Chaviva's husband can't return to the US for months

[Maggie Mae]

It never changed. The word "anti-Semitism" originates from the German antisemitisch, first used by an Austrian Jew by the name of Moritz Steinschneider, who was challenging the writings of one Ernest Renan, a Frenchman who wrote about Jews the following (which I'm sure DGayle will thoroughly enjoy):

Lovely stuff, huh? He had similarly disgusting stuff to say about other races, as well. In 1881, Wilhelm Marr first used the phrase "antisemitsmus," which directly translates to "anti-Semitism," shortly after founding the "Antisemiten-Liga," or the "League of Anti-Semites," the first German organization specifically dedicated to forcing Jews out of Germany. This came after his 1879 pamphlet titled Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums über das Judenthum, or The Way to Victory of Germanicism Over Judaism, in which he argued that Germans and Jews were engaged in an ages-old, racial conflict, one which the Jews were winning. He believed that a Jewish victory would result in the end of the German people, hence the Antismiten-Liga. He also helped establish the pseudo-scientific theories about the differences between the German and Jewish "races." Does any of this sound at all familiar?

In short, "anti-Semitism" has never referred to all people of Semitic origin, and has in fact always been a term specifically intended as a shorthand, more elevated way of referring to "Jew hatred." The first appearances of the English "anti-Semite" and "anti-Semitic" also occur in 1881. I'm so familiar with the word's etymology, BTW, because I've typed this out so many times in reference to the old, "Oh, well, it's impossible for [XYZ group] to be 'anti-Semitic,' anyway, because they're Semites, too, so there!" We can debate whether "anti-Semitism" continues to be the best word to use when referring specifically to a pathological hatred of Jews, but its etymology is easily researched and traces, and the entire purpose of this word's creation was to define a particular brand of bigotry directed toward Jewish people.

Thanks. I don't know very much about my own history, and next to nothing about etymology. I feel dumb now for even mentioning it.

[browncoatslytherin]

Thanks. I don't know very much about my own history, and next to nothing about etymology. I feel dumb now for even mentioning it.

don't feel too bad, maggie. i have some jewish roots as well and i didn't know, either. as long as we ask and learn, i think we'll be okay. :D

thanks, faustian, for the info.

[amydamy]

I can see your point nelliebellie. But I can see D. Gayle's too. I do think the language used was inflammatory and fed into negative stereotypes and made some strange assumptions .to be fair though she is often just as inflammatory when talking about any other religion :) ------but I think some of the points were applicable to a wider question than just that specific bloggers problems with that specific community.

I think the idea that you are expected to pay thousands of dollars a year to be a member of a religious group is something people might find genuinely surprising/ disturbing/ snark-worthy. . And truthfully, to me, the attitude that " well it's not like people are trying to recruit converts -- so if they really want to join they should realize it's expensive" is more than a little elitist.

I understand not every place is that expensive, and that there are ways family's in need can get help, but from the outside it does seem like an awful lot to expect regular households to come up with in order to practice their religion.

I think it should be okay to discuss things we find troubling / concerning/ surprising / awful/ wonderful / curious /about ANY religion -- whether it's one we personally participate in or not.

My parents pay thousands a year as their tithe to their baptist church. They also end up giving more for various missionaries and other bullshit. Everyone in their church is expected to tithe regardless of their financial situation. Membership fees for a church don't seem any differnt to me.

[Idolatry]

My parents pay thousands a year as their tithe to their baptist church. They also end up giving more for various missionaries and other bullshit. Everyone in their church is expected to tithe regardless of their financial situation. Membership fees for a church don't seem any differnt to me.

It's not. Neither is religious school or the special diets/clothes. Many oppressive religions are very expensive. But apparently talking about that when it's Jews is like the Holocaust.

[treemom]

It's not. Neither is religious school or the special diets/clothes. Many oppressive religions are very expensive. But apparently talking about that when it's Jews is like the Holocaust.

Actually no one said that

[DarkAnts]

If the medication is not taken orally, or is bitter or tasteless (as most pills for adults are), it is not considered food and is therefore not a problem.

