...for two people to communicate effectively, when they use a word, they
must both use the same meaning of the word.

David Griffin wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2002 5:16:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
> writes:

Could you change your mailer so it writes "Martin wrote:" or something
like that?  We don't need to know the date and time and the time zone
and my email address.  If you can't change your mailer, then just edit
the text yourself.

> > Judaism is based on a belief in a god.  Buddism is based on a belief
> > there is no god.  Therefore, one cannot be both a Jew and a Buddhist.
> >
> > > And why is it that you didn't respond to the rest of my post?
> >
> > Because I mean to stick to the issue.
>
> Martin now thinks the "issue" is about comparing Judaism to Buddhism!!!!!!!

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a
rather scornful tone, "it means just what I
choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can
make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which
is to be master—that's all."
—Through the Looking-Glass

The issue is levitt's original question: Is an anti-zionist argument
always anti-semitic? My answer was no, an anti-zionist argument is not
anti-semitic if it is the following argument, briefly:  The goal of
zionism is to establish Israel as a Jewish state.  But Israel should not
be a Jewish state, because the principle of separation of church and
state should apply in the strong sense to all states.  Israel should be
a secular state in the strong sense.  If it continues to be a Jewish
state, it should be a Jewish state only in the sense that most of the
people who live there are Jews.

David objects to the term "Jewish state" on several gounds.  First, he
objects to the claim that the goal of zionism is to establish Israel as
a Jewish state.  Rather, he says, zionism is just a movement of Jewish
nationalism, so, yes, in this case, zionists are Jews, but they just
mean to establish Israel as a secular state.  But virtually all zionist
literature refers to the goal of creating a Jewish state, and modern
zionist literature refers to Israel as a Jewish state.

Then David objects based on the fact that the term Jewish can refer to
several different things, including religion, culture, and history, so
that when zionists refer to a Jewish state, their use of the term Jewish
doesn't neccessarily refer to religion.  But all of these meanings of
Jewish are based in some way on the Jewish religion, so whatever is
meant by Jewish in any particular case, that meaning refers to the
Jewish religion.  It is really stretching belief to claim that all or
most of the people who refer to Israel as a Jewish state today really
don't mean to refer to Judaism.

Then David objects based on the conspiracy theory that capitalist forces
working behind the scenes are the real drivers of the Israeli image, and
so by even arguing against the concept of a Jewish state, we are
validating that concept and playing right into the trap set for us by
the capitalists who shall remain nameless.  I'm sure that capitalists
have an interest in the outcome of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it
is hard to see why they would not want it resolved.  Certainly, defense
contractors stand to profit when states buy new weapon systems, and when
Israel consumes its weapons demolishing Palestinian refugee camps, it
will have to replace those weapons.  But the Palestinians are not buying
the big ticket items, which they would be buying if they were a state
with a legitimate claim to a need to build a real defense force.  And
the belief that capitalists want the conflict in Palestine to continue
for profit is about as cynical as you can get.

David also objects that the term "Jewish state" should not be used
because religious zionists use it for exactly the purpose that is
enabled when it is assumed that Israel actually is a Jewish state.  ie,
by referring to Israel as a Jewish state, I am, once again, validating
the view that Israel is a Jewish state, which is what religious zionists
want me to do.  I'm sure that's true in some cases, but it implies that
these religious zionists and other Israelis don't actually believe that
Israel is a Jewish state, that they secretly acknowledge that Israel is
*not* a Jewish state and they want to prevent the world from seeing that
fact by duping gullible people like me into  referring to Israel over
and over again as a Jewish state.  However, I think most religious
zionists actually believe that Israel is and ought to remain a Jewish
state, and it is not my duty to point out to the general population of
Israel how wrong they are in believing that their Israel is a Jewish
state and that they should stop referring to it as such.

But I agree that Israel should not be a Jewish state, and I've listed
the three tasks that I think the Israeli people should perform if they
expect the rest of the world to think of Israel as a non-Jewish state.
Those tasks are: State in the constitution that Isael is not a Jewish
state; eliminate all privileges afforded to Jews only, and allow all the
people they expelled to come back to Isael as full citizens.

The comparison of Judaism and Buddhism arose when David claimed there
are Jews who are Buddhists.  He made that claim apparently to show that
the test I suggested was invalid.  I suggested the test as a way of
showing that the term Jew always refers to religion, whatever else it
might refer to.  The test is: If a Jew becomes a Catholic, is he or she
still a Jew?  The answer is no, if you become a Catholic, you are no
longer a Jew.  Then David claimed there are Jews who are Buddhists.  I
pointed out that this is not true, strictly speaking, that there are
Jews who meditate and are vegetarian.  Judaism is based on a belief that
there is a god.  Buddhism is based on a belief that there isn't.  These
beliefs are fundamental, and they contradict each other, so a person
can't be both a Jew and Buddhist.  If you try to claim that a person can
be a Jew in culture only, then you have to define what a cultural Jew
is.  But since there is no specific Jewish culture, you pretty much have
to admit that Jewish culture covers such a wide spectrum as to be
meaningless in contexts where the term "Jewish state" is used.  The
point is that if the word Jewish in term "Jewish state" doesn't refer to
religion, it doesn't refer to anything at all.

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway