"The Holocaust isn't about race" Whoopi Goldberg on the View

[Age]

I just wanted to comment on your point that a person can choose their religion or religious beliefs.

I believe that in the early twentieth century a Jew was a person borne of two Jewish parents, who each were borne of two Jewish parents, and so on all the way back to the first ones who met this criteria.

For the most part there was no choice, only a fact of birth. Intermarriage and conversion were negligible sources of Jews.

Of course your remarks that religion can be a matter of choice is correct at the present time.

What EXACTLY is even a "jew"?

What does the word "jewish" even mean or refer to in the words "being jewish"?

LOOK AT these questions from the perspective that I am the MOST IGNORANT and STUPID one there is.

You used the words, "who met this criteria", so what is the EXACT 'criteria' for "being jewish"?

Today I suppose anyone can self-identify as being Jewish if they wish to follow Jewish rituals and adhere to Jewish beliefs.

But, again, I will have to CLARIFY what are so-called "jewish rituals" and "jewish beliefs" EXACTLY?

And, IF I could EVER narrow them down to some EXACT SAME 'thing' or 'things', does ANY one think or BELIEVE that there would be AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE by ALL?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY, that makes one of 'you', human beings, "jewish"?

One day, slowly, some of 'you' WILL SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am MAKING and POINTING OUT here.

Also, your very first word here is, "Today". So, 'when' EXACTLY did "being jewish" CHANGE, and could "being jewish" CHANGE AGAIN, on some other day?

That, actually, is very loose criteria.

And, when 'you', human beings, just STOP for a little while and just consider the 'criteria' 'you' "use", (or more correctly are meant to be using), for the 'names' and 'labels' 'you' place ON each other of 'you', human beings, then you WILL SEE just how 'loose' ALL of those terms REALLY ARE.

In fact, if ANY one considers the criteria for ANY of terms the definitions or criteria is SO LOOSE that they can NEVER be narrowed down NOR tightened up to ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. ALL of those terms end up being essentially nothing more than, literally, just complete and utter MISNOMERS.

I don’t use that definition or criteria when referencing Jews prior to 1948.

Were 'you' around prior to the year known as 1948?

If yes, what definition or criteria did you reference back then, in those days?

Also, how could the EXACT SAME 'people' "themselves" BE DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY prior to a particular date?

The 'definitions' of 'things' can very easily CHANGE, over time, but how, EXACTLY, could a 'thing', itself, like 'people' for example, just CHANGE from one date to the next.

Also, do you find 'people' become CONFUSED when trying to understand your DIFFERING definitions and criteria when discussing/referencing so-called "jewish" 'people' prior to, and after, a particular date in history?

Traditionally, being Jewish was exclusively a characteristic of birth.

By whom, EXACTLY?

The criteria was simply having two Jewish parents, each of two Jewish parents themselves, and so on.

And, those two so-called "jewish parents" eventually go back to those two human beings who evolved into existence, in what is generally thought, in the days when this is being written, of as being the land called "africa", correct?

[Age]

The meaning of 'thee' is the meaning of 'thee'. No one gives a flying fuck what you have 'decided' it should mean. Fuckwit.

And, the meaning of 'gay' is the meaning of 'gay'. And, NO one gives a so-called "flying fuck" what 'you' have 'decided' it should mean. Okay?

By the way, the meaning of 'flying fuck' MEANS inserting the penis into the vagina while in flight. And, do 'you' envision ANY one cares what 'you' have 'decided' it means?

EVERY time ANY one 'tries to' CLAIM words MEAN just one 'particular thing' ALWAYS end up CONTRADICTING "themselves". As just PROVED True here ONCE AGAIN.

The meaning of absolutely EVERY word MEANS what 'you', human beings, DECIDE 'it' means.

So, WHATEVER the meaning of the 'thee' word to 'you' is does NOT necessarily mean that that is the EXACT SAME meaning to "another". Understood?

Then what is your own, personal 'meaning' of 'thee' dear man?

You asked me this SPECIFICALLY previously. And, I told you previously, SPECIFICALLY.

I have ALSO told you ONCE AGAIN only two replies back.