The only issue arises with good-tasting medicines, like the kind that you give to kids. Here are the common solutions:

1. Any commandment (other than murder, idolatry or adultery/incest) is suspended if there is a serious threat to life/health. For example, if your child's sore throat is definitely due to strep, we know that untreated strep can be serious and even fatal, so it's okay to give an antibiotic that has a non-kosher ingredient.

2. There are compounding pharmacies that can formulate medicines that have the active ingredient you need without possibly non-kosher non-medicinal ingredients like gelatin.

3. The medicine can be diluted, so that any prohibited substance makes up no more than 1/60th and is therefore considered to be nullified. For example, cough syrup containing glycerin can be mixed into a cup of water or juice.

4. There is generally some room for leniency if you are dealing with a child, with a sick individual, and with a prohibition that isn't a clear-cut Biblical prohibition.

There are kosher tablets and capsules on the market. They include things like Allegra and Aleve. The tablets and capsules contain ingredients besides the active pharmaceutical ingredient including sucrose, mannitol, gelatin exc.

I know that there are rules that allow non kosher prescriptions to be used especially if a life is at risk. I just wonder if someone like Chaviva would actually take them.

Here is a link for kosher over the counter medications

http://www.crcweb.org/OTCMedicineReport.pdf

[Palimpsest]

I think it should be okay to discuss things we find troubling / concerning/ surprising / awful/ wonderful / curious /about ANY religion -- whether it's one we personally participate in or not.

Of course it's OK to discuss all religions. And we do. No religions or religious quirks are safe from thoughtful discussion and hilarious snark on FJ. There are many examples to point to here.

Coming in late so I just read the thread. IMO, what happened here is that one person posted a rant that was misinformed, insulting, leaped to wrong conclusions, overly generalized, and contained very triggering language. I'm not Jewish but it made my eyes boggle.

I see no evidence on this thread of trying to shut discussion down. Just attempts to correct mistakes and educate sometimes kindly and sometimes bluntly. FJ doesn't suffer stupidity and ignorance for long. Most people even agreed the OP probably did not intend to be offensive in her misunderstandings and choice of words.

S/he then came back, unfortunately not to apologize for her inflammatory post and admit she leaped to erroneous conclusions, but to claim that disagreeing with her was tantamount to shutting the discussion down and protecting one religion. In this case, Judaism.

That's bullshit. In my opinion, of course.

ETA: Oh FFS I spoke too soon.

[t's not. Neither is religious school or the special diets/clothes. Many oppressive religions are very expensive. But apparently talking about that when it's Jews is like the Holocaust.

No one said that. Talk about stirring. :roll:

[Mama Mia]

My parents pay thousands a year as their tithe to their baptist church. They also end up giving more for various missionaries and other bullshit. Everyone in their church is expected to tithe regardless of their financial situation. Membership fees for a church don't seem any differnt to me.

I think the difference I saw, to me, when it looked around at different membership dues -- is that almost every place I looked at had annual dues in the thousands of dollars. And that was a base fee and I'd not include the many, many extras that people were expected to pay. And that if people didn't pay their dues they could , sometimes, get an exemption -- but for the most part , if dues aren't current, people can't participate. I also found quite a few articles where people were saying it did cause a big problem in getting Jewish families actively involved in the community, and that the average annual membership dues were $2,700. That is a lot of money. Here is a columnist discussing the issue /joi.org/bloglinks/It%27s%20time%20for%20a%20change%20to%20synagogue%20dues.htm

I don't have a lot of experience with churches that require tithing -- but it doesn't seem to be that prevalent, or generally a requirement ( except for Mormons ). With tithing members averaging only 10-25% of a congregation.

Here is an article:

relevantmagazine.com/god/church/what-would-happen-if-church-tithed

I understand there is often help for people who may need it -- but I do think there is a big difference between being a member in good standing of a community solely because you are showing up spiritually and participating - and being a member in good standing because you are showing up spiritually and participating AND paying a set annual amount / or asking for special help.

The main issue, in my opinion, is that it does seem problematic to be generally required to come up with a significant sum of money in order to be actively part of a faith community .

My grandfather actually left the Catholic Church when he was asked to pay an indulgence to

" help" his father get to heaven.

