BNP view on Christianity vs Islam (religion not politics)

Cheesejoff · 4th July 2007, 03:19 AM

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1592

"There may be passages in the Christian Bible particularly in the Old Testament which make blood curdling reading (Numbers 31:17-18) for example but the enemies are specific and unambiguous – in this case the tribe of Midianites. The Qu’an (Koran) seems to command the war against all unbelievers is open-ended and universal.

Further most Britons who tick the box “Christian” on census returns or other forms of identification have probably never read, or had read to them the entire contents of the Bible, let alone pay its content any regard in the running of their daily lives. Muslims on the other hand have the contents of their holy book rammed home not just weekly like many Church-going Christians but five times a day."

They actually admit Christians haven't read the bible...

Darat · 4th July 2007, 03:24 AM

I've said this before but I'm now more certain of it - if you accept that you can be a non-religious Jew i.e. an "ethnic Jew" then you have to accept that you can be a non-religious Christian i.e. an "ethnic Christian". I suspect most people in the UK who tick "Christian" on any poll are in fact saying they are "ethnic Christians" rather than religious Christians.

Ian Osborne · 4th July 2007, 03:46 AM

True enough. After all, 'Jew' is not a racial grouping, but an ethnic one.

But I've met non-practicing, ethnic-rather-than-religious members of other faiths too. It's a little stereotypical to assume all Muslims 'have the contents of their holy book rammed home five times a day'.

(NB: I'm not saying you personally assumed that, Darat)

JJM 777 · 4th July 2007, 04:42 AM

What we commonly see and hear are statistics about registered affiliation in different religions: how many percent of humans are "Christians", "Muslims", etc.

What we seldom hear are statistics about what people actually believe, and what role religion has in their lives, if any.

I would be interested in such statistics.

Jon. · 4th July 2007, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

What we commonly see and hear are statistics about registered affiliation in different religions: how many percent of humans are "Christians", "Muslims", etc.

What we seldom hear are statistics about what people actually believe, and what role religion has in their lives, if any.

I would be interested in such statistics.

What you are looking for is polls that measure "religiosity", not "religion", then. I know there are a number of them out there.

andyandy · 4th July 2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jon.

What you are looking for is polls that measure "religiosity", not "religion", then. I know there are a number of them out there.

et voila

Quote:

Mori poll, May 2005 shows declining religious belief
36% of people in the 18-34 age group in Britain define themselves as atheist or agnostic.
In the population as a whole, 24% say they have no religion.
Amongst the over 65s, the non-religious figure falls to 11%.
Mori poll (4,270 respondents) for The Tablet (20/5/05)

World Values Survey, 2005
In Britain, only 42% of those interviewed said they considered themselves “a religious person”. While 72% claim to believe in God, this is one of the lowest proportions in the world, and only 33% believe the church offers answers to moral problems.
About 175,000 people were questioned in 81 countries; the survey includes research from the London School of Economics.
Reported in The Sunday Times 10/4/05

Reader’s Digest survey, March 2005
Only 48% of Britons know what Christians are remembering at Easter.
Reported in The Times et al, 23/3/05

YouGov survey, December 2004
35% British adults do not believe in God and 21% don't know.
73% do not pray regularly.
28% do not believe in life after death and 29% don't know.
21% consider Christmas mainly as a religious festival, while 38% consider it mainly as a holiday and 28% as an opportunity to meet friends and family.
Full survey here.

Fewer own Bibles, more believe in ghosts
ICM poll of 1000 people for UKTV, November 2004 (reported in Church Times )
In 1954 90% owned a Bible; in 2004 65% did.
In 1954 10% believed in ghosts; in 2004 42%.
In 2004 nearly 3/4 said they were not members of a religious group or fa ith.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/...p?article=1826

You get starkly different figures depending on how you phrase your question....

This is my favourite one.....

Quote:

2001 UK Census
Those of no religion are the 2nd largest belief group, about 3 times as many as all the other (non-Christian)religions altogether. 7,274,290 people said they had “no religion” - though only 10,357 specified that they were atheists.
Jedi Knights had 390,127 followers, and formed a larger group than several of the “major religions”: Jews (259, 927); Sikhs (329, 358);Buddhists (144,453); or minor religions such as Jainism (15,132), Zoroastrianism (3,738) or the Baha’i faith (4,645).

You can read more about the Jedi Knights on the government website

The force is strong in Britain

Thunder · 4th July 2007, 10:07 AM

The question of who or what is a Jew is probably one of the most complicated questions out there. Amoung the Jews, a Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother. This Jew can be an ultra-Orthodox black hatted Jew or a non-believing Communist secular Jew...but he still remains a Jew. But...if he formerly converts to Christianity..he ceases to be a Jew...regardless of his ethnic affiliations. It is this concept that complicated things because...why is becoming a Communist atheist any less in conflict with Judaism then becoming a Christian? Simply calling oneself a "Jew" does not make one a Jew.

I for example, feel Jewish and identify myself as a Jew, yet to practise none of the Jewish rituals, follow kosher laws, go to synagogue, etc. Am I REALLY a Jew? Perhaps not.

If Jewish is an ethnicity, then no choice of religous or political affilation can effect that. Whether it is converting to Christianity or becoming a Neo-Nazi, one still remains Jewish. If Jewish is a religion, then a Jew who does not follow any Jewish rituals, believe in any of the values, or identifies at all with Judaism, is not a Jew.

chriswl · 4th July 2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

In Britain, only 42% of those interviewed said they considered themselves “a religious person”.

As high as that? Where are these people? They keep a very low profile given that they are nearly half of the population.

andyandy · 4th July 2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by chriswl

As high as that? Where are these people? They keep a very low profile given that they are nearly half of the population.

I think there's a pretty big old fogie skew....

Quote:

Two thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds not religious, 2000
Two thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds did not belong to a religion, compared with only a quarter of those aged over 65.
(British Social Attitudes Survey, National Centre for Social Research, Nov 2000)

JJM 777 · 4th July 2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

In 1954 10% believed in ghosts; in 2004 42%.