Do you read the WHOLE of my replies or just some of them, and then respond?

ps. The meaning of the word 'gay' hasn't changed.

To who?

Also, are you under some sort of illusion that the original meaning of a word lasts forever more, or for at least as long as 'you', human beings, do?

[Age]

Traditionally, being Jewish was exclusively a characteristic of birth. The criteria was simply having two Jewish parents, each of two Jewish parents themselves, and so on.

Small correction. At any point in history you could convert to Judaism.

Only one Jewish parent is required to be *born Jewish* -- the mother. The logic? Delightfully Yiddish. You can't know for sure who the father is, but you can definitely determine the mother.

However, there is another branch of Judaism: Reform, tracing its origins back to the 1700-1800s which recognizes that if either parent is Jewish then the child is considered Jewish. But the Orthodox and Conservative Judaism don't recognize that.

You can immigrate to Israel if any one of your parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were Jewish, but if your mother was not Jewish and you have not formerly converted (the correct pronunciation is convoited) under an Orthodox conversion, you may be Israeli but not considered Jewish by the Orthodox.
_________________________________________________

Now on to the jokes . . .

So there were two rather broke Jews who saw a sign "Convert to Christianity today and we'll pay you $1,000.00!"

Shmuel sees the sign and says to Abram: "I'm doing it! With the money I'll be able to pay down my synagogue dues!"

He leaves Abram there waiting and goes in. Hours pass. Then evening comes. Finally Shmuel shows up.

Abram asks excitedly, "So, did you get the money?". Shmuel is stony-faced and silent.

"Well? Did they pay you?"

Still silent but with irritated, sidelong glances.

"Did you get the money or didn't you?!?"

Shmuel turns to him and snaps: "Is that all you people think about?!?"

Thank you for the reminders. Conversion has always been an option, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but was not a significant source of Jews. Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, I believe there was no Jewish law referencing the mother only, but feel free to correct me if need be.

Notice how human beings, back in the days when this was being written, could NOT come to an agreement of the definitions of the words, name, and labels, which they had placed ONTO "themselves", but were VERY QUICK to JUDGE and CONDEMN human beings, individually, for, supposedly, being "certain things".

[commonsense]

In the 1930’s almost all Jews were of the same bloodline, presumably making them racially related.

Which appears to TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICT the post prior to this one, where you wrote; “Jews” meant “transients” rather than persons of Jewish dissent or Jewish blood? So, which one is more correct? Or, am I just misreading or misinterpreting here?

The question mark indicates that I am questioning the validity of the statement preceding the question mark, which was made by Iwannaplato before me. I find the statement to be doubtful at best.

[commonsense]

WHy are the other groups ignored?

No idea.

Who's ignoring them?

No idea. Perhaps Sculptor can help with that.

[commonsense]

What EXACTLY is even a "jew"?

What does the word "jewish" even mean or refer to in the words "being jewish"?

LOOK AT these questions from the perspective that I am the MOST IGNORANT and STUPID one there is.

You used the words, "who met this criteria", so what is the EXACT 'criteria' for "being jewish"?

Today I suppose anyone can self-identify as being Jewish if they wish to follow Jewish rituals and adhere to Jewish beliefs.

But, again, I will have to CLARIFY what are so-called "jewish rituals" and "jewish beliefs" EXACTLY?

And, IF I could EVER narrow them down to some EXACT SAME 'thing' or 'things', does ANY one think or BELIEVE that there would be AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE by ALL?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY, that makes one of 'you', human beings, "jewish"?

One day, slowly, some of 'you' WILL SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am MAKING and POINTING OUT here.

Also, your very first word here is, "Today". So, 'when' EXACTLY did "being jewish" CHANGE, and could "being jewish" CHANGE AGAIN, on some other day?

That, actually, is very loose criteria.

And, when 'you', human beings, just STOP for a little while and just consider the 'criteria' 'you' "use", (or more correctly are meant to be using), for the 'names' and 'labels' 'you' place ON each other of 'you', human beings, then you WILL SEE just how 'loose' ALL of those terms REALLY ARE.

