Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Jewish leader blasts 'religious right'

  1. Dec 14, 2005 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This was an excellent article, but I don't remember seeing a thread about it. Someone please advise me if it's a duplicate. I hesitated posting it because I was afraid it would start a war in here, but the issues are important. Let's avoid throwing stones. I will state that I agree with Rabbi Eric Yoffie.

    This gave me some hope that religion can act responsibly.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-19-jewish-leader_x.htm

    Read through it and discuss what you see as good and as not good.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 14, 2005 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Looks like more hatefilled rhetoric attacking christians. Comparing the right to Hitler? I find it rather disconcerting that a JEWISH person would dare make such a comparison to Hitler.

    Vile rhetoric that spits on the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, plain and simple. And they wonder why they can't win an election.
     
  4. Dec 14, 2005 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed some of it (nazi comparisons) could have been left out.
     
  5. Dec 15, 2005 #4
    Is that what you inferred from:

    ?

    The right were not compared to Hitler. It compared anti-gay policies to Hitler's. If I compare Chaplin's moustache to Hitler's, that's not the same as comparing Chaplin to Hilter.

    Who are 'they'? The Jewish? What?
     
  6. Dec 15, 2005 #5
    Are you referring to your post, or the article itself?

    I think you should reread it and then if you actually find "vile rhetoric" could you cut and paste it so I can see what you are talking about.
     
  7. Dec 15, 2005 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No vile rhetoric, but questioning those who claim a monopoly on God, which is sometimes expressed with a visceral hatred or contempt of gays and others of whom the "religious right" disapproves. What other term would be more appropriate "religious extremists" or "extreme religious right"?

    Certainly 'name-calling' does not help find a positive solution to religious conflicts. The again, I would have to see the exact text in order to make a judgement.

    One question arises - how does the general population deal with a minority which claims religious (or moral) supremacy and which attempts to influence the government to adopt policies, which reflect the minority's views, in order to then impose such policies on the majority?
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2005
  8. Dec 15, 2005 #7
    Good question, since this process is currently underway in America. The three most powerful politicians in America, George W. Bush, Bill Frist, and until recently Tom DeLay have all been pandering to the religious right for their base of support.
     
  9. Dec 15, 2005 #8
    Here we go with the Nazis again. Can't people argue without calling each other Nazis?

    Just ignore them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2005
  10. Dec 15, 2005 #9
    It seems to me that He isnt calling them Nazi's. But is stating that there policies on Gay people are akin to the Adolf Hitlers..
     
  11. Dec 15, 2005 #10
    Yes, those poor Christians who want to have their religion dominate the country.

    You know, you have to love how the Christian right leadership are as non-Christian as one could get.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301764_pf.html

    I am Christian, and I find the right wing's abuse of people's faith to gain control over them disgusting. There is nothing Christian about the right's policies. Everything out of their mouth is lip service.
     
  12. Dec 15, 2005 #11
    If I said that some one had the same taste in women as Adolf Hitler, would I be claiming that they were like hitler in all their aspects? No.
     
  13. Dec 15, 2005 #12

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "...conservative religious activists ...." Conservative activists? That's a flag for the circular file.

    "...asked Reform synagogues to do more to hold onto members...." Not too happy with the degree of "zealotry" demonstrated by the "enlightened" Jewish community?


    Tell ya what, kiddies --- if you're old enough to remember "fish on Friday" in the school cafeteria, and "everything's closed on Sunday," and you still want to ***** about "under god," "In God We Trust," nativity scenes, Xmas lights, and the rest of the PC anti-religious drill, go for it. If not, put a sock in it --- you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

    "The religious right did it," ain't gonna cut it for excuses, folks. Every bad thing that's happened to you in your lives, and every bad thing that's ever going to happen --- you were there, or you're going to be there --- no one else in on all of it for you to blame.
     
  14. Dec 16, 2005 #13
    If I said that Bush's policies in regards to gays was like Hitler's would that mean I'm saying that he has them rounded up into concentration camps, killed, and buried in mass graves? And if this isn't what I'm saying then am I really just a twit for making the analogy?

    I have a pretty good idea of the answer to at least one of those questions.
     
