The second sentence doesn't support the first. Jewish is an ethnicity. Judaism is an ethnic religion, as you apparently know since you tell me that: — Kenosha Kid

The semantics here are weird but yes, Jewish is an ethnicity but it's more than just an ethnicity in terms of how we normally think about ethnicity. You're considered part of the tribe and that's more than just sharing an ethnicity.

Or are you trying to say that Jewish atheists' purpose is to connect with God? — Kenosha Kid

I am generally speaking not in a position to tell others their purpose. Purposes are personal. I believe in God but that doesn't mean I try to convince everyone around me that God exists.

There's no bigger anti-smoker than an ex-smoker, and no greater evangelical than a recent convert. So you went for Judaism? Good for you. This Christianity nonsense is just a fad, it'll pass :D — Kenosha Kid

No, I didn't convert to Judaism. I've been a Jew for 30 years because I was born one and being an atheist doesn't disqualify one from being a Jew. There are plenty of Jewish atheists and they're no less Jewish than the Orthodox. I know this is different from Christianity, but it's just a matter of which lens we choose to look through; Christianity has made it all about faith, Judaism has not. For the record, all I am right now is a theist and a mostly non-practicing Jew (I will attend certain ceremonies but only if there's good food and people that I like.)

Same problem, though. If you believe that your purpose is to love God, nothing can be more important, right? But if you don't believe in God, that notion of meaning is worthless. The meaning only has value if you believe in it, which means it's basically arbitrary (insofar as one can choose to believe anything else or nothing). — Kenosha Kid

Under Judaism our purpose is to connect with God and we do this via rituals (like praying) and mitzvot (good deeds) - in other words, we do this largely through our lifestyle. Judaism prioritizes action over belief. We can't always control our beliefs, but at the end of the day we can control whether we act decently or not.

This "all or nothing" mentality you have here seems to me like it's a more of a factor in Christianity than in Judaism. There are plenty of Jewish atheists but just because one is an atheist at one point doesn't mean that that will always be the case or that God's non-existence is regarded as a certainty. Plus, plenty of our holidays just commemorate historical events which don't really need to involve God unless you want to acknowledge that factor. Judaism as a religion has strived pretty hard to avoid this "all or nothing" mindset where it's either God or no God and those who choose no God get effectively banished.

Judaism, like many other religions, is more than just a philosophical system. It's a lifestyle, it's a history, and it's a people. I believe there are other religions and belief systems like this, but for historical reasons the best spreaders like Islam and Christianity are universalistic and faith-based and they tend to spread quicker.

This concerns belief. If you believe in an afterlife, your idea of life's meaning will be with respect to that. — Kenosha Kid

I feel like you've had a bad Christian education here to some extent, is that true? I mentioned earlier how Judaism never really stresses the afterlife; sure we believe in it but we don't really know the details and I've never heard it talked about at a sermon and certainly not as a reason to be good.

Connecting with God is a good in itself; the ultimate good, really. Jewish teachings as it was taught to me has always been to not worry about the afterlife until one is near death.

No, I'm saying that something like "the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven" has no value outside of religions where there's a God and a Heaven and an afterlife. — Kenosha Kid

You don't think there's an objective truth over whether God exists? Last time I checked these religions set forth hypotheses that one will come to know after death or who knows in some cases maybe even before. Islam, Christianity and Judaism assert the existence of a certain type of God and that is a proposition.

"the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven"

In an interesting way, as a theist, I view your quote there as probably blasphemous - the purpose of life is to connect with God, but not because of the afterlife and but because connection with God is good in itself. Jews virtually never talk about the afterlife and if that's how Christians have pitched it to you I'd be turned off as well.

It doesn't really have anything to do with statues, sorry. — Kenosha Kid

I was glancing over an earlier response and I must have confused artefact with artifact.

It can't have much value to you since you haven't looked into it — Kenosha Kid

I did look into it a while back, but what happens is once I find that I don't agree with the core premises of a system it generally prevents me from engaging further unless I need to understand it for some reason other than personal philosophy.

The value we're talking about here is philosophical though, more than decorative. — Kenosha Kid

Can we just clarify this concept of "philosophical value" here - what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that since e.g. ancient statues from lost cultures or tribal statues don't have "philosophical value" it's either okay to destroy them or not to maintain them? Can we just simplify this discussion and replace "philosophical value" with "reason?"

Which is incompatible with the idea that the loss of a particular artefact of a particular religion or ideology that has zero value elsewhere must be protected and vouchsafed for its own sake. — Kenosha Kid

I think it's best to say that no one system has all the answers and that value can be found across many different religious/belief systems. Obviously there's a huge difference between trying to destroy the remnants of e.g. Nazi statues and Buddhist statues that are a thousands of years old.

