Guest guest Posted May 31, 2005 Report Share Posted May 31, 2005 Dear Max, Thank you very much for your message. I understand your objection, and apologize to all the people “with a Semitic background”. I am very sorry if I have offended anyone. I don’t know how to express the concept better, maybe you can help me here with language. What I intended with “Semitic background” was not ethnic prejudice. My point is that the basis of all Semitic faiths (i.e. Hebraism, Christianity, Islam) is that: - there is one people only who is blessed by God, and who is destined to conquer over all other peoples - there is one God only (actually meaning, “one understanding of God only”), this is ours, and we have the right, the duty and the mandate to eliminate all others “false gods”, i.e. the “other understandings of God” - God wants “infidels” to be either converted or destroyed - women are not qualified to teach or practice religion directly - there are social differences based on different religions - the “chosen people” has the right to conquer the entire planet (like Yahweh promised to Abraham), and hence to have the complete political and financial power, - other religions are minorities, no matter what the number of their followers is, - there is no philosophical or theological discussion possible with “infidels”, only minor discussions about the applications of the “dogma” dished out by the authority, - other books (teachings etc) have no value and are generally burned, no matter what they say, - dissidents or opposers have no rights to criticize the wongdoings or the wrong interpretations of the religious authorities, and the like. I have not met many Jews, but I have the impression that most of them do not with these points, and probably they do not to the Bible, either. Where homosexuality and “talking back to parents” are punished by stoning, for example. However, I have met many Christians (whom I also consider “Semitic background”) as they also preach the Bible, and the above applies. Churches everywhere in the west are complaining because people “do not follow any more” , and it is increasingly difficult to find someone who wants to be a priest. The pope showers fire and brimstone over those who practice yoga or read the astrology column on the newspaper, accusing them of “betraying Christ” (who never said a word against yoga or astrology, rather he was welcomed by the Magi/astrologers at his birth). The Muslims are also very much Semitic in my understanding and application of the word. I generally use the term “Semitic” as opposed to “non Semitic”, i.e. all those groups who do not recognize the authority of “the Book”, i.e. the Bible. Mostly the “non Semitic” peoples for me are the Hindus, Buddhists, and “native religions”, including the Ancient Religion(s). They all agree on the basic points, as we should all know. Can you suggest a better definition? I would be very grateful. PKD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 >What I intended with “Semitic background” was >not ethnic prejudice. My point is that the basis >of all Semitic faiths (i.e. Hebraism, >Christianity, Islam) is that: There are serious problems with using an ethnic designation, Semitic, in the wake of its use to instigate mass murder. The same goes for implications that Semitic people have more financial and political pull. Racist cartoons along these lines are still, after all, in circulation. In the west, they feature Arabs, in the Muslim world, it is the Jews. In any case, Christianity while drawing on the Hebrew Bible is a gentile religion in so many respects (fusing Greco-Roman mystery cults of the dying god, the son of god, eating of the god's substance, drinking his blood, and other non-Judaic concepts). The big persecutors in Christian history, as you know, are of European descent, and they began targeting Jews very early. I do appreciate your critique of persecutory monotheism, which I share. We can call this by many more descriptive names, shunning the ethnic slurs, and name them as authoritarian, patriarchal, hegemonic, even totalitarian systems. >The Muslims are also very much Semitic in my >understanding and application of the word. I would like you to reconsider this terminology which is misleading, calls up and draws upon a vicious history of persecution, and thus causes undue pain, and fear, to so many people. Another common designation is to call these the Abrahamic religions. The Quran calls them peoples of the book, but then, the Hindus and Chinese also have ancient scriptures. Some people characterize them as desert religions, but I don't find this useful since the Hopi and other peaceful pueblos also have desert religions, without the negatives you have been discussing. all best, Max -- Max Dashu Suppressed Histories Archives Global Women's History http://www.suppressedhistories.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2005 Report Share Posted June 1, 2005 --- Parama Karuna Devi <paramakaruna wrote: > > I understand your objection, and apologize to all > the people “with a Semitic background”. > I am very sorry if I have offended anyone. > I don’t know how to express the concept better, > maybe you can help me here with language. Using the phrase "People of the Book," or "the Abrahamic religions" is less likely to be interpreted as racist. > > What I intended with “Semitic background” was not > ethnic prejudice. My point is that the basis of all > Semitic faiths (i.e. Hebraism, ... Do you mean Judaism? There is no such word in English, "Hebraism." > ...Christianity, Islam) is that: > > - there is one people only who is blessed by God, > and who is destined to conquer over all other > peoples > - there is one God only (actually meaning, “one > understanding of God only”), this is ours, and we > have the right, the duty and the mandate to > eliminate all others “false gods”, i.e. the “other > understandings of God” > - God wants “infidels” to be either converted or > destroyed The Jews do not have a concept of "infidels," and do not proselytize. > - women are not qualified to teach or practice > religion directly Only in Fundamentalist versions of these faiths. > - there are social differences based on different > religions > - the “chosen people” has the right to conquer the > entire planet (like Yahweh promised to Abraham), and > hence to have the complete political and financial > power, This is a mis-interpretation of the Biblical notion of a "chosen people." And Jews gained "financial power" only because European Christians were forbidden to practice "usury," while Jews were forbidden most other forms of employment. > - other religions are minorities, no matter what the > number of their followers is, How are you defining "minorities?" <snip> > > I generally use the term “Semitic” as opposed to > “non Semitic”, i.e. all those groups who do not > recognize the authority of “the Book”, i.e. the > Bible. > Mostly the “non Semitic” peoples for me are the > Hindus, Buddhists, and “native religions”, including > the Ancient Religion(s). > They all agree on the basic points, as we should all > know. > > Can you suggest a better definition? I would be very > grateful. > The vast majority of Christians are NOT "Semitic." And many Muslims are not "Semitic" -- Pakistanis, Persians, Indonesians, Africans. Semitic is a racial term. Use "People of the Book." -- Len/ Kalipadma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.