- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Hi Mint, it's a subject which a lot of people get confused by so there's no need to feel ignorant about it.
Whilst yes, Judaism is a religion, it's also a lot deeper than that. The Jewish people are what's known as an "ethnoreligious group" which essentially means that their ethnicity is defined by a combination of both heritage and DNA, and a common faith between Jews.
However, this does not mean that you need to be simultaneously ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish to be a Jew.
People are often confused because, yes, it's true that anyone can convert to Judaism, follow its teachings and be considered "Jewish". However, whilst that person may be a Jew in the religious sense, they are not descended from Jewish ancestors such as the Israelites, or... the Ashkenazi Jews.
Equally, one doesn't need to actually follow the religion of their heritage to be considered Jewish. It's literally a part of your DNA whether you follow scripture or not. Excon might even partake in traditionally Jewish holidays and celebrations despite not being religious, like how I still celebrate Christmas and Easter despite not being a Christian.
Fun yet disturbing fact: Hitler actually had the gestapo measure people's noses to find out if they were Jewish or not. Isn't one of the main signifiers of an ethnicity common physical traits?
If you're still curious, Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can:
Like you said in your other comment, politics and ideologies aren't linear and fixed.
Liberalism isn't really something you can base a government off of on its own, but you can combine ideas from it with conservative ideas, or socialist, or left-wing, etc. You can definitely be a socially liberal conservative.
I don't think it shouldn't be taught, however I'm on this side because I don't think it should have to be taught.
If cursive has anything to do with intellect, it's likely a very small difference. We learnt it briefly at school but I didn't take to it and quickly abandoned it. It's just not a style of writing which works for me, or for many other people (I know very few people who actually write using cursive).
There's much more important subjects which could be taught in the time wasted on teaching kids how to be "proper" in their handwriting.
Oh, not to mention, cursive looks like utter shit and is practically unreadable.
They certainly cross over. I wouldn't call them opposing, but I definitely wouldn't call them the same.
Most forms of socialism would agree with social liberalism, however economic liberalism (if we're going by the modern use of that term) is kind of... all over the place. Modern liberalism doesn't really address the economy, it's more about social rights and values.
Socialism, however, is more economical in its thinking, though some of those economics do cross over into the social aspects of a country.