- This topic has 130 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Are #s 2 and 3 morally valid, ubiquitin?
“It’s also good old fashioned racism, whereby people dislike people who are different than them. That’s an unpleasant part of human nature, but not supernatural.”
Jews are not a race, so it cant be racism. There is a difference between disliking people who are different than you and wanting to live among people who are the same as you. (and yes thats what I meant by #4)
I admit it, I want to live among frum Jews. Guilty. If it were up to me, every family on my block would be an orthodox Jew.
I admit it, I want to live among frum Jews. Guilty. If it were up to me, every family on my block would be an orthodox Jew.
So why then is it wrong for people to not want to live next to frum jews.
Jews are not a race, so it cant be racism.
Mere semantics. It’s the same negative trait.
I admit it, I want to live among frum Jews. Guilty. If it were up to me, every family on my block would be an orthodox Jew.
So why then is it wrong for people to not want to live next to frum jews.
One is a positive and one is a negative, as newbee pointed out earlier in the post.
“Jews are not a race, so it cant be racism.”
“”Mere semantics. It’s the same negative trait.””
No its not semantics. Racism is based on skin color or genetics outside ones control that has no bearing on character. Religion vs non-religion is a different way of life.
Its not morally wrong to try and prevent increased traffic and what most people consider eye sores in your town- such as multi-family dwellings with 6 cars crammed into every parking lot etc. There was recently a thread about the traffic problem in Brooklyn right here in the Coffee Room. But if its the Judaism that they dont like, because they hate the Torah and religion in general lehavdeel, thats antisemetic. So you must differentiate between those 2 things.
“do you think you should be allowed to ban your non-jewish neighnbors from moving in, and if moved in putting up their holiday decorations etc etc? and should they be allowed to do it to you?”
You can only ban actions, not beliefs. So you can never ban a Jewish or non-Jewish neighbor. But you can say within these several blocks in this town only menoras and permitted. Or only x-mass lights. In dearborn Michigan, within these few blocks, only mosques are permitted. Or, do whatever you want in your own home, but the official policy of this town it to only put up a menorah on main st and in this town its to only put up an x-mas tree on main st. etc
Logistically I dont know how it would work, but there is nothing morally wrong with making such laws. Just like the native americans have certain plots of land where to a certain degree the law is different from the rest of the US.
But if its the Judaism that they dont like, because they hate the Torah and religion in general lehavdeel, thats antisemetic.
The Nazis y”sh didn’t differentiate between levels of religiosity. Were they not antisemitic?
You’re making distinctions which are not important. Racism and hatred based on lifestyle (when the lifestyle is not inherently wrong) are based on the same negative character traits and have the same types of results.
“is ok which while i disagree with, you obviously are entitled.”
Im glad we can civilly agree to disagree
(Im saying you can only ban actions, not belief or skin color. So you can never ban a race, but you can ban a religious action.)
Can we all agree that there is a moral difference between not wanting “others” to move somewhere because: not wanting to increase traffic and eye sores from multi-family dwellings VS hating the Torah and what it stands for and subconsciously feeling guilty and angry for not keeping it?
I think thats the real issue here.
“and your position while wrong and bigoted is not illogical nor (grossly) inconsistent.”
Calling people bigoted, homophobic, racist xenophobic…. the left’s way of demonizing those who oppose them.
I rarely use this term but I have to in this case,
Dude, just because there are different architectural and social customs throughout history that do change to a certain degree does not mean that certain cultures do not exist and the people who wish to preserve those cultures as much as possible are bigoted.
A bigot is “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”
So I guess everyone who makes moral judgments and discriminates anything is bigoted. Please tell Hashem the Torah was bigoted and homophobic for saying Homosexuality is not permitted. Hashem discrminated against all the homosexuals. Thats bigoted. Im glad you think the Torah should be demonized.
You could have said you agree to disagree like I did, without calling me wrong and bigoted as a side-note. It was not called for and only goes to prove the true colors of the Left.
Ok now your posts have degraded to full on non-sense mode.
I’m sorry that your comprehension isn’t optimal, ubiq. You have an inability to put comments into context. In Tenafly the court determined the municipality did not enact their ordinance for the expressly intended purpose of singularly preventing the eruv but made it broader to obscure that fact. So your citing Tenafly here isn’t relevant to the earlier comment I made in response to your hypothetical question of a municipality enacting an ordinance for the “obvious goal of preventing Goyim from moving in”.
I think panic alarms must be given out in our communities as an extra protection for safety. These are just small keyrings that make an ear piercing loud noise when activated and warn people around that they are in danger.
These cost about $5 on ebay.
Stay safe everyone
Ubiquitin, I am not sure about that. In the case of the Good News Community Church of Gilbert, Arizona SCOTUS ruled that the town would have to show why an ordinance regulating signs was needed. There the sign was deliberately made to stand out. With an eruv only someone who knows that the lechis are there and why would notice – maybe (thus shuls put out eruv maps).
BTW, there is a story about a Reform group that challenged the eruv. The gentile judge asked the eruv committee’s lawyer how much it would cost the taxpayers. When he replied that the committee would be paying a fee to the municipality the judge told him to put up two. On the other hand, when the Prussian army entered Strasbourg during the Franco-Prussian War they took down the eruv because they thought that it was a communications wire. The rav of the city explained to the commander that when the Jews look at the wire they see a wall. He replied that the Jews can look at air and see a wire.
*Sigh* Firstly, you either don’t read what people write or you fail to understand the import of their comments. I suspect the latter. Secondly, you are answered, and once again you say you say you received no answer. And then you wonder why you are eventually ignored and you start kvetching that people don’t answer you.
For the umpteenth time, your hypothetical question was about an ordinance for the (to directly quote you) “obvious goal of preventing Goyim from moving in”. I told you such an ordinance is unconstitutional on the face of it. Tenafly proves my point. If the intention of the municipality (as in your hypothetical) was to specifically and directly and singularly target a specific religion, it is unconstitutional. That’s what your question pertained to and was. Tenafly did target a specific religion and thus it was unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter that the ordinance was broader since what mattered was how they selectively enforced it.
So I correctly answered your question a month ago that an ordinance with the “obvious goal of preventing Goyim from moving in” is unconstitutional on the face of it and cannot be enacted “in a constitutioanl sound way” as you suggested in the wording of your question last month.
Capish? Or do you need to repeat it seven more times? In either event I’m done wasting my time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.