There are numerous scriptures that seem to follow this line of reasoning: God rejected Satan because of his pride and insubordination. Then, for His own reasons, God created people in His own image. Satan, in his position of humiliation, successfully tempted them to corruption, thus gaining a temporary victory against God.

God still cherished the people He created, so He created a way for ALL nations and people to be brought to purity again. This plan involved finding a man who would believe that He is completely good and completely trustworthy (Abraham) and then, through no merit of that man, choosing him as the vehicle to bring about this plan of redemption into the world. Abraham was chosen, not because he was good but because he chose to believe God was good, even when everything around him continued to seem otherwise. This man was promised that ALL nations would be blessed through his seed.

If a person accepts all of this, then it’s pretty obvious that Satan and the forces of evil aligned with him, would focus much of their destructive strategies on that “chosen” group of people. And, since Jesus (and thus Christians) are also in that “line of blessing” so to speak – (simply by choosing to believe what Abraham did – that God is real and He is good and worth trusting,) America has enjoyed the blessings promised to Abraham as well – wealth and success.

In my view, as simplistic as it may seem, all forms of irrationality, including irrational hatred, come from an evil source – a source that is intelligent and powerful and is using that power to bring deception and confusion, and with it, a bondage to that deception and confusion.

[Another thought from Spiderman – “With great power (or position as a chosen people) comes great responsibility” (and great onslaught).]

I’ve never blogged before. I’m just a simple woman who thinks a lot and cares a lot about truth.

Any feedback? Thanks for the chance neo-neocon. I love your site!

So, trying hard not to kick a tree with my shin bone, I’ll try to rephrase what I see as Tom’s position once again. With the stipulation that I don’t speak for him, but I do have a different sense of things given my psychology antennae.

Seems to me, Tom is just focused on the future of Israel and the Jews. Tom wants to see all tyrannies die a fast death, but he has to understand the problem with the Jews, a group oft held to tyranny’s claws, before he could come up with a convincing solution.

So Tom seems to be trying to find out the historical motivations and impetuses that caused Israel and the Jew’s situation, in an attempt to fix the problem. That’s fair, to me.

It is incorrect to percieve this as somehow “altering” the past to make the Jews guilty of Nazi occupation.

It is also incorrect to believe that this is railing against discrimmination, either in part or in whole. Because it is not discrimmination that Tom, or even I, dislike, it is the fact of the Jews constant inability to kill their enemies and safeguard their culture and children.

Tom may differ on the finer points, but if Tom wants to save Israel and wants what is good for Israelis, then I would agree with such a noble goal.

The point about whether Jews were this or that, doesn’t mean anything, if you cannot tie it to the present and clearly dilineate and explain just why and how certain things are important to the salvation of the Jewish people.

Because in the end, what I care about, forget anyone else, is simply the pragmatic results of research in how it applies to humans fighting and dieing in the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Any practical research with pragmati results, I would welcome. Regardless of whether it talks about discrimmination or not.

My personal position pertaining to marriage, independent of Tom’s position, is simply that it is only part of the puzzle. The Jews were targeted for extermination and prosecution millenia before I was born, the reasoning while confusiong, describes some but not all of the causality chain. For example, if someone wanted to persecute Jews, then it would be easy to take the marriage issue and use it as a wedge to stoke up hate.

So marriage, instead of being the instigator to me, was simply another aspect of Jewish culture that was used against them. For whatever reasons existed in the human continuum.

Even if it was the instigator, I would never attach any moral blame to the Jews for Nazism.

I would attach moral blame to the Jews for ignoring Krystallnacht, not leaving for safety, not fighting back, and not backing enough guns to equip a private army.

I blame them for not being prepared and failing in their duty to their families, as I would blame any human who had failed in such an endeavour.

The opposition to all discrimination has already reached a ridiculous level, as evidenced by the fact that some commenters think parents need to allow their children to play with any stranger, rather than discriminating against the weird guy in the van with covered windows who’s offering children toys, smokes, and beer to get in.

Not to mention the accusations leveled against people who refuse to consider Wikipedia authoritative.

“Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this:  the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project’s noble fundament.  If I don’t like it, why don’t I go edit it myself?  To which I reply:  because I don’t have time to babysit the Internet.   Hardly anyone does.  If they do, it isn’t exactly a compliment. 

“Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions.  The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don’t know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it.  In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.

“The second response is:  the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect.  To which I reply:  that does not inspire confidence.  In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous.  What you’ve proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn’t exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.”

– Tycho from Penny Arcade

The point can’t be valid that the Jews made the Nazis justifiably angry because of a characteristic the Nazis found more odious of the Jews than of other groups, not when all the other groups had the same characteristic. To put it another way: The Nazis didn’t try to murder the Jews because they were more “guilty” of not allowing outside marriage than other groups; that was just something the Nazis said to excuse themselves.

On your other point: that the Jews invite envy because the Jew’s success. Other groups have been successful: The Roman Catholics, Chinese, etc. Yet they have never garnered quite the amount of misery from the rest of the world that the Jews have.