And I don't think at least for my part, this has anything to do with stereotypes about Jewish people and money --- it's about equal access and equal status among people who believe the same things and want to be part of a community . Whether they were born into it or wish to join it.

[treemom]

I think the difference I saw, to me, when it looked around at different membership dues -- is that almost every place I looked at had annual dues in the thousands of dollars. And that was a base fee and I'd not include the many, many extras that people were expected to pay. And that if people didn't pay their dues they could , sometimes, get an exemption -- but for the most part , if dues aren't current, people can't participate. I also found quite a few articles where people were saying it did cause a big problem in getting Jewish families actively involved in the community, and that the average annual membership dues were $2,700. That is a lot of money. Here is a columnist discussing the issue /joi.org/bloglinks/It%27s%20time%20for%20a%20change%20to%20synagogue%20dues.htm

I don't have a lot of experience with churches that require tithing -- but it doesn't seem to be that prevalent, or generally a requirement ( except for Mormons ). With tithing members averaging only 10-25% of a congregation.

Here is an article:

relevantmagazine.com/god/church/what-would-happen-if-church-tithed

I understand there is often help for people who may need it -- but I do think there is a big difference between being a member in good standing of a community solely because you are showing up spiritually and participating - and being a member in good standing because you are showing up spiritually and participating AND paying a set annual amount / or asking for special help.

The main issue, in my opinion, is that it does seem problematic to be generally required to come up with a significant sum of money in order to be actively part of a faith community .

My grandfather actually left the Catholic Church when he was asked to pay an indulgence to

" help" his father get to heaven.

And I don't think at least for my part, this has anything to do with stereotypes about Jewish people and money --- it's about equal access and equal status among people who believe the same things and want to be part of a community . Whether they were born into it or wish to join it.

I believe the way you presented it here is not offensive. I don't agree or hold the same opinion exactly. But I don't think that your view or criticism is inflammatory.

I can only speak for myself, but the problems described are not anything I have witnessed. Even though I think they do exists, at least sometimes. And outside of the High Holy Days I have never experienced anyone being turned away from a service for not paying dues. And I have attended many things at our Reform synagogue even though I am due not pay dues and in general do not consider myself religiously Jewish.

[DGayle]

I haven't finished reading all the new comments yet, but wow, admitting finally knowing where a stereotype may originate ended up with Godwin's law? Holeee shit.

You'd think learning something new would be a good thing. What I've heard a lot of, that just plain sounded wrong, is that Jewish people are all about money because of dishonest business dealings, which I never believed. When I've told people that can't be right, I've been asked if it's not that, then what else can it be? If I say I don't know, well, they'll go on thinking it must be dishonesty. Isn't it better to be able to say that where that thinking probably came from is tickets people know the price of in advance, even if tickets to religious observances are unpalatable to many people? That's better than letting people think Jewish people are shady business people. There's something to counter that claim that's loads better, even if I, and other people, don't like it.

And again, no, I don't have to like something to not be anti-semitic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It's what they do with those opinions that matter. My opinion is that setting ticket fees and requiring people to file for exemptions is wrong, and that mandating certain schools and certain everything is wrong, but I'm not going to start calling for bans or violence. Josh Duggar, on the other hand, has the opinion the homosexuality is wrong, and what he does with his opinion is actively try to limit rights for people who do thinks he doesn't approve of or like. Only one of us is an -ist, and his name begins with a J.

[treemom]

I haven't finished reading all the new comments yet, but wow, admitting finally knowing where a stereotype may originate ended up with Godwin's law? Holeee shit.

You'd think learning something new would be a good thing. What I've heard a lot of, that just plain sounded wrong, is that Jewish people are all about money because of dishonest business dealings, which I never believed. When I've told people that can't be right, I've been asked if it's not that, then what else can it be? If I say I don't know, well, they'll go on thinking it must be dishonesty. Isn't it better to be able to say that where that thinking probably came from is tickets people know the price of in advance, even if tickets to religious observances are unpalatable to many people? That's better than letting people think Jewish people are shady business people. There's something to counter that claim that's loads better, even if I, and other people, don't like it.