I don't know too much about Buddhism and I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, but I also acknowledge that Buddhism likely has value even if I'm not too familiar with the actual teachings and practice. I'm granting an allowance here, sue me. Even if it doesn't have value to me at the moment, it might have legitimate value to someone else and I have to respect that.

I would still protect Buddhist statues to the point of using lethal force if I saw others trying to destroy them because the destroyers don't have the right to do that even if they really, thoroughly believe Buddhism to be wrong. I don't care if someone 100% believes Buddhism is wrong (and admittedly there are concepts in Buddhism that I don't agree with) -- those statues get protected because humans don't have all the answers and they can't possibly have them no matter how smart people think they are. My value system places ancient religious statues above the types of people who would actively try to destroy them so using lethal force wouldn't bother me in that instance.

So much of it just comes down to having a basic modicum of humility and understanding that maybe one's own narrow scope of knowledge and beliefs could be wrong and that there are other legitimate approaches out there. Or one could plant their foot in the ground and behave as if they have all the answers and therefore anything outside of that truth becomes falsehood and essentially valueless.

Imo, terrorism cannot be understood without at least some attempt at nuance in understanding. — tim wood

Absolutely - there's a huge difference between placing a bomb in an unoccupied government building and bombing an Elementary school. Both could be considered terrorism, but they are very different. "Terrorism" can absolutely be justified because a state can be criminal, but even within that realm there must remain lines that cannot be crossed otherwise the terrorists are no better than the oppressor. Sure, we might ally with them pragmatically but that's it. We are not friends.

True evil is never in any sense "pragmatic" or "necessary" - it is always completely unnecessary by its very nature. If something is necessary it cannot be evil.

For asymmetric warfare : terrorizing and killing civilians forces them to select a gov with different policies after a certain time. Infact, killing civilians is essential. — Wittgenstein

This doesn't make any sense to me. Had anti-Nazi resistance movements ever started wantonly murdering German civilians it would have been publicized and pushed the country more towards Hitler. What, you think by portraying yourself -- the enemy -- as monsters you're going to scare the stronger force? No, you've enabled their most brutal elements.

Terrorism against an occupying force is successful when the cost outweighs the benefits to the occupier, but traditionally this is done through targeting property or resources as opposed to just killing civilians.

No, it's just another way of saying, you can't mess with us without expecting something in return. — Wittgenstein

Maybe try targeting the person or group who actually committed the offense rather than random civilians who are uninvolved in the conflict.

One important feature of asymmetric warfare is that, civilians of enemy country are also counted as combatants. — Wittgenstein

Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

Another justification for targeting civilians lies in the fact that there will always be collateral damage on your side, your civilians are getting killed anyways, it only seems fair that you do the same in return. — Wittgenstein

So people are numbers to be added and subtracted and as brave resistance fighters you're there to do the math correctly and balance the equation.

This is of course, built into religious strategy - paint the human as a wretched, fallen creature, all the more in need of saving. It's cult mechanics, employed by abusers everywhere to foster a sense of dependency - writ large by religion. — StreetlightX

Judaism doesn't do this, and I'd be interested to hear from a Christian how pervasive this idea is and what role is plays across different forms of Christianity. I'd also be interested to hear what Muslims think of this given they don't believe in original sin.

Hindus and Buddhists welcome to chime in as well.

I just don't see what that has to do with theism or atheism; it seems like one could take that same principled stand either way. (Or fail to take that stand either way, for that matter). — Pfhorrest

Yes, one could take the same principled stand either way. When I say that I made the move to theism, I'm not saying that others are rationally obliged to follow that path. I fully acknowledged that I have made a jump here and that theism (at least my own theism) cannot be completely rationally justified or proven. I'm fine having beliefs of that character.

I really think this situation exposes an interest conundrum in morality and game theory. From a game theory standpoint it makes sense to give in your oppressor's demands because your oppressor does have all the power and if you play nice he'll play nice which means you and your people live longer. This was absolutely one of the driving forces behind Nazi terror.

(Should we perhaps be having this conversation about your conversion and the holocaust etc in a different thread? I feel bad cluttering up this thread with it, but I'm really curious to understand your thought process more, as it sounds like others are too). — Pfhorrest

Oh thanks - if you want to start another thread I'll join in, but as far as I know I don't think the mods are going to mind this. I also wouldn't call it a conversion; in Judaism one never ceases being a Jew even if they're an atheist. I only said I was a theist though I don't one particular religion in mind.