In fact, if ANY one considers the criteria for ANY of terms the definitions or criteria is SO LOOSE that they can NEVER be narrowed down NOR tightened up to ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. ALL of those terms end up being essentially nothing more than, literally, just complete and utter MISNOMERS.

I don’t use that definition or criteria when referencing Jews prior to 1948.

Were 'you' around prior to the year known as 1948?

If yes, what definition or criteria did you reference back then, in those days?

Also, how could the EXACT SAME 'people' "themselves" BE DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY prior to a particular date?

The 'definitions' of 'things' can very easily CHANGE, over time, but how, EXACTLY, could a 'thing', itself, like 'people' for example, just CHANGE from one date to the next.

Also, do you find 'people' become CONFUSED when trying to understand your DIFFERING definitions and criteria when discussing/referencing so-called "jewish" 'people' prior to, and after, a particular date in history?

Traditionally, being Jewish was exclusively a characteristic of birth.

By whom, EXACTLY?

The criteria was simply having two Jewish parents, each of two Jewish parents themselves, and so on.

And, those two so-called "jewish parents" eventually go back to those two human beings who evolved into existence, in what is generally thought, in the days when this is being written, of as being the land called "africa", correct?

Your questions seem to be used in a rhetorical sense, however I will answer them as if they were clarifying questions.

A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, who has been Bar or Bat Mitzvah’d. The practices of Judaism are available in the Torah and the Talmud. “Jewish” means Jew-like, in similar fashion to other words using the same suffix. The criteria for being Jewish is to be Jew-like.

Jewish rituals and beliefs are described in the Torah, it’s accompanying Haftorah, and the Talmud. If by “agreement and acceptance by all” you mean the acceptance of Jewish rituals and beliefs by all Jews, I can only say that in theory that is the case. (I don’t know what you mean with you actual point.)

Until the establishment of the State of Israel in May (on the 26th, I believe) of 1948, one had to be the issue of Jewish parents, or one who has converted to Judaism, in order to be considered Jewish. The State of Israel formalized who may be considered Jewish and who may be considered Israeli but not Jewish. It was at this time that the definition of, or the criteria for, being Jewish changed. These considerations have been in the minds of Jews.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thank you for the reminders. Conversion has always been an option, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but was not a significant source of Jews.

See here where it is clarified more or less. It helps if you have a bagel on hand and nibble it while reading.

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל

Note that for the Orthodox it all hinges on ‘the Jewish soul’. The hyper-Orthodox have very strange and developed ideas about this. YouTube videos are available if it interests you.

[commonsense]

Thank you for the reminders. Conversion has always been an option, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but was not a significant source of Jews.

See here where it is clarified more or less. It helps if you have a bagel on hand and nibble it while reading.

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל

Note that for the Orthodox it all hinges on ‘the Jewish soul’. The hyper-Orthodox have very strange and developed ideas about this. YouTube videos are available if it interests you.

תודה רבה

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Today I suppose anyone can self-identify as being Jewish if they wish to follow Jewish rituals and adhere to Jewish beliefs.

But, again, I will have to CLARIFY what are so-called "jewish rituals" and "jewish beliefs" EXACTLY?

And, IF I could EVER narrow them down to some EXACT SAME 'thing' or 'things', does ANY one think or BELIEVE that there would be AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE by ALL?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY, that makes one of 'you', human beings, "jewish"?

One day, slowly, some of 'you' WILL SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am MAKING and POINTING OUT here.

Also, your very first word here is, "Today". So, 'when' EXACTLY did "being jewish" CHANGE, and could "being jewish" CHANGE AGAIN, on some other day?

That, actually, is very loose criteria.

And, when 'you', human beings, just STOP for a little while and just consider the 'criteria' 'you' "use", (or more correctly are meant to be using), for the 'names' and 'labels' 'you' place ON each other of 'you', human beings, then you WILL SEE just how 'loose' ALL of those terms REALLY ARE.

In fact, if ANY one considers the criteria for ANY of terms the definitions or criteria is SO LOOSE that they can NEVER be narrowed down NOR tightened up to ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. ALL of those terms end up being essentially nothing more than, literally, just complete and utter MISNOMERS.