Sounds weird to me, this one. I thought that such beliefs are certainly on the decline.

On the other hand, I have received only two private messages from other users during my career at JREF forum. One was from CFL who won't believe even in the existence of his mother without evidence. The other message was from a new member asking if I believe in ghosts as she does.

That makes 50% - 50%. Quite close to the reported stats...

Darat · 4th July 2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

True enough. After all, 'Jew' is not a racial grouping, but an ethnic one.

But I've met non-practicing, ethnic-rather-than-religious members of other faiths too. It's a little stereotypical to assume all Muslims 'have the contents of their holy book rammed home five times a day'.

(NB: I'm not saying you personally assumed that, Darat)

I wasn't meaning to single out Jewish people (ethnic or otherwise!), it's just that example of "ethnicity" is one that has cropped up here a few times.

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

The question of who or what is a Jew is probably one of the most complicated questions out there. Amoung the Jews, a Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother. This Jew can be an ultra-Orthodox black hatted Jew or a non-believing Communist secular Jew...but he still remains a Jew. But...if he formerly converts to Christianity..he ceases to be a Jew...regardless of his ethnic affiliations. It is this concept that complicated things because...why is becoming a Communist atheist any less in conflict with Judaism then becoming a Christian? Simply calling oneself a "Jew" does not make one a Jew.

I for example, feel Jewish and identify myself as a Jew, yet to practise none of the Jewish rituals, follow kosher laws, go to synagogue, etc. Am I REALLY a Jew? Perhaps not.

If Jewish is an ethnicity, then no choice of religous or political affilation can effect that. Whether it is converting to Christianity or becoming a Neo-Nazi, one still remains Jewish. If Jewish is a religion, then a Jew who does not follow any Jewish rituals, believe in any of the values, or identifies at all with Judaism, is not a Jew.

That's nonsense. If you are an ethnic Jew (born of the Jewish bloodline) then you can't stop being a Jew whatever religion you follow.

Conversely, if you are born a gentile, you can convert to the Jewish religion but will have no Jewish ethnicity (including the inherited genetic characteristics that identify many ethnic Jews). You would be a Jew by religion but not ethnicity.

Darat, for this reason, your comparison with Christianity is incorrect. There is no gene pool and ethnic lineage associated with Christianity, so you cannot 'ethnically' be one. It's just a religion you follow or not.

Judaism is also a religion you follow or not, but that is a separate thing to being an ethnic Jew.

You get Jews for Jesus movements, etc, where ethnic Jews follow other religions, but you don't get 'Christians for Islam' movements because it's a direct swap between one and the other. Once you become Muslim, you cease to be Christian. But you do not cease to be Jewish.

Once again for absolutely clarity: if you are an ethnic Jew, you remain one regardless of the religion you follow. It is not about beliefs, but about blood.

Darat · 4th July 2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

That's nonsense. If you are an ethnic Jew (born of the Jewish bloodline) then you can't stop being a Jew whatever religion you follow.

Conversely, if you are born a gentile, you can convert to the Jewish religion but will have no Jewish ethnicity (including the inherited genetic characteristics that identify many ethnic Jews). You would be a Jew by religion but not ethnicity.

Darat, for this reason, your comparison with Christianity is incorrect. There is no gene pool and ethnic lineage associated with Christianity, so you cannot 'ethnically' be one. It's just a religion you follow or not.

There is just as much a "gene pool and ethnic lineage" associated with Christianity; look at the gene pool and ethnic lineage of the vast majority of British people living today exclude the around 8% "ethnic folk" and we are all very closely related as we are descended from a very small gene pool and share a long ethnic lineage that is predominately a Christian ethnicity.

If a person can be an "ethnic Jew" then a person can also be an ethnic Christian in the exact same sense. And given how religion is coming to be viewed it seems that is is sensible, descriptive and meaningful label to use to identify those of us that are not religiously Christians but come from an ethnic lineage that is Christian and therefore share many common cultural traits.

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

There is just as much a "gene pool and ethnic lineage" associated with Christianity; look at the gene pool and ethnic lineage of the vast majority of British people living today exclude the around 8% "ethnic folk" and we are all very closely related as we are descended from a very small gene pool and share a long ethnic lineage that is predominately a Christian ethnicity.

If a person can be an "ethnic Jew" then a person can also be an ethnic Christian in the exact same sense. And given how religion is coming to be viewed it seems that is is sensible, descriptive and meaningful label to use to identify those of us that are not religiously Christians but come from an ethnic lineage that is Christian and therefore share many common cultural traits.

That's nonsense. What is the bloodline of Christianity? Which figures can it be traced back to? Does the government acknowledge 'christianity' as an ethnicity? Do Christians share enough genetic characteristics to require special marrow and organ donor registers to facilitate easier matching?

If I go and convert an African tribe to Christianity, how exactly does that give them genetic characteristics in common with my next-door-neighbour? If they've been Christian for ten generations, will they have genetic characteristics in common with my ten-generations-Christian neighbours?

All ethnic Jews are descended from one very specific group (or if you want to believe it, one person). Christians are not.

What you are describing is closer to 'gentile' or even 'Caucasian'. Christianity is a religion. Anyone can be one regardless of heritage.

Darat · 4th July 2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

That's nonsense. What is the bloodline of Christianity? Which figures can it be traced back to?

The same as the "Jewish bloodline" of course....

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Does the government acknowledge 'christianity' as an ethnicity?

That's a false appeal to authority given what I've posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Do Christians share enough genetic characteristics to require special marrow and organ donor registers to facilitate easier matching?

Do all Jews?

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

...snip...

What you are describing is closer to 'gentile'.

No it is the same as you ascribe to "Jewish ethnicity".

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

The same as the "Jewish bloodline" of course....

What, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin? Doubtful. Very doubtful indeed. But do go ahead and post the names of the individuals from which all 'ethnic Christians' are descended.

Yes, all (or if not all, then most) ethnic Jews share genetic characteristics close enough to require a special 'flag' on the organ and bone marrow donation registers. This means that a person with this is flag is much more likely to be a match for another person with this flag than one without.

All Christians are not descended from one tribe. Therefore they have no common genetic heritage or bloodline and cannot be considered an ethnic group in the same way as ethnic Jews.

However, there are other definitions of 'ethnic' that would suit your purposes. They're not relevant to the Jewish debate as those are not the definitions I'm talking about, so in that sense you could say 'ethnic Christian', but certainly not as a comparison to 'ethnic Jew'.

Ethnic Jews are so-called because they share a single, traceable ancestry. That is simply not true for Christians.

JJM 777 · 4th July 2007, 12:48 PM

Well well...

It would be funny to quote here how Apostle Paul defines the concept "Jew" in New Testament.

Having avoided that temptation, I never understood why the Jewish bloodline is male in the Bible, but female in the modern days. But knowing the general logical quality of Rabbinic decisions, I except nothing and will be surprised by nothing.

As for the state of Israel, to be eligible for aliyah your religion must be Judaism. They have "conversion authorities" for that very purpose.

Darat · 4th July 2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

What, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin? Doubtful. Very doubtful indeed. But do go ahead and post the names of the individuals from which all 'ethnic Christians' are descended.

Adam and Eve.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Yes, all (or if not all, then most) ethnic Jews share genetic characteristics close enough to require a special 'flag' on the organ and bone marrow donation registers. This means that a person with this is flag is much more likely to be a match for another person with this flag than one without.

I'd like to see the evidence for this claim.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

All Christians are not descended from one tribe.

And neither are all Jews.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Therefore they have no common genetic heritage or bloodline and cannot be considered an ethnic group in the same way as ethnic Jews.

Then according to your reasoning there can not be a category called "ethnic Jews".

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

However, there are other definitions of 'ethnic' that would suit your purposes. They're not relevant to the Jewish debate as those are not the definitions I'm talking about, so in that sense you could say 'ethnic Christian', but certainly not as a comparison to 'ethnic Jew'.

Which "Jewish debate"?

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Ethnic Jews are so-called because they share a single, traceable ancestry. That is simply not true for Christians.

I don't believe your claim that all ethnic Jews share a "single, traceable ancestry".

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 12:56 PM

ha ha! There is no point in even having this debate if you're going to claim all 'ethnic Christians' are descended from Adam and Eve. Seriously, you need to do some research into the history of Judaism before you go dismissing it so flippantly. Or perhaps you think you know more than historians?

Any Jew who is the descendant of a convert is not an ethnic Jew. Any Jew who is the descendent of one of the 12 tribes of Israel is. The distinction is that simple.

Regarding the donor register, I'm on it. I was specifically requested to be on it because I am ethnically Jewish and therefore a better likely match for another ethnic Jew. That's about all the evidence I can offer short of calling the register people and asking them to send me an email confirming it, which I'm not prepared to do because it's rather silly to dispute it.

Let me put it another way: ethnic Jew is like Black.

Darat · 4th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

ha ha! There is no point in even having this debate if you're going to claim all 'ethnic Christians' are descended from Adam and Eve.

That is a Christian claim whether you or I like it, and it forms part of the common cultural heritage of ethnic Christians.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Seriously, you need to do some research into the history of Judaism before you go dismissing it so flippantly. Or perhaps you think you know more than historians?

Perhaps you should do some so you can provide some support for your claims?

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Any Jew who is the descendant of a convert is not an ethnic Jew. Any Jew who is the descendent of one of the 12 tribes of Israel is. The distinction is that simple.

Surely you mean anyone a decedent of one of Jacob's 12 sons?

It seems that yet again when push comes to shove on this matter it ends up being a religious definition that is used. I am not objecting to that in principle but in the end that means "ethnic Jew" as you seem to want to use it is just another religious label; indeed it is in fact exactly the same as the label "gentile" i.e. only makes sense if you accept a certain set of religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Regarding the donor register, I'm on it. I was specifically requested to be on it because I am ethnically Jewish and therefore a better likely match for another ethnic Jew. That's about all the evidence I can offer short of calling the register people and asking them to send me an email confirming it, which I'm not prepared to do because it's rather silly to dispute it.

I am not disputing that, just asking for you to provide some evidence for your claims - so far you have not done so.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Let me put it another way: ethnic Jew is like Black.

Then aside from a social construct ethnic Jew has no meaning, which is as I thought it was. (That of course does not mean it is not a useful and descriptive label.)

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 01:41 PM

Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage?

ETA: the best I can get for you re the donor thing is this:

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles...22&PrintPage=1

Quote:

Some tissue types are more common in particular ethnic backgrounds. So as well as matching a donor and patient's tissue type their ethnic backgrounds must match too. This means the transplant is more likely to be successful.

You'll just have to take my word that I was specifically asked to register because I am a Jew. My bone marrow register card itself doesn't have 'jew' written on it but my register entry does. I can scan the card but that won't prove anything other than the fact I'm on the register. I was told at the time that there is a serious shortage of Jewish donors (I put that down to the fact that there are very few ethnic Jews in the UK, but then the need wouldn't be as great so it all evens out, one would think).

ETA:

http://www.ezermizion.org/Services/B...rrow_Registry/

Quote:

Because donors and recipients need to be genetically compatible, Jewish patients generally require Jewish stem cell donors donors. The Registry is a vital resource for thousands of sick Jews and serves an insurance policy for Jews everywhere.

I really don't know how else to explain this to you other than to say "you do realise most ethnic Jews look alike, right? Me, Cher, Blossom, etc"

Ian Osborne · 4th July 2007, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage?