So how does being a theist help in that situation? They'd do that if you refused for religious reasons too, right?

I totally get the awfulness of totalitarianism and the ethical difficulties in dealing with it, I just don't see how believing in God makes any difference to them. — Pfhorrest

In a practical, material sense being a theist changes nothing. As it seems to you and me it doesn't really matter whether the aforementioned man signs the document or not -- but to him it might (it should) and if we were him it might matter too (I would think it would.)

Personally, it matters to me whether my own hand -- as a leader responsible for that community -- signs my community's death warrant regardless of what happens afterward.

Yeah, it's fine for other thinkers to have ideas on the government of Israel and to criticize political parties -- I don't care about that. We can all criticize, but the moment it becomes so venomous that it excuses violence against Israel's own citizens is when that thinker has gone too far. That's always been the major dividing line for me.

EDIT: It was 180 who cited Arendt.

Since this topic has been revived I'd be interested in hearing out the case -- as has been claimed earlier (or strongly implied) -- that Arendt would be okay with Hamas deliberately murdering Israeli civilians. Do we have any views from Arendt from after the '67 war on the "occupation?" She was fervently in support of Israel during the '67 war and also obviously supporting Israel in '73 so I'd like to see the case that she condones civilian murder made.

It's so hard for me to imagine a Jewish woman of that age, from that background, supporting the murder of Jewish civilians. I tried to find evidence of it but I couldn't. It would make her such an anomaly among that generation.

Bonus question: For those supporting the "by any means necessary" approach would rape be acceptable if it was found to be effective for attaining political means?

A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

Under this strategy, they would just kill you and replace you with someone else. That's a big part of the logic of totalitarianism - your "noble death" is made out to be meaningless.

Imagine this situation: There's a form on your desk requiring your signature that is needed to ship off 10,000 of your own people to certain death. They want your signature on it because everything needs to be done by the books.

If you refuse the 10,000 still get shipped off regardless, but in this case you get hanged and now someone else is in your position.

This was a real situation, by the way although I'm not sure about the exact number. The man responsible for signing the document, an atheist, committed suicide which I would consider honorable.

As long as you survive you are complicit, but there needs to be some point at which you make your stand otherwise you are totally lost.

One is not allowed to rip a child from its mother's arms and send that child to certain death because one is afraid of what the enemy would have done otherwise or to make the process more humane (as it is you doing it and not the brutal enemy.)

This is all I'm trying to say.

Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed — praxis

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you?

Assuming that was the case — praxis

I'm not granting your assumption here because it would sidetrack the entire discussion. We are going by Arendt's version where the Judenrat did carry moral agency and did make meaningful policy decisions, as it was in actual history.

I don’t want to make this thread all about debating your choice — Pfhorrest

Not a problem, let's keep it friendly.

but I feel the need to note that you can change ethical principles out of strategic considerations without having to change your metaphysical beliefs. A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

I don't even care whether these men were theists or atheists. All I'm talking about here is the type of reasoning used. This is not an "atheists are bad" post and there were plenty of atheists who acted honorably.

I'm sure strategic considerations and fear played a huge role, but ultimately, as I see things, there are lines that one cannot cross such as ordering one's community to round up members of that community and send them to certain death. I also understand that there are other types of secular ethical systems but "don't give them an inch" is just not feasible in this type of situation -- I'm talking here about reasonable secular systems that can be applied. "Cutting off the arm to save the body" makes intuitive sense and draws back on the common intuition that what ultimately matters is lives saved and preserving life, it's quite humanist.

It's just different from Christianity or Islam. It's not that hard to grasp. You're Jewish if your mother is Jewish and it doesn't really matter what you believe. Sure there's Jewish religious thought but we're not going to excommunicate you if you don't engage in it or believe it.

The Jewish leaders in Nazi ghettos were theists, were they not? — praxis

Some were, some weren't. I don't know the exact breakdown. Everyone can get scared and collaborate to save their own necks. I'm not really talking about individuals here; I'm more talking about the type of moral reasoning used.

Plenty of Jews are atheists and they're still considered Jews because Judaism isn't primarily a religious faith. It's really not a faith at all.

During the Holocaust, various Jewish community leaders were essentially placed in charge of large, mostly Jewish communities known as ghettos under Nazi control. However, due to lack of manpower most of the municipal services including policing was placed under the control of these Jewish councils. Different Jewish leaders employed different survival strategies, but ultimately the most tragic fates befell those who practiced what I would call reasonable, secular moral reasoning when it came to dealing with a much more powerful enemy.

