even consider a conflicting idea, AND that they are morally superior for the maintaining of that attitude. When faced with an opponent such as that, the only hope is to demonstrate to the audience the utter asininity of that very position. If you can make that case, then the details of your own theory itself are almost irrelevant; The real victory is in the destruction not of the believer’s theories, but their stance of righteous determined ignorance.
It’s not about convincing people like Ken Ham. It’s about opening the minds of people who may not have heard real arguments for evolution before. I would wager that somewhere in that debate audience was at least one young person raised by Christian fundamentalists who now has a seed of doubt that wasn’t there before.
I noticed a number of my Christian friends commenting about how they felt that this was an unfair debate because it showed “two extreme positions” rather than representing the moderate positions. I wasn’t able to find anything that Bill Nye said that wouldn’t be broadly held to by a clear majority of scientists (and I haven’t heard a lot of scientists or atheists complaining that Bill Nye doesn’t represent them), so he seems pretty mainstream to me. I also heard that Bill Nye was pushing atheistic doctrine, when he was clear that he is not attacking religion, just an overly literal interpretation of some passages. The summary of his argument was supposedly “there is no God because science”, which he just kept repeating throughout his talk. Obviously I’m coming from a different perspective, but I got the impression that Bill Nye was polite, reasonable and coherent throughout the debate, while Ken Ham stopped just short of an altar call on a number of occasions. You do wonder which atheist arguments wouldn’t result in Christians cowering from the oppression if this one was considered extreme.
That’s what they heard because that’s what they were expecting to hear. They weren’t actually thinking about what Nye was saying, they were trying to filter his words through their worldview. To them this was a science vs. religion debate, so that’s what they heard. This is also at the heart of the amazingly high percentage of Americans that believe in creationism, they have been sold the idea that accepting evolution requires the rejection of God.
So we should hang onto vestigial cultural idiocy that hurts people today because those who made the rules didn’t know any better? Sounds like a plan. I’d like to investigate this idea further with you, but I’m already running late for my blood-letting appointment.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