That could just as easily apply to any group of people with a shared ancestry. And as a person's religion is almost always that of their parents, the term 'ethnic christian' makes as much sense as 'ethnic jew'. As a white, anglo-saxon protestant, I'm an ethnic christian. This wouldn't change if I converted to islam, hinduism, sikhism or judaism.

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

That could just as easily apply to any group of people with a shared ancestry. And as a person's religion is almost always that of their parents, the term 'ethnic christian' makes as much sense as 'ethnic jew'. As a white, anglo-saxon protestant, I'm an ethnic christian. This wouldn't change if I converted to islam, hinduism, sikhism or judaism.

No, your ethnicity would be 'white angle-saxon'. The protestant part is your religion.

joobz · 4th July 2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

No, your ethnicity would be 'white angle-saxon'. The protestant part is your religion.

So you're saying that eventually we'll be able to say,
WAS were WASP.

Ian Osborne · 4th July 2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

The protestant part is your religion.

No it isn't, it's the religion which dominates my culture and ethnic group. After all, ethnic groupings are frequently defined along religious lines.

tkingdoll · 4th July 2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

No it isn't, it's the religion which dominates my culture and ethnic group.

Only in this country. In other countries, Christians are all sorts of shapes and sizes. In fact, in this country they are too. Black christians do not identify their ethnicity as christian.

Quote:

After all, ethnic groupings are frequently defined along religious lines.

Yes, I said earlier that there are several definitions of 'ethnic'. However, the definition for the word as used in 'ethnic jew' is not comparable to the way you use it above, because it refers to a common ancestry, which Christianity does not incorporate.

Big Les · 4th July 2007, 04:07 PM

I suppose you could argue that "Jews" as a group have somewhat more of a "common ancestry" than "Christians" do, in that they have been arguably more culturally and genetically coherent, but I'm not really very sure about that.

There's apparently substantial overlap between Jews and (oo-er) Palestinians, to confuse matters further.

Darat · 5th July 2007, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage?

...snip...

That is not what I was saying and not what I believe however I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science and that is what you are claiming an "ethnic Jew" is i.e. a "race".

According to you if someone found out that that their Jewish grandparents had in fact adopted their mother (the baby being from a non-Jewish family) then they would no longer be an "ethnic Jew". That to me therefore makes a mockery of the whole label since none of us can truly know (given the current science) who our true biological predecessors were once we've gone back only a couple of generations.

Ian Osborne · 5th July 2007, 02:40 AM

There are only three races - negro, oriental (which includes Mongolians) and caucasian (which includes semitic peoples and folks from the Indian sub-continent). Every further sub-grouping is an ethnic one.

sphenisc · 5th July 2007, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

That is not what I was saying and not what I believe however I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science and that is what you are claiming an "ethnic Jew" is i.e. a "race".

Does this apply to other species as well, or is there something special about human races?

JJM 777 · 5th July 2007, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science

What comes to "blacks", they tend to have a dark skin, don't they? A clearly defined genetical group.

As for Jews, majority of them may belong to the genetical group of persons who have at least one ancestor among the small Jewish tribe of 2500 BC. (Not all of them, because of intermarriages and converts taken into the Jewish community along the centuries and millenniums.)

slyjoe · 5th July 2007, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

There are only three races - negro, oriental (which includes Mongolians) and caucasian (which includes semitic peoples and folks from the Indian sub-continent). Every further sub-grouping is an ethnic one.

Read the wiki article on race. The pertinent quote is provided below:

Quote:

Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has diminished over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as craniofacial anthropometry, but these disciplines have been abandoned by the mainstream scientific community. Today they have only two common uses. They are used in forensic anthropology as an indicator of ethnicity of skeletal remains. And they can be used as euphemisms for making racially based distinctions that are now regarded as being racist and baseless by mainstream culture.

Darat · 5th July 2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Does this apply to other species as well, or is there something special about human races?

Is the word "race" applied to other species?

sphenisc · 5th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Is the word "race" applied to other species?

Yes, generally as a synonym of subspecies. Googling "race of x" for

x=gorilla
748 hits

x= yellow wagtail
286

x=peregrine
609

Darat · 5th July 2007, 01:13 PM

That just means people use it - I meant more along the lines of is it a term biologists use for other species?

sphenisc · 5th July 2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

That just means people use it - I meant more along the lines of is it a term biologists use for other species?

C. Darwin wrote a book "On the origin of species by means of natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"

More recently, British Ornithologist's Union report uses "race" 3 or 4 times.
http://www.bou.org.uk/recrep27.html

Now how about my question?

CapelDodger · 5th July 2007, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Is the word "race" applied to other species?

The word "breed" is applied to domestic dogs, and is perhaps synonymous.

carlvs · 5th July 2007, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Read the wiki article on race.

Personally, I feel the article on the BNP itself is far more important...

Darat · 6th July 2007, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

C. Darwin wrote a book "On the origin of species by means of natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"

More recently, British Ornithologist's Union report uses "race" 3 or 4 times.
http://www.bou.org.uk/recrep27.html

Now how about my question?

No idea - that was why I asked you a follow-up question.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The word "breed" is applied to domestic dogs, and is perhaps synonymous.

I thought of that myself - but I don't think that is quite synonymous. On the other hand it may be because a dog breed is just an arbitrary physical definition of a dog. (Controlled to a remarkable degree, and quite artificially maintained by associations with their pedigrees.). So it is entirely a human invention and one that although appears quite circular does allow us to answer the question "which came first the chicken or the egg".

PixyMisa · 6th July 2007, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I've said this before but I'm now more certain of it - if you accept that you can be a non-religious Jew i.e. an "ethnic Jew" then you have to accept that you can be a non-religious Christian i.e. an "ethnic Christian". I suspect most people in the UK who tick "Christian" on any poll are in fact saying they are "ethnic Christians" rather than religious Christians.

The two are not comparable.

You are automatically considered Jewish by other Jews if your mother was Jewish - even if you, your mother, and your maternal grandmother were all openly atheist. Nothing of the sort can be said about Christianity.