Judaism, like Christianity, says that there are absolute lines that we must not cross, like delivering one's own community to certain death even if it is to avoid a greater evil (e.g. if the Nazis promise that they'll come in and do worse), but during these times the logic was more along the lines of "cut off the leg to save the body." Leaders put the noose around their own populations in the name of avoiding greater evil and in doing so sacrificed something unbelievably deep as I understand it.

:100:

How is it possible.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

Cis people generally don't care too much and don't want to rock the boat. Ultimately, we're social beings who are just looking to get along and be accepted and when a cis person out of the blue starts going after trans folks it never looks good.

I understand things might be getting pushed a bit far sometimes, and I understand that people have legitimate doubts about one's ability to "really" change one's gender, but voicing those concerns in public is just kind of a peculiar conversation to have and I don't know why it would be brought up. I don't see what I gain as a cis person by spreading the message that trans folk are "really" their original gender beside ostracizing them.

I recently became a theist after reading Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. The book fully lays bare just how normal, healthy secular moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed when faced with genuine, uncompromising evil. I just reject that kind of world.

The way that I approach it the purpose of morality is first and foremost to inform concrete, practical action; not to set a perfect, flawless starting point that can never be questioned or reasonably applied to concrete action.

I'm having trouble processing human flourishing. Would it mean that if I saw you with a cheeseburger I should slap it out of your hand to stop you from eating something unhealthy? Or should I just lecture you about it? Why not start there: You see a fat person eating something unhealthy.

I can't speak for 180 Proof but many models of morality start with a supposition - e.g., that human flourishing should be the goal. This is not objective but objective standards can be built relative to this goal. — Tom Storm

Taking "human flourishing" as one's main goal is so ripe for exploitation. Dictators massacre thousands and do it in the name of human flourishing on a longer time control scale and who knows: they could be right about it! We'll never know because their visions were never "properly implemented."

Is there a moral system that doesn't start with a supposition - whether it be religious or secular? — Tom Storm

Nope, and if someone does then beware.

Oh this one is one of my favorites too -- I forgot about it! Incredible book.

The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, Neil Strauss — Michael

Yeah I was going to put this one on my list too but I thought it would be too obvious. It's just become such a universal staple in the field so why even mention it anymore?

I recently finished Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem which was amazing. I remember for some reason in college I brushed off Arendt for one reason or another, but I clearly made a mistake there. The conclusions she draws are certainly provocative, but people misinterpret them all the time and it's made Arendt a bit of a black sheep in the Jewish community.

Other books/essays that had an effect were Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy (in regard to international relations) and Anscombe's War and Murder along with many other of her essays. Also all 3 volumes of Andreas Antonopolous' The Internet of Money which is a collection of his talks on digital money and modern economies.

Yeah, had Germany been dismantled after WWI there would have likely been no WWII. Russia, if my memory serves me right, advocated for dismantling Germany but the other countries didn't want that and Versailles ended up in an unhappy compromise where Germany was left severely weakened, but not destroyed.

While we're at it, let's empathise with the Nazis. How terribly humiliated they were after WWI, their economy in shambles
— Benkei

Care to edit this for accuracy? — tim wood

Hitler's earlier speeches were all about making Germany out to be the victim and it's that narrative plus his oratory skills that catapulted his rise in popularity. Even if this is true - and there's strong reason to believe that the Versailles treaty was overly harsh and unfair - obviously what came after is unjustified.

This isn't about power either - even if the Nazis were effectively powerless they'd still be evil just like any organization that wants to destroy Israel is evil regardless of size or power. They might think they have good intentions or alternative ideas but in practice it is evil and puts a minority at enormous risk. “A people can be a minority somewhere only if they are a majority elsewhere" - Arendt.

The left repeatedly says that victims essentially get blank checks to deal with their oppressors but somehow you don't see the left defending Nazis burning French villages (why not? The French had a role in Versailles. Or maybe American towns would have been a better target with the prominent role Wilson played at Versailles.) None of it makes any sense to me - they say the Germans had "agency" but the Palestinians don't. I give up trying to understand. When does one truly make the transition from victim to oppressor? I've never heard that question sufficiently addressed and it probably can't be.

Doesn't necessarily make you oppressed, now does it? — Benkei

I would think that being on the receiving end of an unjust sentence qualifies as a form of oppression.

You called Versailles a crime, so that would make Germany a victim of that crime.

I'm just granting him this point that after WWI the treaty of versailles was unjust and unfairly penalized Germany. There are obviously different sides to this debate and I'm not going to dig too much into the weeds but historical consensus is that the treaty of versailles was very harsh and those conditions were considered a catalyst for hitler.

