| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 17:24:57
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/7281381.stm
About bloody time.
(I can say that now, legally) |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Borninhove |
Posted - 12/03/2008 : 05:15:01
Oh great! Having read the posts above I'll have this stuck in my head all day.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum ...
Still, rather that than 'Papa Can You Hear Me?' ...... DOH! |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 19:47:44
Not concerned about them being Scottish but rather clarifying which James Frazer and which Robertson Smith I thought you were referring to. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 17:45:16
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Please Anubis, do not presume to tell me my own faith. ......
Miriam, I would never (and never have done!) presume to tell you or anyone else "their own faith". I was simply exploring why for hundreds of (more recent) years practicing Jews have behaved differently than members of other faiths vis-a-vis the 'name' of their godhead.
As soon as I find some time, I'll get hold of a Fiddler on the Roof libretto and seek the answer there, as you suggest!
[I was surprised you were so concerned that the 'authorities' to whom I referred were 'Scottish' ... and that just a few minutes after the "Hear, Hear" to my anti-nationalist remarks ....] |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 15:32:08
Please Anubis, do not presume to tell me my own faith. I was born and brought up a Jew and have lived it for over half a century. There is a world of difference between how Scottish social anthropologist, however influential and Scottish orientalist, however erudite, explain the omission to pronounce god's name and the fact of the matter.
Fiddler on the Roof is far more on the spot when it comes to giving you a taste of how the average Jew regards their relationship with god. There is respect there by all means but no more then there exists between any two individuals hoeing the same row.
Yes there are small ultra fundamentalist groups that may have their own peculiar reason for not mentioning god's name but in the main, it is no more then a desire not to mispronounce the dratted appendage. There are of course all sorts of stories that are told to children but they have no more credence then the Easter Bunny or Father Christmas or the Golem of Josefov for that matter. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 14:38:09
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
...... We do not pronounce his name but that is primarily because we do not know how to pronounce his name.
Certainly there is no mention in the Hebrew scriptures forbidding the speaking of his name, Miriam (indeed to the contrary!!!), but the tradition grew up in the later years prior to the sacking of the Temple; a tradition still finding expression today. The almost-legendary James Frazer (1923) talks of it:
Many reasons were offered, probably the most common being that the name of the Almighty was so sacred that it would be an insult to him to allow his name to pass through man's sinful lips. I have absolutely no knowledge of Hebrew, but the more erudite Robertson Smith addressed the same problem -- here's a pungent piece of what he had to say:
It is commonly believed in primitive society (Australian aborigine for one!) that to 'possess' someone's 'name' gives the 'possessor' power over that person. Names are viewed as an elemental 'part' of that person. Maybe that's relevant? |
| Borninhove |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 07:57:42
They are repealing the blasphemy laws???
Burns down embassy |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 01:34:19
Oh agreed ... I reckon you should bash all religions all the time. A faith that is strong enough to withstand some bashing is a faith worth hanging on to. Anything else is just lipservice. |
| camelot |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 01:24:19
There does need to be some compromise on Religion bashing though, Lest it end up like smoking...banned in public places and within 15 feet of the front door. This opens up a whole new line of jokes. There was a Catholic Cardinal, an Anglican Bishop, and a Rabbi praying outside a pub.... |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 01:08:52
  yes but also the diacritics don't help
|
| camelot |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 00:56:16
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
.... We do not pronounce his name but that is primarily because we do not know how to pronounce his name.
Yes that is because it is always written backwards , in that odd right to left dyslexic script...:) |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 00:49:11
Actually Anubis ... we insult the Jewish God all the time. You haven't heard a really good slanging match till you hear a Jew rant at god. We do not pronounce his name but that is primarily because we do not know how to pronounce his name. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 00:21:17
Blasphemy (from the Greek blasphemia, meaning offensive speech, especially in religious matters) is broadly defined as offensive remarks concerning God or gods. The concept is associated with all societies and all religions -- indeed the Jewish god was perceived as so sacred that it was blasphemous not only to deny his uniqueness or insult his nature but even to say or write his name (Yahweh or Jehovah),
As Tom Paine pointed out a couple of centuries ago, the most blasphemous book of all, for the believer, must be the Holy Bible. Look at the FACTS as LTNS would put it:
Jehovah, the Lord, a god compassionate and gracious, long suffering, ever constant and true, maintaining constancy to thousands, forgiving iniquity, rebellion and sin, and not sweeping the guilty clean away -- but one who punishes sons and grandsons to the third and fourth generation for the iniquity of their fathers (Exodus xxxiv). There is no shortage of these practical blasphemies in the Christian scriptures -- the Fall, where God punished us all for one man's non-compliance with an absurd command; the Flood, where God destroyed most living things he had created because he was fed up with them; later, the terrible order to kill all Midianite males and married females and to take the rest as slaves (Numbers xxxi); likewise he orders the mass killing of all the Amalekites, with the punishment of Saul for sparing their king (1 Samuel xv) and so on. A God with a "school-boy" mentality, who threatens to rub shit in the faces of of irreligious priests (Malachi ii); or orders a prophet to bake bread with human shit (Ezekiel iv) -- though the latter is permitted on protest to use cow shit instead (if he had been a Hindu, the process would presumably have been reversed!).
All religions have their blasphemy laws; in the Muslim world, the sanctioned murder of 'blasphemers' was instituted soon after Muhammed's death; the very word assassin comes from the murderous Shi'a sect, founded in eleventh century Iran. Khomeini had frequently invoked this old weapon against his opponents -- his introduction of it into the Satanic Verses case made it a global issue. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 20:32:11
So you can certain groups still calling for blood if their religion is thought to have been insulted. They will also take blood, whatever the law of this land says. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 18:43:41
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/7281381.stm
About bloody time.
(I can say that now, legally)
Surprised to see the BBC has got it wrong:
In fact, the last prosecution under the Act was of Gay News (May/August 1977). Mary Whitehouse conducted prayers outside the court during the trial!
Yes, Tombstone, good riddance to the Act, but the action is only because our "betters" hope to have covered all angles in their much broader and more reactionary (all inclusive) "Religious Hatred" laws. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 17:45:19
"The abolition of this law should not be taken as a further step towards the secularisation of society." Why not? Our society should be secular. Religion has no place in the public realm. |