I don’t use that definition or criteria when referencing Jews prior to 1948.

Were 'you' around prior to the year known as 1948?

If yes, what definition or criteria did you reference back then, in those days?

Also, how could the EXACT SAME 'people' "themselves" BE DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY prior to a particular date?

The 'definitions' of 'things' can very easily CHANGE, over time, but how, EXACTLY, could a 'thing', itself, like 'people' for example, just CHANGE from one date to the next.

Also, do you find 'people' become CONFUSED when trying to understand your DIFFERING definitions and criteria when discussing/referencing so-called "jewish" 'people' prior to, and after, a particular date in history?

Traditionally, being Jewish was exclusively a characteristic of birth.

By whom, EXACTLY?

The criteria was simply having two Jewish parents, each of two Jewish parents themselves, and so on.

And, those two so-called "jewish parents" eventually go back to those two human beings who evolved into existence, in what is generally thought, in the days when this is being written, of as being the land called "africa", correct?

Your questions seem to be used in a rhetorical sense, however I will answer them as if they were clarifying questions.

A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, who has been Bar or Bat Mitzvah’d. The practices of Judaism are available in the Torah and the Talmud. “Jewish” means Jew-like, in similar fashion to other words using the same suffix. The criteria for being Jewish is to be Jew-like.

Jewish rituals and beliefs are described in the Torah, it’s accompanying Haftorah, and the Talmud. If by “agreement and acceptance by all” you mean the acceptance of Jewish rituals and beliefs by all Jews, I can only say that in theory that is the case. (I don’t know what you mean with you actual point.)

Until the establishment of the State of Israel in May (on the 26th, I believe) of 1948, one had to be the issue of Jewish parents, or one who has converted to Judaism, in order to be considered Jewish. The State of Israel formalized who may be considered Jewish and who may be considered Israeli but not Jewish. It was at this time that the definition of, or the criteria for, being Jewish changed. These considerations have been in the minds of Jews.

Not necessarily. It's passed on via the maternal line. I think people know when they are Jewish, whether or not they are religious. Does anyone dispute that Einstein or Carl Sagan were Jewish? Neither of them bothered with the religious side of it.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes. And I initially heard that there were 12 million deaths and only the Jews were mentioned.

I always thought that even one death was sufficient to argue against some system that encouraged it. But when you start speaking numbers, you FEED into the hands of those charging one is 'denying the Holocaust' because then the argument transfers to an unending fight about facts.

It should be enough to know that not only Jews were harmed in the Holocaust and that when trying to STOP any such abuses in the future, it has to respect all victims. As I already mentioned, the National Socialists were basing the likelihood of success on the Jews own success throughout time for embracing their culture THROUGH genetic favoritism. They argued that if the Jew can prove their success through facism as it exists in the MEANING behind the term, the German people who were suffering a loss of their own economic power TOO can 'borrow' those traits. Thus, the adaption of trying to rile up a 'culture' of what it means to be Germanic was about trying to EMBRACE the ideals of the Jew.

As for politics, while it is horrendous to opt for genetic annihilation, in contrast, this was done by all people in all times, ...including the Jews* themselves.

[Note *"Jew" is itself a misnomer for some specific people given it likely only reference ANY 'transients' during a time when people begun making land claims. The "lord" as a reference in Biblical scripture referred to those who commanded land ownership rights that made it more and more difficult for those wanderers to be respected. Oddly, some don't recognize when the use of the word, "Lord" in scripture was not always about God's 'lordship' of nature but as an insult or violation of those travelling to a from various places.]

Huh?

Genetic cleansing so that National Socialists could be like successful Jews? “Jews” meant “transients” rather than persons of Jewish dissent or Jewish blood?

And who argues about numbers other than holocaust deniers and those who the deniers engage?

Explain, please, any part of what you wrote above. I think you are of sound mind. I just don’t envision the holocaust as you do.