It doesn’t do much good to try to wring some rational reason(no intermarriage, success) out of the history of hatred toward the Jews, because any reason would also serve as reason to hate the other groups, which were never hated to the extent of the Jews.

[And why doesn’t Neo accept that Jews have been practicing discrimination? Perhaps that would make them “guilty” — and thus not completely innocent before the Nazis?]

Douglas on faith or race; the level of disowning (excommunication) is fairly strong. And yes, all “groups” want cohesion, by demonizing the other. Like black ghetto kids beating up black kids reading, instead of playing hoops, as acting “too white.”

“but today, that’s much more rare.” In the US, certainly. Where Jew-hate against US individuals has diminished (though it seems rising again on the Left against Israel.) I’m not convinced in France, despite the encouraging anti-racism march there recently after a Jewish man was kidnapped and horribly tortured. (didn’t see pictures.)

Why are Jews so hated? Part of it is success; the non-successful historically have had envy-hate against the successful.

This is a more irrational root cause of envy-hate, and applies to mike’s first comment on how anti-americanism passing anti-semitism (or being included together, as seems to be Iran’s current practice.) It’s irrational in the sense of fueling the hate, but usually it can’t be acknowledged as the Other’s success = My group’s failure. (Though the Malaysian PM tried a bit a couple years ago — urging Muslims to study more so they could compete with the Jews and then murder them.)

Mob envy-hatred against the successful is not just against Jews.

But Civilized society must allow such personal discrimination, and allow excommunication / disassociation as the correct “group punishment.”
Yet not accept state laws against such inter-marriage; neither by Jews nor Muslims.

Especially hated are the successful who act superior, who act like they’re “better than everyone.”

Like the Aristocrats in France …

“Louie the 16th was the King of France, in 1789.
He was worse than Louie the 15th.
He was worse than Louie the 14th.
He was wooooorrrse than Louie the 13th.
He was the worst, since Louie the first.

King Louie was living like a king, but the people were living rotten…”
(Allen Sherman)

Isn’t it time to admit that “not wanting your daughter to marry one of them” is a kind of superiority based discrimination? And, if one wants to understand Jew-Hate by those who do hate Jews, isn’t this part of it?

I will agree that “not wanting your daughter to marry one of them” could at first glance seem to be a sort of litmus for reverse discrimination for Roman Catholics, Chinese, etc., as well as Jews. But it’s the mildest form of discrimination that uses mere social sanction as the enforcement mechanism. If one is strong in the face of disapproval one can easily flaunt the rule. It doesn’t explain the virulent forms of hate that have been directed toward the Jews throughout their history, which has included torture, death & many other hardships. The Catholics, Chinese & the rest, have all not wanted their daughters to marry outside the group; sanctions against marriage outside the group is commonplace to most groups, yet most have not been as universally & deeply hated as have the Jews.

But Neo earlier said: “It does not convey superiority.”

I dispute this: for Jews, Roman Catholics, Chinese, Californians, Whites, Aristocrats — anybody who doesn’t want their daughter to marry one of them. (Goy, Protestants, non-Chinese, Mexicans, Blacks, Peasants).

In my view, “not wanting my daughter to marry one of them” is a declaration of we-superior against them-inferior. Jets & Sharks in New York; Romeo & Juliet.

I guess that Jews who do marry outside, become assimilated and their decendants (not themselves) usually cease “being Jews.” Maybe it takes 2 or 3 generations.

And I understand the cultural/ ethnic/ racial desire to avoid assimilation = disappearance. The Fiddler (on the Roof) denies his third daughter, as he’s leaving due to (yet another) anti-Jewish pogrom, so as to maintain this “faith”.

Isn’t it time to admit that “not wanting your daughter to marry one of them” is a kind of superiority based discrimination? And, if one wants to understand Jew-Hate by those who do hate Jews, isn’t this part of it?

If I am “seriously mistaken” I look for evidence. Official opinion/ explanation is a good step. But how valuable is it to know that conversions are possible if the number of Jews who have converted is less than 5%; or 2%; or 0.5% — without knowing the precise fact, somewhere under 2% seems pretty marginal.

Intermarriage statistics are even better–I’d guess that over 98% of the Jews in the USA had Jewish grandparents who married Jews. Indicating the intermarriage is a recent thing, perhaps even a post-Holocaust USA thing.

Is it possible for an Israeli Jew to legally marry an Israeli Arab? Here’s such a
story. And a different angle

Finally, the lack of willingness to quantify the value judgments remains extremely unconvincing. Showing me evidence that Jewish communities actually include many decendents of non-Jewish fathers (more than 5%?) would be strong towards changing my mind.

What evidence might change yours?

As for jews and intermarriage, Steve is right again. Call me crazy! I fail to see how actually believing in a religion you profess to believe in and holding that belief to high enough value to want your children to carry that belief through their lives as well seems quite logical, and hardly by necessity racist. Europe should hold such belief in it’s culture, maybe they’d still exist as a western culture a hundred years from now.