From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 On 5 Aug 2025 at 15:02:43 BST, ""Jeff Gaines""  wrote: 
  
 > On 05/08/2025 in message  
 > Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 2025-08-05, Jeff Gaines  wrote: 
 >>> On 05/08/2025 in message <106sgpv$2c33g$1@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: 
 >>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 21:14:53 +0100, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>> On 04/08/2025 10:12 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote: 
 >>>>>> On 03/08/2025 in message <5996360858.0795274f@uninhabited.net> Roger 
 >>>>>> Hayter wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> Yes, why should any one religion have precedence? It would refer to 
 >>>>>>>> "religion" (to be defined) rather than each specific religion. 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> I'm rather confused; what law are you referring to that protects one 
 >>>>>>> religion more than another? Are you sure they just haven't been any 
 >>>>>>> attempts to persecute or whip up hatred agains members of most 
 >>>>>>> religions? Are you sure that a serious threat to persecute or kill 
 >>>>>>> methodists would not be severely punished in the unlikely event that 
 >>>>>>> it happened? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I have pruned this, it's getting a bit long. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> The various laws relating to antisemitism protect the Jewish faith, I 
 >>>>>> am not aware of anything similar for other faiths. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Those laws don't protect the Jewish faith and that isn't the intention. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> They protect Jewish people. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> And it seems we are back at the beginning of a large circle. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Is "Jewish" a designation of the religion a person practices ? Or of 
 some 
 >>>> sort of geographical origin ? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Can I become Jewish tomorrow (or later today if the barber is open) ? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Would that make me a semite ? Like all the other people from historical 
 >>>> Judea - including Muslims ? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Can I have my cake and eat it ? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> These - and no other questions - are still to be decided. Luckily we now 
 >>>> have the concept of quantum physics to guide us. We may yet get there. 
 >>> 
 >>> This is completely new to me as may have been apparent from my posts. 
 >>> 
 >>> I have never been taught that being a Jew reflected anything other than a 
 >>> religion and "Jewish People" to me is people of the Jewish religion. 
 >> 
 >> But the membership of the religion is almost entirely defined by your 
 >> mother being a member of the religion, because they very rarely accept 
 >> converts. So it's both a religious group and an ethnic group, because 
 >> there's very little difference between the two in this specific case. 
 >> 
 >>> If it is something else it throws me back to my original post on this 
 >>> which, broadly, asked why we had antisemitism laws but nothing similar 
 for 
 >>> other religions, it now seems I should have been asking why we have 
 >>> nothing similar for the equivalent of "Jewish People" not for other 
 >>> religions but for what, other races, nationalities, origins? 
 >> 
 >> We don't have any laws about Jewish people either (any more), except 
 >> for the Marriage Act thing I already mentioned. 
 > 
 > Still confused, antisemitism seems to be a crime, how does that arise if 
 > we have no laws 
 > about Jewish people? 
  
 Antisemitism *isn't* crime. Any more than other forms or racism or religious 
 intolerance isn't a crime. Even paedophilia is not a crime.  Expressing 
 antisemitic views in the wrong place can make one unpopular or unemployable, 
 but it is not a crime. 
  
 It is what one says or does to promote or practise antisemitism that may be 
 criminal. Just as with my other examples of unpopular ideas. 
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)