Now Bill Bartlett, in the paragraphs below, comes out the reactionary he
truly is, sounding more like "good old boy" Republicans in the United States
like Trent Lott, Bob Dole, Bush, et al.

Observe, below, how he tells me (and my mother, and my grandmother who is a
holocaust survivor) that I am "not entitle[d]..... to claim to be of that
religion.", i.e. Judaism. (Read the quotation in its original context,
fucker. It's right below.) How he vests himself with this supreme authority,
I will never know.  I am obviously not authentic enough a specimen for him
(because I only "hold to *some* of the philosophies) so I therefore have
foiled his curiosities. I will obviously never make it into his Museum of
Judaism, should he erect one. Even thinking of myself as Jewish in any way is
to Bill a product of "sloppy thinking." Not only that, but two thirds of all
Jewish people, according to him, who do NOT "hold to" *all* "of the
philosophies" are also "flaws." Then he accuses me (via a hypothetical third
person) of "being anti-Jewish," the same as the extreme Zionists do. All this
after giving me a lengthy lecture on how I should write e-mails!

Fuck this shit. I'm not going to continue hold a conversation with a
liberal-cum-knee-jerk right-wing reactionary.


-- David
[log in to unmask] writes:


> As I say, if you can define it, it is a rational description. "Rational"
> means amenable to reason. If you can't give reasons, it is irrational. I'm
> sorry to break the news to you, but if you aren't Jewish, it is nonsense to
> talk about yourself being "ethnically Jewish" because some relative of
> yours once visited a Synagogue.
>
> If your definition of "Jewish" is merely that some remote ancestor was
> Jewish, then I have explained the flaws already. Some of your ancestors
> might well have been Catholic too. Another might have been Buddhist. So, by
> that sort of sloppy thinking, you would be a Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish,
> atheist! Sorry it upsets you to be told that this is irrational, but
> someone has to tell you. The basic thing to understand about any religion,
> what defines it as a religion, is a basic belief system. Almost always a
> belief system that adherents hold fast to despite of any evidence that the
> beliefs might be mistaken.
>
> Of course if you decide to reject the basic beliefs of the religion it
> doesn't mean you necessarily reject *all* the cultural baggage that the
> people who hold to the religious tenets have. Few people would do that,
> they would usually pick and choose which ones still make sense. So the most
> that could be said is that you are more or less *culturally* Jewish, in
> that you still retain some of the cultural influences of Judaism.
>
> Many of the cultural influences of Judaism and Christianity are retained by
> us atheists, and so it should be. It makes no more sense to unquestioningly
> reject every philosophy of these religions as it would be to uncritically
> accept every idea.
>
> But to hold to *some* of the philosophies, or perhaps merely some of the
> practices, of a religion, does not entitle one to claim to be of that
> religion. Jews would be justified in protesting that it is highly
> misleading for someone who doesn't hold to the belief in one supernatural,
> all-powerful god to claim to be Jewish. Insulting to their beliefs in fact.
> Because that is clearly one of the defining elements of the religion. On
> the other hand you claim to be an atheist.
>
> I wouldn't blame them if they accused you of being anti-Jewish for trying
> to undermine their beliefs in that way.
>
> You cannot be both an atheist and a Jew.  For me to accept that you are,
> would leave me without any useful definition for either "atheist" or
> "Jewish".
>
> What you probably mean is that some or possibly quite a lot of the cultural
> values of Judaeism has been passed onto you by by your ancestors? That goes
> without saying. I'll admit to that too.
>