4th July 2007, 03:19 AM	#1
Cheesejoff Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 216	BNP view on Christianity vs Islam (religion not politics) http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1592 "There may be passages in the Christian Bible particularly in the Old Testament which make blood curdling reading (Numbers 31:17-18) for example but the enemies are specific and unambiguous – in this case the tribe of Midianites. The Qu’an (Koran) seems to command the war against all unbelievers is open-ended and universal. Further most Britons who tick the box “Christian” on census returns or other forms of identification have probably never read, or had read to them the entire contents of the Bible, let alone pay its content any regard in the running of their daily lives. Muslims on the other hand have the contents of their holy book rammed home not just weekly like many Church-going Christians but five times a day." They actually admit Christians haven't read the bible...
Cheesejoff Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 216

4th July 2007, 03:24 AM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	I've said this before but I'm now more certain of it - if you accept that you can be a non-religious Jew i.e. an "ethnic Jew" then you have to accept that you can be a non-religious Christian i.e. an "ethnic Christian". I suspect most people in the UK who tick "Christian" on any poll are in fact saying they are "ethnic Christians" rather than religious Christians.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 03:46 AM	#3
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	True enough. After all, 'Jew' is not a racial grouping, but an ethnic one. But I've met non-practicing, ethnic-rather-than-religious members of other faiths too. It's a little stereotypical to assume all Muslims 'have the contents of their holy book rammed home five times a day'. (NB: I'm not saying you personally assumed that, Darat)
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

4th July 2007, 09:48 AM	#5
Jon. Increasing entropy since 1970 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: On the Clapham omnibus Posts: 3,509	Originally Posted by JJM 777 What we commonly see and hear are statistics about registered affiliation in different religions: how many percent of humans are "Christians", "Muslims", etc. What we seldom hear are statistics about what people actually believe, and what role religion has in their lives, if any. I would be interested in such statistics. What you are looking for is polls that measure "religiosity", not "religion", then. I know there are a number of them out there.
	__________________ In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. I don't appeal to the masses, and they don't appeal to me. - Graham Parker Calling modern day fundamentalists medieval is giving them about a thousand years of philosophical advancement they do not have. - Jorghnassen

4th July 2007, 10:04 AM	#6
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	Originally Posted by Jon. What you are looking for is polls that measure "religiosity", not "religion", then. I know there are a number of them out there. et voila Quote: Mori poll, May 2005 shows declining religious belief 36% of people in the 18-34 age group in Britain define themselves as atheist or agnostic. In the population as a whole, 24% say they have no religion. Amongst the over 65s, the non-religious figure falls to 11%. Mori poll (4,270 respondents) for The Tablet (20/5/05) World Values Survey, 2005 In Britain, only 42% of those interviewed said they considered themselves “a religious person”. While 72% claim to believe in God, this is one of the lowest proportions in the world, and only 33% believe the church offers answers to moral problems. About 175,000 people were questioned in 81 countries; the survey includes research from the London School of Economics. Reported in The Sunday Times 10/4/05 Reader’s Digest survey, March 2005 Only 48% of Britons know what Christians are remembering at Easter. Reported in The Times et al, 23/3/05 YouGov survey, December 2004 35% British adults do not believe in God and 21% don't know. 73% do not pray regularly. 28% do not believe in life after death and 29% don't know. 21% consider Christmas mainly as a religious festival, while 38% consider it mainly as a holiday and 28% as an opportunity to meet friends and family. Full survey here. Fewer own Bibles, more believe in ghosts ICM poll of 1000 people for UKTV, November 2004 (reported in Church Times ) In 1954 90% owned a Bible; in 2004 65% did. In 1954 10% believed in ghosts; in 2004 42%. In 2004 nearly 3/4 said they were not members of a religious group or fa ith. http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/...p?article=1826 You get starkly different figures depending on how you phrase your question.... This is my favourite one..... Quote: 2001 UK Census Those of no religion are the 2nd largest belief group, about 3 times as many as all the other (non-Christian)religions altogether. 7,274,290 people said they had “no religion” - though only 10,357 specified that they were atheists. Jedi Knights had 390,127 followers, and formed a larger group than several of the “major religions”: Jews (259, 927); Sikhs (329, 358);Buddhists (144,453); or minor religions such as Jainism (15,132), Zoroastrianism (3,738) or the Baha’i faith (4,645). You can read more about the Jedi Knights on the government website The force is strong in Britain
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks." Last edited by andyandy; 4th July 2007 at 10:12 AM.

4th July 2007, 04:42 AM	#4
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	What we commonly see and hear are statistics about registered affiliation in different religions: how many percent of humans are "Christians", "Muslims", etc. What we seldom hear are statistics about what people actually believe, and what role religion has in their lives, if any. I would be interested in such statistics.

4th July 2007, 10:07 AM	#7
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	The question of who or what is a Jew is probably one of the most complicated questions out there. Amoung the Jews, a Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother. This Jew can be an ultra-Orthodox black hatted Jew or a non-believing Communist secular Jew...but he still remains a Jew. But...if he formerly converts to Christianity..he ceases to be a Jew...regardless of his ethnic affiliations. It is this concept that complicated things because...why is becoming a Communist atheist any less in conflict with Judaism then becoming a Christian? Simply calling oneself a "Jew" does not make one a Jew. I for example, feel Jewish and identify myself as a Jew, yet to practise none of the Jewish rituals, follow kosher laws, go to synagogue, etc. Am I REALLY a Jew? Perhaps not. If Jewish is an ethnicity, then no choice of religous or political affilation can effect that. Whether it is converting to Christianity or becoming a Neo-Nazi, one still remains Jewish. If Jewish is a religion, then a Jew who does not follow any Jewish rituals, believe in any of the values, or identifies at all with Judaism, is not a Jew.

4th July 2007, 11:24 AM	#8
chriswl Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: S.E. England Posts: 944	Quote: In Britain, only 42% of those interviewed said they considered themselves “a religious person”. As high as that? Where are these people? They keep a very low profile given that they are nearly half of the population.
	__________________ A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognises that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. --Daniel Dennett

4th July 2007, 11:41 AM	#9
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	Originally Posted by chriswl As high as that? Where are these people? They keep a very low profile given that they are nearly half of the population. I think there's a pretty big old fogie skew.... Quote: Two thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds not religious, 2000 Two thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds did not belong to a religion, compared with only a quarter of those aged over 65. (British Social Attitudes Survey, National Centre for Social Research, Nov 2000)
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

4th July 2007, 11:47 AM	#10
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by andyandy In 1954 10% believed in ghosts; in 2004 42%. Sounds weird to me, this one. I thought that such beliefs are certainly on the decline. On the other hand, I have received only two private messages from other users during my career at JREF forum. One was from CFL who won't believe even in the existence of his mother without evidence. The other message was from a new member asking if I believe in ghosts as she does. That makes 50% - 50%. Quite close to the reported stats...

4th July 2007, 11:48 AM	#11
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne True enough. After all, 'Jew' is not a racial grouping, but an ethnic one. But I've met non-practicing, ethnic-rather-than-religious members of other faiths too. It's a little stereotypical to assume all Muslims 'have the contents of their holy book rammed home five times a day'. (NB: I'm not saying you personally assumed that, Darat) I wasn't meaning to single out Jewish people (ethnic or otherwise!), it's just that example of "ethnicity" is one that has cropped up here a few times.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 11:49 AM	#12
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by parky76 The question of who or what is a Jew is probably one of the most complicated questions out there. Amoung the Jews, a Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother. This Jew can be an ultra-Orthodox black hatted Jew or a non-believing Communist secular Jew...but he still remains a Jew. But...if he formerly converts to Christianity..he ceases to be a Jew...regardless of his ethnic affiliations. It is this concept that complicated things because...why is becoming a Communist atheist any less in conflict with Judaism then becoming a Christian? Simply calling oneself a "Jew" does not make one a Jew. I for example, feel Jewish and identify myself as a Jew, yet to practise none of the Jewish rituals, follow kosher laws, go to synagogue, etc. Am I REALLY a Jew? Perhaps not. If Jewish is an ethnicity, then no choice of religous or political affilation can effect that. Whether it is converting to Christianity or becoming a Neo-Nazi, one still remains Jewish. If Jewish is a religion, then a Jew who does not follow any Jewish rituals, believe in any of the values, or identifies at all with Judaism, is not a Jew. That's nonsense. If you are an ethnic Jew (born of the Jewish bloodline) then you can't stop being a Jew whatever religion you follow. Conversely, if you are born a gentile, you can convert to the Jewish religion but will have no Jewish ethnicity (including the inherited genetic characteristics that identify many ethnic Jews). You would be a Jew by religion but not ethnicity. Darat, for this reason, your comparison with Christianity is incorrect. There is no gene pool and ethnic lineage associated with Christianity, so you cannot 'ethnically' be one. It's just a religion you follow or not. Judaism is also a religion you follow or not, but that is a separate thing to being an ethnic Jew. You get Jews for Jesus movements, etc, where ethnic Jews follow other religions, but you don't get 'Christians for Islam' movements because it's a direct swap between one and the other. Once you become Muslim, you cease to be Christian. But you do not cease to be Jewish. Once again for absolutely clarity: if you are an ethnic Jew, you remain one regardless of the religion you follow. It is not about beliefs, but about blood.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie Last edited by tkingdoll; 4th July 2007 at 11:52 AM.

4th July 2007, 12:17 PM	#13
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by tkingdoll That's nonsense. If you are an ethnic Jew (born of the Jewish bloodline) then you can't stop being a Jew whatever religion you follow. Conversely, if you are born a gentile, you can convert to the Jewish religion but will have no Jewish ethnicity (including the inherited genetic characteristics that identify many ethnic Jews). You would be a Jew by religion but not ethnicity. Darat, for this reason, your comparison with Christianity is incorrect. There is no gene pool and ethnic lineage associated with Christianity, so you cannot 'ethnically' be one. It's just a religion you follow or not. There is just as much a "gene pool and ethnic lineage" associated with Christianity; look at the gene pool and ethnic lineage of the vast majority of British people living today exclude the around 8% "ethnic folk" and we are all very closely related as we are descended from a very small gene pool and share a long ethnic lineage that is predominately a Christian ethnicity. If a person can be an "ethnic Jew" then a person can also be an ethnic Christian in the exact same sense. And given how religion is coming to be viewed it seems that is is sensible, descriptive and meaningful label to use to identify those of us that are not religiously Christians but come from an ethnic lineage that is Christian and therefore share many common cultural traits.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 12:30 PM	#14
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Darat There is just as much a "gene pool and ethnic lineage" associated with Christianity; look at the gene pool and ethnic lineage of the vast majority of British people living today exclude the around 8% "ethnic folk" and we are all very closely related as we are descended from a very small gene pool and share a long ethnic lineage that is predominately a Christian ethnicity. If a person can be an "ethnic Jew" then a person can also be an ethnic Christian in the exact same sense. And given how religion is coming to be viewed it seems that is is sensible, descriptive and meaningful label to use to identify those of us that are not religiously Christians but come from an ethnic lineage that is Christian and therefore share many common cultural traits. That's nonsense. What is the bloodline of Christianity? Which figures can it be traced back to? Does the government acknowledge 'christianity' as an ethnicity? Do Christians share enough genetic characteristics to require special marrow and organ donor registers to facilitate easier matching? If I go and convert an African tribe to Christianity, how exactly does that give them genetic characteristics in common with my next-door-neighbour? If they've been Christian for ten generations, will they have genetic characteristics in common with my ten-generations-Christian neighbours? All ethnic Jews are descended from one very specific group (or if you want to believe it, one person). Christians are not. What you are describing is closer to 'gentile' or even 'Caucasian'. Christianity is a religion. Anyone can be one regardless of heritage.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie Last edited by tkingdoll; 4th July 2007 at 12:33 PM.