The comment about the term, "jew", was pointing out that I don't believe the story of the founding of Judaism as though there WERE a specific real unique historical people in its foundation but rather a GENERIC history of many different 'transients'. I also trust that the basic foundation of Judaism is actually the remnants of the Egyptian empire. Jerusalem was likely that LAST surviving post of the fallen empire that was abandoned when Egypt itself no longer had power. So the whole foundation of Judaism is made up afterthefact and is a combination of different non-Hebrew societies. Thus, I don't think that the modern Jews have any right to a claim in Palestine based upon a false historical interpretion of them as some specific cult.

The modern state of Israel provides an example of applied Fascism which also proves one is hypocritical to presume that they are simply victims of others' hate. I believe the Zionists hate non-Jews or at least believe they are Superior in a more powerful lobby than any KKK or other White Supremacist organ.

As for the literal "fascism" that arose in the 1800s under that label, they evolved their ideals by looking at how some people stay PURE and isolated from others. Thus, they BORROWED the ideals they interpreted the Jews themselves as having as a STRENGTH that has empowered them to be so successful in such an unusual per capita representation. Along with the novel undertandings of evolution via Darwin and those philosophies that recognize how religious cultivating and manipulation serves as the most powerful means to keep people in sync with one another, the influence OF the Jews were what created the intellectual background for the fascist ideals.

The Jews today who desire to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive are not about compassion for ANYONE who is being abused per se but as a means to distract others FROM looking at their own fascist practices of hate in INDIRECT ways.

I am disgusted when I found, for instance, a site that was supposedely promoting 'geniuses' but under the auspices of Jewish organizations. There is a 'positive' stereotype that promotes the Jew as ingenious via some GENETIC belief. This would be most obviously noticed as discriminatory if say we were to discover some institute called, "Defamation League against discrimation against White people"! Imagine if the KKK, as an extreme example, had a site promoting to seek some 'genius'. Besides questioning why some particular religious cult is even promoting intelligence that should be divorced from religion, would you think that such a possible site would be OPEN to applications of just anyone to be qualified as a 'genius'?



Note that after I opened this thread, I tried to contact the Anti-defamation League on their site to comment and ask if there were a forum for dialogue or debate. I was locked out of being ABLE to because the apparent 'comment' section was either turned off or was never available. [The section exists but when you try to 'send', its button does not work even though there were no errors in the expected necessary fields filled.] I believe in challenging those with believes I disagree with directly. But IF they are NOT interested in actual open discussion and debate, which I believe they are not, they are not concerned about actual comments that might dare challenge their eroneous thinking.

[By the way, WWII was only 5 years max where only 3 involved the full Alliance. Doesn't anyone notice how this gets way more attention than necessary in contrast to the modern conflicts? ]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I always thought that even one death was sufficient to argue against some system that encouraged it. But when you start speaking numbers, you FEED into the hands of those charging one is 'denying the Holocaust' because then the argument transfers to an unending fight about facts.

It should be enough to know that not only Jews were harmed in the Holocaust and that when trying to STOP any such abuses in the future, it has to respect all victims. As I already mentioned, the National Socialists were basing the likelihood of success on the Jews own success throughout time for embracing their culture THROUGH genetic favoritism. They argued that if the Jew can prove their success through facism as it exists in the MEANING behind the term, the German people who were suffering a loss of their own economic power TOO can 'borrow' those traits. Thus, the adaption of trying to rile up a 'culture' of what it means to be Germanic was about trying to EMBRACE the ideals of the Jew.

As for politics, while it is horrendous to opt for genetic annihilation, in contrast, this was done by all people in all times, ...including the Jews* themselves.

[Note *"Jew" is itself a misnomer for some specific people given it likely only reference ANY 'transients' during a time when people begun making land claims. The "lord" as a reference in Biblical scripture referred to those who commanded land ownership rights that made it more and more difficult for those wanderers to be respected. Oddly, some don't recognize when the use of the word, "Lord" in scripture was not always about God's 'lordship' of nature but as an insult or violation of those travelling to a from various places.]

Huh?

Genetic cleansing so that National Socialists could be like successful Jews? “Jews” meant “transients” rather than persons of Jewish dissent or Jewish blood?

And who argues about numbers other than holocaust deniers and those who the deniers engage?