The difference of course is that Germany had a lot of agency despite the crime that was Versailles. — Benkei

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. When did the Germans suddenly stop being victims and gain agency? Which year? How? What would it mean for the Palestinians to gain "agency?"

Probably. We don't know what sort of society would've developed if the people weren't being oppressed. A lot of problems like this are a consequence of poverty. — Benkei

So are WWII & the Holocaust essentially the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty? The Versailles treaty treated the Germans terribly and threw the German economy into chaos making leaders like Hitler more viable. Is every bit of Nazi racism the fault of the Allies who punished Germany too harshly while simultaneously leaving Germany intact as a state? Why give Germany free will? They were punished, they were abused after WWI. Poor little victims abused by the Western powers.

Additionally, is everything that happened in the ghettos in WWII the responsibility of the Nazis? When Jewish leaders collaborating with the Nazis arrested members of resistance movements are those Jewish leaders blameless because they were helpless victims controlled by the Nazis despite taking pro-active steps of their own volition to destroy those resistance groups? How about Jewish who stole food & embezzled funds intended for the general Jewish population? Innocent Nazi victims?

You have a unique view on responsibility here but I don't quite know if I buy it. It seems to be something along the lines of "If a stronger power does something which greatly impacts/hurts a society then every problem that comes from that society is the fault of that stronger power."

Homeland doesn't mean state in some, nor from the west bank to the sea in others. — Benkei

It is 2021, Zionism has already been realized. It does not matter if other thinkers had other ideas because a state has been established. Borders change and neither side needs to stop building.

I've condemned it but maintain that every atrocity happening to Israelis is of their own making and every atrocity befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by Israel. — Benkei

How about the atrocity of how gays are treated in Gaza? Or the atrocity of how they treat their women? I guess the Jews really do control everything. I'm sure when Palestinian men beat their wives it is also Israel's fault.

— Benkei

Israel is asking for it by treating Palestinians as animals and as such has no moral standing to be outraged by a bunch of ineffectual rocket attacks — Benkei

You know Israel is full of Israelis, right? Do individual Israelis have a right to be upset when their neighbors are killed? Is that okay with you? Let's talk about the people now.

Either that or you're pivoting between this restricted understanding and the more general one which equates Zionism with Israel's military expansion rather than with its existence. — fdrake

It depends on whose narrative we go by. You're talking with me, so you're going to get the Jewish narrative. If we talked to a pro-Palestinian Arab he'd likely say (as Hamas does) that the original birth of the Israeli state was an unjust expansion in the sense that it stole Muslim land. Every inch taken of Muslim land is an unjust expansion according to that narrative. This is a very common view among the Palestinians as well as across the Arab world.

Is the contemporary support of Zionism really about the boring uncontroversial point that Israel should continue to exist - a fact even Hamas supports, or is it more saucy and about the expansion? — fdrake

This is not a boring and uncontroversial point at all. If that's how you consider it then you're around decent, civilized company but do not take your experience as the majority one. I'm happy to bring in polls and there's also a popular youtuber as who just walks around asking Arabs and Israelis questions and you can get a decent sample of their opinions from that. Look up Corey Gil-Shuster. Check out the one where he asks Palestinians "If Israel withdrew to '67 borders would that bring peace?" Spoiler: Some said yes, but at least half said no.

If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, and happily sings in praise of sectarian warcrimes... — fdrake

I don't think it's fair to equate any country with their far right. I don't do it with the UK and I hope you wouldn't do that with America. Needless to say conflict brings out the worst in people.

Considering "anti-zionism is anti-semitism" — fdrake

Anti-Zionism in 2021 is straight-up bizarre. Zionism is nothing more than the idea that Jews need a homeland in the region, and since this has already happened that means Zionism has already been realized. To be anti-Zionism in, say, 1935 makes sense -- it would mean that someone just doesn't support the creation of a Jewish state in Judea/Samaria. Being an anti-Zionism in 2021 means that you seemingly want the state of Israel (i.e. Jewish security) to stop "being." That is how I understand anti-Zionism. It is very, very suspect.

that the propaganda surrounding the state of Israel equates Jewish national identity with Zionism with Israel's military expansion — fdrake

If we are to call this propaganda, then this "propaganda" that equates Zionism with national jewish identity has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the West's Jewish communities if we are to consider it "propaganda."

But let me pose you a question: What role does an outsider have in forging another group's identity? Should we both engage in a discussion about what black people are and what their future ought to be? In practice, one cannot attack Zionism without attacking the vast majority of Jewish communities. I've never been to a temple or a synagogue that was anti-Zionist.