And again, no, I don't have to like something to not be anti-semitic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It's what they do with those opinions that matter. My opinion is that setting ticket fees and requiring people to file for exemptions is wrong, and that mandating certain schools and certain everything is wrong, but I'm not going to start calling for bans or violence. Josh Duggar, on the other hand, has the opinion the homosexuality is wrong, and what he does with his opinion is actively try to limit rights for people who do thinks he doesn't approve of or like. Only one of us is an -ist, and his name begins with a J.

It isn't Godwin's law when the stereotype you are implying is true was specifically used to justify the horror of the Holocaust. Pointing that out is factual, not ridiculous.

[Idolatry]

I was just talking about some kvetcher in Denver's budget in 2014. Because she claims she's broke. But because she spent her money on her strain of religion, I get compared to a Nazi? I think that's pretty offensive to me and completely out of line.

But, yea, Godwin's Law. Great job. You shut down all actual discussion about this woman's life choices to bring up Nazis.

[DGayle]

The text of Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

You're comparing people talking about expenses of participating in a Jewish community to the Holocaust and people losing businesses. That is in line with Godwin's Law. Nobody is talking about taking away businesses or rights or exterminating people. Some of us ARE talking about finding a problem with being required to pay fees just to participate in a religion, unless you apply for and are granted a special exemption. That really does make money a bit part of religion. No one should have to see if they have the money in their bank account or if they'll need to file a fee waiver to participate in religion, and it's not comparable to the Holocaust to believe that worrying about membership dues and tickets and required private schools shouldn't be part of religion. It's also not comparable to the Holocaust to think that it pretty much takes being rich to be a fully participating Jewish person when the fees for just membership and those private schools would strain most middle-class families with just 1 or 2 kids. People who can afford those things without fee waivers are going to be wealthier people, and again, I really, absolutely do not believe people should be having to file fee waivers if they aren't rich enough to pay membership and ticket fees to participate in a religion. If YOU think that's anti-semitic or comparable to the Holocaust, then that's on you. In reality, it's not Holocaust-like or anti-semitism to not personally approve of that SINGLE part of Jewish life.

I find it interesting that this is what you have a problem with, and have said nothing about anyone calling practicing Judaism an expensive hobby.

[treemom]

I was just talking about some kvetcher in Denver's budget in 2014. Because she claims she's broke. But because she spent her money on her strain of religion, I get compared to a Nazi? I think that's pretty offensive to me and completely out of line.

But, yea, Godwin's Law. Great job. You shut down all actual discussion about this woman's life choices to bring up Nazis.

No one was ever talking about anything you said. No one was ever talking about the commentary on Chaviva. How many different ways does this need to be said? It wasn't directed at you.

[treemom]

The text of Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

You're comparing people talking about expenses of participating in a Jewish community to the Holocaust and people losing businesses. That is in line with Godwin's Law. Nobody is talking about taking away businesses or rights or exterminating people. Some of us ARE talking about finding a problem with being required to pay fees just to participate in a religion, unless you apply for and are granted a special exemption. That really does make money a bit part of religion. No one should have to see if they have the money in their bank account or if they'll need to file a fee waiver to participate in religion, and it's not comparable to the Holocaust to believe that worrying about membership dues and tickets and required private schools shouldn't be part of religion. It's also not comparable to the Holocaust to think that it pretty much takes being rich to be a fully participating Jewish person when the fees for just membership and those private schools would strain most middle-class families with just 1 or 2 kids. People who can afford those things without fee waivers are going to be wealthier people, and again, I really, absolutely do not believe people should be having to file fee waivers if they aren't rich enough to pay membership and ticket fees to participate in a religion. If YOU think that's anti-semitic or comparable to the Holocaust, then that's on you. In reality, it's not Holocaust-like or anti-semitism to not personally approve of that SINGLE part of Jewish life.

I find it interesting that this is what you have a problem with, and have said nothing about anyone calling practicing Judaism an expensive hobby.

No, what myself and others said is that the language you used to discuss the way Jewish institutions charge was very similar or the same as language that was used to justify stripping the rights from Jews. That is an accurate comparison. I do not believe you had that intent. Nor do I believe you intended to be offensive.