Explain, please, any part of what you wrote above. I think you are of sound mind. I just don’t envision the holocaust as you do.

The comment about the term, "jew", was pointing out that I don't believe the story of the founding of Judaism as though there WERE a specific real unique historical people in its foundation but rather a GENERIC history of many different 'transients'. I also trust that the basic foundation of Judaism is actually the remnants of the Egyptian empire. Jerusalem was likely that LAST surviving post of the fallen empire that was abandoned when Egypt itself no longer had power. So the whole foundation of Judaism is made up afterthefact and is a combination of different non-Hebrew societies. Thus, I don't think that the modern Jews have any right to a claim in Palestine based upon a false historical interpretion of them as some specific cult.

The modern state of Israel provides an example of applied Fascism which also proves one is hypocritical to presume that they are simply victims of others' hate. I believe the Zionists hate non-Jews or at least believe they are Superior in a more powerful lobby than any KKK or other White Supremacist organ.

As for the literal "fascism" that arose in the 1800s under that label, they evolved their ideals by looking at how some people stay PURE and isolated from others. Thus, they BORROWED the ideals they interpreted the Jews themselves as having as a STRENGTH that has empowered them to be so successful in such an unusual per capita representation. Along with the novel undertandings of evolution via Darwin and those philosophies that recognize how religious cultivating and manipulation serves as the most powerful means to keep people in sync with one another, the influence OF the Jews were what created the intellectual background for the fascist ideals.

The Jews today who desire to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive are not about compassion for ANYONE who is being abused per se but as a means to distract others FROM looking at their own fascist practices of hate in INDIRECT ways.

I am disgusted when I found, for instance, a site that was supposedely promoting 'geniuses' but under the auspices of Jewish organizations. There is a 'positive' stereotype that promotes the Jew as ingenious via some GENETIC belief. This would be most obviously noticed as discriminatory if say we were to discover some institute called, "Defamation League against discrimation against White people"! Imagine if the KKK, as an extreme example, had a site promoting to seek some 'genius'. Besides questioning why some particular religious cult is even promoting intelligence that should be divorced from religion, would you think that such a possible site would be OPEN to applications of just anyone to be qualified as a 'genius'?



Note that after I opened this thread, I tried to contact the Anti-defamation League on their site to comment and ask if there were a forum for dialogue or debate. I was locked out of being ABLE to because the apparent 'comment' section was either turned off or was never available. [The section exists but when you try to 'send', its button does not work even though there were no errors in the expected necessary fields filled.] I believe in challenging those with believes I disagree with directly. But IF they are NOT interested in actual open discussion and debate, which I believe they are not, they are not concerned about actual comments that might dare challenge their eroneous thinking.

[By the way, WWII was only 5 years max where only 3 involved the full Alliance. Doesn't anyone notice how this gets way more attention than necessary in contrast to the modern conflicts? ]

I don't know how you ever thought we were agreeing in any way. What a load of shallow, convoluted bollocks.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know how you ever thought we were agreeing in any way. What a load of shallow, convoluted bollocks.

Oh, of course. So unlike me, you are FOR censorship of anyone speaking their mind freely as Whoopi did? Or do you just dislike Whoopi's right to speak?

I did not claim to agree with your normal racist and sexist mindset. I was arguing against the cancel culture that I must have mistaken you for being FOR!!

The last post was not responding to you. It has nothing to do with you and was definitely not something I would think you would share.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know how you ever thought we were agreeing in any way. What a load of shallow, convoluted bollocks.

Oh, of course. So unlike me, you are FOR censorship of anyone speaking their mind freely as Whoopi did? Or do you just dislike Whoopi's right to speak?

I did not claim to agree with your normal racist and sexist mindset. I was arguing against the cancel culture that I must have mistaken you for being FOR!!

The last post was not responding to you. It has nothing to do with you and was definitely not something I would think you would share.

Wow, trotting out the 'r' word to try and silence me. How predictable and unwokielike

[Iwannaplato]

How could the so-called "nazi's" annihilation of "jews" have absolutely ANY thing at all to do with 'race'?