4th July 2007, 12:34 PM	#15
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by tkingdoll That's nonsense. What is the bloodline of Christianity? Which figures can it be traced back to? The same as the "Jewish bloodline" of course.... Originally Posted by tkingdoll Does the government acknowledge 'christianity' as an ethnicity? That's a false appeal to authority given what I've posted in this thread. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Do Christians share enough genetic characteristics to require special marrow and organ donor registers to facilitate easier matching? Do all Jews? Originally Posted by tkingdoll ...snip... What you are describing is closer to 'gentile'. No it is the same as you ascribe to "Jewish ethnicity".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 12:44 PM	#16
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Darat The same as the "Jewish bloodline" of course.... What, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin? Doubtful. Very doubtful indeed. But do go ahead and post the names of the individuals from which all 'ethnic Christians' are descended. Yes, all (or if not all, then most) ethnic Jews share genetic characteristics close enough to require a special 'flag' on the organ and bone marrow donation registers. This means that a person with this is flag is much more likely to be a match for another person with this flag than one without. All Christians are not descended from one tribe. Therefore they have no common genetic heritage or bloodline and cannot be considered an ethnic group in the same way as ethnic Jews. However, there are other definitions of 'ethnic' that would suit your purposes. They're not relevant to the Jewish debate as those are not the definitions I'm talking about, so in that sense you could say 'ethnic Christian', but certainly not as a comparison to 'ethnic Jew'. Ethnic Jews are so-called because they share a single, traceable ancestry. That is simply not true for Christians.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

4th July 2007, 12:48 PM	#17
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Well well... It would be funny to quote here how Apostle Paul defines the concept "Jew" in New Testament. Having avoided that temptation, I never understood why the Jewish bloodline is male in the Bible, but female in the modern days. But knowing the general logical quality of Rabbinic decisions, I except nothing and will be surprised by nothing. As for the state of Israel, to be eligible for aliyah your religion must be Judaism. They have "conversion authorities" for that very purpose.

4th July 2007, 12:49 PM	#18
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by tkingdoll What, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin? Doubtful. Very doubtful indeed. But do go ahead and post the names of the individuals from which all 'ethnic Christians' are descended. Adam and Eve. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Yes, all (or if not all, then most) ethnic Jews share genetic characteristics close enough to require a special 'flag' on the organ and bone marrow donation registers. This means that a person with this is flag is much more likely to be a match for another person with this flag than one without. I'd like to see the evidence for this claim. Originally Posted by tkingdoll All Christians are not descended from one tribe. And neither are all Jews. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Therefore they have no common genetic heritage or bloodline and cannot be considered an ethnic group in the same way as ethnic Jews. Then according to your reasoning there can not be a category called "ethnic Jews". Originally Posted by tkingdoll However, there are other definitions of 'ethnic' that would suit your purposes. They're not relevant to the Jewish debate as those are not the definitions I'm talking about, so in that sense you could say 'ethnic Christian', but certainly not as a comparison to 'ethnic Jew'. Which "Jewish debate"? Originally Posted by tkingdoll Ethnic Jews are so-called because they share a single, traceable ancestry. That is simply not true for Christians. I don't believe your claim that all ethnic Jews share a "single, traceable ancestry".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 12:56 PM	#19
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	ha ha! There is no point in even having this debate if you're going to claim all 'ethnic Christians' are descended from Adam and Eve. Seriously, you need to do some research into the history of Judaism before you go dismissing it so flippantly. Or perhaps you think you know more than historians? Any Jew who is the descendant of a convert is not an ethnic Jew. Any Jew who is the descendent of one of the 12 tribes of Israel is. The distinction is that simple. Regarding the donor register, I'm on it. I was specifically requested to be on it because I am ethnically Jewish and therefore a better likely match for another ethnic Jew. That's about all the evidence I can offer short of calling the register people and asking them to send me an email confirming it, which I'm not prepared to do because it's rather silly to dispute it. Let me put it another way: ethnic Jew is like Black.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

4th July 2007, 01:10 PM	#20
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by tkingdoll ha ha! There is no point in even having this debate if you're going to claim all 'ethnic Christians' are descended from Adam and Eve. That is a Christian claim whether you or I like it, and it forms part of the common cultural heritage of ethnic Christians. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Seriously, you need to do some research into the history of Judaism before you go dismissing it so flippantly. Or perhaps you think you know more than historians? Perhaps you should do some so you can provide some support for your claims? Originally Posted by tkingdoll Any Jew who is the descendant of a convert is not an ethnic Jew. Any Jew who is the descendent of one of the 12 tribes of Israel is. The distinction is that simple. Surely you mean anyone a decedent of one of Jacob's 12 sons? It seems that yet again when push comes to shove on this matter it ends up being a religious definition that is used. I am not objecting to that in principle but in the end that means "ethnic Jew" as you seem to want to use it is just another religious label; indeed it is in fact exactly the same as the label "gentile" i.e. only makes sense if you accept a certain set of religious beliefs. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Regarding the donor register, I'm on it. I was specifically requested to be on it because I am ethnically Jewish and therefore a better likely match for another ethnic Jew. That's about all the evidence I can offer short of calling the register people and asking them to send me an email confirming it, which I'm not prepared to do because it's rather silly to dispute it. I am not disputing that, just asking for you to provide some evidence for your claims - so far you have not done so. Originally Posted by tkingdoll Let me put it another way: ethnic Jew is like Black. Then aside from a social construct ethnic Jew has no meaning, which is as I thought it was. (That of course does not mean it is not a useful and descriptive label.)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