When you say the language you used to describe Jews sounds like the language used to describe Jews and justify the removal of their rights is comparing apples to apples. Perhaps we can argue why the comparison is wrong, but it isn't Godwin's law.

Personally if someone wants to call a religion a hobby I don't agree with that exactly, but since they seem to think all religions are a hobby and didn't just say Jews practice it as a hobby then it doesn't feel anti Semitic to me personally. Others may feel differently. Saying "Jews are all about money". Yeah that seems sort of bigoted.

With that I am out I think. There are others who are expressing themselves more clear and more concise them myself.

[Idolatry]

We get it. Calm down. Nobody is "stripping the rights from the Jews" and no one is being "exterminated" on this message board. Maybe you need some of Denver's finest.

[treemom]

We get it. Calm down. Nobody is "stripping the rights from the Jews" and no one is being "exterminated" on this message board. Maybe you need some of Denver's finest.

Fuck you.

Ok now I am out.

[OkToBeTakei]

No, what myself and others said is that the language you used to discuss the way Jewish institutions charge was very similar or the same as language that was used to justify stripping the rights from Jews. That is an accurate comparison. I do not believe you had that intent. Nor do I believe you intended to be offensive.

When you say the language you used to describe Jews sounds like the language used to describe Jews and justify the removal of their rights is comparing apples to apples. Perhaps we can argue why the comparison is wrong, but it isn't Godwin's law.

Personally if someone wants to call a religion a hobby I don't agree with that exactly, but since they seem to think all religions are a hobby and didn't just say Jews practice it as a hobby then it doesn't feel anti Semitic to me personally. Others may feel differently. Saying "Jews are all about money". Yeah that seems sort of bigoted.

With that I am out I think. There are others who are expressing themselves more clear and more concise them myself.

Don't go my old foefriend :)

You are expressing yourself just fine, not something I ever nail. The bolded I totally get and I do really think THAT, here, rather than intent to offend is an issue. Or I hope it is. Ignorance and bigotry are rife in our world. Let's face it....turn this whole discussion and insert Muslim instead of Jew and most if not all would flounder in being culturally appropriate, sensitive and educated.

Because of the unstable times we live in, fear and ignorance abound. Bigotry, racism, distrust of a race a religion because of the actions of a minority.

How you approach that without triggers is a mystery to me. I think sometimes people (me) are just totally curious and may not get it right. With Judaism it's too raw, I think.

I have another post in me about exclusive communities. Not I may add just regarding the issues in this thread. You know....my Utopia is a balanced healthcare and education for all, one without *gasp* 'Religion' just you know as a basic human right. I just can't be bothered, I'm jaded.

[ladyamylynn]

I feel like we, as a community, should be able to discuss Orthodox Judaism and its practices (especially as the topic applies to Chaviva) without invoking gross, racist tropes. If you seriously don't understand why statements like:

And this is the first time I've ever seem Judaism about really being all about money.

and:

You have to be rich to be Jewish, or eventually you're pushed out.

are hugely problematic, you're probably the same kind of person who doesn't get why it's offensive to serve fried chicken and watermelon on MLK day. This being said by the biggest bitter atheist I know. But then again, I've studied European history.

[FaustianSlip]

Thanks. I don't know very much about my own history, and next to nothing about etymology. I feel dumb now for even mentioning it.

Don't feel dumb- you asked, and now the information's out there. Thanks for bothering to ask about it instead of jumping to random, incorrect conclusions like some of the people posting here, which is pretty much what started this whole argument. And frankly, that's my beef- if someone had just said, "Hey, what's up with all of these membership fees, that seems kind of over the top," any of us who are actually involved in the Jewish community could have explained it, and we could have had a rational discussion. Instead, we get a bunch of bigoted garbage about how Jews are all about money, concern trolling and hand wringing about how the evil Jews don't care about poor people and will "push out" their poor coreligionists, and on and on. The fact that the individual(s) saying this crap are doubling down and going out of their way to continue to be as offensive as possible instead of just saying, "Hey, you're right- I went off without knowing anything about the workings of the Jewish community," tells me everything I need to know.