If being a so-called "jew", "muslim", or "christian" has ANY thing at all to do with 'race', then how exactly? [/quote]Well, that might be a good question to have asked the Nazis who clearly thought the Jews were a race. Christianity is not race based. It might have been Jewish in the beginning, but long before the Nazis were destroying their own country and many people elsewhere, Christianity was clearly followed by many races Yes, there are some Jews who are not racially Jewish. But these people were not in Germany, for the most part, and were not a threat, and certainly not the internal one the Nazis were obsessed with. Islam while associated with Arabs not race based and easy to join. To become a Jew you have to be tested and go through a rather intense process, especially if you have not been circumcized. You do not have to get rid of your foreskin in Islam. To become a Christian you can just start attending a church or even just follow the religion in your own way. Of course, some Christians might think you need to be baptized. But there is no agreement about what one must do and there is nothing like an adult circumcisn,[/quote]

Was ANY of this meant to be an 'answer' to both, or either, of my two questions here?

Sure, the Nazis thought it was about race. They explicitly said it was about race. Hitler said Jews were a race and a threatening, etc. race. So it had to do with race. To be determined if you were in the race it was about blood not whether you went to synagogue or believed in Yahweh. There were other things related to your question above, but how you missed this I really can't understand. If you think the Nazis were wrong to consider Jews a race, well there are still Nazis out there and you can take it up with them.

The clarifying question I asked above was; If being a so-called "jew" has ANY thing at all to do with 'race', then how exactly?

Which could also be asked as; If there is a racial component in actually being "jewish", then what is that 'component', EXACTLY?

You did write above; "To become a "jew" you HAVE TO be 'tested', and go through a rather intense process".

Now, what 'test' does one HAVE TO do, and pass, to THEN become a "jew", and, what EXACTLY is the "rather intense process"?

Also, are there ANY 'racial components' here?

That was in reference to converts, who need not be genetically related to other Jews. But compared to becoming a Christian or a Muslim, the process is selective and restrictive. But sure people that no one can all racially Jewish can become Jews. But your putting the three religion in the same category was specious at best.

LOL Besides the Fact that this is completely AND utterly MISSING MY POINT, some might argue that the so-called "nazis" ACTUALLY were caring, and A LOT, what "others" were thinking and BELIEVING.

Strawman. Of course they cared about but they did not care what Jews believed. They cared that they were Jews. They killed them because of racial 'science'. Sure, communists and others were killed or incarcerated over beliefs. Jews, your beliefs did not matter. How you missed this I can't understand given....

Secular atheist jews were killed in large numbers. In many countries on the Axis side conversion to say Catholicism was absolutely no protection.

Okay, but AGAIN if this has absolutely ANY thing at all to do with what I said and which you quoted me here saying, then what EXACTLY is 'that'?

See your question above. The Nazis were killing what they (and others including Jews) considered a race. Perhaps they were all nuts, but it has everything to do with racism. Now why do I mention their beliefs, Jews's beliefs? to point out that it was not some other factor like beliefs that led to the killings.

By the way, and just out of CURIOSITY, what is 'it' EXACTLY do you think or believe I am saying here, EXACTLY?

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.

[commonsense]

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.

To state the obvious, if the Jews are not a race, it’s easy enough to claim that the Holocaust wasn’t racial. However, if there is in fact a Jewish race, the question of whether the Holocaust was racial or not is a little more open.

Let’s consider for a moment whether others are a race. Are Europeans a race? Are Vietnamese a race? Are Texans a race? If the answers are “no”, then race is clearly not geographically based, nor politically based, nor even culturally based.

If Jews are not defined by any of the foregoing characteristics, then what is left other than religion and/or biology?

But religion is practiced differently by religious sects within Judaism. There’s the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches as well as Hasidic Judaism, each with its own approach to focusing on rituals.

There are Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, each with its own cultural customs and ethnic foods.

Biology doesn’t fare much better as an identifying factor. Intermarriage and conversion have thinned out whatever bloodline there may be.

If there’s no telling whether Jews comprise a race or not, there’s no way to decide whether the Holocaust was racial or not.

Since only almost half of the Holocaust’s victims were Jews anyway, it might not be correct to think of this low point of history as being racial.