From: Wade T.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 12:29:53 GMT
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 01:36 , email@example.com wrote:
>> What a strange thing to be reminded of. Are you perhaps Jewish or
>> Palestinian? Everything you think of seems to lead you in that
> Actually, I am Irish, English, Dutch and 1/4 Native American.
The whole concept that 'jewish' is a racial description has always
mystified me. 'Xian' or 'hindu' or 'muslim' or 'buddhist' are not racial
descriptions. (Then again, the willingness of its followers to call a
religion a racial characteristic is perhaps an augury of their
willingness to kill to prove it....) Then again, irish, english, dutch,
and even 'native american', are all _place-holders_ of geopolitical
location. What religion one adopts has nothing to do with
characteristics adapted from the _geological_ environment, (although
some of the laws of that religion might be, i.e. kosher laws of meal
preparation and storage), and if we are to accept any memetic stance
having religions as cultural creations, that is a reinforced position.
What does _place_ of birth or color of skin or eyes or hair have to do
with it? (First, of course, one has to accept 'race' as a concept, and
I, personally, do not.)
I suppose with some it's a matter of, for so long, only having places of
birth on the road, especially after begin told countless times that
yahweh had reserved a very special place on the planet for you and you
were expected to fight for it.
The matter of who belongs on any piece of land is deep-inlaid
territorial primate urge. States, and the religions usually wrapped
inextricably into them, are reinforcers of tribal territoriality, and as
such, will always be war-mongering.
Calling political religions ethically pacifistic institutions is a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 12:34:00 GMT