I don't have a particular problem with snarking on Judaism- Jews have a long and hallowed tradition of snarking on themselves, in fact, so hey, the more the merrier. We know full well that a lot of aspects of our religion are weird and don't make a lot of sense. But there's a difference between snarking on Lev Tahor or Haredi modesty squads or whatever and perpetuating ages-old anti-Semitic canards that do not, in fact, have any basis in reality.

And just for the record, synagogue dues are so not the origin of the "Jews love money!" trope. That began back in the middle ages when Jews in most of Europe were barred from a huge swath of professions and were instead forced to turn to money lending, since it was one job that was open to them that Christians couldn't/wouldn't do (because interest). Predictably, once a lot of Christians found themselves owing money to one of those dirty Jews, they would use "the Jews killed Jesus!" as an excuse to rove through the Jewish ghetto destroying stuff, killing people, beating them up, et cetera. And as someone who literally had a coworker who liked to throw loose change at me (because Jews and money, get it? Isn't that just hilarious?!), my inclination to find riffs on the "all Jews are stingy and rich" thing funny is very, very low. It's not funny, it's not original, it's just gross and anti-Semitic.

[Soulhuntress]

Question to redirect the group from messy Godwin's law divergences:

Is there a sliding scale for the membership fees? Thinking income based. And communities and support do vary according to region and other factors. Like not knowing each congregant and why Mr. and Mrs. elderly are not attending services anymore or where they are and that they really could use help but will not ask directly. Or not knowing the family dynamics and being a clueless git who asks the bereaved son flying in from across the country to pay on the spot for the memorial service for his father (which infuriated my dad).

[Idolatry]

If you all are planning on policing FJ for anything offensive some said about someone else's religion, it's going to be a long day for you.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Question to redirect the group from messy Godwin's law divergences:

Is there a sliding scale for the membership fees? Thinking income based. And communities and support do vary according to region and other factors. Like not knowing each congregant and why Mr. and Mrs. elderly are not attending services anymore or where they are and that they really could use help but will not ask directly. Or not knowing the family dynamics and being a clueless git who asks the bereaved son flying in from across the country to pay on the spot for the memorial service for his father (which infuriated my dad).

In some congregations, yes.

I've seen other congregations have a basic membership rate, but there will also be lower rates for singles and those under a certain age.

I've never heard of a congregation that didn't allow reductions or waivers in case of hardship.

This brings me to an interesting point: the growth of some of the most Orthodox groups among some of the least religious/least affiliated Jews, and how the rest of the Jewish world has been affected.

Once upon a time in North America, there was a basic understanding that synagogues were needed for Jewish communities, to serve the community in general and not just be a place where people happened to pray. While guests were always welcome, people in a community saw it as their basic obligation to establish and support such synagogues, and make solid commitments to support the synagogues so that the basic expenses would be covered. This was the model that I grew up with - my parents aren't super-religious, but they were one of the founding families for the synagogue so I always heard about its finances and how it was run. All of the families were young and middle-class, and nobody had a lot of extra money. The only way that they could establish themselves and gradually get the basic stuff needed (and it was VERY basic in the beginning, with services in a member's basement and no rabbi or paid staff) was to join together with everyone committing to pitch in.

At some point, aside from a basic desire to join a synagogue and be part of a community, some Reform and Conservative synagogues realized that families that might not otherwise join would feel compelled to make a Bar/Bat Mitzvah for their child. They started to put in minimum requirements, like requiring a certain number of years of membership and/or Hebrew school in order to do the Bar/Bat Mitzvah.

Then, Orthodox outreach groups like Chabad and Aish HaTorah came on the scene. They would seek out people, they would have an open-door policy, they would offer free or low cost programs, they would give your kid a Bar/Bat Mitzvah and they would operate lower cost Hebrew schools. They would get involved with students on campuses. Chabad in particular got involved with some communities like Russian Jewish immigrants and provide tons of services and support. So, Chabad had explosive growth, while the more established Reform and Conservative synagogues had trouble maintaining their members. In my area, for example, there are ton of Chabad congregations, one Aish, 3 Aish spinoffs, and no really established non-Orthodox congregations despite the fact that many of the people themselves don't live strictly Orthodox lives.

