Replies

RM If he had said that of Chinese, Cubans, Arabs, African-Americans, Jews, etc. - it would have been pulled as racism or anti-Semitism.

But not if said about a group of believers.

On "open" Religion Forum threads, the following statements (though tacky) are allowed: "Scientologists are crazy" "Mormons are irrational" "Protestants are going to hell" "Catholics despise simple people."

Then could ZC say "the followers of the Jewish religion ...."?

Being Jewish is a mixture of ethnicity and religion MAINLY, yes, hence it is a difference, so these rules makes it impossible to criticize their religion without breaking the rules you just said.

What about the case of Zionist Conspirator or say Miles Davis Junior who are NOT Jewish by "race" but by religion? does the statement "the followers of the Jewish religion ...." hold true for them or are they also covered by the protective anti-racist umbrella?

I know it's a difficult question.

If Christianity didn't disagree with Judaism it would be Jewish. Those theological disputes are expected in "open" Religion Forum debate.

However, because Judaism also involves genetics posters cannot be as rude as they would be in instances where a theological label is a matter of choice. For instance, it is ok in "open" RF debate to say "Scientologists are crazy" but it is anti-Semitic to say "Jews are crazy."

No rationalization (e.g. replace "Scientologist" with "Jew" and it would be anti-Semitic) will convince me to elevate debate protection of any belief system to the level at which we protect groups who had no choice in the matter, i.e. racism, anti-Semitism, etc.