4th July 2007, 01:41 PM	#21
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage? ETA: the best I can get for you re the donor thing is this: http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles...22&PrintPage=1 Quote: Some tissue types are more common in particular ethnic backgrounds. So as well as matching a donor and patient's tissue type their ethnic backgrounds must match too. This means the transplant is more likely to be successful. You'll just have to take my word that I was specifically asked to register because I am a Jew. My bone marrow register card itself doesn't have 'jew' written on it but my register entry does. I can scan the card but that won't prove anything other than the fact I'm on the register. I was told at the time that there is a serious shortage of Jewish donors (I put that down to the fact that there are very few ethnic Jews in the UK, but then the need wouldn't be as great so it all evens out, one would think). ETA: http://www.ezermizion.org/Services/B...rrow_Registry/ Quote: Because donors and recipients need to be genetically compatible, Jewish patients generally require Jewish stem cell donors donors. The Registry is a vital resource for thousands of sick Jews and serves an insurance policy for Jews everywhere. I really don't know how else to explain this to you other than to say "you do realise most ethnic Jews look alike, right? Me, Cher, Blossom, etc"
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie Last edited by tkingdoll; 4th July 2007 at 01:54 PM.

4th July 2007, 01:52 PM	#22
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Originally Posted by tkingdoll Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage? That could just as easily apply to any group of people with a shared ancestry. And as a person's religion is almost always that of their parents, the term 'ethnic christian' makes as much sense as 'ethnic jew'. As a white, anglo-saxon protestant, I'm an ethnic christian. This wouldn't change if I converted to islam, hinduism, sikhism or judaism.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

4th July 2007, 01:56 PM	#23
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne That could just as easily apply to any group of people with a shared ancestry. And as a person's religion is almost always that of their parents, the term 'ethnic christian' makes as much sense as 'ethnic jew'. As a white, anglo-saxon protestant, I'm an ethnic christian. This wouldn't change if I converted to islam, hinduism, sikhism or judaism. No, your ethnicity would be 'white angle-saxon'. The protestant part is your religion.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

4th July 2007, 02:00 PM	#24
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by tkingdoll No, your ethnicity would be 'white angle-saxon'. The protestant part is your religion. So you're saying that eventually we'll be able to say, WAS were WASP.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

4th July 2007, 02:01 PM	#25
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Originally Posted by tkingdoll The protestant part is your religion. No it isn't, it's the religion which dominates my culture and ethnic group. After all, ethnic groupings are frequently defined along religious lines.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

4th July 2007, 02:12 PM	#26
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne No it isn't, it's the religion which dominates my culture and ethnic group. Only in this country. In other countries, Christians are all sorts of shapes and sizes. In fact, in this country they are too. Black christians do not identify their ethnicity as christian. Quote: After all, ethnic groupings are frequently defined along religious lines. Yes, I said earlier that there are several definitions of 'ethnic'. However, the definition for the word as used in 'ethnic jew' is not comparable to the way you use it above, because it refers to a common ancestry, which Christianity does not incorporate.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

4th July 2007, 04:07 PM	#27
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	I suppose you could argue that "Jews" as a group have somewhat more of a "common ancestry" than "Christians" do, in that they have been arguably more culturally and genetically coherent, but I'm not really very sure about that. There's apparently substantial overlap between Jews and (oo-er) Palestinians, to confuse matters further.
	__________________ "Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof." -Stephen Fry The BS Historian

5th July 2007, 02:21 AM	#28
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by tkingdoll Riiiight - so Sickle Cell isn't primarily a black disease? You don't accept that there are genetic characteristics shared by people of a certain heritage? ...snip... That is not what I was saying and not what I believe however I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science and that is what you are claiming an "ethnic Jew" is i.e. a "race". According to you if someone found out that that their Jewish grandparents had in fact adopted their mother (the baby being from a non-Jewish family) then they would no longer be an "ethnic Jew". That to me therefore makes a mockery of the whole label since none of us can truly know (given the current science) who our true biological predecessors were once we've gone back only a couple of generations.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

5th July 2007, 02:40 AM	#29
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	There are only three races - negro, oriental (which includes Mongolians) and caucasian (which includes semitic peoples and folks from the Indian sub-continent). Every further sub-grouping is an ethnic one.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

5th July 2007, 02:57 AM	#30
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by Darat That is not what I was saying and not what I believe however I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science and that is what you are claiming an "ethnic Jew" is i.e. a "race". Does this apply to other species as well, or is there something special about human races?
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

5th July 2007, 08:24 AM	#31
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Darat I do not believe that humans can be divided into races such as "Black" and "Jew" using science What comes to "blacks", they tend to have a dark skin, don't they? A clearly defined genetical group. As for Jews, majority of them may belong to the genetical group of persons who have at least one ancestor among the small Jewish tribe of 2500 BC. (Not all of them, because of intermarriages and converts taken into the Jewish community along the centuries and millenniums.)

5th July 2007, 09:21 AM	#32
slyjoe Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins Posts: 972	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne There are only three races - negro, oriental (which includes Mongolians) and caucasian (which includes semitic peoples and folks from the Indian sub-continent). Every further sub-grouping is an ethnic one. Read the wiki article on race. The pertinent quote is provided below: Quote: Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has diminished over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as craniofacial anthropometry, but these disciplines have been abandoned by the mainstream scientific community. Today they have only two common uses. They are used in forensic anthropology as an indicator of ethnicity of skeletal remains. And they can be used as euphemisms for making racially based distinctions that are now regarded as being racist and baseless by mainstream culture.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

5th July 2007, 12:20 PM	#33
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by sphenisc Does this apply to other species as well, or is there something special about human races? Is the word "race" applied to other species?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

5th July 2007, 01:10 PM	#34
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by Darat Is the word "race" applied to other species? Yes, generally as a synonym of subspecies. Googling "race of x" for x=gorilla 748 hits x= yellow wagtail 286 x=peregrine 609
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

5th July 2007, 01:13 PM	#35
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	That just means people use it - I meant more along the lines of is it a term biologists use for other species?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008