The non-Orthodox movements initially reacted with some anger, complaining that their members and target demographic was being poached by what they saw as fundie groups.

Summary of the smackdown: http://jewschool.com/chabad-reform-have-it-out/12797

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-y ... -oceanside

Scope of the issue: http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdom ... ill_change

More recently, some non-Orthodox congregations have been realizing that the only way to compete with Chabad is to copy the methods, if not the message.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/you ... story.html

My family reflects the shift. I grew up Conservative. In university, I came into contact with a bunch of groups, including Orthodox and Chabad. After I got married, we ended up with a low cost, super-friendly and non-judgmental Orthodox synagogue instead of the egalitarian one, because they offered the warmest welcome. I'm part of a Chabad synagogue now, my kids went to Chabad nursery schools and daycamps when they were little - but they go to the Conservative Camp Ramah now. The bottom line is that you have a ton of Jews, especially younger ones, involved with a form of Haredi Judaism even though it doesn't line up with their backgrounds or personal beliefs. The open door approach is great, and it attracted me, but at what cost to institutions that actually reflect my beliefs more closely?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I haven't finished reading all the new comments yet, but wow, admitting finally knowing where a stereotype may originate ended up with Godwin's law? Holeee shit.

You'd think learning something new would be a good thing. What I've heard a lot of, that just plain sounded wrong, is that Jewish people are all about money because of dishonest business dealings, which I never believed. When I've told people that can't be right, I've been asked if it's not that, then what else can it be? If I say I don't know, well, they'll go on thinking it must be dishonesty. Isn't it better to be able to say that where that thinking probably came from is tickets people know the price of in advance, even if tickets to religious observances are unpalatable to many people? That's better than letting people think Jewish people are shady business people. There's something to counter that claim that's loads better, even if I, and other people, don't like it.

And again, no, I don't have to like something to not be anti-semitic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It's what they do with those opinions that matter. My opinion is that setting ticket fees and requiring people to file for exemptions is wrong, and that mandating certain schools and certain everything is wrong, but I'm not going to start calling for bans or violence. Josh Duggar, on the other hand, has the opinion the homosexuality is wrong, and what he does with his opinion is actively try to limit rights for people who do thinks he doesn't approve of or like. Only one of us is an -ist, and his name begins with a J.

I've been thinking about this post a lot.

You're a fairly normal person, who seems to have been around far more anti-semites than Jews. Would you agree that's accurate?

If you had the independence of mind to question the anti-semitism around you, that's great (and by "great", I mean simply acting like a normal, rational and decent human being instead of being a total douchebag like those around you).

At some level, though, it sounds like you accepted some of this perception, since you seem to want to find a rational reason for it instead of accepting that it's a purely racist stereotype.

If you are really curious about the origins, this summarizes it well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_antisemitism Jews were excluded from many professions, and weren't really part of feudal society as either peasants or nobles. In Poland and Ukraine, they were sometimes used as tax collector or administrators by the Polish nobles, which put them on the front lines of wrath of the Cossack uprising in Ukraine in the 1600s in which about half the Jewish population of the area was massacred.

Membership dues are a modern thing. It also doesn't affect non-Jews and most wouldn't know or care how Jews supported their institutions.

[treemom]

Question to redirect the group from messy Godwin's law divergences:

Is there a sliding scale for the membership fees? Thinking income based. And communities and support do vary according to region and other factors. Like not knowing each congregant and why Mr. and Mrs. elderly are not attending services anymore or where they are and that they really could use help but will not ask directly. Or not knowing the family dynamics and being a clueless git who asks the bereaved son flying in from across the country to pay on the spot for the memorial service for his father (which infuriated my dad).

Maybe? I only wanted to answer this because my experience as a child/teenager speaks to the general involvement of the community. My grandparents felt it a duty to support their community, and would have ever asked to waive their dues. However, at least part of our dues and the fees for the High Holy Day services were waived. Also, while it was kept quiet, there was very much a sense of horror about my mother returning to our father and support for my grandparents. I would assume it would be similar in any close religious community. I am sure some communities are better than others. My guess is this is petty standard in every faith right? Some are good at support, some not so much?