  15. Dec 16, 2005 #14
    sooo similarly, according to your logical fallacy... no one can talk about slavery or jim crow being bad or denounce those who call for a return to either unless they lived under either.
     
  16. Dec 16, 2005 #15
    hmmmmm
    That is the actual quote.

    here is the pertinent definition of akin:
    You however seem to think that akin means the same as. Bush does not have to round up homosexuals into concentration camps and kill them (though he may want to in his heart... who knows but God) for his policies to be akin or similar in some respects to Hitler's.
     
  17. Dec 16, 2005 #16
    Sorry but I generally don't say anything is "akin" to something else unless the similarity is at least somewhat strong. The means for me to determine this would be to see how many of the main characteristics match between the two.
    Lets see...
    -Rounding up gays... I'm pretty sure that isn't happening but a couple of my friends haven't been online in a while so you never know.
    -Putting gays in concentration camps.... don't think so.
    -Killing gays... I'm pretty sure our government isn't doing that either.
    -Burying gays in mass graves... don't think that's going on.

    What has bush done?
    He's supported the anti-gay marriage lobby and.... well what else has he done politically against gays? I'm not really sure. But so far we have "being against gay marriage". Does that make for any striking resembalance to "round em up, kill em, and bury them in pits" Hmmmmmmmmmmm... I'm probably going to have to go with a big NO on that.

    ---edit---
    by the way if you do happen to come across and evidence for teh whole rounding them up and killing them bit you let me know ok?
     
  18. Dec 16, 2005 #17

    You are justifying your positioning using an inaccurate definition of a word.
     
  19. Dec 16, 2005 #18
    How is it inaccurate? To say that Bush's policies are "akin" to Hitler's in regards to gays is inaccurate. Bush spoke out against gay marriage. Hitler spoke out against gays in general AND had them rounded up, imprisoned, and killed!
    Please explan to me how the word "akin" accurately describes the relationship here. We could say that the majority of the countries in the world have policies towards gays "akin" to Hitler's by your logic.
     
  20. Dec 16, 2005 #19
    The Nazi policy on gays was to "reeducate them" and if that didnt work "block" them through castration, and the SS did kill a lot of them..

    Anyway you have a point, well presented good job.. But the Far right are still discriminating against gays...
     
  21. Dec 16, 2005 #20
    Ofcourse. I don't like it and I don't like the religeous right but I still don't like unfair and/or exagerated attacks against anyone. Those are their tactics and we should be better than that.
     
  22. Dec 16, 2005 #21
    not even for a little politcal oneupmanship hehe

    (joking..)
     
  23. Dec 17, 2005 #22

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    You've got the gist of the remark. You want to present your opinions on such topics, feel free. Identify your opinions as opinions rather than facts, and no one's got any complaints.

    The OP concerned a liberal Rabbi's assessment of religious extremist politics rather than "slavery or jim crow (sic)." It's far less a pestilence today than it was 40-50 years ago, hence, my remark that people quit b*tching.
     
  24. Dec 18, 2005 #23
    Bush was not mentioned. The comment was directed at the extreme religious right that does call for the death penalty for homosexuality.

    http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm [Broken]
    Emphasis mine.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  25. Dec 18, 2005 #24
    So unless you lived through the holocaust I don't want to hear you whine about discrimination?

    Is that logical?

    You sound just a little full of yourself Bystander, why not lighten up. People can discuss topics without having lived through the same experiences you have.

    Instead of ridiculing and belittling the others here, why not offer your unique perspective to the dialogue without resorting to broadcast ad hominem
     
  26. Dec 18, 2005 #25
    The speech does not reference any one advocating the death penalty for gays either. The references made are to those issues currently in hot political debate owing to the current political climate under the Bush Admin. No it does not point at Bush but it does reference his attempt at a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The speech is supposed to be relevent to the current political situation otherwise it would have little point. I would bet money that the number of religeous right in this country that advocate the death penalty for gays is probably more so a minority than the gay community themselves by an amazingly large degree. If this speech was supposed to be relevent at all to current politics then it must be an attempt at characterizing the current admin and their constituents.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook